EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: splin on January 11, 2019, 06:49:17 pm
-
Well lot's of impact of course, but one that's relevant to this forum is NIST - their website, https://www.nist.gov/ (https://www.nist.gov/) is currently showing:
NOTICE: Due to a lapse in government funding, this and almost all NIST-affiliated websites will be unavailable until further notice
It amazes me that a first world nation can reneage on its liabilities to pay its employees at the drop of a hat and, it would seem, to be exempt from, at least some, employment law. These shutdowns, although they usually don't last long, must cause a great deal of hardship to loyal employees.
-
Well lot's of impact of course, but one that's relevant to this forum is NIST - their website, https://www.nist.gov/ (https://www.nist.gov/) is currently showing:
It amazes me that a first world nation can reneage on its liabilities to pay its employees at the drop of a hat and, it would seem, to be exempt from, at least some, employment law. These shutdowns, although they usually don't last long, must cause a great deal of hardship to loyal employees.
Most (not all) affected employees have been furloughed and as such are not required to be paid. There are some employees who are required to work without pay until the partial shutdown is concluded, but they'll receive back-pay.
Governments (and lawmakers) routinely exempt themselves from the laws they impose upon others.
If you work for a government agency (as I do) then you take steps to ensure you can weather these events. If you do not, then you're being fiscally irresponsible and have nobody to blame but yourself.
As for impact, I suspect the average american, if s/he didn't listen/read the news, wouldn't have an inkling there is a partial government shutdown at the moment.
-
If you work for a government agency (as I do) then you take steps to ensure you can weather these events. If you do not, then you're being fiscally irresponsible and have nobody to blame but yourself.
:wtf: Why the hell would someone want a job which doesn't pay for time to time? The whole reason to have a job is to get paid regulary. :palm:
With the economy booming a lot of public servants probably go look for a job elsewhere and the government is left with the people who can't find (fit in) regular jobs. That will have an effect on the efficiency of the government for sure.
-
:wtf: Why the hell would someone want a job which doesn't pay for time to time? The whole reason to have a job is to get paid regulary. :palm:
Shutdowns are not that frequent and are usually short-lived. Since employees eventually get paid for the time they were furloughed, in the long term, they do not "lose" anything.
It is a commonly held sound financial principle you should have 3-6 months of salary on hand in savings to weather financial hardships. Since shutdowns never last that long, if you practice sound financial principles, you will not notice a thing.
With the economy booming a lot of public servants probably go look for a job elsewhere and the government is left with the people who can't find (fit in) regular jobs. That will have an effect on the efficiency of the government for sure.
Doubtful. Our benefits are (usually) better than those we would receive in the private sector. For example, in addition to my salary (which is lower than what I would make in the private sector, but nonetheless is very generous) I am in a government-funded defined pension benefit program, pay below-average market rates for my health insurance, and get more time off than Jesus Christ (between vacation, personal days, holidays, etc.) over the course of year I work less than 4 days per week on average. Can't get that in the private sector.
-
It is a commonly held sound financial principle you should have 3-6 months of salary on hand in savings to weather financial hardships. Since shutdowns never last that long, if you practice sound financial principles, you will not notice a thing.
That is assuming you manage to do that. I'm sure a lot of people ate into their rainy day funds during the crisis and are still recovering.
-
It is a commonly held sound financial principle you should have 3-6 months of salary on hand in savings to weather financial hardships. Since shutdowns never last that long, if you practice sound financial principles, you will not notice a thing.
That is assuming you manage to do that. I'm sure a lot of people ate into their rainy day funds during the crisis and are still recovering.
To me those are the same things. As far as I know at JPL they won't even be furloughed until 30 days so as yet haven't been impacted at all. Vacation pay is a way to continue being paid though. Considering the small difference <6b in >1T budget hopefully they can figure it out soon.
-
That is assuming you manage to do that.
...and if you do not, then you have nobody to blame but yourself. You, I and everyone else out there cannot be responsible for their financial irresponsibility.
I'm sure a lot of people ate into their rainy day funds during the crisis and are still recovering.
Since this "crisis" is less than a month old, it's doubtful. If you mean the "last" shutdown, then no, they were made whole and received all back-pay they would have received when the shutdown was concluded.
Vacation pay is a way to continue being paid though.
Many people do this. I generally do not, since I have adequate cash reserves on hand (plus my wife makes more than enough to cover our household expenses with her salary alone), and I cannot replace my vacation time once I use it.
-
Did you realize that this all has changed and that now we're all (the multilateral trading system does this) on a fast track to privatization of most of those kinds of jobs? Unless you live in a short list of poor, officially 'least developed' countries.
Regardless of what level of government you work at, (Federal, state or local) unless your particular area is exempted via rules which are very narrowly defined.
This has been planned for a long time, back to the late 1980s, to be honest. Its been the subject of countless huge gatherings of officials from all around the world, in various places, generally cities in the developing world, and also in Geneva, Switzerland. The two main 'rounds' were Uruguay and Doha.
The idea is that by doing this, costs would fall and large 'efficiency gains' would be realized while developing countries would get a leg up on repaying the illegitimate debts they owe to the big countries. Since most of them have little in the way of industry of their own but an oversupply of highly educated degree holders, its agreed that labor is their most competitive export, and largely also that they should get to export it, somehow. Then it starts to get tricky, though. There are lots of additional questions on wages, and the degree to which countries should be forced to do this if they didnt already volunteer to do it in a binding agreement like the US did. However, we retained limits which are being contested now. The limits restrict the numbers to a tiny fraction of what they will rise to if we lose that case. Which would aso likely affect other countries as well. Its hard to say.
The main point I am trying to make is that long term, everything involving the spending of taxpayer money is increasingly being impacted by international agreements, which take precedence over local, state and federal policies and regulations. Its a completely different set of priorities, which will seem Byzantine and in many ways evil, since they forbid most of the good things that governments could do in the past. Also, privatizing services which people have depended on to make many things affordable which a deregulation of so many things and strict reliance on market forces might well put out of their reach.
:wtf: Why the hell would someone want a job which doesn't pay for time to time? The whole reason to have a job is to get paid regulary. :palm:
Shutdowns are not that frequent and are usually short-lived. Since employees eventually get paid for the time they were furloughed, in the long term, they do not "lose" anything.
It is a commonly held sound financial principle you should have 3-6 months of salary on hand in savings to weather financial hardships. Since shutdowns never last that long, if you practice sound financial principles, you will not notice a thing.
With the economy booming a lot of public servants probably go look for a job elsewhere and the government is left with the people who can't find (fit in) regular jobs. That will have an effect on the efficiency of the government for sure.
Doubtful. Our benefits are (usually) better than those we would receive in the private sector. For example, in addition to my salary (which is lower than what I would make in the private sector, but nonetheless is very generous) I am in a government-funded defined pension benefit program, pay below-average market rates for my health insurance, and get more time off than Jesus Christ (between vacation, personal days, holidays, etc.) over the course of year I work less than 4 days per week on average. Can't get that in the private sector.
-
That is assuming you manage to do that.
...and if you do not, then you have nobody to blame but yourself. You, I and everyone else out there cannot be responsible for their financial irresponsibility.
That is very easy to say if you (appearantly) make a lot of money. Trust me, there are lots of people out there who aren't so lucky and it is really not their own fault. I'm finding your statements rather offensive towards people who need their pay checks to be paid on time. Think about the people who have low paying jobs like cleaning the buildings. These people often don't have the possibility to save a lot of money.
-
That is very easy to say if you (appearantly) make a lot of money. Trust me, there are lots of people out there who aren't so lucky and it is really not their own fault. I'm finding your statements rather offensive towards people who need their pay checks to be paid on time. Think about the people who have low paying jobs like cleaning the buildings. These people often don't have the possibility to save a lot of money.
*shrug* If you're offended, feel free to find a safe space and pet a puppy.
I believe in personal responsibility, and have taught such concepts to my children, just as my parents taught them to me.
If you know it is a possibility you may experience a shutdown in your job and do not take steps to weather such an event, then the onus is upon you, nobody else. Which may mean not taking the job in the first place -- although, of course, there's no guarantee a 'private sector' job will give you a paycheck on time either, a simple google search will yield plenty of examples of situations where employees have gone to cash their paychecks, or look for their overnight direct deposits, only to find the money isn't there and the company has closed their doors.
Lesson #1: There are no guarantees in life.
-
That is assuming you manage to do that.
...and if you do not, then you have nobody to blame but yourself. You, I and everyone else out there cannot be responsible for their financial irresponsibility.
That is very easy to say if you (appearantly) make a lot of money. Trust me, there are lots of people out there who aren't so lucky and it is really not their own fault. I'm finding your statements rather offensive towards people who need their pay checks to be paid on time. Think about the people who have low paying jobs like cleaning the buildings. These people often don't have the possibility to save a lot of money.
Nope, it's exactly about spending behavior, not amount of income. People just want to live better than they can afford, and no sane amount of money will solve their financial irresponsibility. Just being responsible and having less useless credits to pay leaves you with more money to spend while having same income. There literally are people who have $ 300k+ annual income and still not have any money left after paying their bills and crying poor :palm:.
-
I find it amusing that someone can think it's OK for an employer (any employer) to not pay you on time and think it's your fault if you don't have savings to cope with it.
I don't disagree that everyone should strive to have reserves to cope with financial difficulties, but that does not in any way make the situation acceptable - in my humble opinion.
As nctnico said - it's easy to enunciate rules that everyone should have 3-6 months of savings and if you don't you're a loser and deserve to be in trouble - but it's a very narrow view of what individual realities can be. It's not that easy to accumulate that kind of money depending on your reality.
We have similar problems in some states and cities here in Brazil that through financial irresponsibility have been left with insufficient funds to pay its employees. It's NOT OK. I really feel for those who sometimes go unpaid for months .
The fact that shutdowns in the US tend to be shorter don't make the situation any less serious, in my opinion.
-
One of the patron saints of neoliberalism is Vilfredo Pareto whose economics basically tell elites what they want to hear, which is the opposite of what they used to be told before all these changes. Instead of beseeching them to try to improve the lot of the human race, now they worship 'efficiency' for its own sake, setting up a race that almost nobody can win.
This transformation has silently occurred everywhere and it doesn't play by the rules in any way. (Its basically might makes right or Fascism)
Since people would never vote for it its being very sneaky.
That is very easy to say if you (appearantly) make a lot of money. Trust me, there are lots of people out there who aren't so lucky and it is really not their own fault. I'm finding your statements rather offensive towards people who need their pay checks to be paid on time. Think about the people who have low paying jobs like cleaning the buildings. These people often don't have the possibility to save a lot of money.
-
We have similar problems in some states and cities here in Brazil that through financial irresponsibility have been left with insufficient funds to pay its employees. It's NOT OK. I really feel for those who sometimes go unpaid for months .
The fact that shutdowns in the US tend to be shorter don't make the situation any less serious, in my opinion.
I don't think anyone said it's OK not to pay. But at he same time those who have immediate problems when salary is delayed by a month, especially at US income level, are simply financially irresponsible in the vast majority of cases. I have some relatives who cry poor not because they don't have enough income but because they are plain stupid. Smart people don't buy new TV on credit when there is zero money left this month and you spend quarter of your income just to cover interest rate on stupid credits you took :palm:.
-
Shutdowns are not that frequent and are usually short-lived. Since employees eventually get paid for the time they were furloughed, in the long term, they do not "lose" anything.
It is a commonly held sound financial principle you should have 3-6 months of salary on hand in savings to weather financial hardships. Since shutdowns never last that long, if you practice sound financial principles, you will not notice a thing.
Doubtful. Our benefits are (usually) better than those we would receive in the private sector. For example, in addition to my salary (which is lower than what I would make in the private sector, but nonetheless is very generous) I am in a government-funded defined pension benefit program, pay below-average market rates for my health insurance, and get more time off than Jesus Christ (between vacation, personal days, holidays, etc.) over the course of year I work less than 4 days per week on average. Can't get that in the private sector.
Note that this isn't as commonly held as a sound principle outside of the US. Having some money in reserve is a good thing everywhere, mind you. It's just that employers can't typically pull these kinds of stunts on you at will.
-
Well lot's of impact of course, but one that's relevant to this forum is NIST - their website, https://www.nist.gov/ (https://www.nist.gov/) is currently showing:
NOTICE: Due to a lapse in government funding, this and almost all NIST-affiliated websites will be unavailable until further notice
Well, https://nist.time.gov/ (https://nist.time.gov/) seems to be ticking along nicely.
As for impact, I suspect the average american, if s/he didn't listen/read the news, wouldn't have an inkling there is a partial government shutdown at the moment.
What shutdown? :-//
-
There's a shutdown? Does this mean I won't be getting my check this month?
-
I don't think anyone said it's OK not to pay. But at he same time those who have immediate problems when salary is delayed by a month, especially at US income level, are simply financially irresponsible in the vast majority of cases. I have some relatives who cry poor not because they don't have enough income but because they are pain stupid. Smart people don't buy new TV on credit when there is zero money left this month and you spend quarter of your income just to cover interest rate on stupid credits you took :palm:.
Problems often arise when people needed to dip into their emergency stash for other reasons. Having separate emergency funds for everything often isn't realistic.
-
I've not noticed any Digikey delivery delays, so no issues here either!
-
I personally have known lots of people who have at various times been struggling financially and have never in my entire life known any of these people who are alleged to be spending money they don't have on luxury items instead of necessities. Nor have I ever been that way myself.
I think a lot of those tales are a deliberate fabrication promoted to obscure the fact that the safety net which people used to have available when the economy dealt them a unexpected setback have been dismantled in the name of funneling more money to those at the top and basically efforts to make society less unequal like public higher education and health care are being dismantled systematically.
And now everything else people depend on is on the table, being traded away.
The result is, that globally, the ladders to success are being pulled up. It's intentional.
I don't think that practically anybody wants this so at some point, we're likely to see how we've been bamboozled and want to grab democracy back. So whats happening is an attempt to both make that impossible and confuse people enough so they wont realize what is happening or what we need to get back to do it.
What I think we need is to dump the "Golden Straightjacket" as Dani Rodrik calls it and return to democratic politics as people think still exists but without the "simulacrum" of two phony parties (here in the US) and phony disagreement (which is what we've really had for as much as 30 years or more here) to hide the fact that the international agreements they have signed in back rooms away from the public eye, tie legislators hands from actually fixing anything. And we have to do that before they end up costing everybody big. People have no idea what they have done.
-
Wraper,
Poor people in the US - people who live on fixed incomes like Social Security are hardly living well, many are so poor they literally have to go through restaurant garbage to be able to eat. I used to see them, on my morning walks with my dog, otherwise well dressed but struggling older people. (I am that age now, almost!) literally going through garbage for food.
US businesses are not by any means booming, either. Businesses are struggling under huge costs for things like employee health insurance. Thats where wages have gone for the last 30 years.
There is very little in the way of a social safety net and what little they had is being dismantled for stupid reasons like so the US can tell poor countries to stop stockpiling food for their poor people because we stopped doing it. (Food stamps) And jobs are vanishing or being outsourced and offshored to the other side of the world in large numbers as a first step to automating them.
There is a dishonest representation that this neoliberal agenda - which benefits almost nobody but the most wealthy, that we espouse internationally is the product of some consensus, when in fact most Americans don't even know about it and if they did, most certainly many or most if not all would vehemently disagree with it.
Americans, largely unaware of the creation of the multilateral trading system decades ago, a really huge change, largely think US policy is were it was around 30 years ago, before hyperglobalization gave largely US created 'global economic governance institutions' control over most things involving business and money.
This was done to give a 'certainty' to international investors they never in all of human history had before. You can bet that a lot of these other events are part of a trend towards theatrical events to cover up facts about the real world that otherwise would become widely known. Subjecting the real ruling system to unwanted attention by voters angry at having their vote no longer mean what they thought, some kind of control over things. because thats whats happened, policy has been changed and bad choices for most of us are being carved into stone in the interests of preserving wealth and power in a rapidly changing present and especially unpredictable future where riches are also losing their connection to 'work' or some perceived virtue. So its very unwise to try to tie governments hands as they are and then hide it with sham events to explain the consistent failure to help those who elected them. We're all being presented with a false narrative where the real issues are deliberately kept out of sight. The key means by which this was first set up and remains most constrained by is found in videos BY2tUTA4mzM and LHIfSfb-RvM on the same site that Dave uses.
We have similar problems in some states and cities here in Brazil that through financial irresponsibility have been left with insufficient funds to pay its employees. It's NOT OK. I really feel for those who sometimes go unpaid for months .
The fact that shutdowns in the US tend to be shorter don't make the situation any less serious, in my opinion.
I don't think anyone said it's OK not to pay. But at he same time those who have immediate problems when salary is delayed by a month, especially at US income level, are simply financially irresponsible in the vast majority of cases. I have some relatives who cry poor not because they don't have enough income but because they are pain stupid. Smart people don't buy new TV on credit when there is zero money left this month and you spend quarter of your income just to cover interest rate on stupid credits you took :palm:.
-
We've had too many of these shutdowns since the mid 70's and it is now the norm. The federal workers are a bargaining chip and the folks doing the bargaining don't have to worry about their pay being withheld. On the question of saving enough for a rainy day ... that sounds great but life throws lots of curve balls that can't be planned or budgeted. So a flood destroyed your home and insurance will only cover part of the cost -- there goes every penny of your 6 months cushion and them some. Your 4 year old car just went out of warranty and wouldn't you know that's when the transmission would die -- there goes you 6 months cushion. You son just got excepted to a good university when you's expected him to go to community college and now you need to drop twenty-large just for starters -- there goes you 6 months cushion and then some.
There is a political world-view that blames individuals for problems beyond their control because they have a social Darwinstic idea that when bad things happen the people deserve it. Compassion is for pussies I guess...
Brian
-
Your 6 month cushion is all over the place... We typically lay the responsibility on individuals is because despite the cases where people truly can say it is bad luck(cancer, insurance issues, accidents, etc...) most people aren't actually so poor they can't afford a place to live or food. It is typically personal choices that cause the issues. Too many kids, buying new cars you can't afford, loans and credit being used to buy phones, couches, tvs, computers whatever, living in an area you can't afford housing, not planning ahead(we ALL have set backs). It's really easy to sit back and say not my fault but it isn't usually the truth.
-
I find it amusing that someone can think it's OK for an employer (any employer) to not pay you on time and think it's your fault if you don't have savings to cope with it.
You conveniently ignore the fact the affected employees are made whole with full back pay, effectively giving them a "free" vacation.
We've had too many of these shutdowns since the mid 70's and it is now the norm. The federal workers are a bargaining chip and the folks doing the bargaining don't have to worry about their pay being withheld. On the question of saving enough for a rainy day ... that sounds great but life throws lots of curve balls that can't be planned or budgeted. So a flood destroyed your home and insurance will only cover part of the cost -- there goes every penny of your 6 months cushion and them some. Your 4 year old car just went out of warranty and wouldn't you know that's when the transmission would die -- there goes you 6 months cushion. You son just got excepted to a good university when you's expected him to go to community college and now you need to drop twenty-large just for starters -- there goes you 6 months cushion and then some.
I guess we can spend all evening fabricating all sorts of hypothetical sob stories in an attempt to justify people's poor financial management practices.
-
Its a diversion to use up news story time without saying anything. To prevent the media from being forced by some inescapable, inconvenient fact into looking too closely to what is actually being done in that budget.
We've had too many of these shutdowns since the mid 70's and it is now the norm.
-
We are born into a social context that we have literally no control over and then we have to try to cope as best we can. On top of that follows what is probably a Gaussian distribution of good or bad luck. Some people are going to have a bad start and bad luck, it's inevitable. You can use your smarts to try and improve your odds, but most things in life are just out of our control.
You could even say that those who are idiots were just unlucky. It's not like they choose to be stupid. But clearly, there are lots of rich and stupid people around so I'm not convinced there is a strong correlation at all.
-
I find it amusing that someone can think it's OK for an employer (any employer) to not pay you on time and think it's your fault if you don't have savings to cope with it.
You conveniently ignore the fact the affected employees are made whole with full back pay, effectively giving them a "free" vacation.
We've had too many of these shutdowns since the mid 70's and it is now the norm. The federal workers are a bargaining chip and the folks doing the bargaining don't have to worry about their pay being withheld. On the question of saving enough for a rainy day ... that sounds great but life throws lots of curve balls that can't be planned or budgeted. So a flood destroyed your home and insurance will only cover part of the cost -- there goes every penny of your 6 months cushion and them some. Your 4 year old car just went out of warranty and wouldn't you know that's when the transmission would die -- there goes you 6 months cushion. You son just got excepted to a good university when you's expected him to go to community college and now you need to drop twenty-large just for starters -- there goes you 6 months cushion and then some.
I guess we can spend all evening fabricating all sorts of hypothetical sob stories in an attempt to justify people's poor financial management practices.
Yeah, getting cancer isn't merely bad luck, its your fault and, well, lets call that a sob story. You are what's wrong with this world -- there, I said it!
Brian
-
If we could only get the people we elect to work for us, instead of for lobbyists, we would have a government of by and for the people. But we don't now. Nor do most of us know just how bad it sometimes is now.
But at the same time, lots of people are doing their best and still working for us.
All the civil servants deserve to be paid. And having given up pay to work in civil service they deserve to get paid on time.
At the same time, if its found that legislators are only pretending to legislate for those that elected them, they should repay the money they made during that time.
-
You conveniently ignore the fact the affected employees are made whole with full back pay, effectively giving them a "free" vacation.
I guess we can spend all evening fabricating all sorts of hypothetical sob stories in an attempt to justify people's poor financial management practices.
Free vacation? You mean they don't have to process the backlog when they come back? You'd think shutdowns would be much more popular.
-
We've had too many of these shutdowns since the mid 70's and it is now the norm. The federal workers are a bargaining chip and the folks doing the bargaining don't have to worry about their pay being withheld. On the question of saving enough for a rainy day ... that sounds great but life throws lots of curve balls that can't be planned or budgeted. So a flood destroyed your home and insurance will only cover part of the cost -- there goes every penny of your 6 months cushion and them some. Your 4 year old car just went out of warranty and wouldn't you know that's when the transmission would die -- there goes you 6 months cushion. You son just got excepted to a good university when you's expected him to go to community college and now you need to drop twenty-large just for starters -- there goes you 6 months cushion and then some.
There is a political world-view that blames individuals for problems beyond their control because they have a social Darwinstic idea that when bad things happen the people deserve it. Compassion is for pussies I guess...
