The European Union does have open borders within the European Union. The idea was that if people could move freely between European countries without fussing with paperwork, it would make commerce and tourism more efficient and be good for the economy overall. Individual countries would limit who could enter them from outside the European Union, but anyone from the EU could enter without trouble.
Even within the EU free movement has never been quite the sacred principle that is sometimes suggested. For instance it's always been possible to put restrictions on claiming benefits for people coming from another country. It's even possible to deport people who arrive and don't find a job or demonstrate other means of support within a particular time frame (which I'm embarrassed to say I can't remember - 3 months rings a bell). The UK has always chosen not to use the possible restrictions. I think that's because we have no ID system or other means of knowing who's in the country, but that's our choice. In practice being outside the EU will make very little difference to our ability to control immigration, though that message did not generally come across in the run-up to the referendum.
I can't believe I live in the alternate universe where I'm watching Donald Trump giving a State of the Union Address.
I'm not watching. If you watch, we'll have to hear how his ratings this and his ratings that.
I assume teleprompter don features about 2% less bald faced lies.
It's been insufferable really. More lies than you can keep up with. At the moment, he is basically picking a fight with North Korea AGAIN for no discernible reason whatsoever. He also hasn't said one word about Puerto Rico (guess what, FEMA stopped providing aid today, and 35% of the island is still without power) or Charlottesville. He has seemingly brought every single family of everyone killed by violent crime in the country to this speech, except for one. Heather Heyer's. He spent a huge chunk of the speech tying immigrants to gang violence (despite the FACT that immigrants commit less crime than native-born citizens). It isn't even a speech, it's just endless bullshit platitudes and Trump speaking as slowly as possible. Near the end here, a "USA, USA, USA" chant broke out for reasons I can't possibly understand.
Tonight and tomorrow people will talk once again about the "pivot". Luckily, I still remember last year's speech. Trump had turned the corner we were told. 48 hours later he was accusing Barack Obama of personally ordering a wiretap of Trump Tower.
I can't believe I live in the alternate universe where I'm watching Donald Trump giving a State of the Union Address.
I'm not watching. If you watch, we'll have to hear how his ratings this and his ratings that.
I assume teleprompter don features about 2% less bald faced lies.
It's been insufferable really. More lies than you can keep up with. At the moment, he is basically picking a fight with North Korea AGAIN for no discernible reason whatsoever. He also hasn't said one word about Puerto Rico (guess what, FEMA stopped providing aid today, and 35% of the island is still without power) or Charlottesville. He has seemingly brought every single family of everyone killed by violent crime in the country to this speech, except for one. Heather Heyer's. He spent a huge chunk of the speech tying immigrants to gang violence (despite the FACT that immigrants commit less crime than native-born citizens). It isn't even a speech, it's just endless bullshit platitudes and Trump speaking as slowly as possible. Near the end here, a "USA, USA, USA" chant broke out for reasons I can't possibly understand.
Tonight and tomorrow people will talk once again about the "pivot". Luckily, I still remember last year's speech. Trump had turned the corner we were told. 48 hours later he was accusing Barack Obama of personally ordering a wiretap of Trump Tower.
yeah another one is "this is the moment he became prezident!" I expect we'll hear that too. Anyway, so I guess he can read. Whatever it's not really him. When he tweets or speaks without a teleprompter we get the gibberish innuendo spin and racism we're all used to.
These State of the Union responses usually totally bomb, but Joe Kennedy is doing far better than any I have seen in the last decade, and a large part of it has to do with the (now obvious) decision to do it in front of a live crowd. Beyond that, my girl Kamala Harris doesn't go on TV much, but she is on TV tonight. My gut instincts are way off if she doesn't end up as the nominee in 2020. Throw an earnest, young, red-haired Kennedy on the ticket as VP, and you have a STARK contrast to Trump/Pence.
These State of the Union responses usually totally bomb, but Joe Kennedy is doing far better than any I have seen in the last decade, and a large part of it has to do with the (now obvious) decision to do it in front of a live crowd. Beyond that, my girl Kamala Harris doesn't go on TV much, but she is on TV tonight. My gut instincts are way off if she doesn't end up as the nominee in 2020. Throw an earnest, young, red-haired Kennedy on the ticket as VP, and you have a STARK contrast to Trump/Pence.
Alright so all we have to do is last to 2020. But we'll all be poisoned without healthcare by our corporate friendly polluted water, bankrupted by unregulated corrupt financial sector unhindered by consumer protections. Oh and we might not make it unless someone disables the nuclear button on Trump's desk.
These State of the Union responses usually totally bomb, but Joe Kennedy is doing far better than any I have seen in the last decade, and a large part of it has to do with the (now obvious) decision to do it in front of a live crowd. Beyond that, my girl Kamala Harris doesn't go on TV much, but she is on TV tonight. My gut instincts are way off if she doesn't end up as the nominee in 2020. Throw an earnest, young, red-haired Kennedy on the ticket as VP, and you have a STARK contrast to Trump/Pence.
