America - The Official Thread

[Rallywagon]

Some girl is at it again! Say what you want about Trump but I'm still trying to figure out how this idiot got voted in.

While shes not the most elegant speaker, i don't think the context there is wrong. Personally speaking, the future of the country and the planet were heavy factors when my wife and I were deciding whether to have a child or not. Anecdotally speaking, i know plenty of parents that had similar concerns. Statistically speaking, birth rates have been declining with economic uncertainty being the prime driving factor. Id put money down that, at least in the more left leaning groups, that future environmental concerns were a factor in their decision as well.

 

[Liquid]

Every generation of planned parents in considering the future shocker.

 

[Rallywagon]

People in the past of course have never had to worry about this. Their lives were way easier, what with The Black Death/The Third Pandemic and Smallpox. And of course, just widespread famines at various times in human history. We live in the safest time in history. Apparently the time to consider this question was 536 CE.

https://www.iflscience.com/environment/what-was-the-worst-time-to-be-alive-in-human-history/

Perspective people!!

Edit:

You know... it turns out that Black people, who were enslaved in various nations including the US, when living as slaves in a society that nearly completely embraced their status as second class citizens and deserving of a complete lack of rights and dignity, even then... even when there was no real hope for their children to have rights, and no hope of their own freedom, even then they had kids.

And people now are still having kids. We in fact decided to have a kid. That doesnt mean that todays concerns arent relevant, nor that any of those parents from the past didnt take their situations into consideration.

 

[Danoff]

And people now are still having kids. We in fact decided to have a kid. That doesnt mean that todays concerns arent relevant, nor that any of those parents from the past didnt take their situations into consideration.

It's relevant. It's just that we also happen to be living at the best time in human history to be alive. So it seems to be a really strange time to decide that the lives of decedents will be so horrible (especially in light of human history) that they're not worth living. That strikes me as a complete lack of perspective.

 

[TexRex]

lives of decedents

Dang auto-correct...

 

[Danoff]

Dang auto-correct...

Lack thereof apparently.

Edit:

In the politically correct thread I made a big speech about how you can be dumb and smart at the same time. If anyone is following my terrible spelling, you'll know that I do my best to prove my own point.

 

[Liquid]

It's relevant. It's just that we also happen to be living at the best time in human history to be alive. So it seems to be a really strange time to decide that the lives of decedents will be so horrible (especially in light of human history) that they're not worth living. That strikes me as a complete lack of perspective.

That's a very static way of looking at it. As if even entertaining the idea of thinking about whether the future might be bad is somehow absurd. Has anyone suggested that this is the worst time in history to have children in the first world?

"We live in the best time in human history"

You can go back 100 years and say the same thing. And the 100 years before that. And the 100 years even before that. It's taken conscious effort to achieve this continuous milestone and I don't see why wanting to either further improve on that or wondering how it could be undone is naïve.

It just comes across as an excuse to bash Ocasio-Cortez because some dislike her and/or her policies; she took an otherwise useful point (think about the future when planning children) and played up the climate change part of it.

 

[TexRex]

Lack thereof apparently.

Edit:

In the politically correct thread I made a big speech about how you can be dumb and smart at the same time. If anyone is following my terrible spelling, you'll know that I do my best to prove my own point.

Hey now, your spelling was impeccable.



Pity there isn't a Chrome extension to apply the words you meant to use.

 

[Danoff]

That's a very static way of looking at it. As if even entertaining the idea of thinking about whether the future might be bad is somehow absurd. Has anyone suggested that this is the worst time in history to have children in the first world?

I see... so having children was always a bad idea...

Ok I've typed the follow-up sentence in draft form and am working out how to say this without getting arrested or something. Let me put it this way, once children become adults, they can decide that their parents were wrong and make their own decision about whether the world is worth living in. So if you're an adult wondering whether your parents should have decided otherwise, remember that the power is yours.

"We live in the best time in human history"

You can go back 100 years and say the same thing. And the 100 years before that. And the 100 years even before that. It's taken conscious effort to achieve this continuous milestone and I don't see why wanting to either further improve on that or wondering how it could be undone is naïve.

I'm not sure where I said that wanting to improve conditions for the future is naive. But I do think that stating that you think the lives of our descendants (spell check) may not be worth living is a demonstration of a lack of perspective.

It just comes across as an excuse to bash Ocasio-Cortez because some dislike her and/or her policies;

I haven't said anything about her policies.

she took an otherwise useful point (think about the future when planning children) and played up the climate change part of it.

