Terrorists break into US Capitol Building

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flap

This is mostly untrue. There were numerous other nations that abolished slavery before the USA. Starting in the 1300's. People knew it was wrong, there's no excuse.

---

What?

List out all the countries when they actually abolished slavery and the year.

Quote:

---

I'm not going to use the R word here. I'm just going to point out that you didn't suggest any solution. I disagree that any "culture" has a victimhood mentality. Even if they did, what are you going to do to change their culture without spending a lot of tax money on it?

I don't want to rob anyone, but I DO think that people like Bezos should pay their fair share of taxes. I also think it's disingenuous of you to keep saying this or that isn't going to create a utopia. The lack of the existence of a perfect society is not an excuse to not try to improve our own. I'm just talking about trying harder to reduce things that shouldn't exist in a first world nation: starvation, homelessness, lack of medical care.

---

Question: How much did Jeff Bezos pay in taxes in 2020?

Answer: The exact amount he was required to pay via the tax laws of every country.

If you believe he didn't pay enough in taxes, then have Congress change the 60,000+ bloated US tax code.

Quote:

---

I think it's more accurate to say that healthcare being tied to employment is what RULES people. There's a reason the term "wage slave" exists.

---

Healthcare being tied to employment is not where "wage slave" came from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet

Bro…do you just read something and than reinterpret in your head whatever you want to hear?

I never advocated for the end of all welfare programs. I stated to keep them appropriately minimal. If someone has fallen on hard times and needs help, than by all means I think it’s appropriate for the government to help where we have the resources to do so (not unconditionally mind you). If someone is starving, let’s get them food. If someone gets shot, a hospital shouldn’t and doesn’t today deny them medical care.

What I said was that it’s not the government’s responsibility to take care of you. If you want to better your life more than the most bare minimum essentials, it’s on you to do so. Sounds like you are advocating otherwise where you expect government to just give a person a place to live, a constant supply of food, money, the same quality healthcare as someone who by their own accomplishments works to achieve it, etc. You know what that is? Slavery. It’s leftists like you that want to keep people, especially poor black people, in their place.

---

Shelter, food, equal access to health care, yeah those are basic needs only Democrats seem to believe people deserve. Funny though, that you don't see any Republicans out there spouting off that seniors and their poor constituents don't deserve a damn thing. You seem to think everyone starts off with equal opportunity to succeed in life regardless of circumstances or background and it's their job to succeed or not.

And yet we have generational wealth keeping the one percent from having to work or do anything in their life but consume what others before them earned. Surely you don't think this isn't an advantage to success. What about a teen being given a care, used or no by a parent, isn't transportation a critical factor to success. If person A is limited to employment along public transit routes, while person B can drive anywhere, anytime according to their means, doesn't person B have a significant advantage?

You poor misguided fool. Making sure everyone has basic needs sets anyone who wants to succeed has an equal opportunity for success, the exact opposite of oppression. Meanwhile, you think fairness is limited to what someone can do for themselves, regardless of circumstances within or out of their control. Which is more likely to see someone actually succeed? Duh, it's not your nonsense system.

<sigh>

Seran we’re just going in circles. Equal access to healthcare…. You do realize if we made it equal the quality of our healthcare would decline, right? There is a reason that if Europeans have a serious medical condition and they want the best treatment possible, they fly to America and pay for it. Despite their free healthcare. You get what you pay for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet

<sigh>

Seran we’re just going in circles. Equal access to healthcare…. You do realize if we made it equal the quality of our healthcare would decline, right? There is a reason that if Europeans have a serious medical condition and they want the best treatment possible, they fly to America and pay for it. Despite their free healthcare. You get what you pay for.

---

Wait I thought everyone was flying to Brazil, Cuba, or Thailand for cheap chops. Now you're telling me euros are taking our docs?

Dey took our jeeerrrbs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet

<sigh>

Seran we’re just going in circles. Equal access to healthcare…. You do realize if we made it equal the quality of our healthcare would decline, right? There is a reason that if Europeans have a serious medical condition and they want the best treatment possible, they fly to America and pay for it. Despite their free healthcare. You get what you pay for.

---

Better Healthcare means less utilization over all when people have access to free or low cost accrual physicals and screenings. The excessive privatization of health care and concentration of contracts amongst only a handful of insurers is a secondary problem. I rejected the premise of your argument that tiered level care is necessary for good service. I'm willing to see numbers though if you have them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhaalizmo

Wait I thought everyone was flying to Brazil, Cuba, or Thailand for cheap chops. Now you're telling me euros are taking our docs?