Alright so all we have to do is last to 2020. But we'll all be poisoned without healthcare by our corporate friendly polluted water, bankrupted by unregulated corrupt financial sector unhindered by consumer protections. Oh and we might not make it unless someone disables the nuclear button on Trump's desk.
I'm not worried about myself. I've never been worried about myself. I'm part of the demographic group Trump thinks should rule the world. I just happen to know for a fact that there are millions of people who won't be. Societies should be judged by how they treat their most vulnerable citizens and people.
Alright so all we have to do is last to 2020. But we'll all be poisoned without healthcare by our corporate friendly polluted water, bankrupted by unregulated corrupt financial sector unhindered by consumer protections. Oh and we might not make it unless someone disables the nuclear button on Trump's desk.
None of those things are going to happen just like they didn't happen during Obama's Administration, or Bush's, or Clinton's, and so on and so forth.
Opposing amnesty is not the same as supporting active deportation, though there are many who somehow do.
It depends what "amnesty" means, and the term has been used in several different (and sometimes intentionally ambiguous) ways. Since the GOP platform referred to "any form of amnesty," I interpreted it broadly to mean "any path to legal status for illegal immigrants" in that context. With that meaning, the only options are (a) amnesty, (b) mass deportations, or (c) not enforcing the law.
Alright so all we have to do is last to 2020. But we'll all be poisoned without healthcare by our corporate friendly polluted water, bankrupted by unregulated corrupt financial sector unhindered by consumer protections. Oh and we might not make it unless someone disables the nuclear button on Trump's desk.
None of those things are going to happen just like they didn't happen during Obama's Administration, or Bush's, or Clinton's, and so on and so forth.
Hey. Trump is not normal. Don't underestimate him. He says a lot of crazy things and it's easy to blow it all off that could be a fatal mistake.
Bush, Obama, Clinton did not refer to the press as the enemy of the people. And they didn't repeatedly interfere in investigations into themselves. They didn't repeatedly call on congress to run everything as majority rule. They didn't ignore sanctions passed by congress and didn't refer to other countries as shit holes. Etc etc etc.
It's easy to lose track of the horrendous stuff there's so much of it but as you stop paying attention is when he can complete some of the crazy things he is saying.
Before Hitler was HITLER he was a politician who got into office without winning the popular vote too. He chipped away at norms and overthrew a democracy. People at the time never dreamed things would get as bad as they eventually became.
This was the line: "So tonight, I call on the Congress to empower every Cabinet Secretary with the authority to reward good workers — and to remove Federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people."
He wants to be rid of independent people leaving just the lackeys and yes-men. He wants a whole government of Devin Nunezes!
There's a reason that each administration can't fire all the workers that they think is not on their team. That is not what Republicans and Trump want. They want a "to the victor go the spoils system" We are talking about total destruction of the US government and conversion to a banana republic.
This was the line: "So tonight, I call on the Congress to empower every Cabinet Secretary with the authority to reward good workers — and to remove Federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people."
He wants to be rid of independent people leaving just the lackeys and yes-men. He wants a whole government of Devin Nunezes!
There's a reason that each administration can't fire all the workers that they think is not on their team. That is not what Republicans and Trump want. They want a "to the victor go the spoils system" We are talking about total destruction of the US government and conversion to a banana republic.
He is talking about the FBI. And Rosenstein is next to fall. It's become clear in the last 48 hours the Nunes memo bullshit is an end-move to replace Rosenstein with a loyalist.
Hey. Trump is not normal. Don't underestimate him. He says a lot of crazy things and it's easy to blow it all off that could be a fatal mistake.
Bush, Obama, Clinton did not refer to the press as the enemy of the people. And they didn't repeatedly interfere in investigations into themselves. They didn't repeatedly call on congress to run everything as majority rule. They didn't ignore sanctions passed by congress and didn't refer to other countries as shit holes. Etc etc etc.
It's easy to lose track of the horrendous stuff there's so much of it but as you stop paying attention is when he can complete some of the crazy things he is saying.
Before Hitler was HITLER he was a politician who got into office without winning the popular vote too. He chipped away at norms and overthrew a democracy. People at the time never dreamed things would get as bad as they eventually became.
No one wants statistically anomalous events to occur more than I do--meteor strike, aliens landing on the surface, super powers, Z-Day, you name it--but the problem with that desire is that statistically anomalous events do not occur. Just like the whole "remove Federal employees who 'undermine the public trust' or 'fail the American people'" line isn't going to happen, either--most government employees have public servant job security, which is often as good as tenure, so they aren't going anywhere any time soon.