Brian
Part of the problem seems to be that Americans have been indoctrinated to fear communism and socialism so successfully during the Cold War that anything which even remotely reminds people of it is still distrusted and often avoided at all costs. Even if the actual mechanisms involved are implemented successfully across various nations, which can hardly be described as communist or even very socialist. This seems to cause other issues too, because how can you be a coherent society if you don't take care of each other at some level. It just ends up being a bunch or people living alongside each other.
-
We've had too many of these shutdowns since the mid 70's and it is now the norm. The federal workers are a bargaining chip and the folks doing the bargaining don't have to worry about their pay being withheld. On the question of saving enough for a rainy day ... that sounds great but life throws lots of curve balls that can't be planned or budgeted. So a flood destroyed your home and insurance will only cover part of the cost -- there goes every penny of your 6 months cushion and them some. Your 4 year old car just went out of warranty and wouldn't you know that's when the transmission would die -- there goes you 6 months cushion. You son just got excepted to a good university when you's expected him to go to community college and now you need to drop twenty-large just for starters -- there goes you 6 months cushion and then some.
There is a political world-view that blames individuals for problems beyond their control because they have a social Darwinstic idea that when bad things happen the people deserve it. Compassion is for pussies I guess...
Brian
Part of the problem seems to be that Americans have been indoctrinated to fear communism and socialism so successfully during the Cold War that anything which even remotely reminds people of it is still distrusted and often avoided at all costs. Even if the actual mechanisms involved are implemented successfully across various nations, which can hardly be described as communist or even very socialist. This seems to cause other issues too, because how can you be a coherent society if you don't take care of each other at some level. It just ends up being a bunch or people living alongside each other.
Well we have an enormous number of charities and typically people belonging to a religion can also get help from the community that way, along with various government programs that exist. Paying 50% of money made to taxes already and having health insurance quadruple seems like enough to me(not everyone may be in this position but I am). Socialism and communism are rejected because america was founded on limiting the government and its interference in our daily lives. Socialism and communism are the opposite. As if our government isn't inefficient enough.
-
Americans do take care of one another. What's happened is trade agreements have taken away the ability of our government to make many decision it previously could (if in the future we elected a totally different government than today, one that wasn't captured, especially) also, lots of other things, like market access and jobs, if they affect trade in services, may be regulated by WTO or other trade bodies, not by our own government. They do this so that people cant impact policy. To tie their own hands.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHIfSfb-RvM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHIfSfb-RvM)
This is why public education is being privatized everywhere around the world. Water and other services too.
agreements have been set up that do an end run around voters and give away huge chunks of policy. They don't have the choice to do it any other way unless they wanted to tell the truth, and what would they say? "We traded away your health care and jobs and futures, for 'efficiency gains' and low show think tank jobs?" "It just doesnt make sense to educate our kids any more!"
Arrgh..
Thats why making services 'tradable' in 1995 and then not telling people for it for 23 years (to date) was a very big mistake. Now when people, experts, who understand it try to explain it to government bodies in the US, they have to explain to them first that its not a conspiracy theory! That its real!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY2tUTA4mzM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY2tUTA4mzM)
Here, read what Maine encountered when they tried to set up an alternative health insurer for people who could not afford health insurance through commercial vendors. Especially to what the deputy USTR said to their query.
http://www.maine.gov/legis/opla/ctpchlthcaresub.pdf (http://www.maine.gov/legis/opla/ctpchlthcaresub.pdf)
This is good too http://members.iinet.net.au/~jenks/Sanders.html (http://members.iinet.net.au/~jenks/Sanders.html)
-
Free vacation? You mean they don't have to process the backlog when they come back? You'd think shutdowns would be much more popular.
Several of my closest friends are enjoying their free vacation as I type.
As for the "backlog", rest assured... they will continue to work at their designated 'government bureaucrat' labor pace, and management will hire temps to "catch up" on the backlog. Assuming, of course, the existing employees do not want paid overtime to work on the backlog themselves.
-
Mr McConnell needs to put the petulant child over his knee and give him a good legal spanking to teach him his place as 'one' of your three branches of government!
override of a veto - The process by which each chamber of Congress votes on a bill vetoed by the President. To pass a bill over the president's objections requires a two-thirds vote in each Chamber. Historically, Congress has overridden fewer than ten percent of all presidential vetoes.
Attempted Blackmail and extortion would be a Crime in the real world. This is not OK it is totally Rubbish built on lies.
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2019/01/08/USAT/179aef0c-71e4-405a-839f-7e3c78faedfd-EPA_USA_TRASH_SHUTDOWN.JPG?crop=5560,3127,x304,y782&width=3200&height=1680&fit=bounds)
-
This thread is getting political and likely to get locked real fast. I only clicked on it hoping to see some specific examples of the shutdown's impact on the field of electronics or at least broader science. I did not click on this thread to read about how smart, successful people that barely work but already have plenty of money are completely lacking empathy for others less fortunate. I've got zero interest in the failures of socialism or communism to take root in the US or the reasons for those failures. Surely, somebody has some other examples aside from the NIST website in the original post. Can anyone here discuss any impacts on the private sector or research (electronics related please)? I know this is the general chat section, but this kind of stuff really brings the whole place down.
-
I've got zero interest in the failures of socialism or communism to take root in the US or the reasons for those failures.
In the US many seem to think socialism and communism are the same? Much of western europe is run by socialist political parties, and at least modern Scandinavia was founded on socialist principles by the social democratic movement. I don't think we're that much of a failure to be honest. Some even say it's better here in many regards than, for example, the USA. We have very low infant mortality for example. That said, I have no interest in discussing politics either.
-
Free vacation? You mean they don't have to process the backlog when they come back? You'd think shutdowns would be much more popular.
Several of my closest friends are enjoying their free vacation as I type.
As for the "backlog", rest assured... they will continue to work at their designated 'government bureaucrat' labor pace, and management will hire temps to "catch up" on the backlog. Assuming, of course, the existing employees do not want paid overtime to work on the backlog themselves.
I guess that will make up for the "interest free" loan the govt has had by not paying their wages, & the interest they would have got from the money they have pull out of their bank accounts to live through that lovely " free vacation".(If, indeed, they do have such backup funds).
-
Mr McConnell needs to put the petulant child over his knee and give him a good legal spanking to teach him his place as 'one' of your three branches of government!
Congress could end the shutdown tomorrow if they so chose, by sending a continuing resolution to the "petulant child" and then overriding his veto.
The fact they haven't even sent him a bill to veto in the first place seems to lay the blame strictly on the feet of Congress, and not the "petulant child".
Was Obammy a "petulant child" when he shut down the government in 2013?
-
What was done in past Administrations isn't relevant but what McConnell and the current Senate isn't doing is. The Republican Party will be the ones to suffer for their Trump experiment at the next round unless they stand up to him.
-
A great many of the changes they seem to be raring to do are going to hurt people. The media isn't covering them at all.
-
A great many of the changes they seem to be raring to do are going to hurt people. The media isn't covering them at all.
The "media" (here in Amerika, at least) is simply the propaganda arm of the Democrat National Committee. It has long since given up any pretense of objectivity when 'reporting' 'the news' (two terms I use extremely tongue-in-cheek).
-
The "media" (here in Amerika, at least) is simply the propaganda arm of the Democrat National Committee. It has long since given up any pretense of objectivity when 'reporting' 'the news' (two terms I use extremely tongue-in-cheek).
Fox is a propaganda arm of the Democrat National Committee?
-
The "media" (here in Amerika, at least) is simply the propaganda arm of the Democrat National Committee. It has long since given up any pretense of objectivity when 'reporting' 'the news' (two terms I use extremely tongue-in-cheek).
Fox is a propaganda arm of the Democrat National Committee?
I think he means cnn, msnbc, nbc, cbs, wapo, vox, buzzfeed and the times.
-
For a laugh I have been reading some of the YouTube comments on Fox 'News' videos :-DD CNN and the others aren't much better either.
Goebbels would be truly proud "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself."
-
For a laugh I have been reading some of the YouTube comments on Fox 'News' videos :-DD CNN and the others aren't much better either.
Goebbels would be truly proud "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself."
Yea, relying on youtube comments for average peoples opinions is like relying on one news source though.
-
Unfortunately the USA's 'news' has become so polarized to one side or another is has become a modern version of 'The Big Lie' and both sides are telling their version of it. Somewhere in the middle is a better and more rational 'truth'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
-
I find it amusing that someone can think it's OK for an employer (any employer) to not pay you on time and think it's your fault if you don't have savings to cope with it.
But they do get all the money, just not on time. It's not an ideal situation but it's part of the job, and if it's not something you are comfortable dealing with then it may not be the sort of job you should be looking at. Many of them do pay quite well though, and overall job security is good. I'd gladly deal with an occasional shutdown rather than the feast or famine cycle that occurs in the trades for example. During building booms tradesmen are raking in the cash, but during a slowdown they may face months of no work. Same if you are self employed, you may get a big contract or have to spend time developing a product before you can generate sales and get paid.
Anyway, if you take a job where a slow period or shutdown is a possibility and you do not account for this in your financial planning then yes it is your fault if you find yourself short on money. Managing your funds and planning for negative events is part of being an adult.
-
These situations have been going on for a long time. There is a Dicken's quote paraphrased as "Income 20 pounds, expenses 21 pounds and every day is misery and woe, income 20 pounds, expenses 19 pounds and each day is a joy".
People have been living beyond there means for a long time.
One thing that irritates me: In private industry if you don't do your job you are let go, sometimes immediately, sometimes not. But the politicians, whose job it is to create and pass a budget don't do it. Haven't done it for years. Even created a whole new calendar (the fiscal year) to give themselves more time and still fail. But we, their employers, keep rehiring them. Incumbents win the vast majority of the time. Those voting for these folks always explain that their representative is one of the good ones, that it is all of those other ones who are causing the problem.
If we aren't bright enough to put an end to this nonsense, we have no one but ourselves to blame.
-
These situations have been going on for a long time. There is a Dicken's quote paraphrased as "Income 20 pounds, expenses 21 pounds and every day is misery and woe, income 20 pounds, expenses 19 pounds and each day is a joy".
People have been living beyond there means for a long time.
One thing that irritates me: In private industry if you don't do your job you are let go, sometimes immediately, sometimes not. But the politicians, whose job it is to create and pass a budget don't do it. Haven't done it for years. Even created a whole new calendar (the fiscal year) to give themselves more time and still fail. But we, their employers, keep rehiring them. Incumbents win the vast majority of the time. Those voting for these folks always explain that their representative is one of the good ones, that it is all of those other ones who are causing the problem.
If we aren't bright enough to put an end to this nonsense, we have no one but ourselves to blame.
That's exactly what the bill put forward twice now to put term limits on senators and congress people is for. Limit lobbyist potential, keep these shows from being put on and keep people focused on getting things done. I think it's a great idea. Stop recycling people who do the same things over and over.
-
I've got zero interest in the failures of socialism or communism to take root in the US or the reasons for those failures.
In the US many seem to think socialism and communism are the same? Much of western europe is run by socialist political parties, and at least modern Scandinavia was founded on socialist principles by the social democratic movement. I don't think we're that much of a failure to be honest. Some even say it's better here in many regards than, for example, the USA. We have very low infant mortality for example. That said, I have no interest in discussing politics either.
(American living in Europe here.)
In a nutshell, to the vast majority of Americans, “socialism” and “communism” are simply two curse words that are “bad, mmkay?” without having even the tiniest idea what they mean. And they certainly do not understand the distinction between “socialism” and “social democracy”.
What is extremely telling is that in polls/surveys, Americans overwhelmingly support socialistic/social democratic government programs and policies, as long as the wording doesn’t include the “S word”. As soon as something gets associated with one of those curse words, it’s done. :/
Honestly, I find it very difficult to discuss public policy with most Americans, because most simply cannot let go of their preconceptions, and so you end up discussing in circles... :( Not a good foundation upon which to move your country forward, IMHO.
-
It amazes me that a first world nation can reneage on its liabilities to pay its employees at the drop of a hat and, it would seem, to be exempt from, at least some, employment law. These shutdowns, although they usually don't last long, must cause a great deal of hardship to loyal employees.
IMHO it’s shameful — but also highly emblematic of American politics in general. The American legislative and executive branches long ago abdicated their job of governing, instead having become astoundingly comfortable at using various groups and issues as pawns in their power plays within and between parties. Meanwhile, the well-being of the country and its citizens (or rather, the ignoring of these) is simply collateral damage. (The judicial branch held onto its nonpartisan ideals far longer, but it’s now following suit with the other two, to finish the complete rot of our government.)
-
If we aren't bright enough to put an end to this nonsense, we have no one but ourselves to blame.
Yes. It seems to me the American political system is still very much like the Britisch political system from the 1800's. This system is designed to make the rich richer and keep people from having an actual say about who is ruling them. It is very interesting that a presidential candidate with the most votes can still lose. That shouldn't be possible. Another thing is that not everyone's vote counts equal in the US.
-
Keep in mind that with the shift of authority to global, non-elected bodies in places like (Geneva) Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, and Washington DC (orgs like OECD, WTO, UNCITRAL and World Bank) legislators have less they can actually legislate about than ever before.
And the 'policy space' that remains to them is shrinking daily.
-
Anyway, if you take a job where a slow period or shutdown is a possibility and you do not account for this in your financial planning then yes it is your fault if you find yourself short on money. Managing your funds and planning for negative events is part of being an adult.
Unfortunately the complexity of today's financial products makes that very hard. The whole crisis of 2008 originated from selling bad financial products and lending too much money to people. Most of these financial products are very hard to fully understand by financial experts at the PhD level so you can't blame people for getting into financial problems due to bad financial products. Often people went to an expert for financial advice but instead got tricked into a financial product which wasn't suitable for them INSTEAD of telling people they couldn't afford to lend money or buy a bigger home. Lack of government regulations made this perfectly legal but still you can't go around and say people didn't do their financial planning correctly.
-
I find it amusing that someone can think it's OK for an employer (any employer) to not pay you on time and think it's your fault if you don't have savings to cope with it.
You conveniently ignore the fact the affected employees are made whole with full back pay, effectively giving them a "free" vacation.
We've had too many of these shutdowns since the mid 70's and it is now the norm. The federal workers are a bargaining chip and the folks doing the bargaining don't have to worry about their pay being withheld. On the question of saving enough for a rainy day ... that sounds great but life throws lots of curve balls that can't be planned or budgeted. So a flood destroyed your home and insurance will only cover part of the cost -- there goes every penny of your 6 months cushion and them some. Your 4 year old car just went out of warranty and wouldn't you know that's when the transmission would die -- there goes you 6 months cushion. You son just got excepted to a good university when you's expected him to go to community college and now you need to drop twenty-large just for starters -- there goes you 6 months cushion and then some.
I guess we can spend all evening fabricating all sorts of hypothetical sob stories in an attempt to justify people's poor financial management practices.
Curious are you are republican?
-
If we aren't bright enough to put an end to this nonsense, we have no one but ourselves to blame.
Yes. It seems to me the American political system is still very much like the Britisch political system from the 1800's. This system is designed to make the rich richer and keep people from having an actual say about who is ruling them. It is very interesting that a presidential candidate with the most votes can still lose. That shouldn't be possible. Another thing is that not everyone's vote counts equal in the US.
Clearly you don't understand the U.S. Constitution. It purposely limits the central Federal government to specific enumerated powers only, the rest being reserved to the 50 States and the people. Such rights are protected from a
'"tyranny of the majority" that a national presidential vote would be rather then the existing 50 states each electing a president based on their State elections. It's a rational system for a representative republic government that has to represent both rural and urban states, it works. I would prefer term limits of congressional offices, like the Presidential two term limit, but maybe a future Constitutional Amendment could fix that, but I'm not holding my breath.
-
If we aren't bright enough to put an end to this nonsense, we have no one but ourselves to blame.
Yes. It seems to me the American political system is still very much like the Britisch political system from the 1800's. This system is designed to make the rich richer and keep people from having an actual say about who is ruling them. It is very interesting that a presidential candidate with the most votes can still lose. That shouldn't be possible. Another thing is that not everyone's vote counts equal in the US.
Clearly you don't understand the U.S. Constitution. It purposely limits the central Federal government to specific enumerated powers only, the rest being reserved to the 50 States and the people. Such rights are protected from a
'"tyranny of the majority" that a national presidential vote would be rather then the existing 50 states each electing a president based on their State elections. It's a rational system for a representative republic government that has to represent both rural and urban states, it works. I would prefer term limits of congressional offices, like the Presidential two term limit, but maybe a future Constitutional Amendment could fix that, but I'm not holding my breath.
The problem is that it is not a representative government because it simply means that very few people determine what is going to happen to the most. That is a not a democracy! Also such a system is easy to rig because persuading a handful of people can swing the outcome.
The European Parliament OTOH is based on the number of inhabitants of each state so every vote counts equally. Somehow that has been working since 1952. It would be absurd that a small country like Belgium would have an equal say to a matter which would affect Germany very badly. There has to be a balance where the need of the many outweigh the need of the few.
-
If we aren't bright enough to put an end to this nonsense, we have no one but ourselves to blame.
Yes. It seems to me the American political system is still very much like the Britisch political system from the 1800's. This system is designed to make the rich richer and keep people from having an actual say about who is ruling them. It is very interesting that a presidential candidate with the most votes can still lose. That shouldn't be possible. Another thing is that not everyone's vote counts equal in the US.
Clearly you don't understand the U.S. Constitution. It purposely limits the central Federal government to specific enumerated powers only, the rest being reserved to the 50 States and the people. Such rights are protected from a
'"tyranny of the majority" that a national presidential vote would be rather then the existing 50 states each electing a president based on their State elections. It's a rational system for a representative republic government that has to represent both rural and urban states, it works. I would prefer term limits of congressional offices, like the Presidential two term limit, but maybe a future Constitutional Amendment could fix that, but I'm not holding my breath.
The problem is that it is not a representative government because it simply means that very few people determine what is going to happen to the most. That is a not a democracy! Also such a system is easy to rig because persuading a handful of people can swing the outcome.
The European Parliament OTOH is based on the number of inhabitants of each state so every vote counts equally. Somehow that has been working since 1952. It would be absurd that a small country like Belgium would have an equal say to a matter which would affect Germany very badly. There has to be a balance where the need of the many outweigh the need of the few.
Clearly we are just talking past each other. I'm happy to keep our system and leave you the EU flavor.
-
Another thing is that not everyone's vote counts equal in the US.
It's supposed to be that way. The popular vote is balanced against the wishes of the various STATES. That's why there is a Electoral College. It's also why we have a both a US Senate and a US House of Representatives, to balance the power of the wishes of the various States against the wishes of the People. The US is not a populist Democracy or a Federal Republic, it is a Union of what were, as of in 1776, independent, POLITICAL, States. The United States. Get it??? That's why the framers of the US Constitution designed our political system as they did.
-
There are MANY core values we share and one is democracy.
I think people are likely to realize also that its under attack soon because many of the rights which had been held by the states are now being preempted by obscure treaties.
All the aforementioned 'unenumerated rights' are being traded away.
-
The problem is that it is not a representative government because it simply means that very few people determine what is going to happen to the most. That is a not a democracy! Also such a system is easy to rig because persuading a handful of people can swing the outcome.
The European Parliament OTOH is based on the number of inhabitants of each state so every vote counts equally. Somehow that has been working since 1952. It would be absurd that a small country like Belgium would have an equal say to a matter which would affect Germany very badly. There has to be a balance where the need of the many outweigh the need of the few.
One problem is that the people of Belgian can never collectively decide against the will of those of Germany. The German national interests will logically always prevail over the Belgian ones. How is that fair? Imagine the Germans voting for measures which would severely impact ports for say, environmental reasons. The German economy isn't nearly as dependent on its ports as the Belgian economy is. That's unlikely to happen in real life due to the German economy being fairly dependent on manufacturing and therefore export, but it illustrates how issues could arise. It'd be a mistake to view people as constituents of a homogeneous continent.
That being said, there's some very obvious problems with the US system as well. Gerrymandering is blatantly anti democratic.
-
People should be aware that the WTO in theory works similarly to the EU model - one country, one vote- however in practice its very different. Also countries like the US's 'trade policy' is controlled entirely by huge corporations. Whose priorities are totally different and in many ways in opposition to those of the people here.
The problem is that it is not a representative government because it simply means that very few people determine what is going to happen to the most. That is a not a democracy! Also such a system is easy to rig because persuading a handful of people can swing the outcome.
The European Parliament OTOH is based on the number of inhabitants of each state so every vote counts equally. Somehow that has been working since 1952. It would be absurd that a small country like Belgium would have an equal say to a matter which would affect Germany very badly. There has to be a balance where the need of the many outweigh the need of the few.
Clearly we are just talking past each other. I'm happy to keep our system and leave you the EU flavor.
Well, if what you're saying is you want peoples votes to determine actual policy, i.e. what is done thats not what we have now as shown by study after study.
There seems to be a consensus at least that developed countries all around the world are stuck in what is called the "golden straightjacket" of hyperglobalization.
Look up "golden straightjacket" Trilemma, globalization. in your favorite search engines. We dont have (democratic governance) any more as we need because that would scare investors and they are terrified of that because as real wealth creation diminishes more and more of it is likely fluff, a ponzi scheme.
-
Federation such as we have or a Union of States does have issues when that forms part of the distribution of power in a Federal Government and over time it tends to skew what the majority wants or needs.
Our Upper House (Senate) is made up of equal numbers from each State (+2 from each mainland territory) for example regardless of population in those states. Therefore disproportional giving a lesser number more say for their vote. The USA Electoral College is similar and has similar issues. While both are imperfect in a strict Democratic sense they do tend to make sure the smaller less populated states don't get forgotten. There is downsides to this as it drives the values expressed in these chambers typically more conservative than the majority too.
On Balance it is flawed like all Democratic models but it works sort of sometimes. It also doesn't mean the system invented 100 or 200+ years ago doesn't need to be looked at either.
-
There are MANY core values we share and one is democracy.
I think people are likely to realize also that its under attack soon because many of the rights which had been held by the states are now being preempted by obscure treaties.
All the aforementioned 'unenumerated rights' are being traded away.
Can you please, for the love of all that's electronic, stop inserting trade treaties into almost every single discussion you partake in?
-
The problem is that it is not a representative government because it simply means that very few people determine what is going to happen to the most. That is a not a democracy! Also such a system is easy to rig because persuading a handful of people can swing the outcome.
The European Parliament OTOH is based on the number of inhabitants of each state so every vote counts equally. Somehow that has been working since 1952. It would be absurd that a small country like Belgium would have an equal say to a matter which would affect Germany very badly. There has to be a balance where the need of the many outweigh the need of the few.
