The Left in 2018: Unhinged

Dirius

Well-known member
O

Don't be silly. Of course sensible people of any political persuasion would disavow the tactics, but if you have made no serious effort to understand the very real issues that boiled over in these snippets, you've missed the whole point.

Let's re-wind back to the early 1960s in the US, and revisit all of the violent conservative backlash against the Civil Rights movement. Or let's look at the white supremacist march in Charlotte: do you support their tactics merely because you identify yourself as a conservative? https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/12/us/charlottesville-white-nationalists-rally/index.html

Surely you are familiar with systemic, state-sponsored violence that goes way, way beyond your video clip. Maybe you're happy about Hispanic toddlers being separated from their parents at the border, screaming in fear, and now the Trump regime doesn't even know how to get them back to their parents, long since deported.

Who's a Dem around here, anyway? You'd call my politics liberal, no doubt, but I registered as an independent.

The problem shown in the video is that the aggresion wich was common to both far-right and far-left, is now being used by mainstream leftist.

The amount of far-righters is very tiny, and the charlottesville event gathered less than 500 people. You are using the very very very extreme wing of the "conservative movement" as comparison to justify mutual aggresion. The reality is that this "ancient evil" of the far right the left keeps invoking is a very tiny, almost non-existant minority in the U.S. and in the world. In fact, is the left tries to classify anything that has a nationalistic tone as "far-right", which is false.

And talking about stuff that happened 60 years ago means nothing. Yeah sure, unchecked conservatives in your country used to lynch minorities. In my country the unchecked leftist used to held hostage and murder civilians for ransom and commit terrorist acts. Both sides can easily descend into chaotic forces if left unchecked.

However what we are afraid is that mainstream leftist liberals, particularly young students are slowly using more tactics traditional to the far-left. They become more aggresive each month. Antifa now throws smoke bombs into cops and enemies.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Socialism has become this huge bogeyman for the Fox News crowd. But according to the UN's annual World Happiness Report, which is based on extensive polling, the 10 happiest countries in the world today w/ rankings) are:

Finland:
Norway:
Denmark:
Iceland: ..
Switzerland:
Netherlands:
Canada:
New Zealand:

The rankings are weighted towards the variables of "income (GDP per capita), healthy life expectancy, social support, freedom, trust (absence of corruption) and generosity." US ranks #18, primarily due to declines in health of its citizens (obesity, substance abuse, untreated depression.) https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/these-are-the-top-10-happiest-countries-in-the-world.html

In contrast, the happiest countries have single-payer health care systems. People know that if they get sick, they won't get bankrupted, nor will they have to pay out-of-pocket for all but catastrophic health care coverage. (My son's deductable is $7000, PP: What's yours?)

Form of government of the happiest countries? They go by various names (republic, parliamentary system, constitutional monarchy, &c) but all of them would be considered socialist-leaning democracies by the right wingers in the US. I live in Canada, which is a democracy governed by a popular system. It's probably more like the US than like Norway, but basically if people feel they get something for their tax dollars in a non-corrupt system, they are apt to support it. Such countries are more apt to have solid unemployment benefits, care for poor elderly people, a high standard of health care, and good education systems.

In the US we have Secretary Betsy DeVos trying to dismantle the public education system, although about one in five American children now lives below the poverty level. (Thus diminishing their chances of having work-ready skills.)

Don't get me started on Donald Trump, please.

In truth, most conservative or libertarians are not really opposed to the sentiment of free health-care, and most of us would like for every person in the world to have health-care coverage. What we do point out, is that in the long run a free health-care system isn't economically viable, but not because we are "evil" and wish to see humanity suffer. The problem is you want to have the U.S. match the sysem of other countries, which isn't a good comparison.

You can see the numbers. Lets talk population numbers: Canada has a population of 36 million people. Norway has a population of 5 million people. Finland has a population of 5 million people. Switzerland has 8 million, the Netherlands 17 million, New Zeland has 4 million, Denmark has 5 million, and Iceland 300 thousand.