She tried to make a political point out of something that doesn't exist (the notion that lives of our children will not be worth living).

 

[TexRex]

lives of our descendants (spell check)

 

[ryzno]

Baby turtle do do do doo, baby turtle do do doo.

 

[Biggles]

I see... so having children was always a bad idea...


She tried to make a political point out of something that doesn't exist (the notion that lives of our children will not be worth living).

C'mon Danoff - people have children because they like to ****. Do I have to give you the talk about the birds & the bees? In the past that led to having lots of children ... plus as there was no social security or Medicare, they figured they needed to have children to look after them in old age & possibly to provide agricultural labour.

I have to admit, I haven't really been following what AOC has been saying. I have noticed that Fox News hangs onto & reports on her every word! It's not surprising that everything she says doesn't stand up to close scrutiny - the same is true of many members of congress ... & not just ones in their 20's.

I'm still missing the tie in on what tax brackets have to do with that chart... you and @Keef (and to the extent that @PocketZeven might agree with you) have yet to explain that.

Tax brackets don't necessarily tie in to that particular chart - I don't think I made that assertion. I think they do tie into the reality that as the overall prosperity of the US continued to go up over the subsequent decades, that increased prosperity was experienced mostly in the top tiers of society & not in the working class. That is what has led us (ultimately) to Donald Trump - Donald Trump has chosen to blame the struggles of the American working class to keep up on immigrants ... & China.

 

[Novalee]

I think it is sad it has been 18 years since these brave folks were promised lifetime care and money to retire since they are almost certain to die early and it still has not been finalized.


bipartisan group of lawmakers, joined by comedian Jon Stewart, are pushing to fully compensate first responders and survivors suffering from illnesses linked to the 9/11 attacks.

Lawmakers introduced legislation Monday that would guarantee that first responders sickened by the attacks, as well as their survivors, receive their full benefit from the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. The bill would also make funding permanent.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/25/gilibrand-schumer-stewart-9-11-health-bill-1185339

Keep up the fight jon until it is job done .





Now this .

https://globalnews.ca/news/4998781/jorge-ramos-nicolas-maduro-venezuela/

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro briefly detained American journalist Jorge Ramos and five members of his news crew before releasing them unharmed Monday night, Spanish-language U.S. news network Univision said.

This is all pence needs to invade .

 

[Danoff]

C'mon Danoff - people have children because they like to ****. Do I have to give you the talk about the birds & the bees? In the past that led to having lots of children ... plus as there was no social security or Medicare, they figured they needed to have children to look after them in old age & possibly to provide agricultural labour.

There is definitely a level of intention in having kids, even where birth control is lacking. The reason that I've heard is most often cited in scenarios where kids suffer (Africa) and birth control is not well practiced (Africa) is the one you give above - to take care of you when you're older. There's also religion, which was a major motivator during most of the times I cited (plague, etc).

I still maintain that you don't have kids if you know you're just going to watch them suffer. Hope springs eternal I guess, but if people had hope then, they can certainly have it now.

Also there is the fun bit that if people think they should stop having kids now because of expected future scenarios, they also must think that people should have stopped having kids back then. And think that they should not exist... which of course is within their control.

 

[Mr Tree]

Some girl is at it again! Say what you want about Trump but I'm still trying to figure out how this idiot got voted in.

You're comparing someone who at least tried to make a point to a man that uses word like 'bigly' while he's a native speaker.
Let's not jold the pissing contest on idiocy with Trump in your team

So if you're an adult wondering whether your parents should have decided otherwise, remember that the power is yours.

Don't know in the states but no over here I do not have the right to euthanise myself for being tired of life. So apparently I do not have that right.
I could commit suicide but let's be honnest if we as a society consider the end of life a right you should have legal options to do so in a humane manner.

Charity is all these people have. It's all any of us are arguing for to help them. It's just that some people think they can use a gun to get it.

Ok if no one would give charity to that person what do you suggest him to do? He has the right to protect himself so just rob people at gunpoint? He needs the medication to stay alive, so not having enough money is a threath to his life... Taxing people to fund a public healthcare system is a better option as this way we save peoples lives and deincentives crimes commited to perserve ones life. On a whole your life would have a smaller chance of being impacted by someone who would use violence against you for whatever reason, in this case to pay the medical bills.

Safety from others. Not safety from yourself.

So a neurological disease is me hurting myself? Nice choice I have there, doesn't impact my equality of oppertunity at all.