One problem is that the people of Belgian can never collectively decide against the will of those of Germany. The German national interests will logically always prevail over the Belgian ones. How is that fair? Imagine the Germans voting for measures which would severely impact ports for say, environmental reasons. The German economy isn't nearly as dependent on its ports as the Belgian economy is. That's unlikely to happen in real life due to the German economy being fairly dependent on manufacturing and therefore export, but it illustrates how issues could arise. It'd be a mistake to view people as constituents of a homogeneous continent.
It doesn't work that way. At some point Germany will need the support from other countries to pass a European law. This means that compromises will need to be made all the time. Sure some rules may favour Germany but the Belgians can ask the Germans to vote for something the Belgians really want in return. That is how politics should work: navigate the ship through an optimum of compromises. Never perfect for everyone but not really bad for anyone. This is what is so broken in the US. There is too much power in a single person.
-
Another thing is that not everyone's vote counts equal in the US.
It's supposed to be that way. The popular vote is balanced against the wishes of the various STATES. That's why there is a Electoral College. It's also why we have a both a US Senate and a US House of Representatives, to balance the power of the wishes of the various States against the wishes of the People. The US is not a populist Democracy or a Federal Republic, it is a Union of what were, as of in 1776, independent, POLITICAL, States. The United States. Get it??? That's why the framers of the US Constitution designed our political system as they did.
This is where the US terminology differs from that used in the rest of the world.
"United" to most of us, refers to something like the "United Kingdom", where the constituent States have had their sovereignty submerged into that of the "Union".
What you are describing is what most people outside the USA would call a "Federation", not very different from that of Australia, the Federal Republic of Germany, Canada, amongst others, where the States retain substantial legislative powers.
(One significant difference is your Executive Presidents--- many other Federations have either a Monarch, or a President neither of which have any real power)
There are definite "trade-offs" in setting up such a country, as the States need to see definite benefits in belonging.
For instance, New Zealand came close to being an Australian State, but the trade-offs were not sufficiently beneficial, whilst Western Australia came very close to declining the invitation, but the vote "got over the line" due to two things:-An influx of Gold miners from the other States, along with the promise of a Railway linking WA to the Eastern States.
-
It doesn't work that way. At some point Germany will need the support from other countries to pass a European law. This means that compromises will need to be made all the time. Sure some rules may favour Germany but the Belgians can ask the Germans to vote for something the Belgians really want in return. That is how politics should work: navigate the ship through an optimum of compromises. Never perfect for everyone but not really bad for anyone. This is what is so broken in the US. There is too much power in a single person.
If a vote is a vote it's going to work that way. There are 82 million Germans and 11 million Belgians. There's very little the latter has to offer the former. If France and Germany get together, they can outvote all the other nations combined.
Power in a single person has its advantages. Putin is able to do what he does simply because he can play the long game. He doesn't have to change course every few years. In the US this is already a problem and in the EU it is even more of a problem. Compromising can lead to results which are acceptable to everyone, but it can also result in inertia and not going anywhere. Putin is able to play the EU due to too many factions having too many interests. The infighting means there will never be a harsh, coordinated response to provocations like those in Ukraine.
-
"But wait! there's more!
Even in countries without a Senate or States, the majority opinion does not always prevail.
Many countries have "single Member electorates".
A political party can increase its vote massively in "safe" seats giving them a "majority" of the votes cast throughout the country, but still not win enough seats to form government.
Just looking at the total votes for each party, you would think this was some sort of fraud, but it's just a side effect of the electoral system.
Another effect is that of "first past the post" voting, where one candidate gets, say 40% of the vote, with the other 60% divided among the others, so that the person that most people didn't vote for wins!
Or people just not voting at all, & then moaning about the "Guvmint"!
In Australia, both of these latter problems are addressed, by preferential voting & compulsory voting respectively.
The first one still exists, however.
-
It doesn't work that way. At some point Germany will need the support from other countries to pass a European law. This means that compromises will need to be made all the time. Sure some rules may favour Germany but the Belgians can ask the Germans to vote for something the Belgians really want in return. That is how politics should work: navigate the ship through an optimum of compromises. Never perfect for everyone but not really bad for anyone. This is what is so broken in the US. There is too much power in a single person.
If a vote is a vote it's going to work that way. There are 82 million Germans and 11 million Belgians. There's very little the latter has to offer the former.
You are looking at this with a way too narrow view! It is not about voting for 1 law but 100 laws. Some Belgium will vote against and some for which Belgium may vote in favour. If Germany wants a law to pass they need enough votes for their idea because it is not just Belgium which can vote against it but all the other countries in the EU. Germany has a lot of votes but not a majority or veto. So if Germany votes for something which helps Belgium, Belgium can vote for something which helps Germany.
Power in a single person is a bad idea because power corrupts. See how paranoia struck Putin and Erdogan. Trump is on the same path to self destruction.
-
Actual Impact of US government spending impasse on technology:
(I figured this aspect is being ignored and this is a tech forum...)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDDZyDruL9w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDDZyDruL9w)
-
You are looking at this with a way too narrow view! It is not about voting for 1 law but 100 laws. Some Belgium will vote against and some for which Belgium may vote in favour. If Germany wants a law to pass they need enough votes for their idea because it is not just Belgium which can vote against it but all the other countries in the EU. Germany has a lot of votes but not a majority or veto. So if Germany votes for something which helps Belgium, Belgium can vote for something which helps Germany.
Power in a single person is a bad idea because power corrupts. See how paranoia struck Putin and Erdogan. Trump is on the same path to self destruction.
I'm not looking at this with a too narrow view. That's how a dry majority vote works and how issues can arise. Germany only needs France to outvote almost all the other nations combined. Not to mention those other countries tend to have clumped together along shared interests and will not be able to make a coherent fist. It's quite literally the tyranny of the majority. Luckily other factors mitigate the issue, but we can't pretend Belgium can trade equally with Germany as that's the whole point of a vote being a vote. Germany has almost an order of magnitude more say in matters than Belgium. If you want an equal trading of interests, you're explicitly pleading against a one vote per vote system.
-
You shouldn't assume Germany and France are always aligned (usually they are not). Anway I'm convinced that a system in which every person's vote has the same weight will work the best.
-
You shouldn't assume Germany and France are always aligned (usually they are not). Anway I'm convinced that a system in which every person's vote has the same weight will work the best.
I'm not assuming that. I'm just explaining why a one vote system can be problematic and why this has resulted in people using different systems to attempt to mitigate that. If you don't recognize the potential pitfalls, you're not going to understand why alternatives have been developed. It's not as if they started off with more a complicated system. Those are usually a response to the simple system having been found to have shortcomings.
-
The problem is that it is not a representative government because it simply means that very few people determine what is going to happen to the most. That is a not a democracy! Also such a system is easy to rig because persuading a handful of people can swing the outcome.
The European Parliament OTOH is based on the number of inhabitants of each state so every vote counts equally. Somehow that has been working since 1952. It would be absurd that a small country like Belgium would have an equal say to a matter which would affect Germany very badly. There has to be a balance where the need of the many outweigh the need of the few.
You are clearly very misinformed on both American and European political matters.
In Europe the legislative process (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_legislative_procedure) is such that a bill has to be approved by the European Parliament (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament) (equivalent to the USA House of Representatives, allocated proportionally to the people) and by the Council of the European Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_European_Union) (equivalent to the USA Senate, with equal representation for each member state).
The American and the European political systems may be very different in some ways but just saying that the only representation should be strictly proportional to each individual vote shows a very simplistic view and quite ignorant of history because I do not think it has ever strictly happened. There are innumerable voting systems and they all have their pros and cons. To pretend there such thing as a "best" political system or a "best" voting system only shows a total lack of understanding of the problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system
A huge problem today is that people think they can find simple solutions to very complex problems and populist politicians find easy votes in those groups.
Belgium may have smaller population than Germany but they would not have joined the EU institutions if they were told they would just have to do whatever Germany said every time. A compromise, both in the USA and in Europe, is to have an upper chamber where all states have equal representation. Any opinions based on not understanding this very basic concept are worthless.
-
The problem is that it is not a representative government because it simply means that very few people determine what is going to happen to the most. That is a not a democracy! Also such a system is easy to rig because persuading a handful of people can swing the outcome.
The European Parliament OTOH is based on the number of inhabitants of each state so every vote counts equally. Somehow that has been working since 1952. It would be absurd that a small country like Belgium would have an equal say to a matter which would affect Germany very badly. There has to be a balance where the need of the many outweigh the need of the few.
In Europe the legislative process (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_legislative_procedure) is such that a bill has to be approved by the European Parliament (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament) (equivalent to the USA House of Representatives, allocated proportionally to the people) and by the Council of the European Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_European_Union) (equivalent to the USA Senate, with equal representation for each member state).
Still in the US there is too much power in a few persons.
The American and the European political systems may be very different in some ways but just saying that the only representation should be strictly proportional to each individual vote shows a very simplistic view and quite ignorant of history because I do not think it has ever strictly happened. There are innumerable voting systems and they all have their pros and cons. To pretend there such thing as a "best" political system or a "best" voting system only shows a total lack of understanding of the problem.
I actually wrote that there isn't a perfect system but you have to distinguish between systems which are democratic and semi-democratic (the latter designed to keep control away from 'the people'). Read up on the history of the US and Brittain. Systems which put too much power in a few people are much more likely to develop excesses than systems where each vote counts equally. There is no need to go into the technical details because in (almost) every country the democratic system has evolved from having an absolute ruler.
-
Still in the US there is too much power in a few persons.
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c)
I actually wrote that there isn't a perfect system but you have to distinguish between systems which are democratic and semi-democratic (the latter designed to keep control away from 'the people'). Read up on the history of the US and Brittain. Systems which put too much power in a few people are much more likely to develop excesses than systems where each vote counts equally. There is no need to go into the technical details because in (almost) every country the democratic system has evolved from having an absolute ruler.
Again, just your unsupported opinion.
-
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with my opinion :horse: So what is your point?
-
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with my opinion :horse: So what is your point?
Please forgive me muchly if I might have given the impression that I might have any interest in your opinion. In fact, I do not. I just corrected some of your statements of fact about how the EU legislates. I can understand "There is no need to go into the technical details" when you are not informed about the subject at hand but I thought I would clear up some points for the benefit of those who might be more interested in facts than in your opinions.
-
I am not sure who is the biggest international laughing stock - the USA with its government shutdown, or the UK with its Brexit debacle. Both countries are enjoying the leaders they voted for :-DD. In Australia, we have leaders we didn't vote for :palm:, but at least we will never have anything like the mess the USA and UK are in.
Seriously, one must feel for the federal government workers struggling without pay whilst the sociopaths at the top wallow in their wealth and power. One big impact not in the media spotlight is contractors to the US government will not receive any back pay when the govt shutdown ends. Besides who would want to work for an employer that treats you with such contempt. Knowing this, contractors are already abandoning contracts to get work in private enterprise, so when the US government opens again, the government will be in a crippled mess.
-
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with my opinion :horse: So what is your point?
Please forgive me muchly if I might have given the impression that I might have any interest in your opinion. In fact, I do not. I just corrected some of your statements of fact about how the EU legislates. I can understand "There is no need to go into the technical details" when you are not informed about the subject at hand but I thought I would clear up some points for the benefit of those who might be more interested in facts than in your opinions.
If you have followed the news (US, Turkey, Russia) then you'd see the facts or at least the results of some 'semi democratic' systems support my opinion.
Sure I simplify things but only by simplifying you can get to to the core of a problem quickly. Fixing the problem is the next (seperate) step. Some people don't see that and get tangled up in a mess with details they never can escape from.
But yeah it is hard to see changes need to be made. I've found this interesting article which links changing the US political system to changing a centuries old Dutch tradition: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/14/black-pete-scandal-dutch-silent-sinterklaas (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/14/black-pete-scandal-dutch-silent-sinterklaas)
-
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/government-shutdown-becomes-longest-u-s-history-enters-uncharted-territory-n957961 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/government-shutdown-becomes-longest-u-s-history-enters-uncharted-territory-n957961)
Jeff Estes has worked as a federal contractor for 35 years in Cape Canaveral, Florida. Now he and his colleagues are out of work because of a partial government shutdown that as of Saturday became the longest in American history.
For Estes, a union official and electrician, the shutdown is becoming particularly burdensome because he’s paying for his two kids to attend college, and the government’s recent decision to change contractors forced him and his coworkers to reapply for their jobs.
With much of the government at a standstill, Estes and his colleagues — members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers — aren't sure whether they will still have a job when it's over, he said.
The number of furloughed employees does not include federal contractors like Estes. It’s unclear how many contract or grant employees are affected by the shutdown — or even how many there are in total — but a Volcker Alliance report estimated that nearly 5.3 million worked as contractors in 2015.
Unlike furloughed federal employees, who have received assurances that they will be paid once the shutdown ends, contractors are not owed back pay. That has left them in an even murkier economic position.
The change of prime contractor usually means the workers just apply for work there, and continue their jobs are before.
However as contractors, these workers don't get ANY back pay for the period the government was shutdown.
-
The United States isn't a democracy. It's a representative republic.
A true democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for supper.
Hence why the Founding Fathers gave us the electoral college.
Without it (a pure popular vote) the State of California would elect the President.
The electoral college was created to prevent that "tyranny of the majority", which at the time of the signing of the Constitution, the highly agricultural (low population) states were concerned with. If you were forming the United States today without the electoral college, what incentive would Wyoming have to join, knowing California would essentially elect the present for the Union each time? None.
Unfortunately, many young people these days do not understand these concepts, as history is no longer being taught in public school systems.
The long-term prognosis for the country is not a good one.
-
The United States isn't a democracy. It's a representative republic.
A true democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for supper.
Hence why the Founding Fathers gave us the electoral college.
Without it (a pure popular vote) the State of California would elect the President.
So according to that analogy, the US is 2 sheep and 1 wolf, and the wolf decides what is for supper. That is better? :palm:
Actually the US is more like 99 sheep and 1 wolf, the sheep vote for the wolf, who proceeds to dine on the sheep.
The shutdown is really messing up NASA anyway, which is kinda ironic because one area US leads is in space stuff. They are really shooting themselves in the foot. The company I work for has many govt contracts, the shutdown causes more inconvenience but projects are continuing as normal otherwise.
-
I am not sure who is the biggest international laughing stock - the USA with its government shutdown, or the UK with its Brexit debacle. Both countries are enjoying the leaders they voted for :-DD. In Australia, we have leaders we didn't vote for :palm:, but at least we will never have anything like the mess the USA and UK are in.
Seriously, one must feel for the federal government workers struggling without pay whilst the sociopaths at the top wallow in their wealth and power. One big impact not in the media spotlight is contractors to the US government will not receive any back pay when the govt shutdown ends. Besides who would want to work for an employer that treats you with such contempt. Knowing this, contractors are already abandoning contracts to get work in private enterprise, so when the US government opens again, the government will be in a crippled mess.
I would love to know the source of your statement. What are you reading? The Daily Mail?
Where are you getting your information?
We are not a "crippled mess" during the shutdown. How could things be worse after the shutdown is over?
-
:-BROKEz
I am not sure who is the biggest international laughing stock - the USA with its government shutdown, or the UK with its Brexit debacle. Both countries are enjoying the leaders they voted for :-DD. In Australia, we have leaders we didn't vote for :palm:, but at least we will never have anything like the mess the USA and UK are in.
Except that Americans didn’t vote for Trump: he won because of the geographic distribution of the votes for him — Hillary got 3 million more votes. So he won legitimately, insofar as it’s a fair win according to the rules of the system, but it’s categorically incorrect to say that it was the will of the people, or “who we voted for”.
-
The United States isn't a democracy. It's a representative republic.
A true democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for supper.
Hence why the Founding Fathers gave us the electoral college.
Unfortunately, many young people these days do not understand these concepts, as history is no longer being taught in public school systems.
If you read the history then you'd know that the electoral college was a bad compromise when it was installed. An improvement would be that the votes of the electoral college would be representative for the votes of the people. Currently a candidate which gets more than 50% of the votes gets all the members of the electoral college for a certain state.
-
So according to that analogy, the US is 2 sheep and 1 wolf, and the wolf decides what is for supper. That is better? :palm:
Actually the US is more like 99 sheep and 1 wolf, the sheep vote for the wolf, who proceeds to dine on the sheep.
Neither, actually.
The US does not have a national election for President. It has 50 state elections, each state is given a number of electors based on its number of senators and congressmen (who are apportioned according to census figures).
States are free to determine how they apportion their electors in the electoral college. Some states do it based upon a "winner take all" approach (you get 51% of the popular vote in the state, you get 100% of the electors for that state), others use a "proportion" approach where electors are divided based on the popular vote of that state (you get 51% of the popular vote, you get 51% of the electors).
The number of electors your state receives in the electoral college is based on your (the state's) population as a whole (as it is ultimately based on census numbers), not based on the number of people who voted.
So, in principle, each *citizen* (not each *voter*) is equally represented in the electoral college.
The Founding Fathers were true geniuses.
-
The United States isn't a democracy. It's a representative republic.
A true democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for supper.
Hence why the Founding Fathers gave us the electoral college.
Unfortunately, many young people these days do not understand these concepts, as history is no longer being taught in public school systems.
If you read the history then you'd know that the electoral college was a bad compromise when it was installed. An improvement would be that the votes of the electoral college would be representative for the votes of the people. Currently a candidate which gets more than 50% of the votes gets all the members of the electoral college for a certain state.
Wrong!! Some states apportion their Electoral College votes based on the percentage of votes each candidate receives.
-
The United States isn't a democracy. It's a representative republic.
A true democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for supper.
Hence why the Founding Fathers gave us the electoral college.
Unfortunately, many young people these days do not understand these concepts, as history is no longer being taught in public school systems.
If you read the history then you'd know that the electoral college was a bad compromise when it was installed. An improvement would be that the votes of the electoral college would be representative for the votes of the people. Currently a candidate which gets more than 50% of the votes gets all the members of the electoral college for a certain state.
Wrong!! Some states apportion their Electoral College votes based on the percentage of votes each candidate receives.
The vast majority of states (48 of 50) use a winner-take-all approach for electoral votes.
-
The electoral college is anything but equal representation and is part of the reason you can be elected without winning the popular vote. The model is flawed and skewed.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/State_population_per_electoral_vote.png/1280px-State_population_per_electoral_vote.png)
-
The number of electors your state receives in the electoral college is based on your (the state's) population as a whole (as it is ultimately based on census numbers), not based on the number of people who voted.
So, in principle, each *citizen* (not each *voter*) is equally represented in the electoral college.
Actually, the less populated states get greater per-capita representation than the larger states, because the minimum number of electors is 3 (2 senators (not population based) and 1 representative). A Texas elector represents about 755,312 people, while a Wyoming elector represents 192,579 people. Ditto Washington DC, given 3 electors via 23rd amendment (234,152 people per elector). And then there are the ~4 million citizens in US territories that can only cast symbolic votes for president, with no actual representation at all!
Of course, since the practice of states voting as a block became widespread many years ago (with current exception of Maine and Nebraska, each of which sometimes splits off one vote in practice), it tends to overwhelm that built-in advantage for small states.
All of these facts, history, and arguments are covered here in more detail than we'd want to reproduce in this thread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College
-
Some people do not seem to understand that the United States is... a union of states, not a union of people. When those states got together to form a more perfect union they agreed to certain rules so that everybody could be happy and without that system most smaller states would not have joined.
Just like the European Union is a union of states, not of people.
Those who say it should be a straight popular vote on all matters are trying to destroy something which has worked pretty well since 1776. I would tread carefully.
And I would ask, if voting rights should always be apportioned in proportion to population numbers should the UN and other international bodies work the same way? Would Americans consider giving China, India, Indonesia, etc. representation in proportion to their populations? If not, why not?
Political systems are all very imperfect and require much goodwill on the part of everybody to make them work. Those who think the main problem is the system are mistaken. The USSR had an objectively wonderful constitution which guaranteed all sorts of rights while the UK has no written constitution, a state religion of which the monarch is head, and all sorts of medieval customs which, on the face of them, should have been abolished centuries ago. And yet, which is the better country to live in? The difference is that the British make their system work.
The main problem with the political systems in the third world is not that they don't have a good political system, it is that they have a culture which no political system can make successful. When you have a culture of corruption, not respecting the system, trying to take advantage of it, then no system is going to work.
We need to learn to cooperate more and try to work with the system we each have.
-
Actually our Constitution wasn't ratified until 1788, and George Washington was not President in 1789. Prior to that, very few powers had actually been relinquished by the colonies/states. 1776 is the year the Declaration of Independence was signed by the Continental Congress of the United Colonies. It's worth noting that George Washington was Commander in Chief of the Continental Army during that period.
You'll find that distressingly few Americans actually know their history, and think everything happened in that one year, rather than evolving over decades.
-
The United States isn't a democracy. It's a representative republic.
A true democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for supper.
Hence why the Founding Fathers gave us the electoral college.
Unfortunately, many young people these days do not understand these concepts, as history is no longer being taught in public school systems.
If you read the history then you'd know that the electoral college was a bad compromise when it was installed. An improvement would be that the votes of the electoral college would be representative for the votes of the people. Currently a candidate which gets more than 50% of the votes gets all the members of the electoral college for a certain state.
Wrong!! Some states apportion their Electoral College votes based on the percentage of votes each candidate receives.
And that’s not exactly true, either! In Maine and Nebraska, it goes by districts, not percentage of votes in the whole state.
-
The United States isn't a democracy. It's a representative republic.
A true democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for supper.
Hence why the Founding Fathers gave us the electoral college.
Unfortunately, many young people these days do not understand these concepts, as history is no longer being taught in public school systems.
If you read the history then you'd know that the electoral college was a bad compromise when it was installed. An improvement would be that the votes of the electoral college would be representative for the votes of the people. Currently a candidate which gets more than 50% of the votes gets all the members of the electoral college for a certain state.
Wrong!! Some states apportion their Electoral College votes based on the percentage of votes each candidate receives.
Some is far from all. And there are so few that it appearantly isn't worth mentioning in an explaination of the US presidential elections. And it still doesn't solve the problem that a president can block laws like what is happening now.
-
The main problem with the political systems in the third world is not that they don't have a good political system, it is that they have a culture which no political system can make successful. When you have a culture of corruption, not respecting the system, trying to take advantage of it, then no system is going to work.
We need to learn to cooperate more and try to work with the system we each have.
No. We should fix systems which are broken. But that will take time (decades if not generations).
-
People who advocate for one system or another of government seem to miss the fact that no system yet invented cannot be abused or broken. There is certainly a strong argument that the US is not operating well at the moment, but I see no valid argument that a change of systems will permanently or even temporarily fix the problems.
Many of the current problems have been encountered before, and thus far in the longer term things have worked out. But as all prospectuses say, "Past performance is not a guarantee of future results."