What horrendous things have actually occurred? Have people been rounded up into what are essentially concentration camps? (oh, wait...only a Democrat President has ever done that--thanks, FDR) The level of people being deported is still not as high as it was during the Obama Administration. The recent tax reform might be a "gimme" to Big Business and the 1% but at least the Federal Government isn't giving free money to corporations deemed Too Big to Fail any more. As far as white supremacists marching here and there...well, people aren't more of an asshole to each other now than they have been in times past. Trump hasn't ended any wars, to be certain, but he hasn't started any, either. In all honesty, he hasn't really done much of anything at all except tweet things which either a) don't make sense, b) contradict things he might have said only a week ago, or c) both a and b. Oh, and "the wall", my foot--there isn't going to be a wall.
The ease with which Trump dismantles regulations with which he disagrees is the same ease his successor will use to put those regulations back in place beginning in Januay 2021. Patience.
The ease with which Trump dismantles regulations with which he disagrees is the same ease his successor will use to put those regulations back in place beginning in Januay 2021. Patience.
This sounds a bit like you're saying that movements away from political norms don't really matter and any changes can be corrected anyway in a few years. The problem with that it seems to me is that politics does matter - many millions of people could have their lives turned upside down as a result of the sorts of decisions being made now. For example: - the immigration debate is increasingly polarized. No matter what your point of view on that I imagine you accept the difficulty people face not knowing whether the next knock on the door is the prelude to deportation. - the changes to the Supreme Court make-up could easily result in decisions affecting people for a generation or more to come (like availability of abortion for instance). It's also not at all inconceivable that the courts start to work more in partnership with politicians rather than maintaining their independence (affecting things like transgender issues). The importance of the separation of the judicial and executive systems was brought home to me personally just a few days ago. I think I've posted before in this thread about the new disability appraisal system in the UK. Our experience of that was very poor and the same goes for many others, but politicians continued to support it despite the problems. However, as a result of a court decision that the system was 'blatantly discriminatory' the government have just agreed to re-review 1.6m decisions. - millions of people in the US have either lost or are in the process of losing health insurance. Emergency treatment systems are both a poor substitute for this and a poor use of resources - so this is going to lead to poorer health outcomes for the nation as a whole. Given recent US decisions on international co-operation in trade, Iran, climate change etc I don't have much confidence in the US government's ability to help manage a major international health crisis (and those are not statistical anomalies, they come along every few years). - there are a range of government departments that are now headed by people who don't believe in the previously stated aims of those departments. Quite apart from the likely effect of that on future policies I find it hard to imagine that this is going to lead to equitable treatment for people dealing with those departments.
No one wants statistically anomalous events to occur more than I do--meteor strike, aliens landing on the surface, super powers, Z-Day, you name it--but the problem with that desire is that statistically anomalous events do not occur. Just like the whole "remove Federal employees who 'undermine the public trust' or 'fail the American people'" line isn't going to happen, either--most government employees have public servant job security, which is often as good as tenure, so they aren't going anywhere any time soon.
What horrendous things have actually occurred? Have people been rounded up into what are essentially concentration camps? (oh, wait...only a Democrat President has ever done that--thanks, FDR) The level of people being deported is still not as high as it was during the Obama Administration. The recent tax reform might be a "gimme" to Big Business and the 1% but at least the Federal Government isn't giving free money to corporations deemed Too Big to Fail any more. As far as white supremacists marching here and there...well, people aren't more of an asshole to each other now than they have been in times past. Trump hasn't ended any wars, to be certain, but he hasn't started any, either. In all honesty, he hasn't really done much of anything at all except tweet things which either a) don't make sense, b) contradict things he might have said only a week ago, or c) both a and b. Oh, and "the wall", my foot--there isn't going to be a wall.
The ease with which Trump dismantles regulations with which he disagrees is the same ease his successor will use to put those regulations back in place beginning in Januay 2021. Patience.
Nobody has been rounded up yet as far as I know except for more emphasis on getting rid of any kind of illegal immigrants.
The whole public service protection you mentioned is exactly what he is proposing to do away with. Judging by the Republican lawmakers who clapped along it is something that the majority party supports being changed. Will it happen? Well it seems it is a goal. I don't believe that was the first time since Trumps election that goal was mentioned.
Will there be a wall? It seems like he wants it. Republicans scuttled CHIP and the Dream act apparently with the sole purpose of extracting concessions from Democrats. One of the things Trump said he wanted last week for a dream act was $25 billion for his wall and making huge cuts to legal immigration. What else will they do to get his wall if ending the Dream act and refusing to fund childrens healthcare for months won't give them enough leverage?
Trump is easily dismantling protections but there's no certainty that they will return or significant damage won't be done in the meantime.