The U.S. has a population of 325 million people (10 times more than Canada). All the countries combined have half of the population of the U.S. It is not the same to provide health-care to a lower amount of inviduals. It depends on the general economics of the country in question and how much you spend in each area of goverment. All of these miracle countries also spend their money in a different way the U.S. does. For example, when we look at how much foreign aid (something I dislike) they provide to poor nations we can see that:

The U.S. provides 31 billion. Canada provides 5 billion. All the countries you listed are much less. I'm sure if the U.S. decides to be as charitable as Canada is, they could spend those extr 26 million in their own citizens. Sure in GDP numbers they all spend more percentage than the U.S. But, the U.S. does still provide more money to the world than all of the countries you list combined.

Then there is military spending. When Putin invaded Crimea, you didn't look to Finland or Norway or Canada to "put the russians in check" did you? Of course not, everyone in the world looks to the U.S. for protection. And how do they do that? by spending 610 billion on their military. How much do the other nations you listed spend?

Finally lets look at unemployment numbers: Canada has 6.98 percent unemployment (2016) a similar number to the U.S. percentage wise. But in actul numbers, for Canada is almost 2 million, but for the U.S. is around 20 million. So sure, keeping benefit for 2 million unemployed is easier than for 20 million.


So Yes I agree with you, if the U.S. spends as much as Canada does in everything, they may be able to cover a huge amount of people, but not all, because the U.S. still has many more people. The usual claim that the U.S. has the biggest economy and the largest GDP as the reason as to why they should spend more on social policy is meaningless when you understand that while they have a lower percentage number, they still spend more.

We can look at hundreds of numbers. We can sit all day discussing that. Again, we are not against free health-care. But the models you present are not viable, and its not as easy as the left seems to claim it would be. I would be more than happy for a model in which every citizen gets coverage and we all chip in. But the european myth is not a good answer.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
Thanks to Ashton Kutcher (see speech here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTT-_tbZf1o) over thousands of children have been rescued from human trafficking — sex slavery. These children were raped multiple times a day. That is far worse and far less discussed than the “summer camps”. Yes, it is horrible that these children are separated from their parents. But this is hyped up by the media to bash Trump. Not to help these kids. It’s all terrible but unfortunately we must prioritize. The people with the worst situation need to be addressed first.

And I voted Bernie, BTW. Don’t blame me!

Oh, fer sure we could talk about what is happening to Rohinga women, Yazidi women, plus the fact that China now has 30 million young men in excess of young women, thanks to abortion of female fetuses under the one child policy, so that the one child would be male. Trafficking of young women from China's poor neighbours is rampant. We could talk about Thailand's under-aged girl prostitutes, as well as young North American girls fleeing abusive homes and ending up with violent pimps.

But it's not true that no Americans care about the plight of the forcibly separated migrant children warehoused in cages, while their parents have been turned away at the border and can't be located. Did you see anything about today's Keep Families Together marches? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-keep-families-together-march-protest-n888006

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-keep-families-together-march-protest-n888006
 

waybread

Well-known member
Dirius, surely you saw what went on at those big Trump campaign rallies in 2016, with the chants of "Lock her up!" by tens of thousands of his faithful supporters. The "her" of course, was Trump's Democratic opponent. The fact that neither Trump nor his supporters even got that imprisoning one's political opponents is the stuff of totalitarian regimes should be chilling to anyone who loves democracy.

In 2015, 43% of Republicans believed that Barack Obama is a Muslim, born in Kenya. Trump spearheaded this "birther" movement, to his shame; and then has the temerity to condemn "fake news" (defined as any media beyond Fox News.) How quickly these "birthers' forgot the scandal of Obama's pastor in his Chicago church condemning US policies. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ump-zorn-perspec-0106-md-20170105-column.html Most of them, including candidate Ted Cruz himself (R-Texas senator) did not realized that he was a Canadian citizen by birth.

A free press is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, yet 76% of Americans could not name one-- or could name only one-- right guaranteed by this amendment. And this according to a conservative think tank. https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/state-of-the-first-amendment/

To ignore the significance of the American Civil Rights movement merely shows that you haven't studied American history in any detail. What can you tell me about Jim Crow laws, the Ku Klux Klan, the Voting Rights Act, and the Civil Rights Act? What can you tell me about Congressman John Lewis? What do you know about the recent tally of unarmed African American youth gunned down by police officers? These issues are still very real, Dirius. They go far beyond America's sordid history of lynching.