-
People who advocate for one system or another of government seem to miss the fact that no system yet invented cannot be abused or broken. There is certainly a strong argument that the US is not operating well at the moment, but I see no valid argument that a change of systems will permanently or even temporarily fix the problems.
I don't think you can argue the fact a president can shut down part of the government for his own pet-project is a good thing. That is something which should be fixed!
In the Netherlands -for example- the political system itself is constantly revised/modernised. Until about a decade ago the king of queen would lead the formation of a new cabinet (similar to the US congress). At some point the queen refused to include a right-nut-wing party as a possibility to become part of the majority fraction to lead the government. That incident has lead to a change so the king or queen no longer takes the lead to form a new cabinet.
-
I don't think you can argue the fact a president can shut down part of the government for his own pet-project is a good thing.
It is not a "pet-project" It has been a problem for many decades. Both Democrats and Republicans have campaigned for decent border controls and proper immigration processes for years and years. The current exercise is simply a political football and "government theatre" aided and abetted by the entertainment-based "news media" in this country. Ignore the trolls and they will get bored and go away.
I think the government shutdown is a good thing.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0f/4f/e0/0f4fe0295ae19b9adcc6c452304fafab.png)
(Properly attributed to Gideon Tucker, not Mark Twain)
-
I don't think you can argue the fact a president can shut down part of the government for his own pet-project is a good thing.
I won't make such an argument, but I think you'll find a number of people who will, at least so far. The mechanism to override the president directly exists, but it's a rather high bar to cross (67/100 senators and 290/435 congressmen).
There's also a mechanism to remove the president from office entirely, called impeachment. That takes fewer people, but is also less likely to happen: 218/435 congressmen to start the process, followed by 67/100 senators to convict.
There are alternate mechanisms under the 25th amendment that requires the Vice President and the majority of the Presidents hand-picked cabinet to turn on him and declare him unfit. Also very unlikely to happen.
But if the current situation continues long enough, and Trump refuses to budge, one of those might happen eventually. The pressure is going to be enormous the longer this goes on. It's not just the 800K people directly affected...it's millions of direct dependants, contracters, employees of contracters, and maybe 10s of millions of indirect dependents on services/programs that have been suspended.
So the situation isn't hopeless, since there really are checks on Presidential power, but it may have to get worse before it gets bad enough for them to be invoked.
-
I don't think you can argue the fact a president can shut down part of the government for his own pet-project is a good thing.
It is not a "pet-project" It has been a problem for many decades. Both Democrats and Republicans have campaigned for decent border controls and proper immigration processes for years and years.
It is a pet-project because a wall won't alter the root cause of the immigration problems. Trump just wants to have something build you can see from space.
-
Our agricultural subsidies and cheap exports are making it impossible for farmers in developing countries to farm, while there is no way they can earn a living any other way. So its profoundly destabilizing the developing world as well as making it possible for aggro business to literally steal entire countries from its poor inhabitants.. Since many of them were born outside of hospitals many lack documentation, they don't exist. Bribery is a common way of buying land, local officials paid off, people who have lived in villages for generations shot at and have to leave as their homes and gardens and fruit trees are bulldozed to make way for progress.
-
He only seems to want to fulfill the promise he made to the voters. Maybe he should never have promised that but ultimately the problem is the voters that (re)elected him.
-
I don't think you can argue the fact a president can shut down part of the government for his own pet-project is a good thing.
It is not a "pet-project" It has been a problem for many decades. Both Democrats and Republicans have campaigned for decent border controls and proper immigration processes for years and years. The current exercise is simply a political football and "government theatre" aided and abetted by the entertainment-based "news media" in this country. Ignore the trolls and they will get bored and go away.
I think the government shutdown is a good thing.
Causing collateral damage to border security by a shutdown over border security is the act of a dill! He is causing real pain to your fellow citizens and the industry he claims to care about and to the external view of your country.
FACT Your biggest single cause of illegal immigrants is the result of people overstaying 'legal' visas. Show me a wall that will stop this?
The wall is Trump bluster and BS propaganda and is all about Trump holding his breath until he gets his way like a spoiled brat. As I said way back in this thread time for McConnell to grow some balls.
-
As I said way back in this thread time for McConnell to grow some balls.
Trump character assassinates anyone who stands up to him, no one want's to end like "crooked Hillary". They could try to respond in kind, but I'm guessing the republican party wants to avoid a public poo flinging fight with a republican president.
-
People who advocate for one system or another of government seem to miss the fact that no system yet invented cannot be abused or broken. There is certainly a strong argument that the US is not operating well at the moment, but I see no valid argument that a change of systems will permanently or even temporarily fix the problems.
I don't think you can argue the fact a president can shut down part of the government for his own pet-project is a good thing. That is something which should be fixed!
In the Netherlands -for example- the political system itself is constantly revised/modernised. Until about a decade ago the king of queen would lead the formation of a new cabinet (similar to the US congress). At some point the queen refused to include a right-nut-wing party as a possibility to become part of the majority fraction to lead the government. That incident has lead to a change so the king or queen no longer takes the lead to form a new cabinet.
I have not argued that it is a good thing. And a widely missed point is that it takes two to play this game. Democrats have gone all in saying a wall has no value, and they will not spend a dime towards walls. Walls by themselves do not solve education problems. They can be part of an overall security solution. The cost of the proposed wall is far less than the economic damage this argument is causing.
Both sides in this dispute are saying that their view of the world is more important than keeping the government running. Both sides are trying to paint the other as the guilty party. One side is losing the PR battle because he has never throttled his public statements, leaving all sorts of crap out their. The other side has many of the same flaws, but is better at putting makeup on.
Neither side is giving us adult government.
I don't see how a change of government form is going to prevent politicians of either color from behaving like spoiled two year olds. This kind of behavior has been seen all over the world in many government forms. The only place it doesn't happen is when there is absolute power in a singular leadership (Putin doesn't have these problems. Someone disagrees and they find themselves jailed or dead.)
-
:scared: :horse:
-
FACT Your biggest single cause of illegal immigrants is the result of people overstaying 'legal' visas. Show me a wall that will stop this?
That's something that's obvious to anyone with half a brain, but the wall is one of those emotionally driven issues. Also if businesses didn't hire illegal aliens to get cheap exploitable labor, they wouldn't be coming here. On the other side of the fence, the left loves to push useless gun related laws like designating areas to be gun-free zones. As with the wall, it should be obvious that with murder already being about as serious as crimes get, nobody who plans to murder people will be deterred by the fact that it's illegal to take a gun there. In both cases it's useless to try to convince a person that their proposed plan is useless because it was never based on logic in the first place.
But it's a nice tidy problem-solution relationship that makes people feel like they're doing something and people seem to like that.
-
:scared: :horse:
So by passing spending bills your Senate had already passed so people get paid and government can go on makes it their fault that Trump is an ASS?
-
:scared: :horse:
So by passing spending bills your Senate had already passed so people get paid and government can go on makes it their fault that Trump is an ASS?
Any battle requires two participants. Trump's assholery doesn't change the fact that those government workers could be on the job if funding bills including the wall were passed. So each side is doing this on "principal". Each side has the power to fund the government.
One of the problems in US politics today is that they have become so polarized that if key players on one side or the other says something the other side immediately digs in and says that it is the most horrible thing ever. I feel that if Pelosi proposed a 8 Billion dollar wall the Republicans would immediately excoriate it as the worst idea since prohibition. Same thing the other way.
-
I don't think you can argue the fact a president can shut down part of the government for his own pet-project is a good thing.
It is not a "pet-project" It has been a problem for many decades. Both Democrats and Republicans have campaigned for decent border controls and proper immigration processes for years and years.
It is a pet-project because a wall won't alter the root cause of the immigration problems. Trump just wants to have something build you can see from space.
Precisely! In 1960 Edward R. Murrow produced a documentary about what was then known as "migrants" and in the nearly 60 years since then the same factors that drew migrants, or immigrants, to the USA is the promise of a better job then they can get where they come from. Back in 1960 the draw was almost exclusively agriculture, but over the decades other industries figured that if agriculture could get away with using sub-minimum wage labor so could they and the use of immigrants spread to landscaping then into the wider range on construction related jobs. Janitorial services are now dominated by such labor and the mechanism companies use to insulate themselves from the illegal activities they engage in is much the same. When Wal*Mart hires a company to clean there floors they don't hire the workers they hire the company and if that company uses undocumented workers toiling at sub-minimum wages Wal*Mart is in the clear because they've hired the cutout that separates them.
Ultimately, if US businesses want sub-minimum wage labor, and they do, and governments fail to stop them, and they do, then this will continue no matter high high the wall is. Using sub-minimum wage labor has always been illegal, but if a law isn't enforced it isn't a law at all.
Brian
-
Sorry to say the real underlying issue underneath a lot of whats happening is not what they say it is. It is cheap labor but its legal cheap labor for corporations, cheap high skill labor. Starting out with high skill professional jobs.
The dispute is pending in WTO court (I think its DS-503)
A group of LDC countries led by India are arguing that the developed countries are cheating them out of the benefits of services agreements by not opening up their services as they say the original Uruguay Round agreement requires. Using laws of various kinds to discriminate against their getting what they are owed in jobs. One of the issues is market access, if they are cheaper they say they have an entitlement to do the work, based on their advantage of having low wages. We shouldn't be allowed to tell them how much they must pay their own workers, in their own money, into their bank accounts overseas, they say.
In essence they accuse us of what amounts to 'hoarding' jobs that they claim being signatory to certain agreements entitles them to. Also of setting up new plurilateral and regional agreements outside of the WTO which they claim are designed to keep them out and cheat them of what is due them as WTO members.
(80% of a modern economy is services) that the 1995 agreement was supposed to put into play.
See "The Scope of GATS and its Obligations" https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2324078
-
Any battle requires two participants. Trump's assholery doesn't change the fact that those government workers could be on the job if funding bills including the wall were passed. So each side is doing this on "principal". Each side has the power to fund the government.
Much as this is considered normal in politics tying one bill to another to get a resolution "your side wants" would be seen as criminal extortion and blackmail in the real world, bills of supply in particular should remain outside this linking as they go to day to day running of the government.
As an outsider I look forward to 2020 and seeing the Republicans reaping what they have sown by indulging the Trump experiment.
-
As an insider, I'm rather looking forward to that myself.
-
Yes, the higher paid work has not been as heavily effected as low skill work, but as you point out that could change. Certainly the leisure class is 100% on board with anything that cuts the amount the goes to the workers as that means more for them. And, the trade deals going back to slick willy and before and since only make the prospect of it greater.
Brian
-
Any battle requires two participants. Trump's assholery doesn't change the fact that those government workers could be on the job if funding bills including the wall were passed. So each side is doing this on "principal". Each side has the power to fund the government.
Much as this is considered normal in politics tying one bill to another to get a resolution "your side wants" would be seen as criminal extortion and blackmail in the real world, bills of supply in particular should remain outside this linking as they go to day to day running of the government.
As an outsider I look forward to 2020 and seeing the Republicans reaping what they have sown by indulging the Trump experiment.
Sadly, although there's a great deal of heat in the differences between the two parties on issues related to race and sex and immigration, on most of the overarching economic issues there isn't a dimes worth of difference between them. That wasn't always the case of course and prior to slick willy the Dems could be counted on to act with the interests of the working class at least occasionally, but from 1993 onward the Democratic party is in bed with many of the same overlapping set of wealthy interests that run the Republican party. The banking industry and Wall Street as well as tech companies often side with the Dems on social issues but promote the same trade and economic policies the other side does. Basically there's consensus on most economic issues but they differ on the question of sexual orientation and other social and personal rights factors. Indeed, having these 'hot button' topics serves as a distraction to keep the people focused on social issues and not looking at the shafting they're getting economically.
Brian
-
There is a good explanation on I think page 8 or 9 of this paper on NAFTA of some of the basic concepts at play. http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/lwp/nafta.pdf (http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/lwp/nafta.pdf)
-
It amazes me how people who don't live in this country are so certain about what is happening here.
No one has mentioned the opioid deaths occurring here in the US due to the flood of drugs coming across the border. 90% come through Mexico.
I hope Trump keeps the shutdown going until we get a wall. I think he will because he doesn't care if he gets re-elected or not.
The fake news coming out of the Daily Mail, CNN and the Guardian are the problem. Garbage, all of it.
-
It amazes me how people who don't live in this country are so certain about what is happening here.
No one has mentioned the opioid deaths occurring here in the US due to the flood of drugs coming across the border. 90% come through Mexico.
I hope Trump keeps the shutdown going until we get a wall. I think he will because he doesn't care if he gets re-elected or not.
The fake news coming out of the Daily Mail, CNN and the Guardian are the problem. Garbage, all of it.
Mexico isn't to blame for opioid deaths. Those are a massive problem, but are the result of a number of failed policies within the US. Ending the "war on drugs" and implementing more effective measures would make a much bigger difference than any wall could every do.
-
Any battle requires two participants. Trump's assholery doesn't change the fact that those government workers could be on the job if funding bills including the wall were passed. So each side is doing this on "principal". Each side has the power to fund the government.
Much as this is considered normal in politics tying one bill to another to get a resolution "your side wants" would be seen as criminal extortion and blackmail in the real world, bills of supply in particular should remain outside this linking as they go to day to day running of the government.
As an outsider I look forward to 2020 and seeing the Republicans reaping what they have sown by indulging the Trump experiment.
I too will be glad to see Trump gone. I didn't vote for him or his primary opponent in 2016. Unfortunately I don't see 2020 as bringing a new golden age in politics. We don't seem to be oversupplied with good thoughtful leaders who look beyond victory for their own team.
-
A captured state is 'criminogenic' and it and good government are mutually incompatible.
-
It amazes me how people who don't live in this country are so certain about what is happening here.
No one has mentioned the opioid deaths occurring here in the US due to the flood of drugs coming across the border. 90% come through Mexico.
I hope Trump keeps the shutdown going until we get a wall. I think he will because he doesn't care if he gets re-elected or not.
The fake news coming out of the Daily Mail, CNN and the Guardian are the problem. Garbage, all of it.
It amazes me to that some in the USA feel they know how to solve the worlds problems with use of arms too but that keeps happening so what is your point only the USA can talk about the issues of other countries and the world should remain silent about yours? This is a discussion on an international forum so you will just have to put up with some input from others. Sitting outside the problem gives us a different perspective with a lot less propaganda. Fake News, Propaganda and outright lies fueling this are straight out of the Autocrats playbook.
Build a wall and it will come be sea or flown over the top. Until we (the world) start addressing the reasons for drug dependence and the associated deaths from it there will always be a flow and a mechanism to make it happen will always be found. Minimise the user base (that doesn't mean lock them up either) and the need for supply is reduced, go after the source and there is nothing to supply.
-
It amazes me how people who don't live in this country are so certain about what is happening here.
No one has mentioned the opioid deaths occurring here in the US due to the flood of drugs coming across the border. 90% come through Mexico.
I hope Trump keeps the shutdown going until we get a wall. I think he will because he doesn't care if he gets re-elected or not.
The fake news coming out of the Daily Mail, CNN and the Guardian are the problem. Garbage, all of it.
More wall (the places where it's actually cost-effective have already been built) will have virtually no effect on smuggling. Nearly all of it comes through land, sea, and air ports of entry. In the case of opoids, most of it comes in via overseas packages, hidden among other goods. The other major source are legitimate prescriptions, redirected, stolen or sold to other people.
Trump may or may not care about the next election, but there are plenty of senators and congressmen that do.
Never mind that the attrition in the border patrol will skyrocket if this continues. Not only can they not hire anyone right now, many of those working who can't pay bills or feed the family will be forced to quit and find jobs that actually have paychecks. The longer this continues, the worse border security will get.
-
He only seems to want to fulfill the promise he made to the voters. Maybe he should never have promised that but ultimately the problem is the voters that (re)elected him.
His "promise," this wall, was a mnemonic device meant to keep him from going off-topic during his campaign. (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/us/politics/donald-trump-border-wall.html) His advisors needed something really simple to focus on, because he has the attention span of a goldfish and the intellectual capacity of a gnat.
-
... because he has the attention span of a goldfish and the intellectual capacity of a gnat.
I agree, but really, and experts have chimed in on this, really what he wants is constant attention - like a 5 year old. He's a baby that needs constant attention and can never take any criticism. :( He could care less about what he is fighting for, unless it gets solved. Then it's back to something else that garners more attention to himself.
-
Until the various major deceptions that rule our country and planet are exposed, we wont have good government. We can't, because it can't govern. Its trapped into a inequality increasing model that only helps millionaires and billionaires and pretends that is the only thing that needs to be fair, the class struggle between them. By design.
-
The cause of drug addiction is loss of hope and despair. Young people are running into a economic wall thats preventing them from ever having a life like they are constantly told they need to have. A family, etc. A stable life. But the system is now eating its own. Its not going to give them that good life, its skimming off the riches and they are losing hope.
We need to stand up for them more. We need to have a future for this country. People need to be able to get a decent education, even if jobs wont be there for them. So it needs to be free, but GATS blocks that. It also blocks us from fixing our health care system. And it sets us up for a future economic disaster which will leave millions of people homeless, other people likely living in their homes, or maybe them sitting empty, some foreign oligarchs investment. Their 'escape hatch'.
-
Mexico isn't to blame for opioid deaths. Those are a massive problem, but are the result of a number of failed policies within the US. Ending the "war on drugs" and implementing more effective measures would make a much bigger difference than any wall could every do.
Even if they were, it's surprising that they would bring this up, given that the republicans tend to be very much into the personal responsibility thing. It's one of a small handful of things I lean that direction on, using drugs is a personal choice. I never had any trouble not using hard drugs. Yes there is an issue with people being over-prescribed and getting addicted, but one can't blame Mexico for that either.
Heck I even agree that to some extent illegal immigration is a problem, but a wall is not going to have any significant effect. Most illegal aliens in the US enter legally. Very few are sneaking across the border.
-
I too will be glad to see Trump gone. I didn't vote for him or his primary opponent in 2016. Unfortunately I don't see 2020 as bringing a new golden age in politics. We don't seem to be oversupplied with good thoughtful leaders who look beyond victory for their own team.
Well you pretty much did vote for him then, because the way the system is set up there are two viable candidates in the final race. Voting for anyone else is at best just throwing away your vote. I don't see any real improvements anytime in the foreseeable future either though, people have been getting increasingly polarized and the internet allows like minded folks to exist in gigantic echo chambers leading them to believe they are the vast majority no matter what their beliefs and that anyone who disagrees with them is an outlying minority they don't need to compromise with or listen to their point of view.
-
... because he has the attention span of a goldfish and the intellectual capacity of a gnat.
I agree, but really, and experts have chimed in on this, really what he wants is constant attention - like a 5 year old. He's a baby that needs constant attention and can never take any criticism. :( He could care less about what he is fighting for, unless it gets solved. Then it's back to something else that garners more attention to himself.
Experts? Have any of them actually spent significant time with him? If not they're just making shit up.
-
Experts? Have any of them actually spent significant time with him? If not they're just making shit up.
You don't have to physically spend time with someone to get a good picture of their personality, especially when it's someone who is out there front and center in public. Mental health diagnosis is not an exact science anyway, you can't do a blood test to find out if someone has narcissistic personality disorder or even something like schizophrenia, but if they exhibit enough of the symptoms it's not hard for someone who is qualified on the matter to make a diagnosis.
-
... because he has the attention span of a goldfish and the intellectual capacity of a gnat.
I agree, but really, and experts have chimed in on this, really what he wants is constant attention - like a 5 year old. He's a baby that needs constant attention and can never take any criticism. :( He could care less about what he is fighting for, unless it gets solved. Then it's back to something else that garners more attention to himself.
Experts? Have any of them actually spent significant time with him? If not they're just making shit up.
There is so many people along the way burnt cast off or just pissed off by the Egomaniac.This one popped into my YouTube feed this afternoon, coauthor of a book with him and an Ex Executive of his. Sorry but your current President is proving George Jnr was a Statesman and Genius :o
https://youtu.be/ZOpMrOsK1BA
-
Experts? Have any of them actually spent significant time with him? If not they're just making shit up.
You don't have to physically spend time with someone to get a good picture of their personality, especially when it's someone who is out there front and center in public. Mental health diagnosis is not an exact science anyway, you can't do a blood test to find out if someone has narcissistic personality disorder or even something like schizophrenia, but if they exhibit enough of the symptoms it's not hard for someone who is qualified on the matter to make a diagnosis.
So you think someone can accurately diagnose a personality purely based on the time they watch them on TV? I'm pretty sure no honest objectively focused person would agree with that.
-
Curious are you are republican?
Nope. More of a mix between a constitutional conservative and libertarian. I refer to myself as a Jeffersonian Democrat, and I probably identify more politically with the "blue dog democrats" of yesteryear - socially liberal but fiscally conservative.
-
It amazes me how people who don't live in this country are so certain about what is happening here.
No one has mentioned the opioid deaths occurring here in the US due to the flood of drugs coming across the border. 90% come through Mexico.
Did it ever occur to you that a problem may be more easy to spot while looking at it from the outside? Without any prejudice... Drug trafficing from Mexico has been happening since the 70's. It is not a new problem. The solution is very simple: develop Mexico. But that is not 'the American way'. You rather keep pumping water away than to help the neighbours fix the leaking pipe.
-
The solution is very simple: develop Mexico. But that is not 'the American way'. You rather keep pumping water away than to help the neighbours fix the leaking pipe.
The ruling class in America is not interested in developing Mexico. Doing so would reduce the flow of cheap, unskilled labor they use to clean their houses and landscape their yards.
-
Did it ever occur to you that a problem may be more easy to spot while looking at it from the outside? Without any prejudice... Drug trafficing from Mexico has been happening since the 70's. It is not a new problem. The solution is very simple: develop Mexico. But that is not 'the American way'. You rather keep pumping water away than to help the neighbours fix the leaking pipe.
The problem is the thriving US drug market. Without demand there won't be a supply. Failing US policies create a huge market. There also won't be bloody turf wars fought with a plentiful supply of US arms on the Mexican side. Mexico is in the sorry state it is due to US influence. There's a reason it's worst near the border. Large profits and weapons conveniently available nearby create a perfect storm. If I thought walls would ever be effective, I'd say Mexico could use one.
-
Experts? Have any of them actually spent significant time with him? If not they're just making shit up.
Uh yea - past employees who know how stupid he is. :-DD
-
Uh yea - past employees who know how stupid he is. :-DD
Stupid guy who took a million dollars and transformed it into a multi-billion-dollar empire.
Yup... pretty stupid.
Hope all my kids are that dumb.
-
Uh yea - past employees who know how stupid he is. :-DD
Stupid guy who took a million dollars and transformed it into a multi-billion-dollar empire.