If someone lives in a state of worry that ICE may come knocking on their door at any moment, why hasn't that person done what they need to do so that that doesn't occur? No, I know it isn't the old Ellis Island days where you stood in line, someone asked you a few questions, Americanized your name, and told you "come on in" but a modicum of effort can prevent that dreaded *knock* *knock* on the door.
There are several reforms which need to take place in order to correctly address the health insurance topic: medical costs spiraling out of control, allowing insurance providers to operate across State lines, letting money in flexible spending accounts roll over from year to year, etc. Bottom line, though, is the fact that my neighbor's health coverage is not my problem--I pay for my stuff, they can pay for theirs. If they can't...well, that isn't my problem, either.
The Obama Administration should never have been allowed to make the Iran deal in the first place. One cannot defend Iran yet also claim to support causes such as equal rights for non-heterosexual people. Remember--Iran is the place where they outlaw certain haircuts for young men because they are not religiously appropriate or are deemed "too Western".
Some government agencies have been allowed to engage in power grabs in recent years so they need to have their reach and power put in check. The BLM (or was it Interior? one of those two) tried to claim control of *all* water sources in the United States, including creeks which might run through someone's back yard or small ponds they may have on their property.
I don't know where we are in the conversation, but I have a question.
So I'm checking my email this morning and I come across two emails sent from the White House, both exactly the same. I open one up and see this:
The Daily Mail? Is that a joke? It's a bloody tabloid!!!
Seriously, I was reading an article claiming that Trump damaged the image of the USA abroad and that's certainly true. However be reassured folks that's not worse than during the Bush Jr years.
Will there be a wall? It seems like he wants it. Republicans scuttled CHIP and the Dream act apparently with the sole purpose of extracting concessions from Democrats. One of the things Trump said he wanted last week for a dream act was $25 billion for his wall and making huge cuts to legal immigration. What else will they do to get his wall if ending the Dream act and refusing to fund childrens healthcare for months won't give them enough leverage?
The CHIP "drama" was just a political scare-tactic by Democrats. It was funded through the first three months of the year last December and was never in any danger. CHIP federal funding never actually ran out, despite all the scary talk.
The DREAM Act was never actually passed. If the Republicans do indeed pass a DREAM Act, it would be the first time Congress has actually enacted this proposed piece of legislation. Hardly "scuttling".
My desire would be to pass the DREAM Act without any other concessions. The worst part of Trump's speech last night was the ridiculous claim that ending chain migration is "protecting the nuclear family". In no world is that true. I disagree with this cultural assertion that extended family isn't as vital as members of the nuclear family. It may be true for many Northern European cultures, but for the rest of the world having an expansive family support system is normal and desired.
If someone lives in a state of worry that ICE may come knocking on their door at any moment, why hasn't that person done what they need to do so that that doesn't occur? No, I know it isn't the old Ellis Island days where you stood in line, someone asked you a few questions, Americanized your name, and told you "come on in" but a modicum of effort can prevent that dreaded *knock* *knock* on the door.
I don't know where we are in the conversation, but I have a question.
So I'm checking my email this morning and I come across two emails sent from the White House, both exactly the same. I open one up and see this:
The Daily Mail? Is that a joke? It's a bloody tabloid!!!
Seriously, I was reading an article claiming that Trump damaged the image of the USA abroad and that's certainly true. However be reassured folks that's ot worse than during the Bush Jr years.
Health insurance companies have no interest in operating across state-lines. They don't participate because most health insurance bases itself in local networks. In most cases, It would be like buying a hunting license for a state you never intend to visit. It would be just as beneficial to throw the money out your car window driving down the interstate.
As for the conservative/libertarian argument that "I shouldn't have to pay for x, x and x". I always notice x, x and x is never something they either a.) know they can't pay for themselves or b.) take for granted so much it doesn't even cross their minds. The #1 example of course being....roads.
Now, even if I live in your city, I can certainly make the argument that I shouldn't have to pay for repairs on your street. After all, you and your neighbors drive on it 90% of the time and cause 90% of the damage. It's possible I've never even been on your street. That doesn't make me immune from my taxes going to Brick and Brick construction when the city sends them out for the summer to fix your road.
But let's play this out. Let's say we are, collectively, no longer paying for street and road repair. It is now the sole responsibility of those who live on the street. So 10 or 20 households split it evenly and move on?? Keep dreaming.
Bill is a bank executive who makes 150k a year. Fred is a manager at a pizza parlor and brings home 35k. Fred thinks Bill should pay more since he owns 4 cars, including two huge SUVs. Meanwhile Fred owns one small used Ford Taurus. Millie is a 90-year old widow who leaves her house in her mini-van exactly once a week to get her hair done and get groceries. She lives on nothing but her Social Security. Her kids, who take care of her finances, think she should have to pay less than Bill AND Fred. And then we have Evan, who doesn't even own a car, who walks and bikes everywhere.