What do you know about Rupert Murdoch (an Australian) and his control of the conservative American media? Or maybe you'd like to talk about the Koch brothers and their efforts to buy American elections and judges in support of their reactionary political agenda?

I was a student in the 1970s, and remember the Weathermen and Students for a Democratic Society-- radicals all, who put today's antifas to shame for violent tactics. Of course, you wouldn't want to talk about their conservative counterpart, the John Birch Society-- which apparently is having a renaissance. https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...-alive-and-well-in-the-lone-star-state-215377

You're going to have to do better than this to sustain an argument.
 

AppLeo

Well-known member
As a Dem, are you proud to endorse these tactics or do you disavow?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFRHX6glTSM

I think most democrats wouldn't support what those people in the video did. I'm sure there are people on the right who have done things just as stupid.

All I know is that the left likes to play the victim, blames the rich for everything, wants to raise taxes, loves free speech unless you have an opinion of your own, wants more government, wants more socialism and less free market...and if you disagree they call you a racist, sexist, homophobe, or a closed-minded bigot because they can't use reason or logic to support their ideas.
 

waybread

Well-known member
In truth, most conservative or libertarians are not really opposed to the sentiment of free health-care, and most of us would like for every person in the world to have health-care coverage. What we do point out, is that in the long run a free health-care system isn't economically viable, but not because we are "evil" and wish to see humanity suffer. The problem is you want to have the U.S. match the sysem of other countries, which isn't a good comparison.

You can see the numbers. Lets talk population numbers: Canada has a population of 36 million people. Norway has a population of 5 million people. Finland has a population of 5 million people. Switzerland has 8 million, the Netherlands 17 million, New Zeland has 4 million, Denmark has 5 million, and Iceland 300 thousand.

The U.S. has a population of 325 million people (10 times more than Canada). All the countries combined have half of the population of the U.S. It is not the same to provide health-care to a lower amount of inviduals. It depends on the general economics of the country in question and how much you spend in each area of goverment. All of these miracle countries also spend their money in a different way the U.S. does. For example, when we look at how much foreign aid (something I dislike) they provide to poor nations we can see that:

The U.S. provides 31 billion. Canada provides 5 billion. All the countries you listed are much less. I'm sure if the U.S. decides to be as charitable as Canada is, they could spend those extr 26 million in their own citizens. Sure in GDP numbers they all spend more percentage than the U.S. But, the U.S. does still provide more money to the world than all of the countries you list combined.

I appreciate your looking up some population data, Dirius, but raw numbers aren't what is important here. Health care costs decline with economies of scale, assuming a system is well-managed. Single-payer systems cost less because all kinds of medications, medical devices, hospital supplies, and so on can be bought more cheaply through bulk purchases.

Further, health care is never "free" but is paid for through government revenues like taxes. However, once people don't pay high deductables for doctor visits for early detection of health problems, it is a lot cheaper to treat patients at an early stage, than it is to treat them in the hospital emergency room, once their problem has become truly serious. (Think about something like a simple blood test for diabetes, followed by insulin doses and dietary recommendations, vs. untreated diabetes leading to limb amputations.)

For that matter, Japanese women have the highest longevity of anyone on the planet. They have a single-payer system with a population of 127 million.

Then there is military spending. When Putin invaded Crimea, you didn't look to Finland or Norway or Canada to "put the russians in check" did you? Of course not, everyone in the world looks to the U.S. for protection. And how do they do that? by spending 610 billion on their military. How much do the other nations you listed spend?

It is very unwise for any country to depend on the US for military protection, especially now that Trump is trying to dismantle NATO. The US military did not contfront Russia over the Crimea, as you know, so there goes that theory. Although many Americans support a strong military, they would like to see a lot less waste and inefficiencies. The 16c of every tax dollar currently spend on the military is actually down from 25c during the Vietnam War.

Finally lets look at unemployment numbers: Canada has 6.98 percent unemployment (2016) a similar number to the U.S. percentage wise. But in actul numbers, for Canada is almost 2 million, but for the U.S. is around 20 million. So sure, keeping benefit for 2 million unemployed is easier than for 20 million.

I don't think it quite works this way. The US currently has 3.8% unemployment, which is basically full employment, as some of those people are switching jobs, returning to school, staying home with babies, &c. The problem is that the US education systems (and there are many, divided by state and school district) have not done enough to ensure that their graduates are job-ready. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf (The US Bureau of Labor Statistics puts out quarterly reports.)

