Government Shutdown (US)

Now, rich Reps and rich Reps making money from hurting others, as in stealing/increasing their pay at the expense of others/etc, are two totally different things. The former I have no problem with, and the latter I do. Remember, I'm only leaning slightly to the Rep side, but I am still independent. I'm not completely biased!

 

Yeah, I think you're right about the deep trouble.

The pace of technological change(since the widespread use of computers, the internet and now mobile devices) has been SO fast that our social and economic systems haven't kept up. Jobs are melting away like snow off a dike, and nobody seems to know what's best to do.

As soon as there is underlying panic about the future, which I think there is now, people often start looking for simplistic solutions, like blaming identifiable groups of people, and 'hating' whoever they think is causing or compounding their problems. Gets weird fast.

 

And the problem with this line of thinking is that this is often presented being far more common than it actually is. The welfare reforms of the mid-90s took care of a lot of that. No, the programs that are being affected by the shutdown serve legitimate needs - from people with developmental disabilities to homeless to veterans to the elderly...I could go on.

 

Oh, well said, @jazzabel. Couldn't agree more.

 

Just because I don't think obese people should get disability doesn't mean I'm all fine and dandy with them not getting their checks now. I'm sorry they have no means of money since the gov shut down, I really am, because no one should be without money. They're people, too, no matter how lazy I think them to be. Did you really think I don't care about said people?

That's awful! I love everybody!

 

Only for you, @jannert. I vowed not to enter this thread...

@Lewdog, it's never as simple as all that.

Puerto Rico did not apply to become a state. Puerto Rico entered into a referendum regarding its status. Not the same thing. There are three very healthy parties here and they define themselves in large part by their opinion on status:

• The PIP wants full sovereign independence from the U.S.
• The PPD wants status quo or improved status quo.
• The PNP wants statehood.

Frankly, all of it is a red herring. PIPs go mute when you ask them what PR's economic structure would be were they to have their wish for complete independence. PPDs pray for people to stop mentioning the fact that Puerto Rico costs more to run than the entire state of California and is 1000 square miles smaller than the county of Los Angeles. PNP's ask for statehood but don't want the current governmental bureaucracy, composed of rampant, culturally accepted nepotism and 7 people doing one person's job, to be dismantled. For example: getting a drivers license in PR is an all day affair and you have to go to several un-centralized offices to get all the documents you need. For you Brits, you would be mightily impressed with how strictly the PR School of Queueing holds to the standards of HRM School of Queueing. We do you proud, us. There is also a very strong tendency for people to age through the three different parties. The PIPs (independence) are romantic and fierce in their chest beating for patria, patria, patria! They hold a deep saudade for a golden time of independence in the past that never, ever existed. It is the young person's party. You see lots of college-beard, Che tee shirts and back-packs. The PPD (status quo) is the party people join when they start to have families and find that work in PR is not so easy to come by. Suddenly la teta americana that they eschewed so heartily in their younger years becomes a necessity. And then the PNP party (statehood) is what you join when your kids leave the nest and you have time to visit your sister in the U.S. and you see a life that runs to such a cleanly regulated, choreographed rhythm compared to the controlled chaos of PR.

If one includes the Insular Cases, PR's status has been before the U.S. courts or fed gov many times. The current referendum is nothing new. Its a show, a moment at the microphone. My people love two things dearly: Drama and shootn' the shit. The referendum is the drama. But the answer to the referendum is not really what's being sought by the average PR. It's the chance at having new fodder for the daily debates and verbal battles that color the central plazas of every town across the island. That's the shoot'n the shit part.

 

Asking someone to support their claim is not "denouncing it in the face of those who believe it".

There is a difference between recognizing the effects of the world corporatocracies and claiming Obama attends secret meetings with a secret OWG cabal. There's a difference between recognizing the influence of big money on dishonest legislators and claiming the government in the US operates behind a facade that is hiding the real operations of the secret OWG operations.