Dey took our jeeerrrbs

---

It’s true.

If you are a Brit and get testicular cancer, you may very well die before the NHS allows you see a specialist. And the treatment options available will be limited compared to here.

And in before I get bombarded…that’s not to say we don’t have problems with our healthcare system. I recognize that. I’m just saying “free” (free = taxed) universal healthcare has it’s own downfalls separate from cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet

It’s true.

If you are a Brit and get testicular cancer, you may very well die before the NHS allows you see a specialist. And the treatment options available will be limited compared to here.

And in before I get bombarded…that’s not to say we don’t have problems with our healthcare system. I recognize that. I’m just saying “free” (free = taxed) universal healthcare has it’s own downfalls separate from cost.

---

The wait isn't allowed to be over 62 days before treatment starts. Ball cancer kill that fast?

95% of men survive for over 5 years from diagnosis so you probably won't die waiting for healthcare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

The wait isn't allowed to be over 62 days before treatment starts. Ball cancer kill that fast?

95% of men survive for over 5 years from diagnosis so you probably won't die waiting for healthcare.

---

Well I do suppose it depends on how bad your ball cancer is when diagnosed I suppose.

Point is it’s hard for them to see a dentist or a ball cancer specialist, and their quality of care just isn’t up to par with ours on the top side of the spectrum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet

I’m mystified that you don’t seem to think the primary person responsible for making sure they don’t end up homeless, broke, hungry, etc. is the individual and not their government. If you don’t accept personal accountability for your actions, nobody else will. Now I don’t think anyone should starve or freeze to death and we have the means in our society to help, but I fundamentally disagree with you that by right of birth you are just automatically entitled to a certain standard of living from the government. That’s not how our world works. You are responsible for you.

---

Part of why this is such a tough topic to talk about is that (US) conservatives and liberals have polar opposite perspectives on the issue. Conservatives are very concerned with the notion of who deserves help, while liberals are largely concerned with who needs help.

Ultimately though, the issue of poverty is not an individual issue: it's a social issue. Failing to address poverty has massive consequences for everyone, and treating it as an individual issue not only completely misses the structural problems that enable poverty in the first place, but it also exacerbates it and creates more need for the social safety net programs.

Take Welfare, for example. Right now about 45% of SNAP recipients are children. Another 20ish percent are their parents. The rest are more diverse, but the elderly and the disabled make up the majority of them. If we focus on whether or not the parents "deserve" help, then we're actually disproportionately harming children- literally taking food out of their mouths. All we're doing at that point is perpetuating poverty which just expands the need for the program in future generations.

Literally no one benefits from trying to cut a program like SNAP back. And doing so only serves to punish people for where they come from, not who they are. That's the opposite of a meritocracy, which is a concept that has historically been very important to conservatives.

There are over 45 million Americans living in poverty right now (~10% of all households), and our Welfare benefits are already so stripped down and have such convoluted eligibility criteria that only 70% of them quality for any assistance. 20% of our children live below the poverty line, and about 60 million Americans get some form of help from Welfare.

Taking money and resources away from such a massive percentage of our citizens just makes it harder for them to climb out of poverty. It also deprives local businesses, especially in areas with high poverty rates, of income. In turn that deprives people in the area of job opportunities (and often basics like nutrition) and causes massive spikes in crime from people who don't have enough to get by. Again, no one actually benefits from this.

But if we look at this as a social problem with the goal of providing support to families to help them climb out of poverty, we'll actually reduce long term poverty and create more opportunities for people who happened to have been born in the wrong zip code. Despite the commonly believed narrative that if you take money and resources away from poor people, that will somehow make them more likely to get out of poverty...it's actually the exact opposite.

T4F... how come over the years the rest of your posts haven't been as well written, or cogent?

That is an actual well written perspective that can be discussed. Try doing more like the above please, instead of your standard partisan hating.

On your points... for me... it goes back to how our K-12 education system is set up. The focus is not on the proper STEM, trade skill, and life skills children need to be successful adults. That is where the true cyclical nature of poverty stems from.

Yes, conservatives believe most situations people find themselves in is a personal responsibility issue, and society should not be responsible for their personal choices. However... because we as a society are failing people during their childhood education, and most importantly development... it is easy to understand why we are in the situation we are in.

Simple terms: The ones that "deserve" help, are the ones that "need" it... and work hard. The ones that "need" it, and don't work hard, don't "deserve" it. Harsh perspective perhaps, but that's my general perspective.