Canada is the tail on the US economic kite, with slower recoveries. The unemployment rate is currently around 5.8%, with dramatic differences between provinces. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/04/06/unemployment-canada-march-2018_a_23404720/


So Yes I agree with you, if the U.S. spends as much as Canada does in everything, they may be able to cover a huge amount of people, but not all, because the U.S. still has many more people. The usual claim that the U.S. has the biggest economy and the largest GDP as the reason as to why they should spend more on social policy is meaningless when you understand that while they have a lower percentage number, they still spend more.

I'm glad we agree on something, but again, raw numbers do not tell the story. A large economy generally has more employment opportunities and more diversification than a small one. Part of Canada's problem is that it has been historically so driven by natural resources. We're practically a petro-state.

There is an unfilled demand for skilled workers in the US. Ironically, Donald Trump doesn't want any more immigration, which might help solve the labor shortage.

We can look at hundreds of numbers. We can sit all day discussing that. Again, we are not against free health-care. But the models you present are not viable, and its not as easy as the left seems to claim it would be. I would be more than happy for a model in which every citizen gets coverage and we all chip in. But the european myth is not a good answer.

Big non sequitur here, Dirius. Try telling the rest of the developed world that single-payer health care is not viable. Or tell Cuba, for that matter. I'm sure you know that in Canada, we have provincial health care systems, not a national system. Why couldn't the US have state- or regionally run systems? The reason is because right wingers don't want it, apparently believing that they won't get sick or injured.

I don't see myself as "on the left" incidentally. Part of the problem is Trump's persistent efforts to polarize Americans, by such unhelpful divide and conquer tactics.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
I think most democrats wouldn't support what those people in the video did. I'm sure there are people on the right who have done things just as stupid.

Agreed!

All I know is that the left likes to play the victim, blames the rich for everything, wants to raise taxes, loves free speech unless you have an opinion of your own, wants more government, wants more socialism and less free market...and if you disagree they call you a racist, sexist, homophobe, or a closed-minded bigot because they can't use reason or logic to support their ideas.

All I know is that you don't read widely enough. Try turning off your Libertarian web sites occasionally. You can't get much more far, hard right on the American spectrum than being a libertarian in your state, incidentally.

Libertarian swimming pool and fire department cartoons:
 

Attachments

  • libertarian cartoon.jpg
    libertarian cartoon.jpg
    93.6 KB · Views: 22
  • libertarian cartoon 2.jpg
    libertarian cartoon 2.jpg
    101.8 KB · Views: 21

AppLeo

Well-known member

Yay!

All I know is that you don't read widely enough. Try turning off your Libertarian web sites occasionally. You can't get much more far, hard right on the American spectrum than being a libertarian in your state, incidentally.

Why would I read leftist sites? Like I just don't understand. My loyalty is to the constitution and America and human rights.

Libertarian swimming pool and fire department cartoons:

I have a better idea. Learn to swim and not burn your house down! :w00t:

Also, if you hired a libertarian to save people from drowning and dying in a burning building, you'll get the best service ever. Even better than the government itself. Cuz people in the free market, are people who want money. And the only way to make money, is to provide the best service, at the lowest price, to as many people as possible.

So gotcha there, Waybread! HAHAHA
 

AppLeo

Well-known member
No offense to anyone, but if you drown in a swimming pool in a public place, then like, I don't know what to tell you...
 

Oddity

Well-known member
Let's have a look at how good Cuban health care is then: http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2018/05/the-cuban-health-system.html and http://www.therealcuba.com/?page_id=77

In Europe, two-tier systems have worked out better than single-payer. They probably would in Canada, too.

I think you're also failing to take into consideration the massive disruption to the US economy if it were to try to switch to national health all at once.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of national health, but the US is something of a different case than - anywhere else.

Big non sequitur here, Dirius. Try telling the rest of the developed world that single-payer health care is not viable. Or tell Cuba, for that matter. I'm sure you know that in Canada, we have provincial health care systems, not a national system. Why couldn't the US have state- or regionally run systems? The reason is because right wingers don't want it, apparently believing that they won't get sick or injured.