This is a thread about a frustrating shut down of the US government orchestrated by a minority of right wingers among right wingers, and in essence, one man, Boehner, who can single handedly refuse to let a budget bill come to the floor of the House where it has the votes to pass. If someone makes a claim about the underlying nature of the dispute (such as that claim I just made) it's opening up that claim for discussion.

If there's any bullying going on here, it's making false accusations about the nature of challenging a posted claim.

 

What proportion of the federal budget (ie tax dollars) do you suppose is supporting welfare recipients who don't deserve that support?

 

In the state of California, plenty.

Now, about my assessment o the 18-35 crowd:

My "data" was obtained by watching three elections where I saw nothing but my peers state their political views as such... (This is in Los Angeles, CA by the way)

"I want nothing to do with it, this is stupid" or "Like oh my god, Kanye West like said to like vote for like Obama, so like I'm like totally like going to like vote for like Obama." Of course, when you ask the latter "what do you like about Mr. O's platform" the response is a bunch of pre-recorded movie star parroted gibberish, just no mind of their own. I'd rather some of these people not vote at all, than vote uninformed, which they do. Mainly because they ONLY pay attention to the presidential election. Congress? They could care less, nor of many of them even know what congress does. Many more see it as (no offense to the older crowd) a bunch of mummified old farts that are so out of touch with today's world it's not even funny, and then you have me: They are all under the control of corporate lobbyists, they don't care about anyone but themselves and their own paychecks, and even if I do vote them out, the next guy will be exactly the same, so why even bother wasting my time in line to punch a card for some other senator. Because, in the end, ALL politicians are liars, not a single one has ever lived up to their multi-million dollar campaign ads, oh and did I mention every law passed is about their own paycheck?

 

As a Scot living in England I've had to hold my tongue a lot, especally when this referendum is brought up in conversation. I'm really hoping Scotland votes 'yes' too, I'm just hoping I can move myself to Scotland in good time to join the succession party.

Question for everyone on this thread, as this is a word that keeps being pushed around when American politics is brought up. What is democracy? As far as I can tell America doesn't actually have one.

 

*sigh* While I agree with most of your statement, there's one that just ruffles me like nothing else. "Obesity is an illness..." No, no its not. There are illnesses that CAUSE obesity, there are illnesses that have obesity as a SYMPTOM, but obesity itself is not an illness. How can I say that while some mainstream professionals disagree? Because I'm FAT. Because I am OBESE. And it's 100% my fault that I am where I am, despite the fact that I suffered with depression and anxiety and self-image issues. And you know what that cure is for obesity? Eating right. Exercise. If something else like your thyroids is causing you to gain weight, then you don't have an illness called obesity, you have a thyroid dysfunction. */end rant

So, I'm of the mind to agree with Harley Q. While I think everyone should pay taxes and such, I'm not necessarily sure why the rich should have to pay more money into a system that is failing. I don't feel that it's right that my money supports people who won't get off their butts to exercise, when I struggle just to pay my rent every month. I don't feel that it's okay that a woman can pop out 5 babies and expect to be completely supported by the state. If I'm waiting to have kids so that I can afford them, why does my hard earned money go to someone who is unwilling to lift a finger to help themselves?

Our system is broken. And I have no idea how to fix it. Anyone have any ideas?

 

In the US right now, we do not have a democracy. We need three things to get it back that I don't expect to see in my lifetime, though I do hope at least the pendulum will soon start to swing back the other way.

We need to teach media literacy in schools. Right now the importance of concept isn't widely recognized. As long as people can be fed repetitive slogans and talking points that then become their reality democracy will be an illusion.

I agree with KaTrian's comment wholeheartedly:

The second thing we need is for the influence of big money to be curtailed. (We are a long way from that ever happening.)

And the third thing is to seriously address gerrymandering and the imbalance in the Senate where minority populations have disproportionate representation.


I would also say we need a functional news media but currently the information is out there on the Net if people just had media literacy skills. That access is threatened, however, as more and more for profit corporations vie to control access and eliminate the bit of Net Neutrality we have left.