I don't know what "mobility on the social ladder" means. I assume it means some kind of "what you have relative to what that person has", which is, of course, not important. What matters is standard of living for each individual, not what that standard of living is relative to others.

The thing that gets sold as a meritocrasy. Work hard and you can go from poverty to the 'middle or upper' classes. This mobility would je heavily halted in a fee based system.

 

[Mr Tree]

Sorry double post.

 

[McLaren]

It just comes across as an excuse to bash Ocasio-Cortez because some dislike her and/or her policies; she took an otherwise useful point (think about the future when planning children) and played up the climate change part of it.

Is it a useful point to say until you have a better idea to fight climate change, "we’re in charge - and you’re just shouting from the cheap seats."

No one needs an excuse when she just tweets out this kind of aggressive response to people. But, bold of a barely 2-month old congress woman to declare herself "in charge". Bolder to say others are in the "cheap seats"; this woman last November talked about pinching pennies before she could be sworn in.

 

[Danoff]

Don't know in the states but no over here I do not have the right to euthanise myself for being tired of life. So apparently I do not have that right.
I could commit suicide but let's be honnest if we as a society consider the end of life a right you should have legal options to do so in a humane manner.

We legalized it in CO just a little bit ago, but not just for any reason, so it still might infringe your right to control your own life (you do have rights even if laws try to infringe them). I find it extremely odd that people recognize the need for animals to not suffer at the end of their lives but don't recognize the same humane response in people.

Ok if no one would give charity to that person what do you suggest him to do? He has the right to protect himself so just rob people at gunpoint? He needs the medication to stay alive, so not having enough money is a threath to his life... Taxing people to fund a public healthcare system is a better option as this way we save peoples lives and deincentives crimes commited to perserve ones life. On a whole your life would have a smaller chance of being impacted by someone who would use violence against you for whatever reason, in this case to pay the medical bills. So a neurological disease is me hurting myself? Nice choice I have there, doesn't impact my equality of oppertunity at all. The thing that gets sold as a meritocrasy. Work hard and you can go from poverty to the 'middle or upper' classes. This mobility would je heavily halted in a fee based system.

Well first of all I did explain how a fee-based system could still provide for welfare, just that I think it's a bad idea to do so.

Secondly, it shouldn't matter what class you are. If mobility ultimately becomes impossible in the relative ranking of wealth, that still wouldn't matter if you can impact your quality of life and have a high standard of living. There is a really weird impulse to say that you need to be better than others, or be able to elevate yourself above others, to be happy. But we'll have the same number of people before and after that. The same number of people in the bottom quarter.

Your rights do not include using force against (innocent) others. Feel free to protect yourself from hunger by obtaining food, and disease by obtaining medical care, just don't force other humans in the process.

BTW, what do you suggest for a person that has no charity and can't provide for themselves? You seem to be proscribing charity, just charity obtained at the threat of violence. What if nobody is willing to commit violence?

I love how the threat of violence against others is somehow more compassionate. Which one is more noble? That you're willing to point a gun at someone and make them help a person? Or that you actually help the person yourself? If everyone who was willing to violently coerce people into helping others would just put down their guns and help the people they care so much about, there'd be no shortage of charity. In short, instead of resorting to violence before giving charity, give charity before resorting to violence. How about that?

In a word where people have really balanced their priorities, we run out of people willing to use guns to get charity before we run out of people willing to give charity.

 

[Mr Tree]

Secondly, it shouldn't matter what class you are. If mobility ultimately becomes impossible in the relative ranking of wealth, that still wouldn't matter if you can impact your quality of life and have a high standard of living. There is a really weird impulse to say that you need to be better than others, or be able to elevate yourself above others, to be happy. But we'll have the same number of people before and after that. The same number of people in the bottom quarter.

I for one don't like the social classes and believe we should go to a world where everyone has a comparable standard of living. Facts are we don't live in that world and never wil we live in this world under capitalism.

Also.it would matter as in which family your born sets the life you can live that's not equality of oppertunity. Or is that not what ypu aim for?

Well first of all I did explain how a fee-based system could still provide for welfare, just that I think it's a bad idea to do so.

How would you preserve the lives of those people. Either explain or admit you'd be ok with them having to die and stopping them at gunpoint when they turn to alm that could save them, crime.

Your rights do not include using force against (innocent) others. Feel free to protect yourself from hunger by obtaining food, and disease by obtaining medical care, just don't force other humans in the process.