Eventually, you will realize your road is never getting fixed, and in addition, your entire neighborhood now hates each other. And this is the underlying problem with modern conservative and libertarian thought. They think their success has nothing to do with, and that their needs are immune from society at large.
Health insurance companies have no interest in operating across state-lines. They don't participate because most health insurance bases itself in local networks. In most cases, It would be like buying a hunting license for a state you never intend to visit. It would be just as beneficial to throw the money out your car window driving down the interstate.
As for the conservative/libertarian argument that "I shouldn't have to pay for x, x and x". I always notice x, x and x is never something they either a.) know they can't pay for themselves or b.) take for granted so much it doesn't even cross their minds. The #1 example of course being....roads.
Now, even if I live in your city, I can certainly make the argument that I shouldn't have to pay for repairs on your street. After all, you and your neighbors drive on it 90% of the time and cause 90% of the damage. It's possible I've never even been on your street. That doesn't make me immune from my taxes going to Brick and Brick construction when the city sends them out for the summer to fix your road.
But let's play this out. Let's say we are, collectively, no longer paying for street and road repair. It is now the sole responsibility of those who live on the street. So 10 or 20 households split it evenly and move on?? Keep dreaming.
Bill is a bank executive who makes 150k a year. Fred is a manager at a pizza parlor and brings home 35k. Fred thinks Bill should pay more since he owns 4 cars, including two huge SUVs. Meanwhile Fred owns one small used Ford Taurus. Millie is a 90-year old widow who leaves her house in her mini-van exactly once a week to get her hair done and get groceries. She lives on nothing but her Social Security. Her kids, who take care of her finances, think she should have to pay less than Bill AND Fred. And then we have Evan, who doesn't even own a car, who walks and bikes everywhere.
Eventually, you will realize your road is never getting fixed, and in addition, your entire neighborhood now hates each other. And this is the underlying problem with modern conservative and libertarian thought. They think their success has nothing to do with, and that their needs are immune from society at large.
Your road analogy is only relevant if you think people are just going to sit around whining about the government not fixing their road for them. At some point they'll stop worrying about the 'fairness' of the situation and just take care if it themselves. Maybe Banker Bill buys the concrete, Fred and Millie's kids supply the labor (and maybe even offer Walker Evan to do the sidewalks if he helps out) and Millie bakes them all cookies.
This idea that nothing can get done without government is total BS...
Eventually, you will realize your road is never getting fixed, and in addition, your entire neighborhood now hates each other. And this is the underlying problem with modern conservative and libertarian thought. They think their success has nothing to do with, and that their needs are immune from society at large.
This is a good analysis of the difficulties of addressing common goods at the local level. My earlier post on this topic though was more about wider issues where dealing with them at the individual or local level is not just difficult, but impossible - things like antibiotic resistance, climate change, infectious diseases, waste disposal and water use. A quote I like from Ayn Rand that's relevant to this sort of thing is: "You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."
I don't know of any road that was built by local communities without government involvement, at least not in San Antonio. The roads I use most often are Northwest Military, 1604, I-10, and 87. Would any of them exist without government support? Would any of them be maintained without government support?
I suppose theoretically you could get a community to build a road without government involvement. You'd just need a bunch of people to get together, find some agreement on how much money should be spent and how much each person should contribute, how to punish anyone who breaks their promise to contribute at the last minute (otherwise everyone will default), and then vote for somebody to oversee the project so everyone else can go back to their day jobs.
But when a bunch of people come together, make an agreement to undertake a project, take money from individuals and spend the money as a collective, and choose somebody they can trust to make sure the project works out, that's called a government.
If someone lives in a state of worry that ICE may come knocking on their door at any moment, why hasn't that person done what they need to do so that that doesn't occur? No, I know it isn't the old Ellis Island days where you stood in line, someone asked you a few questions, Americanized your name, and told you "come on in" but a modicum of effort can prevent that dreaded *knock* *knock* on the door.
A modicum like living your whole life within the law, having a stable job and joining the DACA programme for instance? Though come to think of it that's not going to prevent people worrying just at the moment ...
There are several reforms which need to take place in order to correctly address the health insurance topic: medical costs spiraling out of control, allowing insurance providers to operate across State lines, letting money in flexible spending accounts roll over from year to year, etc. Bottom line, though, is the fact that my neighbor's health coverage is not my problem--I pay for my stuff, they can pay for theirs. If they can't...well, that isn't my problem, either.
Your neighbor's health coverage is indeed your problem if lack of coverage results in a resurgence of infectious diseases. Even without that the whole basis for insurance is a pooling of risks and you therefore will be affected indirectly by what happens to others.