He didn't do that. He inherited everything from his father. And Trump did very poor with his investments. Forbes has a graph somewhere with how much wealth rich people gained over the past 27 years. Trump did way worse than the stock exchange! He got an interest rate of around 1.25% over that period (corrected for inflation). The stock exchange is around 3% (including the severe crashes we have seen in the recent 15 years).
-
Hope all my kids are that dumb.
You don't have to be smart to do that. You just hire people to manage your money and businesses. They will steer you if you let them. He inherited his initial fortune so he didn't earn that. But he has muddled in good advice and had bankruptcies. Doesn't change the fact he's a stupid ignorant narcissistic unread moron. :)
-
The solution is very simple: develop Mexico. But that is not 'the American way'. You rather keep pumping water away than to help the neighbours fix the leaking pipe.
The ruling class in America is not interested in developing Mexico. Doing so would reduce the flow of cheap, unskilled labor they use to clean their houses and landscape their yards.
Short term yes, but it would also create a market for American products. The US helped to develop Europe after WWII (Marshal plan). This has resulted in massive long term paybacks for the US.
-
He didn't do that. He inherited everything from his father.
So, it's your assertion Trump's father built Trump's empire and Trump just inherited everything from his father?
ummm.. yeah, okay, you keep believing that.
-
I think most politicians have NPD, that is almost a given with them. These days, both parties are ruled by NPDs. Which means they are both really dishonest.
The clue to what's really going on lies in this underlying agenda they all have, which isn't obvious to most because it's been concealed, as its the agenda of the very rich and is against the best interests of most of us.
It has multiple layers, like an onion, the face it shows to the people on each layer is different to the face it shows to those on the ones above and below it. Each layer has a cover story and a real story.
Other groups are similar. A similar scheme is occurring in other nations, notably the so called "Global South" nations which are also rules solely by their wealthy, like here.
The only countries that retain a basic level of democratic civil society are ones where the government's agenda in areas like trade attempts to keep the negotiating goals of its trade agreements and their commitments in sync with the aspirations and expectations of their people and not elsewhere. Maybe the Nordic countries ? Europe may be as bad as we are here. At times New Zealand has been a lot more independent, now, honestly I don't know. They have a good organization there (http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog) that helps inform people there of what the problems are. So does Canada (https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/trade-and-investment-research-project).
Experts? Have any of them actually spent significant time with him? If not they're just making shit up.
You don't have to physically spend time with someone to get a good picture of their personality, especially when it's someone who is out there front and center in public. Mental health diagnosis is not an exact science anyway, you can't do a blood test to find out if someone has narcissistic personality disorder or even something like schizophrenia, but if they exhibit enough of the symptoms it's not hard for someone who is qualified on the matter to make a diagnosis.
So you think someone can accurately diagnose a personality purely based on the time they watch them on TV? I'm pretty sure no honest objectively focused person would agree with that.
Trump isnt schizophrenic. Also, and this is hard to explain, he inherited a situation where a great many of the US's trade commitments directly contradict what the American people expected both parties to do when they won. Both parties real goals are much more similar than the oligarchs who run the country tell us, and frankly, I think they will cause another much larger economic disaster if they somehow manage to implement that agenda. But, I think that is what they want.
I think Trump's external stance in a number of areas is fake. The clue to what is really going on can be found in the WTO and in the desires on the part of oligarchs everywhere to lower wages and increase profits. The trading partners want shock therapy for the US, and the politicians want plausible deniability/maintenance of the false illusion that they work for us.
Since the trade agreements tie their hands, the Democrats cant fulfill any of the things liberal Dems promise, none of them. They can only pretend to oppose the inexorable ratchet of further deregulation, each click of which locks in due to the FTAs.
Cutbacks in education and domestic hiring must be matched by increases in subcontracting and outsourcing and hiring across borders, of high skill workers, but at low pay, that is meant to expand and become the replacement for education.
There I am not sure of Trump's intentions, but certainly don't think he should be taken at face value, either.
The general consensus about trade in services in the trade agreements, which attempt to trade services. TiSA, TTIP, GATS, GPA, TPPA, NAFTA, CAFTA and so on, is that it will be very bad for the indigenous (and legal immigrants with green cards - basically everybody who makes a 'normal' wage for their professions in those countries, because the programs undermine their work's value.) bad for the workforces of developed countries, but that gains in profits will benefit the owners of businesses in those countries so much that the overall effect will be a gain. See graphic. This graphic has been repeated again and again in the academic literature pushing these changes. One prominent advocate of this point of view is economist Jagdish Bhagwati. There are many others. Keywords "labour mobility" "movement of natural persons" "services liberalization" (or liberalisation will likely do better, use the UK spellings because the literature in US academic publishing is far more sparse than in the European.)
If you'll do this you'll find that the US's negotiating positios on a large body of issues is quite different than what most of we Americans likely want and that its also quite debatable if from a business standpoint it is even wise to push for these things because they may in many cases hurt business. They are not the kind of business most people would undertake to do.
I think we would do far better if we started fresh and looked at the entire situation differently.
It has quite a history though. And there is the problem. Its impossible to explain it in just a few words, and the various histories that exist that I have found all try to push their own views of it. None of which I think is likely to be particularly accurate.
So its a big mess. They really made a huge mistake by making services, 80% of the typical developed country economy, tradable.
-
So, it's your assertion Trump's father built Trump's empire and Trump just inherited everything from his father?
ummm.. yeah, okay, you keep believing that.
You didn't process what I just said, but believe what you will - if it pleases you! ::)
-
So, it's your assertion Trump's father built Trump's empire and Trump just inherited everything from his father?
ummm.. yeah, okay, you keep believing that.
Where did that empire go? You don't truly believe Trump only inherited one million dollar or some comparable amount? As far as I know he's never released his tax records which could prove or disprove his statements.
-
The core thing nctnico is saying is largely correct. He inherited a lot of his wealth from his father, Fred's huge real estate empire in various ways, not all of them widely known. A number of journalists have written up this history, so its findable.
Trump's 'success' was highly leveraged - gambling with other people's money - and that likely left him quite beholden to a great many groups of people which may have been his appeal to the people who run the US, controllability. He is hardly the 'self made man' his acolytes have been convinced he is. OTOH, I don't think he is by any means as right wing as he represents himself to be.
However, he is very right wing nonetheless.
Both parties are in the US, economically, they are trying to force the entire planet to the right and basically steal and lock down future policy space with a web of trade agreements that take away rights from people and funnel them to corporations, any corporation, so this could easily and almost certainly will backfire on the US, with its high labor costs.
Its a very stupid policy.
There is a Mob term, "busting out the joint" which means intentionally running up as large a debt as could possibly be created in a controlled business entity's name.
Thats what they are doing, and pocketing those gains to themselves now. Leaving as its aftermath, a country stripped of value, where its workforce is priced out of its own job market by the elimination of non-tariff barriers like wage laws and restrictions on corporate business travel to work, corporations will be happy to have the opportunity to have their cheapest workers work here, foot the bill for their housing and food, and millions will lose their jobs. This is being done in the name of 'free trade' but it actually resembles the slave trade much more because the wages will be a fraction of those today.
So, those gains are not only not going to all of us but we seem to also now be framed as owing a debt (in jobs, they claim, a debt in jobs, in 'market access') to the oligarchy in other countries (they are the ones who will collect the profits, not their workers, who they insist they have a right to pay whatever they want to) and those 'debts' are illegitimate just like the debts run up by developing countries when their ruling classes stole the aid money they received from organizations like the World Bank are illegitimate (the so called "Third World Debt") because that money was lent without any oversight when it was clear it was going to be stolen. And it was.
So now we have a real mess on our hands that they keep making worse and worse with more FTAs.
Also, it should be known that the Trumps and Clintons are old friends, I suspect very close friends, their daughters are literally best friends.
Uh yea - past employees who know how stupid he is. :-DD
Stupid guy who took a million dollars and transformed it into a multi-billion-dollar empire.
He didn't do that. He inherited everything from his father. And Trump did very poor with his investments. Forbes has a graph somewhere with how much wealth rich people gained over the past 27 years. Trump did way worse than the stock exchange! He got an interest rate of around 1.25% over that period (corrected for inflation). The stock exchange is around 3% (including the severe crashes we have seen in the recent 15 years).
-
He inherited a lot of his wealth from his father, Fred's huge real estate empire in various ways, not all of them widely known.
My recollection is Trump's father passed away in the late 90's and his net worth was estimated to be about a half-billion. Trump's net worth is conservatively estimated almost an order of magnitude higher. Suggesting he "inherited everything from his father" is silly.
I'm not fans of the Clintons, but I'm able to recognize and acknowledge Bill's political acumen and ability to leverage it for his own financial benefit. People with Trump Derangement Syndrome are unable to do the same (recognize and acknowledge Trump's success)
-
Oh and the lies - the constant lies. Every time he opens his mouth you must be ready for a lie.
Here's a nice list of Trumps constant incessant lying, peruse at your leisure. :-DD
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/ (https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/)
-
I didn't say he 'inherited everything' I said he inherited a lot.
And as they say, its the first half billion thats the hardest. ;)
The problem is that Trump's business empire which is worldwide is made up of partnerships, in his case, largely real estate based ones, with lots of unsavory people, just as the Clintons was/is. And those people now expect favors. The favors are now so large that they threaten everybody's futures. Thats what they have not told us and its a really important thing. Something that need to tell us but can't. Creating a looming crisis no matter whose demands are serviced, because multiple groups of people now expect multiple outcomes which are in conflict with one another. Feathering a global elites nests, All at the nation's people and the people of the world's expense. The few sources of security Americans still have are being taken. In an organized manner. So that attention will never be focused on the huge concentrations of wealth because people will be fighting for their survival. This is the oldest trick in the book. And it works.
I think that is called a control fraud when it occurs in banking. International law should view a large number of things as "unconscionable" and policy as untouchable by a countrys leadership no matter what they do or say. Other countries should be required to not allow it, but instead they all get carte blanche to do whatever they want, loot whatever they want, from their own people. Who end up having to pay off their elite's gambling debts. Again and again. But the thefts keep getting larger.
Basically, we're all in grave danger of falling for the biggest con job ever. Its going to cost us all our middle class and quality of life. This is being done because they feel that the expansion of the global middle class that they pay lip service to, and especially the rising expectations more and more people had of rising living standards, in the 20th century, caused big problems for them, also they feel that the rise in automation should be accompanied by a free fall in wages, and increased profits.
They all feel that, as its what classical economics says. Elite groups radiate entitlement, just radiate an oppressive sense of entitlement. Given the changes developing countries need to make to have a real middle class things don't look good if that continues as it has unchecked by a more inclusive set of values. Its not going to happen by itself. The US and EU made a really big mistake throwing in our lot with the oligarchy in the developing world because that oligarchy is carrying a lot of baggage, they are emphatically not willing to share power. Nor do our TNCs want the cheap raw materials to end. Thats the deal they have struck with the elites. We'll keep you in power if you help us loot your countries.
So the big losers end up being the aspirations of non-wealthy people around the world for better, and our middle class, largely because we've been totally kept in the dark, and in comparison to many other countries that fund students who make good progress towards degrees, deprived our young people of access to the higher educations we all would need to understand what they are doing, and why, leaving us with nothing but our gut intuitions that things are very wrong and what we feel should change, and a growing sense of fatigue that eventually becomes apathy or anger, not productive willingness to change things. And thats intentional, the killing of hope.
Many largely have abdicated their duties as a supposedly democratic civil society to keep our government honest and in sync with what the people want and need. What we're getting now is so profoundly out of sync with that it is likely to go down in the history books as one of the biggest mistakes made by governments.
But these kinds of mistakes are the price of letting NPDs run a country, and they happen again and again with depressing regularity.
We need to be able to prevent this. Also, we should make a very large effort that we have never even attempted to decrease the ever widening gaps between rich and poor and make opportunity something that talented people of all economic backgrounds can find.
The maker movement is a very positive thing which should get a lot of help. The problem is, the GATS and its progeny deliberately tie governments (at all levels, federal, state and local) hands whenever a commercial entity sells a service in a country, government can't "distort trade" by assisting people to get it any more unless whatever they do is deliberately crippled and only the most minimal thing possible. And that is allowed only in cases of market failure.
-
I too will be glad to see Trump gone. I didn't vote for him or his primary opponent in 2016. Unfortunately I don't see 2020 as bringing a new golden age in politics. We don't seem to be oversupplied with good thoughtful leaders who look beyond victory for their own team.
Well you pretty much did vote for him then, because the way the system is set up there are two viable candidates in the final race. Voting for anyone else is at best just throwing away your vote. I don't see any real improvements anytime in the foreseeable future either though, people have been getting increasingly polarized and the internet allows like minded folks to exist in gigantic echo chambers leading them to believe they are the vast majority no matter what their beliefs and that anyone who disagrees with them is an outlying minority they don't need to compromise with or listen to their point of view.
Actually my vote didn't hurt Hillary. I live in a blue state so for all practical purposes I voted for her. Trump's genius (or his teams genius) was recognizing how few votes actually did matter and focussed efforts their.
My vote left my conscience clear. I personally think Hillary would have been bad also, though certainly more polished.
Our system left better candidates on the wayside on both sides. Early in the case of the Dems, later for the Repubs.
-
I never claimed Trump was schizophrenic, that was simply an example of a mental illness that can be diagnosed to a reasonable degree of certainty by observing symptoms. Not so much by watching them on tv but if they happen to spend a lot of time blathering on social media like Twitter you can get a pretty good insight into a person's head. When you combine that with the way they behave in public and the vast amount of input from people who have spent time with them, yes a person can absolutely be diagnosed with mental disorders without personally having them sitting in front of you. Mental health diagnosis is based almost entirely on observation of behavior and external symptoms, there is no direct test.
-
I think Trump may have untreated ADD, and also I suspect NPD.
Neither would necessarily stand in the way of his being smart in certain ways (although I don't think he's smart, so much as been lucky to have been born into wealth) but especially the NPD would be problematic because NPD people lack a moral compass and also often make incredibly bad decisions.
The late Joanna Ashmun has a very good site on NPD (http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/index.html)..
I also suspect Hillary Clinton would have made a terrible President, despite my being a lifelong Democrat. I think the Democratic Party in the US needs to replace its current leadership with people who are less beholden to huge corporations. Especially the banking industry, Big Pharma, the health insurance industry, Hollywood, and Wall St.
It is depressing to me how both parties here in the US are trying very hard to divide us when we actually agree on a lot. Poor people in particular should understand how they could improve the outcome by organizing to address their biggest problems. The solutions to some of the worst of it could be straightforward and benefit everybody. (Alternatives to corporate everything)
This is being prevented by wedge issue politics.
I personally also think immigration, legal immigration is a big plus, whats bad is the exploitation of people in artificially disadvantaged situations to extract vastly undervalued labor from people. The so called problems many people attribute to immigrants are really systemic problems with people losing jobs which in the past used to offer people stability both here and elsewhere. The poor people who come here to seek work come because of gang warfare and havoc subsidized US (in the North American case) agricultural products making farming so much less profitable people leave their home lands which is I am sure where most would like to live. If we stopped trying to extract the most wealth out of every transaction and stopped trying to make deals to push peoples wages down lower and lower, if we understood that inefficiency has its plusses and good business practices leave everybody happy they have interacted, we would all be a lot happier and healthier and wealthier too, I suspect.
-
Immigration is definitely a big plus, few would say otherwise. A lot of people deliberately confuse legal immigrants with illegal aliens to say people are anti-immigrant.
-
Trump does indeed make Bush43 seem like a statesman and a genius -- how is that even possible. I grew up in NY and have heard tales of Trump for decades before he became a household name beyond the NYC area and I've always felt him to be a narcissists narcissist. The willingness to go after entire groups of people for political ends suggests he's more than a narcissist but a full on sociopath -- that condition is sadly common in the executive ranks. His dad was a crook and he studied under Roy Cohen -- the Donald has been a crook his entire life. His most glaring trait and one almost no one can deny is that he simply can not tell the truth ... ever. He seems to lie even when there's no penalty in telling the truth because telling lies is what he does.
In the late 80's and early 90's Trump had burned so many US banks that they cut him off entirely and Trump had to go elsewhere for financing. Why is it a multi-billionaire needs banks anyway. But in the early 90's Trump found a bank in Germany to lend him money, a bank with deep ties to Russia and known for laundering money. It is at this point the Russians identified him as a potential asset and they been grooming him ever since. Trump is a traitor president, as a former member of the US military that is a painful thing to say...
Brian
-
Trump does indeed make Bush43 seem like a statesman and a genius -- how is that even possible.
Unlike Bush II he hasn't started any illegal wars (so far).
-
He inherited a lot of his wealth from his father, Fred's huge real estate empire in various ways, not all of them widely known.
My recollection is Trump's father passed away in the late 90's and his net worth was estimated to be about a half-billion. Trump's net worth is conservatively estimated almost an order of magnitude higher. Suggesting he "inherited everything from his father" is silly.
I'm not fans of the Clintons, but I'm able to recognize and acknowledge Bill's political acumen and ability to leverage it for his own financial benefit. People with Trump Derangement Syndrome are unable to do the same (recognize and acknowledge Trump's success)
I read some more about Trumps wealth and it seems he has gathered a lot by riding along others. If Trump truly where the succesful businessman he thinks he is, he wouldn't have been on TV all the time (pretending) and he would have made at least as much money as Warren Buffet. The numbers however don't lie. He had a few successes early on but after that his money has been sitting idle for over a quarter of a century. He invested most in real estate but the smart move would have been to invest it -at least- in a mixed fund with a medium risk profile. He would have had over twice the money he has now.
-
Trump does indeed make Bush43 seem like a statesman and a genius -- how is that even possible.
Unlike Bush II he hasn't started any illegal wars (so far).
True enough, though there are reports he's asked the military for a war plan in Iran.
Bush43 was the president in name only, the real power was Cheney and the NEOCON's that populated his admin. They were spoiling for a second war in Iraq since the mid 90's and published articles detailing the need to 'finish the job'. By the middle of his second term Bush finally saw that Cheney and Rumsfeld were playing him and he changed course. A little late however.
The decision to go back to Iraq is the single greatest foreign policy failure of any president in our nations history and we are dealing with the blow-back from that to this day.
So, as seemingly impossible as it might be that another president might come along and surpass Bush43 for idiocy Trump has, sadly, stepped up to the plate and done just that. The fools that support him are, well, there are no words that capture my disgust sufficiently.
Brian
-
I am afraid the problem will persist so long as money = power.
-
My recollection is Trump's father passed away in the late 90's and his net worth was estimated to be about a half-billion. Trump's net worth is conservatively estimated almost an order of magnitude higher. Suggesting he "inherited everything from his father" is silly.
I'm not fans of the Clintons, but I'm able to recognize and acknowledge Bill's political acumen and ability to leverage it for his own financial benefit. People with Trump Derangement Syndrome are unable to do the same (recognize and acknowledge Trump's success)
That net worth was the reported net worth when he died. It seems he had already transferred a considerable amount at that point, and there are some fairly substantial indications that a lot more money changed hands more covertly. The million dollar loan story has obviously never happened that way.
Trump's net worth is mostly self reported, and he hasn't as far as I'm aware never produced tax returns which would show his actual net worth and taxes paid. However, Trump has commented that his net worth is whatever he feels like it is that day. What remains is a fairly tentative grasp of what he's actually worth and what his actual success in business is.
https://money.cnn.com/2011/04/21/news/companies/donald_trump/ (https://money.cnn.com/2011/04/21/news/companies/donald_trump/)
https://www.newsweek.com/how-much-trump-worth-depends-how-he-feels-384720 (https://www.newsweek.com/how-much-trump-worth-depends-how-he-feels-384720)
-
My recollection is Trump's father passed away in the late 90's and his net worth was estimated to be about a half-billion. Trump's net worth is conservatively estimated almost an order of magnitude higher. Suggesting he "inherited everything from his father" is silly.
I'm not fans of the Clintons, but I'm able to recognize and acknowledge Bill's political acumen and ability to leverage it for his own financial benefit. People with Trump Derangement Syndrome are unable to do the same (recognize and acknowledge Trump's success)
That net worth was the reported net worth when he died. It seems he had already transferred a considerable amount at that point, and there are some fairly substantial indications that a lot more money changed hands more covertly. The million dollar loan story has obviously never happened that way.
Trump's net worth is mostly self reported, and he hasn't as far as I'm aware never produced tax returns which would show his actual net worth and taxes paid. However, Trump has commented that his net worth is whatever he feels like it is that day. What remains is a fairly tentative grasp of what he's actually worth and what his actual success in business is.
https://money.cnn.com/2011/04/21/news/companies/donald_trump/ (https://money.cnn.com/2011/04/21/news/companies/donald_trump/)
https://www.newsweek.com/how-much-trump-worth-depends-how-he-feels-384720 (https://www.newsweek.com/how-much-trump-worth-depends-how-he-feels-384720)
Back in the early to mid 80's when 'The Donald' was beginning his quest to dominate the airwaves, he'd call into Forbes and other news outlets, pretending to be someone else, and praise himself. He was particularly determined to have the media list him as one of the richest men in America. The pseudonyms he used for this deception included, but were not limited to: John Barron, John Miller, and David Dennison. His whole life is one big con and the folks he's conned the hardest seem not to care one bit that he's conning them. It is most ironic that the folks that blather on the most about "fake news" are in fact the most devoted followers and spreaders of it.
Brian
-
Cyber Security shutdown of his own Presidential Executive Order. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-executive-order-strengthening-cybersecurity-federal-networks-critical-infrastructure/ (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-executive-order-strengthening-cybersecurity-federal-networks-critical-infrastructure/)
More info on NIST here too what is and isn't open https://duo.com/decipher/government-shutdown-impacts-enterprise-security (https://duo.com/decipher/government-shutdown-impacts-enterprise-security)
Come on in China, Russia anyone else want a bit Byte .....
Some of what Australians are seeing on our Government owned Media https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-15/donald-trump-us-government-shutdown-how-will-it-end/10710882 (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-15/donald-trump-us-government-shutdown-how-will-it-end/10710882)
-
Aussie news seems to be doing a pretty good job of describing the situation. More depth and more balanced than our local outlets.
-
That is because they don't give a shit about what is going on as it does not affect them. in the UK I would say that even the BBC is biased, simply because it has people that present the news and as much as the BBC wants to be impartial it cannot control the inflection in the voices of the presenters or the snearing noises they make knowing their listeners agree. The BBC has come to the conclusion that it is a balanced organisation if it gets equal amounts of complaints from both sides :palm:
-
I won't post what we think about Brexit more than to say it does help us feel less stupid about our own farce of rotating sitting Prime Ministers along with other things. Generally the ABC gets the middle ground and balance about right and allows viewers to decide where they feel comfortable. Our local commercial stations less so and we do get talking head syndrome and that is getting worse.