 

I ask you the same thing I asked Harley Q, just what proportion of the government funding do you believe is misspent in this way?

 

No country in the world has a true democracy. The best thing anyone has is a representative democracy. There are pros and cons to both, and I can see why, for practical reasons, countries choose to go with a representative democracy instead of a pure democracy.

 

But we don't even have that, thirdwind. Right now in the US a small minority has disproportionate power because they are misusing the system and not being stopped.

Harry Reid didn't change the filibuster rules, he should have, the filibuster is being abused. And Obama can order that trillion dollar coin minted to override the refusal to raise the debt limit. I do hope he does if it comes down to that or letting the minority trash the whole economy.

 

@TessaT: I'm a doctor by profession, and am not using those words lightly. Also, there is no 'cure' for obesity other than in people with underlying conditions, which can be treated, such as hypothyroidism, or replacing someone's bad hip so they can exercise again. Everyone else who has an inborn tendency to put on a lot of weight has to work much, much harder then naturally lower weight people, at achieving 'normality'. In that sense, obesity in itself is an illness, albeit a complex one that can be managed, more or less successfully, by a lifestyle change. But not a 'normal' lifestyle, but rather extreme one.

The definition of 'illness' can be broad or narrow, changing or static, depending on place and time. There are numerous pieces of evidence that suggest that some people are obese because of their genetics, others because their gut flora became of a certain type or even because they were infected by certain viruses, others still due to permanent change in their metabolism. There are others whose past history of trauma or depression or anxiety, caused weight gain. There is a very important interplay between psyche, neurology and immunology that modern medicine is only now coming to understand. Certainly, high cortisol from increased and chronic stress and lack of sleep puts on weight just like exogenous steroids such as prednisolone, and people have been known to gain up to a 100 pounds on that medication, previously fit and healthy people. So there are people whose medication is causing it.

On the other hand, there are also numerous suggestions that come out of neurological research that suggest an abnormality in appetite and satiety regulation plays a part in some people. Politics of drug companies would have you believe that it's all fat people's fault, because they have no self-control, but I grew up with a mother who is an ex-ballerina, eating like a miner come from work, at least 3000 calories most days, never over 72 kg. Hasn't exercised since she was 18 years old. Her father was the same. I on the other hand picked up genes from my dad, who eats barely 1500 cal a day, also played sport, like me (tennis, handball, yoga, aerobics, weights etc) and we have to watch what we eat religiously, and exercise every day, or we can gain 20 pounds over Christmas. To compare people who never had a weight problem, and eat quite a bit, don't exercise etc and others who have to go to extreme lengths to have a normal BMI and simply say that the latter are lazy and responsible for not being 'normal' suggests blame culture and thorough lack of understanding of the issues involved. My profession is as guilty of it as anyone else.

The way I see it, there's room for improvement in people's understanding of what obesity is. There's obviously room for improvement in treatments of it. And then, there's room for improvement in understanding that there are heavy people who are naturally that way, and are no more unhealthy than a normal weight person, because they have no complications from their weight, and that it is the complications and overall fitness, body fat percentage, abdominal fat etc. rather than exact BMI score that matter.

I didn't mean to write a massive comment, but once I started it just snowballed. Let's not have a protracted discussion about this, because the thread is for something else What I really wanted to say is that obesity that causes disability (because that's what we were discussing) is a medical condition that shouldn't be discriminated against, but is, and that's wrong. As you illustrated, first it's the fat people, then it's single mothers with more than how many kids, 2? 3? 11? that are not acceptable, then it's the foreigners, and then the elderly, and economic discrimination just keeps going, always attacking the vulnerable members of the society. None of us know why is that fat person fat. But them being fat makes them an easy target to pick on. /end of my rant too

 

Well hey, thanks, Wrey! That's more interesting than I expected. So you think it's all going to come to nothing then, that it's just a lot of hot air? Interesting...

 

I don't see what that has to do with health care reform. Health care reform isn't primarily about people who _don't_ work, it's much more about people who do work, often work very hard, having access to one of the most basic resources of society.