The Obama Administration should never have been allowed to make the Iran deal in the first place. One cannot defend Iran yet also claim to support causes such as equal rights for non-heterosexual people. Remember--Iran is the place where they outlaw certain haircuts for young men because they are not religiously appropriate or are deemed "too Western".
Sure you can defend the deal. It was intended to avoid Iran developing nuclear weapons, not to change their society - and has been successful in its aim. Some people are now saying that the aim was too limited - and should for instance have covered foreign interventions by Iran. However, it's unlikely a deal with that sort of basis could have been reached.
Some government agencies have been allowed to engage in power grabs in recent years so they need to have their reach and power put in check. The BLM (or was it Interior? one of those two) tried to claim control of *all* water sources in the United States, including creeks which might run through someone's back yard or small ponds they may have on their property.
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but water use is one of those areas that can't simply be left to individual rights because of the extent to which those overlap - without an agreed regulatory framework conflicts soon arise.
Health insurance companies have no interest in operating across state-lines. They don't participate because most health insurance bases itself in local networks. In most cases, It would be like buying a hunting license for a state you never intend to visit. It would be just as beneficial to throw the money out your car window driving down the interstate.
As for the conservative/libertarian argument that "I shouldn't have to pay for x, x and x". I always notice x, x and x is never something they either a.) know they can't pay for themselves or b.) take for granted so much it doesn't even cross their minds. The #1 example of course being....roads.
Now, even if I live in your city, I can certainly make the argument that I shouldn't have to pay for repairs on your street. After all, you and your neighbors drive on it 90% of the time and cause 90% of the damage. It's possible I've never even been on your street. That doesn't make me immune from my taxes going to Brick and Brick construction when the city sends them out for the summer to fix your road.
But let's play this out. Let's say we are, collectively, no longer paying for street and road repair. It is now the sole responsibility of those who live on the street. So 10 or 20 households split it evenly and move on?? Keep dreaming.
Bill is a bank executive who makes 150k a year. Fred is a manager at a pizza parlor and brings home 35k. Fred thinks Bill should pay more since he owns 4 cars, including two huge SUVs. Meanwhile Fred owns one small used Ford Taurus. Millie is a 90-year old widow who leaves her house in her mini-van exactly once a week to get her hair done and get groceries. She lives on nothing but her Social Security. Her kids, who take care of her finances, think she should have to pay less than Bill AND Fred. And then we have Evan, who doesn't even own a car, who walks and bikes everywhere.
Eventually, you will realize your road is never getting fixed, and in addition, your entire neighborhood now hates each other. And this is the underlying problem with modern conservative and libertarian thought. They think their success has nothing to do with, and that their needs are immune from society at large.
Your road analogy is only relevant if you think people are just going to sit around whining about the government not fixing their road for them. At some point they'll stop worrying about the 'fairness' of the situation and just take care if it themselves. Maybe Banker Bill buys the concrete, Fred and Millie's kids supply the labor (and maybe even offer Walker Evan to do the sidewalks if he helps out) and Millie bakes them all cookies.
This idea that nothing can get done without government is total BS...
This may be what happens in Pleasantville, but my strong suspicion is that, 8 times out of 10, it would devolve into an endless cycle of bitching about what most endless cyclew of bitching are about, which is money.
My point isn't that people wouldn't want to get off their ass and do something. My point is that if government stopped functioning in the unseen and taken for granted ways it does everyday, most people would be paralyzed by both the realization and reality of the situation. Even simply from a logistics perspective.
Your road analogy is only relevant if you think people are just going to sit around whining about the government not fixing their road for them. At some point they'll stop worrying about the 'fairness' of the situation and just take care if it themselves. Maybe Banker Bill buys the concrete, Fred and Millie's kids supply the labor (and maybe even offer Walker Evan to do the sidewalks if he helps out) and Millie bakes them all cookies.
This idea that nothing can get done without government is total BS...
It used to be relatively common in the UK for residential cul-de-sac roads to be unadopted, i.e. owned and maintained by the residents rather than the local council. However, that's pretty rare now and most of the roads that were originally unadopted have been adopted over time. The reason for that is it just didn't work well. Even where the original residents all thought it was a good idea and were happy to contribute, that position is subject to change over time as a result both of changes in residents and changing circumstances for the original residents. Selling houses on such a road has also proved to be significantly more difficult than on an adopted road because of the uncertainty and extra cost associated with the road (and probably because unadopted roads tend not to be maintained very well).
Health insurance companies have no interest in operating across state-lines. They don't participate because most health insurance bases itself in local networks. In most cases, It would be like buying a hunting license for a state you never intend to visit. It would be just as beneficial to throw the money out your car window driving down the interstate.
As someone who has worked in health-law think tank, I can tell you from first hand experience this is not only false, but the opposite of true. Health insurance companies are dying to operate across state lines, and their political contributions back up the claim. Its one of their top lobbying priorities.