I don't see myself as "on the left" incidentally. Part of the problem is Trump's persistent efforts to polarize Americans, by such unhelpful divide and conquer tactics.
 
Last edited:

Dirius

Well-known member
Dirius, surely you saw what went on at those big Trump campaign rallies in 2016, with the chants of "Lock her up!" by tens of thousands of his faithful supporters. The "her" of course, was Trump's Democratic opponent. The fact that neither Trump nor his supporters even got that imprisoning one's political opponents is the stuff of totalitarian regimes should be chilling to anyone who loves democracy.

In 2015, 43% of Republicans believed that Barack Obama is a Muslim, born in Kenya. Trump spearheaded this "birther" movement, to his shame; and then has the temerity to condemn "fake news" (defined as any media beyond Fox News.) How quickly these "birthers' forgot the scandal of Obama's pastor in his Chicago church condemning US policies. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ump-zorn-perspec-0106-md-20170105-column.html Most of them, including candidate Ted Cruz himself (R-Texas senator) did not realized that he was a Canadian citizen by birth.

A free press is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, yet 76% of Americans could not name one-- or could name only one-- right guaranteed by this amendment. And this according to a conservative think tank.

Calling for someone to be "locked up" doesn't imply a totalitarina regime or lack of due process. In my country we also yell "lock them up" to the previous aminstration, and they are being investigated for the crimes they comitted. Furthermore, locking a politician up not the same as implying violent measures should be taken against other citizens or other person's property, as the left does when they justify BLM or other left groups that commit violence. Nearly every conservative outlet condemened the Charlottesville demostration, but the left media rarely condems antifa protests or BLM protests, in fact more often than not they justify them.

The media constantly miss-represents conservative positions. You can look in your own country: Jordan peterson is constantly called a "far-righter", a member of the "alt-right", when he is none of those things. The Rebel Media which is a conservative internet news media is constantly called a "far-right site" when they aren't. Another example is Youtube demonetising conservative channels that talk about immigration, the syrian refugee crisis, etc, all because its "racist".

There is a point to showing the media bias. I'm sure fox news has its own bias too, but I haven't seen the same miss-representation. They don't speak of democrats as "far-left individuals", but most conservatives are treated as such by left media.

To ignore the significance of the American Civil Rights movement merely shows that you haven't studied American history in any detail. What can you tell me about Jim Crow laws, the Ku Klux Klan, the Voting Rights Act, and the Civil Rights Act? What can you tell me about Congressman John Lewis? What do you know about the recent tally of unarmed African American youth gunned down by police officers? These issues are still very real, Dirius. They go far beyond America's sordid history of lynching.

What do you know about Rupert Murdoch (an Australian) and his control of the conservative American media? Or maybe you'd like to talk about the Koch brothers and their efforts to buy American elections and judges in support of their reactionary political agenda?

I was a student in the 1970s, and remember the Weathermen and Students for a Democratic Society-- radicals all, who put today's antifas to shame for violent tactics. Of course, you wouldn't want to talk about their conservative counterpart, the John Birch Society-- which apparently is having a renaissance. https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...-alive-and-well-in-the-lone-star-state-215377

You're going to have to do better than this to sustain an argument.

You are talking about 60 years ago. Things are not the same now, there is no racism as it was. You can't go back half a century looking for stuff to complain about, its not the 60's anymore.

Half of the problems you pointed out in this paragraphs are not true.

The claim that black people are killed more often by police than white people has been proven false, given the police does kill as many whites (or perhaps more) than black people. You also fail to account that, while there may be reasons why black people commit more crimes, they still make up a larger percentage of people that break the law, thus the fact that a disproportianate number of black people would be killed in police confrontations wouldn't seem unexpected. Not every single black life lost a policeman is the result of a cop stopping someone in a car for no reason. But most people would consiuder this satement to be racist.
 
Last edited:

Dirius

Well-known member
I appreciate your looking up some population data, Dirius, but raw numbers aren't what is important here. Health care costs decline with economies of scale, assuming a system is well-managed. Single-payer systems cost less because all kinds of medications, medical devices, hospital supplies, and so on can be bought more cheaply through bulk purchases.