Someone who works forty or sixty hours a week should have access to health care for themselves and their children, whether or not they work for minimum wage. Someone who used to work forty or sixty hours a week and has lost that job , but saved money, should be able to use a _modest_ amount of that money to get health care for themselves and their children, rather than being bankrupted by the first health issue.

Do I also think that those who can't work and those who have no savings should have access to health care? Absolutely. But even if I didn't, I wouldn't think that depriving them of health care was important enough to deprive the working poor.

 

Ugh, so much liberalism in this thread. All this warm-and-fuzzy, can't-we-all-just-get-along attitude.

Remember the quote from Don Quixote:

“In the shadow of feigned cripples and false wounds come the strong arms of thieves and very healthy drunkards.”

It's so easy to think that those who work hard should subsidize those who don't. It's a feel-good attitude.

It also doesn't work and it's wrong. Reagan said the purpose of welfare programs should be to work toward eliminating the need for them. Whatever happened to the whole 'teach a man to fish' mantra?

When the first pilgrims landed in America, they tried giving to everyone equal no matter the work and it lead to people not working. And why would you? If a nameless, faceless benefactor is going to meet your needs, why would you break your back working the ground?

The whole premise is just wrong.

 

In my humble and idealized opinion, the real problem with America, one that predates our nation and exists around the world (though at more rapid rates in part do to Western industrialization and globalization), is one spawned of an incomplete world view, which is something exists as a cancer in humanity. Concepts like greed, selfishness have their roots in their desire to possess. We have lost are ability to partake of the benefits of the world and appreciate the for the ill-conceived notion that we can somehow possess it. We see Individuality as a function separate from unity. We do not truly understand the importance of brotherhood and community or the value of everyone looking out for each other because we are afraid that we will fall if we do not look out for ourselves.

That is not to say that industrialization and human advancement are "good" or "bad"; it is what is it. The result has been further detachment from natural, harmonious, communal existence with the world and each other. We see ourselves as above nature, somehow separate from it, somehow separate from each other. Everything in this planet coexists by taking only what it needs as by it's nature. Everythig works in a harmonious system, except us. But again, that is a process that has been at work since long, Long before the modern era.

Life has become more of a competition, based on a sort of social Darwinism. Today one needs to adopt said concepts in order to "succeed" in the flourishing social construct; however, in so doing one becomes slaves to money--which is an imaginary construct that has no natural backing at this point. But we don't see that. Instead of all of us sharing the waterhole we've decided that things run more smoothly if a few people own it and manage it and decide when and how much we can drink (because we've also lost our sense of discipline and limiting). We forget ourselves.

That said, I've met my moral homily quota. This is merely the way I see the world, and I know there are a number of people will disagree and point out failed logic. To them I reply, live what I've lived, learn what I've learned, or be at peace in our differences.

This is not to say I am better than anyone or live better or see better, only differently, and from my perspective, the world would be much better off if we all did our own work to put into society, and were all free to take what we need (with the idealistic self control to avoid taking more than one needs as per the law of nature). We're all in this together.

 

^^^(sorry about the repost, I just wanted to make my point more thorough and clear, but the edit wasn't working.)

 

I don't know, I find this makes me think 'No true Scotsman'. Here in my side of the pond we have a national health care and people work, they work because they can better themselves. No one is happy, or should be happy with a bare minimum existence, that's just boring. Having a national health care means you also don't have as much of a threat of what has been called 'wage slavery'. Here the NHS is nothing but a good thing, and any argument against such a system over there sometimes seems frankly impenetrable to me.

 

...so put your hands out and wait for someone else to improve your lot in life.

It's funny how many liberals will extol nature and evolution about how 'perfect' it is, and then go completely against it for our own species. It's silly.

My thoughts?

Let the weak die, and hope they don't reproduce before they do.

 

That's the most un-christian thing I've ever read from you, JJ.

 

Damn, that's a bit harsh, isn't it? Besides, what is "weak" and who decides on the definition?