The argument that the government is ideally situated to build roads and other public works and therefore should have purview over completely unrelated industries is a bit absurd.
That said, the problem jjstraka expressed about building roads is legitimate, and this is why tolls are the ideal method of paying for upkeep. That way, those who burden the common-pool resource more would pay more of the cost, ideally in proportion to their use. While it is true that we all benefit from roads, we do not benefit all equally, and the person driving the SUV to work every day should contribute more than the person who takes a bike or works from home.
Comments
I assume teleprompter don features about 2% less bald faced lies.
Tonight and tomorrow people will talk once again about the "pivot". Luckily, I still remember last year's speech. Trump had turned the corner we were told. 48 hours later he was accusing Barack Obama of personally ordering a wiretap of Trump Tower.
Bush, Obama, Clinton did not refer to the press as the enemy of the people. And they didn't repeatedly interfere in investigations into themselves. They didn't repeatedly call on congress to run everything as majority rule. They didn't ignore sanctions passed by congress and didn't refer to other countries as shit holes. Etc etc etc.
It's easy to lose track of the horrendous stuff there's so much of it but as you stop paying attention is when he can complete some of the crazy things he is saying.
Before Hitler was HITLER he was a politician who got into office without winning the popular vote too. He chipped away at norms and overthrew a democracy. People at the time never dreamed things would get as bad as they eventually became.
This was the line: "So tonight, I call on the Congress to empower every Cabinet Secretary with the authority to reward good workers — and to remove Federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people."
He wants to be rid of independent people leaving just the lackeys and yes-men. He wants a whole government of Devin Nunezes!
There's a reason that each administration can't fire all the workers that they think is not on their team. That is not what Republicans and Trump want. They want a "to the victor go the spoils system" We are talking about total destruction of the US government and conversion to a banana republic.
What horrendous things have actually occurred? Have people been rounded up into what are essentially concentration camps? (oh, wait...only a Democrat President has ever done that--thanks, FDR) The level of people being deported is still not as high as it was during the Obama Administration. The recent tax reform might be a "gimme" to Big Business and the 1% but at least the Federal Government isn't giving free money to corporations deemed Too Big to Fail any more. As far as white supremacists marching here and there...well, people aren't more of an asshole to each other now than they have been in times past. Trump hasn't ended any wars, to be certain, but he hasn't started any, either. In all honesty, he hasn't really done much of anything at all except tweet things which either a) don't make sense, b) contradict things he might have said only a week ago, or c) both a and b. Oh, and "the wall", my foot--there isn't going to be a wall.
The ease with which Trump dismantles regulations with which he disagrees is the same ease his successor will use to put those regulations back in place beginning in Januay 2021. Patience.
- the immigration debate is increasingly polarized. No matter what your point of view on that I imagine you accept the difficulty people face not knowing whether the next knock on the door is the prelude to deportation.
- the changes to the Supreme Court make-up could easily result in decisions affecting people for a generation or more to come (like availability of abortion for instance). It's also not at all inconceivable that the courts start to work more in partnership with politicians rather than maintaining their independence (affecting things like transgender issues). The importance of the separation of the judicial and executive systems was brought home to me personally just a few days ago. I think I've posted before in this thread about the new disability appraisal system in the UK. Our experience of that was very poor and the same goes for many others, but politicians continued to support it despite the problems. However, as a result of a court decision that the system was 'blatantly discriminatory' the government have just agreed to re-review 1.6m decisions.
- millions of people in the US have either lost or are in the process of losing health insurance. Emergency treatment systems are both a poor substitute for this and a poor use of resources - so this is going to lead to poorer health outcomes for the nation as a whole. Given recent US decisions on international co-operation in trade, Iran, climate change etc I don't have much confidence in the US government's ability to help manage a major international health crisis (and those are not statistical anomalies, they come along every few years).
- there are a range of government departments that are now headed by people who don't believe in the previously stated aims of those departments. Quite apart from the likely effect of that on future policies I find it hard to imagine that this is going to lead to equitable treatment for people dealing with those departments.
The whole public service protection you mentioned is exactly what he is proposing to do away with. Judging by the Republican lawmakers who clapped along it is something that the majority party supports being changed. Will it happen? Well it seems it is a goal. I don't believe that was the first time since Trumps election that goal was mentioned.
Will there be a wall? It seems like he wants it. Republicans scuttled CHIP and the Dream act apparently with the sole purpose of extracting concessions from Democrats. One of the things Trump said he wanted last week for a dream act was $25 billion for his wall and making huge cuts to legal immigration. What else will they do to get his wall if ending the Dream act and refusing to fund childrens healthcare for months won't give them enough leverage?
Trump is easily dismantling protections but there's no certainty that they will return or significant damage won't be done in the meantime.