Youtube seems to think I need to hear more about Trump, from a year ago and goes to what was being discussed back in this thread a bit about his personality traits. I choose this one over the alternate Tucker Foxwit one also from my feed. Time I strarted looking at just Electronic or 3D printing videos instead :palm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMXzcFJ-HEM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMXzcFJ-HEM)
-
Uh yea - past employees who know how stupid he is. :-DD
Stupid guy who took a million dollars and transformed it into a multi-billion-dollar empire.
He didn't do that. He inherited everything from his father. And Trump did very poor with his investments. Forbes has a graph somewhere with how much wealth rich people gained over the past 27 years. Trump did way worse than the stock exchange! He got an interest rate of around 1.25% over that period (corrected for inflation). The stock exchange is around 3% (including the severe crashes we have seen in the recent 15 years).
"He inherited everything from his father" Exactly what I am talking about. More fake news.
20/20 hindsight is great when it comes to the stock market. Everyone could have been rich if only.....
-
He inherited a lot of his wealth from his father, Fred's huge real estate empire in various ways, not all of them widely known.
My recollection is Trump's father passed away in the late 90's and his net worth was estimated to be about a half-billion. Trump's net worth is conservatively estimated almost an order of magnitude higher. Suggesting he "inherited everything from his father" is silly.
I'm not fans of the Clintons, but I'm able to recognize and acknowledge Bill's political acumen and ability to leverage it for his own financial benefit. People with Trump Derangement Syndrome are unable to do the same (recognize and acknowledge Trump's success)
I read some more about Trumps wealth and it seems he has gathered a lot by riding along others. If Trump truly where the succesful businessman he thinks he is, he wouldn't have been on TV all the time (pretending) and he would have made at least as much money as Warren Buffet. The numbers however don't lie. He had a few successes early on but after that his money has been sitting idle for over a quarter of a century. He invested most in real estate but the smart move would have been to invest it -at least- in a mixed fund with a medium risk profile. He would have had over twice the money he has now.
Your grasp of the obvious is amazing.
-
20/20 hindsight is great when it comes to the stock market. Everyone could have been rich if only.....
Historically making long term (>10 years) investments in an investment fund (which isn't just the stock market) has always paid off and it will pay off for the forseable future. This isn't some kind of insider secret; you can look up the numbers yourself. Every financial advisor will tell you the same if you want to set up a retirement fund or save money for any long term financial goal. Things get trickier (and more risky) if you want to get a higher return on investments fast.
-
The cause of drug addiction is loss of hope and despair. Young people are running into a economic wall thats preventing them from ever having a life like they are constantly told they need to have. A family, etc. A stable life. But the system is now eating its own. Its not going to give them that good life, its skimming off the riches and they are losing hope.
We need to stand up for them more. We need to have a future for this country. People need to be able to get a decent education, even if jobs wont be there for them. So it needs to be free, but GATS blocks that. It also blocks us from fixing our health care system. And it sets us up for a future economic disaster which will leave millions of people homeless, other people likely living in their homes, or maybe them sitting empty, some foreign oligarchs investment. Their 'escape hatch'.
It’s not just the young suffering. It’s every age group (except perhaps for young kids). In economically depressed areas, many middle age people lost their jobs and have no hope of recovering, nor of having anything resembling a retirement. So while the opiod crisis is affecting young adults a lot, it is by no means avoiding older groups. On the contrary, they’re using at higher rates than one might otherwise predict, historically speaking.
-
Uh yea - past employees who know how stupid he is. :-DD
Stupid guy who took a million dollars and transformed it into a multi-billion-dollar empire.
Yup... pretty stupid.
Hope all my kids are that dumb.
No, you don’t. You’ll end up supporting them their entire lives, as Trump Sr. did for Donald.
That he’s a self-made man is the narrative Donald and his father spun. But it looks like there’s essentially no truth to it. Donald inherited everything from his dad — and drove lots of it into the ground.
I highly suggest you read this result of 3 years and 100,000 documents of research: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html?module=inline (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html?module=inline)
-
www.nytimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com)
Yeah, there's an unbiased source :-DD
-
www.nytimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com)
Yeah, there's an unbiased source :-DD
Yep, to anyone who’s not a Fox News-obsessed republitard. No media is absolutely unbiased, but NYT is pretty darned close. And besides, if they were wrong on this, the right-wing media would have torn them apart — and they haven’t.
-
P.S. Just to be clear, I’m not saying all republicans are republitards. The latter is a subset of the former, though I’m sure there’s ample disagreement as to what percentage they comprise.
-
The cause of drug addiction is loss of hope and despair. Young people are running into a economic wall thats preventing them from ever having a life like they are constantly told they need to have. A family, etc. A stable life. But the system is now eating its own. Its not going to give them that good life, its skimming off the riches and they are losing hope.
We need to stand up for them more. We need to have a future for this country. People need to be able to get a decent education, even if jobs wont be there for them. So it needs to be free, but GATS blocks that. It also blocks us from fixing our health care system. And it sets us up for a future economic disaster which will leave millions of people homeless, other people likely living in their homes, or maybe them sitting empty, some foreign oligarchs investment. Their 'escape hatch'.
It’s not just the young suffering. It’s every age group (except perhaps for young kids). In economically depressed areas, many middle age people lost their jobs and have no hope of recovering, nor of having anything resembling a retirement. So while the opiod crisis is affecting young adults a lot, it is by no means avoiding older groups. On the contrary, they’re using at higher rates than one might otherwise predict, historically speaking.
I don't buy into the idea that most addicts resort to drugs to cope with personal problems. I think in most cases, it's more likely that drugs are responsible for the user's problems, rather than the other way round. Plenty of people with no pre-existing physiological problems get addicted to drugs, just look at all of those who became hooked on prescription painkillers first. Someone might be prescribed painkillers when they break a bone. At the time, they have a well-paid job and a happy family life. When the doctor tries to take them off the medication, they struggle with withdrawal symptoms so keep getting a repeat prescription, up to the point when the doctors refuses and they look to the black market. They have to keep increasing their dose, until their performance at work suffers, they lose their job, break up with their partner and turn to crime. Although its effects are social, addiction is a biochemical phenomenon. In most cases, the emotional problems are due to the drugs altering the user's brain chemistry and the consequences of the user's behaviour when addicted.
-
I don't buy into the idea that most addicts resort to drugs to cope with personal problems.
I'd take it one step further. There are plenty of people who are prescribed painkillers and have no issues coming "off" them. However, some people have an "addictive" personality. I believe they are genetically predisposed to becoming addicted to a substance, whether it be illicit drugs, prescription drugs, alcohol, food, etc.
-
There have to be positive avenues for everybody to focus on in their lives, hobbies and learning are good ones but one needs to have at least a bit of money, and time to pursue that.
Hard drugs - any abuse of drugs seems to me to often be a trap that people fall into when they have some huge pain they think they cant resolve.
I suspect that the system (at least here in the US) has really failed a lot of people and they feel there is no future for them. Society should not be just about profit at any cost.
In the world thats being promoted, there is no room for most of our people, as they and their so called 'unrealistic expectations' (to have a decent job and live a decent life) don't fit the profit hungry agenda's plans well. It doesn't mesh well with the global value chains approach where every penny must be shaved off costs. In that world, basically the entire US workforce earns too much, wants too much. There is not any intelligence in a system that destroys the middlc class to make a few more pennies selling products to - who- There goes the customers.
The Asian countries that do not already have a sizable middle class (percentage wise, not by numbers) are unlikely to develop one, and suddenly start paying their workers more.
They are so hierarchical and rigid that smart people from those countries leave, they will tell us about how rigged their systems are. And that any expectation on our parts that they will grow into huge markets is a delusion.
So to export the jobs that the less-skilled can do, in order to placate a few oligarchs, is a bad idea. It makes more sense to automate them, keep them here, and promote free lifetime learning for people when they are not working. Trying to adjust may be as simple as changing our working model to a more flexible one that gives people more time to have a life. We have earned it.
And our own bought and sold and paid for politicians really need to realize that whats most profitable is often really a bad choice when the entire picture is considered.
If we solved these structural problems, I suspect that all despair-related problems like drug addiction would resolve. What is really horrible is that there are so few paths that people can follow which lead to good places, we need to make more of them. Otherwise we're totally failing the country and those responsible should be replaced.
"Vote of no confidence" and a complete restoration of democracy in its original form. One person, one vote. No human rights for corporations, no more corporate personhood. Thats where we really went wrong..
-
There have to be positive avenues for everybody to focus on in their lives, hobbies and learning are good ones but one needs to have at least a bit of money, and time to pursue that.
Hard drugs - any abuse of drugs seems to me to often be a trap that people fall into when they have some huge pain they think they cant resolve.
I think most people that get into drugs do through natural curiosity and because they're easily accessible. For example, I tried cannabis purely because it interested me. Nothing to do with any mental health condition or lack of focus in my life. I was at a music festival, my peers were using it, so I thought I'd give it a go. I didn't become addicted because I didn't like it. Had I liked it, things might of been difference. No doubt if I tried a more addictive drug it could be worse.
I don't buy into the idea that most addicts resort to drugs to cope with personal problems.
I'd take it one step further. There are plenty of people who are prescribed painkillers and have no issues coming "off" them. However, some people have an "addictive" personality. I believe they are genetically predisposed to becoming addicted to a substance, whether it be illicit drugs, prescription drugs, alcohol, food, etc.
No doubt that's true, but some drugs are more addictive, than others.
-
The cause of drug addiction is loss of hope and despair. Young people are running into a economic wall thats preventing them from ever having a life like they are constantly told they need to have. A family, etc. A stable life. But the system is now eating its own. Its not going to give them that good life, its skimming off the riches and they are losing hope.
We need to stand up for them more. We need to have a future for this country. People need to be able to get a decent education, even if jobs wont be there for them. So it needs to be free, but GATS blocks that. It also blocks us from fixing our health care system. And it sets us up for a future economic disaster which will leave millions of people homeless, other people likely living in their homes, or maybe them sitting empty, some foreign oligarchs investment. Their 'escape hatch'.
It’s not just the young suffering. It’s every age group (except perhaps for young kids). In economically depressed areas, many middle age people lost their jobs and have no hope of recovering, nor of having anything resembling a retirement. So while the opioid crisis is affecting young adults a lot, it is by no means avoiding older groups. On the contrary, they’re using at higher rates than one might otherwise predict, historically speaking.
Over the last few decades they have done a lot of research on drug addiction and found that the same systems are involved in the neurobiology of reward in the brain as are modulated by many drugs of abuse as well as behaviors like sex and gambling that can often become problem addictions.
That could lead off into an entire thread of its own about the need for people to be able to have things that appropriately reward when they had earned a reward, which wasn't some phony thing. (like the Internet)
But the point I am trying to make is that writing off more and more of society - especially now as they propose, most of it because it fails to fit into some economic box of profitability for a very few, isn't a failure of that society so much as its a failure of a model that proposes to do that which is not working as it needs to for the planet any more.
-
I'd take it one step further. There are plenty of people who are prescribed painkillers and have no issues coming "off" them. However, some people have an "addictive" personality. I believe they are genetically predisposed to becoming addicted to a substance, whether it be illicit drugs, prescription drugs, alcohol, food, etc.
Speculating about medical or biological mechanisms involved is a bit risky. Currently we're not aware of reliable indicators which predict addiction.
-
If the medical profession was willing to return to curing health problems, which would require more time, (differential diagnosis) and getting to the root of what was causing things like 'pain' which has a purpose, telling us some problem needs attention, that would be very helpful.
Its my understanding that doctors are now under so much time pressure from HMOs to work faster that they basically only get a few minutes with each patient.
That has led to them basically being forced to give up even trying to find, say what is causing pain.
Plus they are forced to sign agreements (physician gag clauses and their ilk) to not discuss tests or treatments - even ones that they know would be necessary or helpful unless the insurer has approved that discussion in advance to be within the scope of the plan that the customer's or their employer's plan pays for.. (group plans get a lot more lattitude to cover less because of a law, ERISA that allows insurers to as long as it meets a locally different 'standard of care' for that geographical area. Sort of an lowest common denominator. As long as the insurer's reductions in care are not faster than the reductions applied to that standard of care, they cant be sued for failure to treat a problem. As long as its a plan thats part of an employee benefit, not an individual plan. At least thats how I remember it as being when last I read about this, decades ago but I doubt greatly if it has changed. ERISA Section 514)
SO what is required as far as treatment is heavily influenced by geographic area, it varies from the new bare minimum thats always lower than it was before to "modern medicine" (only a few areas of the US get consistently high standards of care applied in their most expensive health care plans) Where you live and how much you pay determines what the medico-legal "standard of care" level is in the US. Its often a lot less care than people from elsewhere are used to. Even when they are supposedly getting the best "Cadillac plan" care that US healthcare has to offer, Europeans with sick family members that depend on some important treatment sometimes come here to take 'dream jobs' and end up going right back home, turning down the dream job, because the "best available" healthcare a family member was getting here, literally from the best, most advanced hospitals and doctors was inferior enough in some crucial aspect to prompt a decision to pass on the dream job, even after making the move with a family, because it was somehow 'wrong'.
One thing thats increasingly absent in the HMOs is differential diagnosis.
With a lot of illnesses, determining what is causing the problem is a process of elimination. A doctor is trained to try to eliminate the most likely diagnoses systematically until they find the cause of the problem, then treat it. But the HMOs are forcing them to just give up and attempt to make a guess as to what it is if its very likely to be that, otherwise, just treat symptoms. If a symptom is pain, I dont know what they do. I doubt if its try to find the cause of the pain, unless it literally falls into their laps. That kind of patient would be well advised to leave the US to get healthcare somewhere else that could get to the root of the problem and fix it, because nobody should live in pain, and pain killers are not a solution either, fixing whatever is causing the pain is.
Sometimes they could make very big mistakes, doing it like that. Rather than fix the system, they are constantly under pressure from HMOs to do less and less and any doctor who doesn't like that has to draw the line and with most kinds of insurance, those two lines don't meet.
Now the US is trying to force other countries into becoming more like us.
We should realize that the system we're pushing is a crime and that denying people care they need is not just hurting, its unnecessarily killing people.
-
I'd take it one step further. There are plenty of people who are prescribed painkillers and have no issues coming "off" them. However, some people have an "addictive" personality. I believe they are genetically predisposed to becoming addicted to a substance, whether it be illicit drugs, prescription drugs, alcohol, food, etc.
Speculating about medical or biological mechanisms involved is a bit risky. Currently we're not aware of reliable indicators which predict addiction.
Yes, no one really knows. I think it's likely there's a strong genetic predisposition to addiction. If we look at pre-existing mental health conditions, then I should be alcoholic by now. I've had problems with depression, social anxiety and an eating disorder. I used to use alcohol to deal with social anxiety and as a weight loss tool. I'd drink so much it would make me sick and so hungover I couldn't eat for most of the following day. I did get help and am OK now, but didn't have any trouble with stopping drinking, when I got put on antidepressants, which I also had no problem with being weaned off. Quitting the eating disorder as much more difficult than the alcohol. I don't drink now because on reflection I didn't like it doing so would bring back bad memories and I feel better for it.
No doubt there are others who have pre-existing mental health conditions before they suffered from addiction and it was worsened by the drugs, but I think too much is often made of it. I look at others who have become addicted to drugs and many of them were happy before. Then there are those who were fine until they were prescribed painkillers.
If the medical profession was willing to return to curing health problems, which would require more time, (differential diagnosis) and getting to the root of what was causing them, that would be very helpful. Its my understanding that doctors are now under so much time pressure from HMOs that they basically only get a few minutes with each patient. That has led to them basically being forced to give up even trying to find, say what is causing pain. Plus they are forced to sign agreemenst to not discuss treatments that they know would be helpful unless the insurer has approved that discussion in advance to be within what the customer's plan pays for.. Also what is required as far as treatment is heavily influenced by geographic area, it varies from the bere minimum to "modern medicine" (only a few areas of the US get consistently high standards of care applied in their most expensive health care plans) Where you live and how much you pay determines what the medico-legal "standard of care" level is.
With a lot of illnesses, determining what is causing the problem is a process of elimination. A doctor is trained to try to eliminate the most likely diagnoses systematically until they find the cause of the problem, then treat it. But the HMOs are forcing them to just give up and attempt to make a guess as to what it is if its very likely to be that, otherwise, just treat symptoms. Sometimes they could make very big mistakes, doing it like that. They have to be given more time to handle that situation, but instead they keep giving them less and less time.
What ware HMOs? I'm not familiar with that term. A Google search gives me Houses of Multiple Occupation.
I gather the US has more of a problem with addiction to painkillers than other countries, but it occurs in the UK too. The problem is doctors will often not have time to treat the cause, so prescribe painkillers to mask the symptoms. I think the same happens with antidepressants as well. In my case I did get help from the doctors but it took a long time and my recovery was more down to having a supportive family and taking a long time away from work to get better.
-
If the medical profession was willing to return to curing health problems, which would require more time, (differential diagnosis) and getting to the root of what was causing them, that would be very helpful. Its my understanding that doctors are now under so much time pressure from HMOs that they basically only get a few minutes with each patient. That has led to them basically being forced to give up even trying to find, say what is causing pain. Plus they are forced to sign agreemenst to not discuss treatments that they know would be helpful unless the insurer has approved that discussion in advance to be within what the customer's plan pays for.. Also what is required as far as treatment is heavily influenced by geographic area, it varies from the bere minimum to "modern medicine" (only a few areas of the US get consistently high standards of care applied in their most expensive health care plans) Where you live and how much you pay determines what the medico-legal "standard of care" level is.
With a lot of illnesses, determining what is causing the problem is a process of elimination. A doctor is trained to try to eliminate the most likely diagnoses systematically until they find the cause of the problem, then treat it. But the HMOs are forcing them to just give up and attempt to make a guess as to what it is if its very likely to be that, otherwise, just treat symptoms. Sometimes they could make very big mistakes, doing it like that. They have to be given more time to handle that situation, but instead they keep giving them less and less time.
I'm well familiar with health care and health care professionals and this is blatantly untrue. There will always be challenges trying to maximise the effectiveness of inherently limited resources, but suggesting medicine is reduced to palliative care is just offensive. You're shortchanging an entire sector of hardworking professionals. Can we please get through this thread without alarmist conspiracies being thrown around?
-
If we look at the numbers of patients whose illnesses and outcomes were amenable to improved access to health care or improved health care or simply health care, (who did not get any health care that they needed, when they needed it) we must come to a very scary conclusion. That large numbers of Americans are dying who would not be dying in the civilized countries. Even ones who pay for what is represented to them as health insurance.
For example, in San Jose, CA. a teenage girl, Sarah Broughton, died not long ago of a sinus infection, because she could not afford medical care, did not have health insurance, and didn't get the hospital care until it became an emergency and she deteriorated rapidly after that.
Afterward her family was swamped with bills and many made donations but last I heard they were still strugglling to pay off the bill for her emergency room care, and funeral. They have a web page on Go Fund Me (https://www.gofundme.com/sarah-broughtons-medical-expenses). << Link- currently they are at around $11,000 out of $20,000
This story is extremely common here in the US.
Not a day goes by when I don't hear of some person who has some curable but expensive illness who needs donations.
People put up web pages on GoFundMe. People who need specialist care are often told no, insurance wont pay for that.
Or the deductibles are so high they need to spend huge amounts of money they don't have before the insurance kicks in. (And they keep getting higher) Also, if somebody has presented needing care and received it, they then get sicgned up for insurance they cant afford, automatically, even if they have no way of paying that money, and then has been billed but has been late in paying that bill, they often cannot get more care until they pay it. It keeps building up. So this results in huge numbers of people having money paid on their behalf by the taxpayers who still cannot get health care because the system which claims they have enough to pay the premiums but in reality they don't have enough for the deductibles or maybe they are embarrassed they could not afford to fill the prescriptions their doctor wrote for them on the last visit. Maybe they had to buy food for a child or pay rent.
Anyway, someday there will be trials, like the ones at Nuremberg.
Because its rigged. The US is not some backwards, poor country. Its a country that should not lie to its people, either. Telling them its simply a matter of votes in Congress when what has actually happened is the policy space to do the things we need to do has been traded away, in the WTO.
So, its a fraud and one with staggering medical implications. An avoidable crime against humanity. An medical experiment on a whole country we already knew would fail, without informed consent. That's one of the most serious crimes there is.
The magnitude of people who are dying here who would not die even in poor countries - where they would get minimal care but at least it would be some care, is huge. No other country spends as much so a direct comparison cant be made of value. But when we compare outcomes here to the best other developed countries the number of excess deaths amenable to... is astronomical no matter which figures you use or how you slice the data.
Its likely hundreds of unnecessary preventable deaths occur in the US each day that would not occur in the other countries we should be comparing ourselves to.
By all accounts, the US is the worst country to have a chronic illness in in the world now. Even if you are middle income. Huge numbers of people are bankrupted each year by medical bills and if they have intention of ever fixing this, they havent illustrated that, instead it seems we're constantly being treated to more aggressive attempts to avoid any accountability or improvement. There is no adult supervision, just elites trying to pretend they are doing something they are not. They are making it worse. Trying to lock it in in ways voting can't address. They want to globalize health care in order to suck the other countries in to this madness.
This is all easy to prove, its not subjective, its fact. The motive is money, and its enslaving people to debt.
-
What ware HMOs? I'm not familiar with that term. A Google search gives me Houses of Multiple Occupation.
I gather the US has more of a problem with addiction to painkillers than other countries, but it occurs in the UK too. The problem is doctors will often not have time to treat the cause, so prescribe painkillers to mask the symptoms. I think the same happens with antidepressants as well. In my case I did get help from the doctors but it took a long time and my recovery was more down to having a supportive family and taking a long time away from work to get better.
HMO Healthcare Management Org.
Kaiser Healthcare is an example.
However I like the term Houses of multiple occupation! So to live there you need to have multiple jobs in different occupations,right?
LOL
-
Speculating about medical or biological mechanisms involved is a bit risky. Currently we're not aware of reliable indicators which predict addiction.
True at the moment.
But to draw a parallel, some have claimed they are genetically predisposed to being homosexual (e.g. "I was born this way"), so there's no reason not to think addiction may have a genetic component as well.
Scientific America had an article a while back which indicated there was a genetic link to having a "sweet tooth".... in a sense, "addicted" to sugar.