But this is utopia... the fact is those people will die without medication. Solce the issue in a manner you'd be ok with, without letting them die because of their disease. If not your idea's are just as immoral as you find taxes to be, if not more.

BTW, what do you suggest for a person that has no charity and can't provide for themselves? You seem to be proscribing charity, just charity obtained at the threat of violence. What if nobody is willing to commit violence?

I wouldn't want a system that needs charity. I live in a society, and an ethical society doesn't let it's peers die out of greed.

That you're willing to point a gun at someone and make them help a person

This is bs and you know it...
I'm done with the argument that it's at gunpoint while you gladly ignore the fact that if one cooperates and isn't an asshole no one has to be threatened to do anything while your ideaq do threatheb the lives of people. I won't stand for the double standard there.
If the one in need commits a 'crime' to stay alive you'd be forcing him.into jail at gunpoint. You'd be willing to force someone to jail at gunpoint for saving his own life. I'd be willing to do that for people not willing to save lives.

All the talk of nobility is all straight up utopian crap as this wouldn't happen. It it where so people wouldn't have millions in the bank while others starve.

In a word where people have really balanced their priorities, we run out of people willing to use guns to get charity before we run out of people willing to give charity.

That's your claim and I don't believe it.

Not forgetting you never explain what you do with a person that couldn't get charity, again what would you do with that person? How would you solve the issue?

(you do have rights even if laws try to infringe them).

Agreed, wht I don't agree with is ypur limited view of rights that leave little to no place for anything other than property rights.

 

[Danoff]

I for one don't like the social classes and believe we should go to a world where everyone has a comparable standard of living.

That takes a lot of guns.

Also.it would matter as in which family your born sets the life you can live that's not equality of oppertunity. Or is that not what ypu aim for?

No I don't aim for equalizing anything, except treatment under the law.

How would you preserve the lives of those people. Either explain or admit you'd be ok with them having to die and stopping them at gunpoint when they turn to alm that could save them, crime.

I'm not a utilitarian. My goal is not to maximize the number of people alive. If it were, sure, let's ban cars and knives and pools and soda. But I think that there are things that are worth more than human life.

If I can't (or won't) save someone's life morally... what would you have me do? I'm ok with them dying if I can't save them. I do what I can. Have you ever considered why your forced charity stops at the border? Are you willing to point a gun at me to save people starving in Africa? Will you continue to point a gun at anyone with any capability to help until there is nothing left and the world is level? Why do we permit starvation in Africa? I have an answer, do you?

But this is utopia... the fact is those people will die without medication. Solce the issue in a manner you'd be ok with, without letting them die because of their disease. If not your idea's are just as immoral as you find taxes to be, if not more.

I'm immoral because I can't save them without using violence against innocent people? That's impressive. I'm ok with people dying if I can't or won't save them. You seem to have an issue with it, though, and seem to think that you can morally use force against innocent people to achieve that end. I'm not sure why you think that's the case.

I wouldn't want a system that needs charity. I live in a society, and an ethical society doesn't let it's peers die out of greed.

As I have already explained to you, all they have is charity. Its what you advocate and what I advocate. In your "system", they rely on the charity of those with guns to use those guns against innocent people to provide for their well-being. In my "system" they rely on people to help them directly. If you're not willing to help them yourself, why would you think you can force others to do it?

This is bs and you know it...
I'm done with the argument that it's at gunpoint while you gladly ignore the fact that if one cooperates and isn't an asshole no one has to be threatened to do anything while your ideaq do threatheb the lives of people.

Yes blame the victim. If they just did what they were told, we wouldn't have to shoot them.

I won't stand for the double standard there.
If the one in need commits a 'crime' to stay alive you'd be forcing him.into jail at gunpoint.

Yes.

You'd be willing to force someone to jail at gunpoint for saving his own life.

Not for saving his life, for his lack of recognition of human rights in his chosen avenue.

I'd be willing to do that for people not willing to save lives.

Which makes you immoral. You'd violate the rights of others for your own preferred ends. I'd prefer that you didn't mess with other people and helped people yourself if you want to help them. Doesn't that sound like a moral solution to you? Use guns to get what you want from others - immoral. If you want something to happen, go do it - moral.

All the talk of nobility is all straight up utopian crap as this wouldn't happen.

I guess I just dream of living in a world where people recognize that they can't force others to their own ends. You may saaaaaay I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one...

It it where so people wouldn't have millions in the bank while others starve.