Further, health care is never "free" but is paid for through government revenues like taxes. However, once people don't pay high deductables for doctor visits for early detection of health problems, it is a lot cheaper to treat patients at an early stage, than it is to treat them in the hospital emergency room, once their problem has become truly serious. (Think about something like a simple blood test for diabetes, followed by insulin doses and dietary recommendations, vs. untreated diabetes leading to limb amputations.)

For that matter, Japanese women have the highest longevity of anyone on the planet. They have a single-payer system with a population of 127 million.

Actually they are. A larger population requires a larger infrastructure, more trained personnel, and thus more investment. Buying in bulk reduces the single item cost by a small margin, but you still require a larger purchase to account for the much larger amount of individuals, and thus potential patients. And my comments of population size don't just refer to the single issue that is health-care, but all the ones you mentioned, such as unemployment, social welfare, etc. A larger population leads to different problems.

I don't defend the system in place in america, or oppose free health-care, but I certainly don't think the "euro-models" would work either, because there are variables that make it much more complicated. Mainly the U.S. spends a large amount of money in different areas that Canada (or any other country for the matter) does not, it has a larger population which constitues larger problems that range from health to accidents, to attacks and to natural disasters, and so on. No country is equal, but the countries you used as example are far more different than the U.S.. Which takes me to your next point:

It is very unwise for any country to depend on the US for military protection, especially now that Trump is trying to dismantle NATO. The US military did not contfront Russia over the Crimea, as you know, so there goes that theory. Although many Americans support a strong military, they would like to see a lot less waste and inefficiencies. The 16c of every tax dollar currently spend on the military is actually down from 25c during the Vietnam War.

I don't think it quite works this way. The US currently has 3.8% unemployment, which is basically full employment, as some of those people are switching jobs, returning to school, staying home with babies, &c. The problem is that the US education systems (and there are many, divided by state and school district) have not done enough to ensure that their graduates are job-ready. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf (The US Bureau of Labor Statistics puts out quarterly reports.)


Canada is the tail on the US economic kite, with slower recoveries. The unemployment rate is currently around 5.8%, with dramatic differences between provinces. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/04/06/unemployment-canada-march-2018_a_23404720/

Whether it is wise or not, isn't the point. The reality is that historically, and economically, they have. Which has allowed them to focus their economic wealth into other areas. It is very easy to spend most of your tax revenue into health-care or social programs for workers, when you simply do not bother about having to wage wars. Not that I am in favour of them, but for better or worse its what the american goverment does.

There are other things too: the U.S. gives more money in foreign aid than Canada does, they spend more in their space agency NASA (around 18 billion) compared to what Canada spends on their space agency (100-500 million in average it varies). The U.S is also the largest contributor to the United Nations. There are many more examples.

I'm glad we agree on something, but again, raw numbers do not tell the story. A large economy generally has more employment opportunities and more diversification than a small one. Part of Canada's problem is that it has been historically so driven by natural resources. We're practically a petro-state.

There is an unfilled demand for skilled workers in the US. Ironically, Donald Trump doesn't want any more immigration, which might help solve the labor shortage.

If it never had to develop its economy, its probably because it has a small population. Having a larger population does push you to diversify, or live in poverty. But diversification isn't always easy, and requires a different type of economy, mainly a free market and lower taxation. More employment is the natural consequence of economic development.

Trump isn't against immigration, he is against illegal unskilled worker's immigration. So your comment is baseless to the issue.+

Big non sequitur here, Dirius. Try telling the rest of the developed world that single-payer health care is not viable. Or tell Cuba, for that matter. I'm sure you know that in Canada, we have provincial health care systems, not a national system. Why couldn't the US have state- or regionally run systems? The reason is because right wingers don't want it, apparently believing that they won't get sick or injured.

I don't see myself as "on the left" incidentally. Part of the problem is Trump's persistent efforts to polarize Americans, by such unhelpful divide and conquer tactics.
I told you, because they don't believe its economically feasible. We discussed this issue in the other topic of the "anti-capitalism" thread, I actually made a suggestion of a system that works under capitalism that can provide insurance to most people.

And I also made a point to AppleLeo about the benefits for society of having health-care coverage for everyone - even if you are only focused on yourself. For example in countries with free healthcare system, it is less likely for you to catch a venereal disease when having a one night stand with someone you met at a bar. Mainly, the spread of disease and epidemics are lower in countries in which the population has acces to health-care. So for me, everyone gets at least an "invisible benefit" from it, even for republican politicians that like to cheat on their wives.