-
Another big problem is that they are bringing back some practices which they had attempted to get rid of in a law, the Affordable Care Act, one of them is medical underwriting, reserving health insurance coverage to new conditions only and rejecting people with pre-existing conditions, in some cases retroactively, if it turns out they lied to get coverage (or pay less for coverage) by misrepresenting or omitting some 'material fact'. What the insurance companies do is they flag it when a patient is diagnosed with a serious medical condition and if somebody gets an expensive condition that costs a lot of money they have a team that tries to find a reason they can use to dump them as well as claw back the money going back to the beginning. If they dump an expensive patient they give the employee a bonus. The return of medical underwriting for common medical conditions almost certainly means this is going to return. Imagine having cancer, literally struggling for your life and then suddenly getting a letter, along with dozens of bills from healthcare providers going back to when you first got the insurance policy, all telling you that your insurance payments had been retroactively cancelled and you now had to pay the full bill, not the discounted rate they offer the insured. (which is often a fraction as much)
At the same time, you're likely to be hit with innumerable other problems related to your sudden change.
This is why I think going cashless is so bad. Imagine being sick and on top of that suddenly having your care end, becoming so indebted that you would basically be immobilized, because your entire income and savings, was not enough to pay this, could not pay for anything. They deliberately make people fill out 30 page forms so later if people get sick, they can retroactively look for any mistake sick people made. This is just one link to a huge body of hearings in 2009 on health insurance rescissions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-dvMJU_8v4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-dvMJU_8v4)
The LA Times did a series on the problem, if you're interested in health care read those articles.
Also see the web site kaiserpapers.org - the issues that occur with various kinds of mangled care are not unique to any one flavor of for profit health insurance.
Ive been lucky, I've never had to deal with anything like this. But I see that the scary and dishonest way this system is being forced on Americans (via services FTAs) and others behind the countries backs, is a crime.
-
[
Scientific America had an article a while back which indicated there was a genetic link to having a "sweet tooth".... in a sense, "addicted" to sugar.
Genetic??
I am so screwed! No winder why I.....Uh Oh here it comes..
I need to run ya'all I need a Malted Moo' Shake TIllamook ice cream fix!
I do not want to make lite the issue of poor healthcare in the US and the loss of Sarah's and the other tragic lives lost because of it, but This issue is way too complicated to be discussed off-topic on this thread. How about creating it's own subject? better yet, anyone game to a live Skype conference on the subject?
Another thought, create a website, using google's sites web page ?
Look, this is a huge important issue. And, if the US continues to have the influence it has had around the world, then what happens here may influence other parts of the world.
I AM, going out to get some ice cream! Period!
If anyone messages me personally asking. Then I will set up a google sites webpage myself about this!
In the meantime may we please return to "impact of US govt spending impasse, affecting NIST?
my short and flippant answer is NIST is putting pressure on the Admin. just like many other US govt depts are. Many of the calling in sick, of TSA agents are simply finding work elsewhere. they need to eat. and yes, most Americans have not been able to set aside moeny for any crisis for ages now/
I am serious about the offer to set up a website if ya'all are serious. just let me get my ice cream first please
-
With a lot of illnesses, determining what is causing the problem is a process of elimination. A doctor is trained to try to eliminate the most likely diagnoses systematically until they find the cause of the problem, then treat it. But the HMOs are forcing them to just give up and attempt to make a guess as to what it is if its very likely to be that, otherwise, just treat symptoms. Sometimes they could make very big mistakes, doing it like that. They have to be given more time to handle that situation, but instead they keep giving them less and less time.
I'm well familiar with health care and health care professionals and this is blatantly untrue. There will always be challenges trying to maximise the effectiveness of inherently limited resources, but suggesting medicine is reduced to palliative care is just offensive. You're shortchanging an entire sector of hardworking professionals. Can we please get through this thread without alarmist conspiracies being thrown around?
Actually there is a sense of truth in Cdev's text. Treatment protocols are often setup to maximise profit for the hospital and not offer the best care for the patient. I had kind of an odd problem with my wrist that couldn't be diagnosed quickly. Instead of getting an MRI I bounced back & forth between two departments for months. At some point I had enough and had a doctor prescribe an MRI and I had the scan done a few days later (at a third party specialising in MRI scans). Ofcourse I asked to get the scan data myself. Two weeks later I told the doctor how he should fix my wrist. The MRI was cheaper then all the other consults + tests and if I had the MRI earlier I wouldn't have lost so much money because I couldn't work as much as I could have otherwise.
In a country where sick people are just milking cows without a maximum on the tarifs I expect this to be much worse. My health insurance covers health expenses world wide except for the US.
@TheNewLab: you lost me after the word 'ice cream'. My kids stole the last bit of Ben & Jerry's. :'(
-
Mr. Scram,
You should read up on what goes into physician contracts with HMOs. What they have to agree to to be 'in network' doctors. There is a reason so many doctors are only taking cash from patients or retiring. Those contracts are it.
Many US patients are leaving the US to get more comprehensive care at a lower price and outside of the US insurance companies grip, they often get tests or imaging they cant get here, tests that cost a tiny fraction in other countries (often from the same companies) as they do here. An MRI that costs $3000 here might cost $50 in another country.
Then they come back and have this information and thats become an issue the insurers are upset about.
Health care for sick people where every day counts should never have become this "innocent until proven guilty" situation where insurers try to prevent care.
Patients should get care in the way doctors are taught to deliver it, doctors are not irresponsible. They don't prescribe unnecessary tests. But if the question is: Is the for profit insurance system is sometimes treating people's lives like they are just there to pay money, and deliberately delaying care? Is this business now a game some of these corporations seem to think they 'win' by denying patients they likely know are in fact seriously sick, care as long as they can. It has become that system, and its not getting fixed, as far as I know.
This is a horribly broken system. The US system is horribly broken. Its the poster child for these problems globally. Thats a matter of fact. Its easy to illustrate in dozens of ways. We pay more than anybody and we seem to have to get the least care, because the WTO rules require ever more 'progressive liberalization' which means ever more deregulation, meaning they always get to do more of what they want and restrictions on the things they do have to always be the "least burdensome necessary (to them) to ensure the quality of the service".
That means that the people will always get the short end of the stick and that politics cant work on the peoples behalf as it used to to arrive at a compromise, instead any change always has to be in the same direction, towards the most minimal government involvement. If a penny of subsidy is involved, that means means testing, limits on who is helped, and limits on quality so it would never be good enough to be acceptable unless one pays the most, otherwise, why buy the Cadillac Platinum Plan when the aluminum foil paper plan is adequate? See the problem? Look up 'trade distorting' and minimally trade restrictive. Thats what we got for entering the WTO (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.405.5725).
I'm well familiar with health care and health care professionals and this is blatantly untrue. There will always be challenges trying to maximise the effectiveness of inherently limited resources, but suggesting medicine is reduced to palliative care is just offensive. You're shortchanging an entire sector of hardworking professionals. Can we please get through this thread without alarmist conspiracies being thrown around?
-
Mr. Scram,
You should read up on what goes into physician contracts with HMOs. What they have to agree to to be 'in network' doctors. There is a reason so many doctors are only taking cash from patients or retiring. Those contracts are it.
Many US patients are leaving the US to get more comprehensive care at a lower price and outside of the US insurance companies grip, they often get tests or imaging they cant get here, tests that cost a tiny fraction in other countries (often from the same companies) as they do here. An MRI that costs $3000 here might cost $50 in another country.
Then they come back and have this information and thats become an issue the insurers are upset about.
Health care for sick people where every day counts should never have become this "innocent until proven guilty" situation where insurers try to prevent care.
Patients should get care in the way doctors are taught to deliver it, doctors are not irresponsible. They don't prescribe unnecessary tests. But if the question is: Is the for profit insurance system is sometimes treating people's lives like they are just there to pay money, and deliberately delaying care? Is this business now a game some of these corporations seem to think they 'win' by denying patients they likely know are in fact seriously sick, care as long as they can. It has become that system, and its not getting fixed, as far as I know.
This is a horribly broken system. The US system is horribly broken. Its the poster child for these problems globally. Thats a matter of fact. Its easy to illustrate in dozens of ways. We pay more than anybody and we seem to have to get the least care, because the WTO rules require ever more 'progressive liberalization' which means ever more deregulation, meaning they always get to do more of what they want and restrictions on the things they do have to always be the "least burdensome necessary (to them) to ensure the quality of the service".
That means that the people will always get the short end of the stick and that politics cant work on the peoples behalf as it used to to arrive at a compromise, instead any change always has to be in the same direction, towards the most minimal government involvement. If a penny of subsidy is involved, that means means testing, limits on who is helped, and limits on quality so it would never be good enough to be acceptable unless one pays the most, otherwise, why buy the Cadillac Platinum Plan when the aluminum foil paper plan is adequate? See the problem? Look up 'trade distorting' and minimally trade restrictive. Thats what we got for entering the WTO (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.405.5725).
No. I'm not interested in all the nonsense you spout. Why do you have to ruin many interesting threads this endless spamming of your personal agenda and trade organisation fever dreams? This obsession isn't healthy. Get some help.
-
True at the moment.
But to draw a parallel, some have claimed they are genetically predisposed to being homosexual (e.g. "I was born this way"), so there's no reason not to think addiction may have a genetic component as well.
Scientific America had an article a while back which indicated there was a genetic link to having a "sweet tooth".... in a sense, "addicted" to sugar.
Being born a certain way doesn't automatically mean it's a genetic matter. But again these kinds of assessments shouldn't be made by people not qualified to do so, based on cursory information. Biology and genetics are wildly complicated subjects.
-
Actually there is a sense of truth in Cdev's text. Treatment protocols are often setup to maximise profit for the hospital and not offer the best care for the patient. I had kind of an odd problem with my wrist that couldn't be diagnosed quickly. Instead of getting an MRI I bounced back & forth between two departments for months. At some point I had enough and had a doctor prescribe an MRI and I had the scan done a few days later (at a third party specialising in MRI scans). Ofcourse I asked to get the scan data myself. Two weeks later I told the doctor how he should fix my wrist. The MRI was cheaper then all the other consults + tests and if I had the MRI earlier I wouldn't have lost so much money because I couldn't work as much as I could have otherwise.
In a country where sick people are just milking cows without a maximum on the tarifs I expect this to be much worse. My health insurance covers health expenses world wide except for the US.
@TheNewLab: you lost me after the word 'ice cream'. My kids stole the last bit of Ben & Jerry's. :'(
Treatment protocols aren't set up to maximise profits. I can't guarantee that's never the case, but it's certainly not the standard. I'm sorry you had a bad experience, but not being able to effectively diagnose your problem doesn't demonstrate this is done for profit. Health care in developed parts of the world is facing challenges with risings costs due to ever more sophisticated treatment and therefore struggles with effectively treating as many people as possible with limited resources. There is no endless pile of cash, so choices and optimising are required and it's not going to be perfect all the time. It's a rather complicated problem with an insane amount of constantly moving parts.
-
An MRI that costs $3000 here might cost $50 in another country.
Had an MRI on my spine about 6 years ago prior to having a percutaneous discectomy.
MRI facility billed insurance company $2,700.
Insurance company paid $625.
Now, we know the MRI facility at a minimum "broke even" on their expenses at $625 (if not, they'd go out of business)
If I didn't have insurance, I would have to pay $2,700.
To me, that is criminal.
I can understand some level of 'discount' to a provider, due to streamlined billing, etc... but a 75% discount?
-
Speculating about medical or biological mechanisms involved is a bit risky. Currently we're not aware of reliable indicators which predict addiction.
True at the moment.
But to draw a parallel, some have claimed they are genetically predisposed to being homosexual (e.g. "I was born this way"), so there's no reason not to think addiction may have a genetic component as well.
Scientific America had an article a while back which indicated there was a genetic link to having a "sweet tooth".... in a sense, "addicted" to sugar.
I think it's apparent that some people are genetically far more prone to addiction than others. It still in most cases takes a conscious decision to shoot up or smoke something. Especially substances that are known to be especially addictive and/or have a high mortality rate. I've known social drinkers and social tobacco or pot smokers but I've never known a moderate heroin user. The few people I knew who used that went downhill real fast becoming hardcore addicts.
-
By the way, vtwin, a cheap and effective approach exists which could probably save many people from needing "pain killers" for back and joint pain of various kinds. It might have also helped you with your back.
The problem for US for profit medicine, is, it is cheap and available and its made from a common invasive plant.
Of which there is an oversupply in the US. Japanese knotweed.
Where is the profit in that? Good health is its own "profit".
You can read about it yourself, its a subject of intense research, all around the world.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=resveratrol+disc (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=resveratrol+disc)
It actually seems to repair the underlying vertebral injury.
Curing the underlying problem certainly may be useful in addressing vertebral disc pain.
"Resveratrol" also might be useful in preventing bone loss in microgravity during long space voyages.
As well as dozens of other things.
-
An MRI that costs $3000 here might cost $50 in another country.
Had an MRI on my spine about 6 years ago prior to having a percutaneous discectomy.
MRI facility billed insurance company $2,700.
Insurance company paid $625.
Now, we know the MRI facility at a minimum "broke even" on their expenses at $625 (if not, they'd go out of business)
If I didn't have insurance, I would have to pay $2,700.
To me, that is criminal.
I can understand some level of 'discount' to a provider, due to streamlined billing, etc... but a 75% discount?
Actually I've always negotiated as a cash patient because using my insurance costs MORE. CT scan for instance was $1400, As a cash patient I got it done for $300.
-
Among all the Drug speculation and the USA nonhealth system and OT all I saw was Ice Cream which is never really off topic :)
Seems the FCC has gone to sleep as has chunks of the FDA. https://www.cnet.com/news/government-shutdown-delays-launch-of-new-tech-products/ (https://www.cnet.com/news/government-shutdown-delays-launch-of-new-tech-products/)
-
Many countries have highly regulated prices on essential procedures like imaging. For this reason an MRI in Japan a few years ago cost around $99
The US is strongly against the spread of government regulation which it views as sort of akin to a contagion. Like an illness. Which is why we and the EU and a few other nations created the WTO which has largely halted the spread of public health care by creating new entitlements that blocked expansion of public services by defining "public services' so very narrowly (http://members.iinet.net.au/~jenks/GATS_BC2001.html) that almost none qualify. If they don't then they are subjected to all sorts of Byzantine rules.
An MRI that costs $3000 here might cost $50 in another country.
Had an MRI on my spine about 6 years ago prior to having a percutaneous discectomy.
MRI facility billed insurance company $2,700.
Insurance company paid $625.
Now, we know the MRI facility at a minimum "broke even" on their expenses at $625 (if not, they'd go out of business)
If I didn't have insurance, I would have to pay $2,700.
To me, that is criminal.
I can understand some level of 'discount' to a provider, due to streamlined billing, etc... but a 75% discount?
Actually I've always negotiated as a cash patient because using my insurance costs MORE. CT scan for instance was $1400, As a cash patient I got it done for $300.
-
If the medical profession was willing to return to curing health problems, which would require more time, (differential diagnosis) and getting to the root of what was causing things like 'pain' which has a purpose, telling us some problem needs attention, that would be very helpful.
Its my understanding that doctors are now under so much time pressure from HMOs to work faster that they basically only get a few minutes with each patient.
That has led to them basically being forced to give up even trying to find, say what is causing pain.
Plus they are forced to sign agreements (physician gag clauses and their ilk) to not discuss tests or treatments - even ones that they know would be necessary or helpful unless the insurer has approved that discussion in advance to be within the scope of the plan that the customer's or their employer's plan pays for.. (group plans get a lot more lattitude to cover less because of a law, ERISA that allows insurers to as long as it meets a locally different 'standard of care' for that geographical area. Sort of an lowest common denominator. As long as the insurer's reductions in care are not faster than the reductions applied to that standard of care, they cant be sued for failure to treat a problem. As long as its a plan thats part of an employee benefit, not an individual plan. At least thats how I remember it as being when last I read about this, decades ago but I doubt greatly if it has changed. ERISA Section 514)
SO what is required as far as treatment is heavily influenced by geographic area, it varies from the new bare minimum thats always lower than it was before to "modern medicine" (only a few areas of the US get consistently high standards of care applied in their most expensive health care plans) Where you live and how much you pay determines what the medico-legal "standard of care" level is in the US. Its often a lot less care than people from elsewhere are used to. Even when they are supposedly getting the best "Cadillac plan" care that US healthcare has to offer, Europeans with sick family members that depend on some important treatment sometimes come here to take 'dream jobs' and end up going right back home, turning down the dream job, because the "best available" healthcare a family member was getting here, literally from the best, most advanced hospitals and doctors was inferior enough in some crucial aspect to prompt a decision to pass on the dream job, even after making the move with a family, because it was somehow 'wrong'.
One thing thats increasingly absent in the HMOs is differential diagnosis.
With a lot of illnesses, determining what is causing the problem is a process of elimination. A doctor is trained to try to eliminate the most likely diagnoses systematically until they find the cause of the problem, then treat it. But the HMOs are forcing them to just give up and attempt to make a guess as to what it is if its very likely to be that, otherwise, just treat symptoms. If a symptom is pain, I dont know what they do. I doubt if its try to find the cause of the pain, unless it literally falls into their laps. That kind of patient would be well advised to leave the US to get healthcare somewhere else that could get to the root of the problem and fix it, because nobody should live in pain, and pain killers are not a solution either, fixing whatever is causing the pain is.
Sometimes they could make very big mistakes, doing it like that. Rather than fix the system, they are constantly under pressure from HMOs to do less and less and any doctor who doesn't like that has to draw the line and with most kinds of insurance, those two lines don't meet.
Now the US is trying to force other countries into becoming more like us.
We should realize that the system we're pushing is a crime and that denying people care they need is not just hurting, its unnecessarily killing people.
The Pharmaceutical industry has moved away from developing drugs that cure to those the treat problems and it make sense that they have. Why spend a lot of money to develop a drug that, in a matter of weeks or months, cures a problem and ends the payments when you can develop drugs that treat the problem but don't cure it. With the second approach you customer provides a constant cash flow for the rest of there lives.
One of the big problems we face is the fact that more and more of our antibiotics no longer work as they have in the past as the bugs adapt. Several large pharmaceuticals began a development program to address this but they canceled the program because, well, why develop a cure when you can hook your customer for life treating the problem instead.
Speaks volumes about how the unrestrained capitalist approach works, and doesn't work.
Brian
-
Which reminds me..
Solutions to those multidrug resistant bugs are out there. They just lie in the world of plants. And would require we recognize the fact that Nature was/is the source of most medicine. Not man. The drug industry just hates things it can't monopolize. They would rather people remain sick than get better without paying them. We cant let them do that.
A drug company exec (an oasis of sanity in that industry) once told me exactly what you just said, informed by figures, startling figures about how little most Rx drugs cost to make.
Biotech /medicine/drugs should be more like electronics where the benefits of mass production and the economies of scale are passed on more. Instead people are being milked for every last dollar now, at least here in the US. Its just insane. I have heard so many really horrible stories - you start to burn out and not even register any more. So many people are dying because they don't get treatment which should be so very cheap, but they cant afford it. Even generic drugs that literally cost pennies long off patent cost hundreds of dollars if you don't have health insurance which costs hundreds or thousands of dollars a month.
Which adds absolutely no value. All it does is insulate the politicians from responsibility. And ensure that nobody besides the wealthiest people get modern health care in countries that adhere to its core tenets.. a rigid ideology.
-
So backing up to the original topic, I went on two commercial flights this week which involves dealing with TSA. There were warnings about long waits but in both locations things were actually moving along faster than I've experienced since before 9/11. TSA was running on a skeleton crew, with the whole process being expedited. Didn't have to take my shoes off, didn't have to stop in the naked body scanner, the theatrical aspect was virtually gone. Just put my bag through the xray machine and walk through a metal detector almost like old times. Given the fact that since its inception TSA has never caught even one terrorist and that the locked cockpit doors which are one of the few actual improvements to security to come out of all this were unaffected, so far the government shutdown has actually benefited me. I would be all in favor of permanently cutting off funding to TSA and abolishing the whole organization or funding it just enough to keep things at the current far more efficient level without all the needless groping and theater. Any intelligent person who flies often can see that it's almost all for show and there are many holes in the process which are easily exploited.
Locked cockpit doors combined with everyone now realizing that there are people out there wanting to hijack an aircraft to use it as a weapon rather than as leverage for some political cause makes it virtually impossible for another 9/11 to occur. We should be looking to prevent the next type of attack somebody thinks up rather than reactively trying to prevent those that have already happened.
-
So backing up to the original topic, I went on two commercial flights this week which involves dealing with TSA. There were warnings about long waits but in both locations things were actually moving along faster than I've experienced since before 9/11.
I'm waiting to see what happens when the air traffic controllers disappear...
-
That would be a bigger mess for sure, I'm not advocating continuing the shutdown by any means but it did provide a nice relief from the TSA stupidity.
-
Don't worry the Canadians are buying them pizza ;)
-
So backing up to the original topic, I went on two commercial flights this week which involves dealing with TSA. There were warnings about long waits but in both locations things were actually moving along faster than I've experienced since before 9/11.
I'm waiting to see what happens when the air traffic controllers disappear...
There's history to look at for this one, assuming someone in the Trump administration is aware of history:
In 1981 Air Traffic Controllers went on strike over contracts, which ended with Ronald Reagan firing over 11000 of them, with a lifetime ban on rehiring (Clinton reversed that in 1993, but only about 800 ever came back). Which of course didn't solve the controller problem...all the supervisors had to return to active duty, everyone left worked long hours, and a lot of military controllers were installed at civilian airports for years while massive numbers of new hires were trained for the job.
So one option for Trump would be to install a bunch of paid(!) military controllers to fill operational needs. Which wouldn't solve the shutdown, but it would keep things running.
-
So one option for Trump would be to install a bunch of paid(!) military controllers to fill operational needs. Which wouldn't solve the shutdown, but it would keep things running.
I hope Trump is this knowledgeable? I think the existing flight controllers would be wise to strategist making things as difficult as possible to help keep their jobs, yet make their pain be felt if they observe this history.
-
They should prioritize spending by statistical likelihood of it impacting real people. So what that would mean is lots more money to find solutions that address big threats to lots of people, like eliminating as many pollutants as possible, finding causes of cancers, getting dangerous chemicals out of products, improving the quality of drinking water and finding better forms of power generation, and investing more money in resources that promote lifelong learning, eliminating various financial frauds and white collar crime, also making it possible for people to have more financial and job security, more public transportation, better roads and improving the quality of life. It should be legal to spend that miney here in the US creating jobs for Americans, we shouldn't be forced to outsource or offshore that spending if another nations corporations paid their workers just two or three dollars a day, they should not get the work simply because they are cheaper. Instead tax money should be able to create green jobs (https://www.iatp.org/blog/201602/obama-undermines-climate-efforts-in-solar-trade-dispute) for unemployed Americans. Now that is FTA-illegal! The US should not have brought (https://content.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2016/02/world-trade-organization-undermines-homegrown-solar-energy-india) the suit in the WTO (https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/456r_e.htm) against India's homegrown solar energy program, that we won, two years ago, that made it clear helping your own nationals get jobs with your own tax money, was prohibited behavior. (Unless its a secret type program, then it seems it may be clear that a national security exemption applies) Otherwise, it may be up for grabs and because of high minimum wages in developed countries the work is likely to go elsewhere. Maybe this is why we see so little infrastructure spending?