There are several reforms which need to take place in order to correctly address the health insurance topic: medical costs spiraling out of control, allowing insurance providers to operate across State lines, letting money in flexible spending accounts roll over from year to year, etc. Bottom line, though, is the fact that my neighbor's health coverage is not my problem--I pay for my stuff, they can pay for theirs. If they can't...well, that isn't my problem, either.
The Obama Administration should never have been allowed to make the Iran deal in the first place. One cannot defend Iran yet also claim to support causes such as equal rights for non-heterosexual people. Remember--Iran is the place where they outlaw certain haircuts for young men because they are not religiously appropriate or are deemed "too Western".
Some government agencies have been allowed to engage in power grabs in recent years so they need to have their reach and power put in check. The BLM (or was it Interior? one of those two) tried to claim control of *all* water sources in the United States, including creeks which might run through someone's back yard or small ponds they may have on their property.
Seriously, I was reading an article claiming that Trump damaged the image of the USA abroad and that's certainly true. However be reassured folks that's not worse than during the Bush Jr years.
The DREAM Act was never actually passed. If the Republicans do indeed pass a DREAM Act, it would be the first time Congress has actually enacted this proposed piece of legislation. Hardly "scuttling".
My desire would be to pass the DREAM Act without any other concessions. The worst part of Trump's speech last night was the ridiculous claim that ending chain migration is "protecting the nuclear family". In no world is that true. I disagree with this cultural assertion that extended family isn't as vital as members of the nuclear family. It may be true for many Northern European cultures, but for the rest of the world having an expansive family support system is normal and desired.
As for the conservative/libertarian argument that "I shouldn't have to pay for x, x and x". I always notice x, x and x is never something they either a.) know they can't pay for themselves or b.) take for granted so much it doesn't even cross their minds. The #1 example of course being....roads.
Now, even if I live in your city, I can certainly make the argument that I shouldn't have to pay for repairs on your street. After all, you and your neighbors drive on it 90% of the time and cause 90% of the damage. It's possible I've never even been on your street. That doesn't make me immune from my taxes going to Brick and Brick construction when the city sends them out for the summer to fix your road.
But let's play this out. Let's say we are, collectively, no longer paying for street and road repair. It is now the sole responsibility of those who live on the street. So 10 or 20 households split it evenly and move on?? Keep dreaming.
Bill is a bank executive who makes 150k a year. Fred is a manager at a pizza parlor and brings home 35k. Fred thinks Bill should pay more since he owns 4 cars, including two huge SUVs. Meanwhile Fred owns one small used Ford Taurus. Millie is a 90-year old widow who leaves her house in her mini-van exactly once a week to get her hair done and get groceries. She lives on nothing but her Social Security. Her kids, who take care of her finances, think she should have to pay less than Bill AND Fred. And then we have Evan, who doesn't even own a car, who walks and bikes everywhere.
Eventually, you will realize your road is never getting fixed, and in addition, your entire neighborhood now hates each other. And this is the underlying problem with modern conservative and libertarian thought. They think their success has nothing to do with, and that their needs are immune from society at large.
This idea that nothing can get done without government is total BS...
I suppose theoretically you could get a community to build a road without government involvement. You'd just need a bunch of people to get together, find some agreement on how much money should be spent and how much each person should contribute, how to punish anyone who breaks their promise to contribute at the last minute (otherwise everyone will default), and then vote for somebody to oversee the project so everyone else can go back to their day jobs.
But when a bunch of people come together, make an agreement to undertake a project, take money from individuals and spend the money as a collective, and choose somebody they can trust to make sure the project works out, that's called a government.
Your neighbor's health coverage is indeed your problem if lack of coverage results in a resurgence of infectious diseases. Even without that the whole basis for insurance is a pooling of risks and you therefore will be affected indirectly by what happens to others.
Sure you can defend the deal. It was intended to avoid Iran developing nuclear weapons, not to change their society - and has been successful in its aim. Some people are now saying that the aim was too limited - and should for instance have covered foreign interventions by Iran. However, it's unlikely a deal with that sort of basis could have been reached.
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but water use is one of those areas that can't simply be left to individual rights because of the extent to which those overlap - without an agreed regulatory framework conflicts soon arise.
My point isn't that people wouldn't want to get off their ass and do something. My point is that if government stopped functioning in the unseen and taken for granted ways it does everyday, most people would be paralyzed by both the realization and reality of the situation. Even simply from a logistics perspective.
That said, the problem jjstraka expressed about building roads is legitimate, and this is why tolls are the ideal method of paying for upkeep. That way, those who burden the common-pool resource more would pay more of the cost, ideally in proportion to their use. While it is true that we all benefit from roads, we do not benefit all equally, and the person driving the SUV to work every day should contribute more than the person who takes a bike or works from home.