You can check the thread if you would like, its long though. Too bad you didn't want to partake in it, cause it would have been a more interesting discussion if you had participated.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Anyone in favor of reinstating the Draft? That's the only way to stop these wars for oil and other natural resources. Once people's sons, brothers, and husbands and lovers are forced to fight in them, the resistance against them would be overwhelming. A standing army of mercenaries and "private contractors" is a terrible thing for this nation. Maybe even expand the draft to include women!
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
I've always been in favour of a social safety net, Leo. Doesn't mean I'm anti-capitalist. But I'm not a worshipper of Ayn Rand.

"My religion is just Ayn Rand's Philosophy with ceremony and ritual added." -{Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan}, according to a meme posted by the Meme Master}
 
Last edited:

Oddity

Well-known member
Fairly obvious if you've ever read any of his books. Though I would recommend them for some unintentional hilarity as well.

"My religion is just Ayn Rand's Philosophy with ceremony and ritual added." -{Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan}, according to a meme posted by the Meme Master}
 

Dirius

Well-known member
I appreciate your looking up some population data, Dirius, but raw numbers aren't what is important here.

To furnish this point a little bit. The problem with comparing countries is that it doesn't account for demographics, which are factors that economic changes require to be taken in. So you do need to look at raw numbers for the implications. Looking at the age ranges you can notice:

In Canada, the working-age percentage is around 68,2% of the total population. In the United states it accounts for 66,3% of the population. The percentage of population under the age of 15 (thus not work-able) in Canada is around 16,6%, while in the U.S. is around 19.8%. Also the birth rate in the U.S. is about 1.8 per woman, while in Canada it is 1.2 per woman (2015 statistics).

So looking at rough numbers, assuming they are still reliable, you can notice that the amount of individuals that have a participation in the national GDP of each country, is lower in the U.S. than it is in Canada, and it is important because it shows the amount of individuals that can be taxed in order to sustain any type of public service. The number of children being born in the U.S. is larger than in Canada, and they do not contribute to the system until they are older. Now the disparity between population amounts also creates a large distinction between the adults that can be taxed for the system in comparison to the children that do not in both nations, given that missing 2% of the working force in the U.S. would be about 6 million individuals, while the number of under the working force age (children) is almost 10 million more kids in the U.S. than in Canada.

So, the U.S. health-care system does require a larger investment given its demographics, yet the amount of individuals that actively contribute to the tax revenue is lower, in fact millions lower. At the same time, the Canadian population is getting lower because of lower birthrates, while the U.S. population is remaining almost the same. This is why I believe the comparison with Canada is just bad. What works in Canada may not work in the U.S.

------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------

https://data.oecd.org/pop/working-age-population.htm
https://www.google.com/publicdata/e...ry:CAN&ifdim=country&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false
 
Last edited:

Sagcap88

Well-known member
Oh, fer sure we could talk about what is happening to Rohinga women, Yazidi women, plus the fact that China now has 30 million young men in excess of young women, thanks to abortion of female fetuses under the one child policy, so that the one child would be male. Trafficking of young women from China's poor neighbours is rampant. We could talk about Thailand's under-aged girl prostitutes, as well as young North American girls fleeing abusive homes and ending up with violent pimps.

But it's not true that no Americans care about the plight of the forcibly separated migrant children warehoused in cages, while their parents have been turned away at the border and can't be located. Did you see anything about today's Keep Families Together marches? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-keep-families-together-march-protest-n888006

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-keep-families-together-march-protest-n888006

I actually meant that people were super hyped up about the separation of families here. I was just commenting on how cyclic people are about which causes they embrace and how it changes depending on how the wind blows.

I wasn’t saying there isn’t enough coverage about the migrant children. I think there’s a petition out there that this woman started where you can sign up to be willing to take in one (or more) of the kids. My mom is totally ready. She’s like “we have enough room!”

I really am mortified by what’s happening to these children; the long term effects, especially for the ones in their formative years (up to about 4 years old) are going to be detrimental no matter what. Whether or not they’re kept in cages. 💔
 
Top