I'm not saying we shouldn't have a military but resorting to the military should be a last resort, when diplomacy has failed, and a real emergency looms. It also should be there in emergencies, that should be one of its primary uses, helping save lives in extreme, emergency situations. For example, in huge storms, earthquakes, etc. they should be able to help.
We should never be working behind the scenes to further goals that are contradictory to the public interest or to the values we stand for. That should be forbidden in the Constitution and any deals struck that cancel out the benefits of our democracy should automatically be void in advance. This would mean that trade agreement provisions which cancel out gains made in banking and health care regulation, that currently threaten to erase literally all the gains made in the last 21 years would not be hanging over us. So called "ratchet" "standstill" and "rollback" caused by WTO provisions would be eliminated.
This would mean that as it was in the past, corporations and foreign investors would be encouraged to buy commercial "all risk" insurance to indemnify them instead of being able to sanction our government for behaving responsibly by putting the peoples needs above multinational corporations.
No protests could be lodged by other countries simply because a law changed policy in any way unless it caused a crime against people's lives. It would be recognized again that governments function was to govern, in a balanced manner, not simply guard the interests of MNCs.
ISDS and similar trojan horse clauses and torts like 'indirect expropriation' should cease to exist. When candidates run for office, they should actually be able to make promises that could be implemented. If they promise that XYZ would happen or would not happen it would not be a joke on the nation that could never come true.
Then we could fix innumerable things that cannot be fixed today because of hidden constraints that virtually nobody knows exist.
Similarly we shouldn't be able to force bad policy changes on other nations. We should respect other nation's voters wishes as well as respect our own. This would be a big change as that has not been the case for more than two decades.
If we did these things, there would be no need for huge dramatic distractions as people could read budgets secure in the knowledge that what was said was actually what was meant, and not trying to ascertain what was happening behind the smoke and mirrors.
-
Air traffic control is one of those things I think should be given absolutely top priority, since without it our whole economy would likely grind to a halt. ATC is every bit as important as our military, I almost think it is something that should just be handled by the military or something of similar nature.
-
Air traffic control is one of those things I think should be given absolutely top priority, since without it our whole economy would likely grind to a halt. ATC is every bit as important as our military, I almost think it is something that should just be handled by the military or something of similar nature.
They do that in some other countries, but comes with its own set of difficulties and risks. Messing with a working system this vital seems irresponsible anyway. New people aren't going to be as good right away, no matter how trained.
-
Of course it comes with problems, I'm not saying we should just switch over all at once, but it seems like a good way to set it up in the first place and something that we could gradually transition to. Right now they could figure out a way to pay them the same way other essential branches of the government are funded.
-
The best way to fund your government is put a pair of balls on McConnell but only if you can find him first :palm:
Using 'contingencies' is not a solution it's a poor workaround.
(https://flavorwire.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/6-mcconnell-toby.jpg)
-
Airlines could get together and give traffic controllers zero percent loans, sure a tiny percentage would be delinquent when they get their backpay, but nowhere near enough to justify losses from disruption.
-
Airlines could get together and give traffic controllers zero per cent loans, sure a tiny percentage would be delinquent when they get their back pay, but nowhere near enough to justify losses from disruption.
Thats an interesting idea. Maybe the airlines could jsut take over and privately operate the air space.
-
Consequences were becoming ever more serious, and everyone could see it. The most likely possibilities were that Trump would cave or the Senate would cave and overrule the president. There were signs that the latter was going to happen before long, so Trump caved first. Crisis averted, at least for the next three weeks. Somehow, I don't think even Trump will try this particular leverage tactic again, now that he's found out it's a no-win scenario.
-
TSA is nothing but airport security theatrics. Very costly, but making some large government lobbyist contractors $ billions at the expense of everyone else on the planet.
I hope Trump keeps up with refusing to pay these shitty federal bureaucratic non-jobbers and they go and fuck off and try and find a real job at McBurgers instead. It seems the USA is running so much better without them. :-DD Yeehaw!
(Of course they are all getting paid and are getting a massive free holiday in reality. Only a fucking smackhead would be getting government money "furloughed" not able to cope for a few months by using their savings or credit)
-
You're showing your ignorance (acceptable, since you are not in the USA) combined with a high level of venom from whatever source (not so acceptable).
TSA is nothing but airport security theatrics. Very costly, but making some large government lobbyist contractors $ billions at the expense of everyone else on the planet.
I agree it's largely theatrics. However, it exists, it makes some people feel safer, and it causes long lines at airports.
If the TSA staff were contractors, rather than federal employees, they a) would not be forced to work during the shutdown and b) would not get paid for monies lost during the shutdown.
While we're on the subject, there are LOTS of actual federal contractors who have had to lay off staff during the last month, as they hadn't even been paid for recent work completed prior to the shutdown. This is a larger group than the federal employees affected, and they were NOT getting a free vacation, no matter how you look at it.
However, the critical issue at airports wasn't the TSA, it was the inadequate staffing levels of controllers at FAA TRACONs. They found themselves unable to handle the normal level of traffic and had to slow down flights with ground stops this morning. These are the guys who make sure nobody flies into anyone else by accident.
-
TSA is nothing but airport security theatrics. Very costly, but making some large government lobbyist contractors $ billions at the expense of everyone else on the planet.
I hope Trump keeps up with refusing to pay these shitty federal bureaucratic non-jobbers and they go and fuck off and try and find a real job at McBurgers instead. It seems the USA is running so much better without them. :-DD Yeehaw!
(Of course they are all getting paid and are getting a massive free holiday in reality. Only a fucking smackhead would be getting government money "furloughed" not able to cope for a few months by using their savings or credit)
When I worked for the (Oz) government, my answer to people who "got in my face" about being a "bludging Government worker", was :-
"How did you get your job?"
Their reply was usually:-
"I saw it advertised, & I applied for it."
Me:
"So did I".
There may be countries where you have to be members of some particular "in" group" to get a government job, but in Australia, (at least, back in those days) it was not the case
In the late 1980s there was a lot of "public servant" bashing in the media.
The public image of govt employees was of someone who sat around being pampered by "tea ladies" like "Sir Humphrey" in
"Yes, Minister"----a fictional character, for Pete's sake!
Telecom Aust started cutting staff, so those of us who were left had to do everybody else's job.
After a while, buzzing back & forth to various TV sites like a demented taxi driver got a bit old, so I "pulled the plug" & went to the Private Sector.
Would you believe it, they had real tea ladies, & the Company paid for the tea, milk,& sugar!
Various folk muttered darkly:-
"You'll really have to work hard, now, not like the govt".
When I remarked that it seemed just about the same, the comment was:-
"This is just the 'honeymoon' period, it'll kick in soon!"
Well, ten years later, when I left that job, it still hadn't "kicked in"!
I was never a "smackhead", but I never had a job that paid well enough that, with a family & a mortgage,* I could go without pay for thirty odd days, without having to look for another job.
You may be fortunate, & have a lot of savings, but that is not a universal experience.
Most people are only a few pays away from the "cardboard box on the side of the road".
* I did, indeed take a furlough, back in the early 1970s, when I was single with no responsibilities, but that was planned, & budgeted for.
-
TSA is nothing but airport security theatrics. Very costly, but making some large government lobbyist contractors $ billions at the expense of everyone else on the planet.
TSA are federal employees. Before 9/11, airport security was done by contractors, which was later prohibited and the TSA created to do their job instead.
So as much as corruption, ahem, “lobbying” is responsible for many ills, airport security is, if anything, a counterexample.
-
TSA was created because in the chaos after 9/11 the public demanded that the government "do something" to prevent another attack, so it exists as a public show to make people feel safer. The fact that TSA has failed nearly every publicized test, never caught even one terrorist and cost billions of dollars while hassling millions of people does not sway some people's opinion of their lack of value. I was impressed by just how much more smoothly the whole operation seemed to run during the shutdown. I was expecting chaos and long delays but it was quite the opposite.
There are numerous holes in the system making it obvious that it's just theater. If one wanted to get around the limitation on the amount of liquid one can carry on board there's nothing stopping 20 people buying the cheapest tickets they can find to whatever destination, passing through security and then pooling all the stuff each individual carried through and assembling whatever nefarious device in any number of locations within the terminal. If one wanted a weapon, you can't carry knives on board but you can carry sharp scissors which are easily disassembled into two knives. Or fly in from one of those little podunk airports that doesn't have the body scanners, the last time I returned from a small town it occurred to me that I was inside the secured area in SeaTac having bypassed the whole security show with a 40 minute flight from Bend. For those with more budget, international flights also bypass TSA.
Before anyone flips out that I'm providing terrorists with ideas, I'll just point out that this is all really obvious stuff that any schmuck who has flown somewhere would notice if they were looking for exploits.
-
Before anyone flips out that I'm providing terrorists with ideas, I'll just point out that this is all really obvious stuff that any schmuck who has flown somewhere would notice if they were looking for exploits.
I think you are over estimating terrorists here. Imagine you'd want to find security holes like these in a foreign country you have never visited before. How would you find them?
-
Terrorism is for the most part committed by people living in or at lest being very familiar with the country in which they commit the crime. Take for example the IRA in Northern Ireland, ETA, the 2011 Norway attack, or even the 9/11 hijackers.
-
Before anyone flips out that I'm providing terrorists with ideas, I'll just point out that this is all really obvious stuff that any schmuck who has flown somewhere would notice if they were looking for exploits.
I think you are over estimating terrorists here. Imagine you'd want to find security holes like these in a foreign country you have never visited before. How would you find them?
Easy, you would spend time in that country, you would have operatives run test operations, you would do your homework. You are greatly underestimating terrorists here. How many terrorist attacks can you list that were committed by people who had never visited the country they were attacking? Operations like Al Qaida and ISIS are very well funded and well organized with operatives living in numerous countries. The 9/11 hijackers that created this whole mess had spent years living and working in the US. They were educated and intelligent, well funded and took the time to research and meticulously plan what unfortunately was an extremely successful attack accomplishing everything they could have hoped for and more. As a result we spent countless billions of dollars, became mired in multiple expensive wars that are still ongoing, gave up freedoms and have changed our lifestyle in the name of being safer. People too easily forget that terrorism isn't about killing people, it's about making them afraid. They succeeded, they won. Terrorists are very rarely isolated individuals acting alone on a shoestring budget against a nation they know little about.
-
Before anyone flips out that I'm providing terrorists with ideas, I'll just point out that this is all really obvious stuff that any schmuck who has flown somewhere would notice if they were looking for exploits.
I think you are over estimating terrorists here. Imagine you'd want to find security holes like these in a foreign country you have never visited before. How would you find them?
Easy, you would spend time in that country, you would have operatives run test operations, you would do your homework. You are greatly underestimating terrorists here. How many terrorist attacks can you list that were committed by people who had never visited the country they were attacking? Operations like Al Qaida and ISIS are very well funded and well organized with operatives living in numerous countries.
So we agree: it takes a massive coordinated effort and funding so chances are high that people get caught before they can execute their devious plans. It is not just a single person flying in at the morning to execute a terrorist attack in the afternoon.
-
Chances are hopefully high that they get caught, but here's the thing, they don't get caught by TSA, they get caught by good old fashioned police and intelligence work. Indeed numerous plots have been foiled since 9/11, the number of those where TSA played a part in foiling them? Zero. As I've already stated, TSA is security theater, the real security goes on behind the scenes, mostly not in the airports.
-
Chances are hopefully high that they get caught, but here's the thing, they don't get caught by TSA, they get caught by good old fashioned police and intelligence work. Indeed numerous plots have been foiled since 9/11, the number of those where TSA played a part in foiling them? Zero. As I've already stated, TSA is security theater, the real security goes on behind the scenes, mostly not in the airports.
There's a fair bit of evidence the number of plots foiled isn't actually as large as portrayed, but who can resist appearing more effective and worthwhile?
-
Chances are hopefully high that they get caught, but here's the thing, they don't get caught by TSA, they get caught by good old fashioned police and intelligence work. Indeed numerous plots have been foiled since 9/11, the number of those where TSA played a part in foiling them? Zero. As I've already stated, TSA is security theater, the real security goes on behind the scenes, mostly not in the airports.
There's a fair bit of evidence the number of plots foiled isn't actually as large as portrayed, but who can resist appearing more effective and worthwhile?
Indeed.
"Today we foiled a plot but we can't tell you anything about it because, you know, secrets. But we assure you it's all for your own safety. Now please give us more money and methods to spy on people, etc."
:-\
-
Really glad for the workers will actually get some relief from this BS regardless of their jobs. At least this about decides who isn't getting elected as big cheese in 2020 unless 36% becomes the new majority ::)
If you take a slightly longer term look at Terrorisim in the USA the actual number of incidents (not just the numbers of deaths or injuries) you are more likely to be in the path of a White Male of some sort of Christian upbringing. 9/11 was obviously a huge thing and I would never try and diminish it but prior to 2001 in particular this is overwhelmingly the case. When the USA commenced the 'War on Terror' this only shifted the numbers to maybe 50/50 Muslim to Christian with most still being US citizens?
That is before you even get to your tragic mass (and single) shootings which don't fall under terrorism but claim so many more lives per year. :'(
-
Well yes, but all of these things combined are dwarfed by the number of people killed due to distracted driving. Deaths involving mobile phone use while driving exceeded deaths caused by intoxicated driving a couple years ago and continue to increase. More people are killed by swimming pools than by terrorists of all types.
It illustrates a quirk in the way the human mind works. People fear shark attacks despite the fact that the odds of being a victim of one are tiny. They think nothing of climbing into a car and blasting down the highway with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other despite the fact that driving cars kills some 50,000 people a year. That's a fully loaded airliner worth of people every single day.
The common flu kills some 20,000 a year in the USA alone. Then there is obesity, heart disease, smoking, etc.
-
Certain kinds of government spending have guaranteed profit margins built in to them. Other things are increasingly supposed to be farmed out to the lowest bidders, wherever they are, even if outside the US.
Thats why some kinds of things get more and more tax money appropriated to them and many other kinds of things get neglected and/or privatized.
-
TSA was created because in the chaos after 9/11 the public demanded that the government "do something" to prevent another attack, so it exists as a public show to make people feel safer. The fact that TSA has failed nearly every publicized test, never caught even one terrorist and cost billions of dollars while hassling millions of people does not sway some people's opinion of their lack of value. I was impressed by just how much more smoothly the whole operation seemed to run during the shutdown. I was expecting chaos and long delays but it was quite the opposite.
There are numerous holes in the system making it obvious that it's just theater. If one wanted to get around the limitation on the amount of liquid one can carry on board there's nothing stopping 20 people buying the cheapest tickets they can find to whatever destination, passing through security and then pooling all the stuff each individual carried through and assembling whatever nefarious device in any number of locations within the terminal. If one wanted a weapon, you can't carry knives on board but you can carry sharp scissors which are easily disassembled into two knives. Or fly in from one of those little podunk airports that doesn't have the body scanners, the last time I returned from a small town it occurred to me that I was inside the secured area in SeaTac having bypassed the whole security show with a 40 minute flight from Bend. For those with more budget, international flights also bypass TSA.
Before anyone flips out that I'm providing terrorists with ideas, I'll just point out that this is all really obvious stuff that any schmuck who has flown somewhere would notice if they were looking for exploits.
What irritates me about TSA is that they claim it's stopped terrorists, but they refuse to release any statistics or proof, expecting us to take their word for it. I'd be a lot more inclined to accept the indignities of airport security if we actually knew it was doing something. But as you say, what little we do know is evidence of it being useless security theater.
-
US Government spending dropped only 7% during the shutdown.
When you have a large budget to protect and somebody reduces that budget by 7%, the last thing you would do is curtail any inessential services. You would only curtail the most essential services, to cause the biggest hullaballoo possible. This will convince the public to reinstate that 7%. If you curtailed the useless things such as regulation of foodstuffs or whatnot, then nobody would even notice and you'd lose 7% of your budget.
Nick
-
What irritates me about TSA is that they claim it's stopped terrorists, but they refuse to release any statistics or proof, expecting us to take their word for it. I'd be a lot more inclined to accept the indignities of airport security if we actually knew it was doing something. But as you say, what little we do know is evidence of it being useless security theater.
Isn't that the case with most of it? Various agencies and programs also claim successes and attacks prevented, but when pressed for verifiable numbers or proof it's denied on the grounds of it being secret. Even if they're telling the truth, the behaviour lines up with that of a classic con man. These agencies have gotten far reaching powers, yet don't do anything to show they're employing them responsibly nor have an incentive to do so. There's no way that won't get us in trouble.
We're not even talking about how some programs, policies and strategies verifiably foster and breed terrorism, but that's another discussion.
-
There are enough people out there who hate us that it wouldn't surprise me if there were occasional plots being foiled. Personally I suspect the various terrorist cells are taking a break to let things pan out, they already accomplished their goal with 9/11, we're still bleeding money, we're still suffering great inconvenience, we're still mired in multiple wars that have cost far more lives and money than the 9/11 attacks did and still have no exit plan. I said years ago that they're probably going to wait until we've spent all the money we're going to spend on fancy body scanners and such, wound down the wars and become complacent again, then they'll try something different to get everybody worked up again.
-
There are enough people out there who hate us that it wouldn't surprise me if there were occasional plots being foiled. Personally I suspect the various terrorist cells are taking a break to let things pan out, they already accomplished their goal with 9/11, we're still bleeding money, we're still suffering great inconvenience, we're still mired in multiple wars that have cost far more lives and money than the 9/11 attacks did and still have no exit plan. I said years ago that they're probably going to wait until we've spent all the money we're going to spend on fancy body scanners and such, wound down the wars and become complacent again, then they'll try something different to get everybody worked up again.
It's probably a mistake to see "the terrorists" as a single coordinated entity, rather than a huge ideology with various parts and subcultures. However, one of the big problems is that terrorists seem to be created at a greater pace than they can be combated. That's what happens when things keep being stirred up, creating chaos and suffering. It's much easier to recruit and mislead people when they are suffering and when society isn't supporting them and keeping them on the straight and narrow. Before 9/11 there was a very small group of men out to hurt the US. It was a limited and fairly well defined group. Due to the various conflicts all over the world and the suffering caused by them it has now become an ideology. We all know you can't kill ideas. A small problem has been made into a big one and we're going to see the consequences for decades to come.
Tl;dr keep fucking with people and they'll start disliking you.
-
The world and especially entities of any kind, that are trying to force any one point of view on the rest of the planet, have to stand down! Also, acknowledge their mistakes. Failure to ever acknowledge wrongdoing or mistake creates a sort of vacuum into which extremist ideas proliferate.
A moral society cant be faked, nor can democracy or legitimate governance be faked. It has to be real, in other words, not itself be extremism, to have the effect of nullifying extremism.
This return to honesty is really needed. We have to face the fact that due to technology, the barriers to would be 'terrorists' of all kinds are falling and continue to fall. What this means is that despite the theatrics, the best, really the only way to prevent 'terrorism' is to create a global society that doesn't turn anybody into the kind of person who feels that such horrible things are permissible, or that 'the ends justify the means' in any way. Also, ambiguities in what society expects from people shouldn't be so great as to make every knowledge or power gradient 'game-able' like it is today.
Even if that greatly diminishes the profitability of raw capitalism.
Nobody should feel that they are so far above, entitled, or removed from society that they have any right to act in such a way.
But, people see such behavior every day, from the super-rich, for example. For whom a different justice system exists. They can do no wrong, while the poor - it seems in some peoples eyes, can do no right.
So, everything thats creates or permits a culture of impunity to exist, makes it harder and harder to prevent various forms of terrorism. Be it by state or non-state actors. Governments, the wealthy, and people who hold positions of advantage over others, like employers and people who hold public office or who have a fiduciary duty like legislators, bankers, lawyers, executors, and similar, especially should be held to much higher standards than anybody else when it comes to the areas they administer.
There are enough people out there who hate us that it wouldn't surprise me if there were occasional plots being foiled. Personally I suspect the various terrorist cells are taking a break to let things pan out, they already accomplished their goal with 9/11, we're still bleeding money, we're still suffering great inconvenience, we're still mired in multiple wars that have cost far more lives and money than the 9/11 attacks did and still have no exit plan. I said years ago that they're probably going to wait until we've spent all the money we're going to spend on fancy body scanners and such, wound down the wars and become complacent again, then they'll try something different to get everybody worked up again.
Follow the money.
Money is at the root of much evil.
-
There are enough people out there who hate us that it wouldn't surprise me if there were occasional plots being foiled. Personally I suspect the various terrorist cells are taking a break to let things pan out, they already accomplished their goal with 9/11, we're still bleeding money, we're still suffering great inconvenience, we're still mired in multiple wars that have cost far more lives and money than the 9/11 attacks did and still have no exit plan. I said years ago that they're probably going to wait until we've spent all the money we're going to spend on fancy body scanners and such, wound down the wars and become complacent again, then they'll try something different to get everybody worked up again.
It's probably a mistake to see "the terrorists" as a single coordinated entity, rather than a huge ideology with various parts and subcultures. However, one of the big problems is that terrorists seem to be created at a greater pace than they can be combated. That's what happens when things keep being stirred up, creating chaos and suffering. It's much easier to recruit and mislead people when they are suffering and when society isn't supporting them and keeping them on the straight and narrow. Before 9/11 there was a very small group of men out to hurt the US. It was a limited and fairly well defined group. Due to the various conflicts all over the world and the suffering caused by them it has now become an ideology. We all know you can't kill ideas. A small problem has been made into a big one and we're going to see the consequences for decades to come.
Did it occur to you that this may be a deliberate strategy of the US government? Having enemies keeps the weapons industry busy and conveniently distracts the public from internal problems. Machiavelli already outlined this strategy to keep the people quiet in his book 'il principe'.
-
Did it occur to you that this may be a deliberate strategy of the US government? Having enemies keeps the weapons industry busy and conveniently distracts the public from internal problems. Machiavelli already outlined this strategy to keep the people quiet in his book 'il principe'.
That's possible in varying degrees, but is also hard to prove and undoubtedly controversial. It's probably not quite a suitable subject for these forums.