It doesn't hurt anybody for someone to have millions in the bank. It's not causing people to starve. They're not doing anything wrong by having provided for themselves comfortably. It's you who are making a judgment. And your judgment is that you see someone you want to help, you see someone you can steal from, and you have a gun and are willing to use it. Instead, go use your voice - to reason with the folks who have the means to help and persuade them to help voluntarily. That would be a moral response. Another moral response would be to go use your hands to help someone in need.

Not forgetting you never explain what you do with a person that couldn't get charity, again what would you do with that person? How would you solve the issue?

I explained that. It's your turn... what do you do if you run out of people willing to use guns to get what they want? How do you help the person then. What if nobody is willing to point a gun to extract charity? Then what? How do you help people?

Agreed, wht I don't agree with is ypur limited view of rights that leave little to no place for anything other than property rights.

I leave no room for using force against innocent people.

 

[Novalee]

Watching the hearing on child seperation at the border made few things clear.

It is still going on even though it is now unlawfull.

The people in charge at ice, border patrol ,hhs are clueless at whats going on and how to fix it.


Was fun watching the witnesses squirm at being confronted with their lies .

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm still missing the tie in on what tax brackets have to do with that chart... you and @Keef (and to the extent that @PocketZeven might agree with you) have yet to explain that.

Having the highest income more will reduce their wealth and repurpose the taxed money into something that will benefit everyone and the weaker links. A society is only as good as its weakest link. I realise I sound very much like a socialist, but I am emphasizing on the highest income brackets. It strange as a society to accept that in a society of for example 100, 1 has 35% and 40 people have only 1% and cannot pay their bills and totally accept it. My proposition is to actually to tax yearly after a budget has been formed.

Lets sau 100 people have 1 million distributed like below:

1 person 35% 350.000 p.p.
4 people 30% 75.000 p.p.
35 people 30% 8.571 p.p.
20 people 4% 2.000 p.p.
40 people 1% 250 p.p.

The society needs 200.000 to pay for common services. "equal tax" is 20%

1 person has 280.000
4 people have 60.000
35 people have 6.857
20 people have 1.600
40 people have 200

Out of the above the 20 people make a good living and 40 make less then minimum wage and cannot pay their bills.


Lets say the following year the societies income is again 1.000.000. Also the society had an incident that damaged infrastructure and will need an extra 20.000 to fix it on top of the 200.000. And also decided to help the bottom tiers of income with 60k of subsidies.

So lets say the bottom 2 go to a 5% tax bracket, 35 people pay 15%, 4 people pay 30% and 1 person pays 50% of the 280.000 total tax needed (60.000 extra to subsidize the bottom to a minimum wage and 20.000 to pay for a deficit), what would remain of their wealth?

1 person has 210.000
4 people have 54.000
35 people have 7.371
20 people will have 1440 (before subsidize) +12% of 60k (divided by 20) = 1.800
40 people will have 180 (before subsidize) +88% of 60k(divided by 40)= 1.500

 

[Dotini]

I picked up the latest IRS 1040 tax table today.

A single person reporting $25K income pays $2813 in federal income tax.
A single person reporting $50K income pays $6945 in federal income tax.
A single person reporting $98K income pays $17,817 in federal income tax.

For married or head of household it is less.

 

[PocketZeven]

I picked up the latest IRS 1040 tax table today.

A single person reporting $25K income pays $2813 in federal income tax.
A single person reporting $50K income pays $6945 in federal income tax.
A single person reporting $98K income pays $17,817 in federal income tax.

For married or head of household it is less.

Thats it?

Income tax (payroll) in the four brackets my country:

€ 0 en < € 20.384 income tax is 36,65%
from € 20.384 en < € 33.994 income tax is 38,10%
from € 33.994 en < € 68.507 income tax is 38,10%
from € 68.507 onwards income tax is 51,75%

The whole idea is to put the burden of paying the tax onto the employers and not the employees. Do you receive your wages in the usa with or without income tax already deducted?

 

[Dotini]

Thats it?

No, that's just a sample; the rate increases slightly for every $50 increment in income.

 

[PocketZeven]

So any thoughts here about the congressional hearing of Cohen? I am baffled how the republicans wasted the opportunity by just discrediting him, instead of asking questions to find out if his testimony is true or not.

In my personal opinion I dont see any reason why he would be lying about his testimony to congress this time. If caught lying again, wouldnt it have disastrous results for him?

 

[ryzno]

I think he's full of it. He said every single left wing talking points possible. He's just sucking up to the left to get less time. I turned it off when he said Trump is a racist. He no problem working for him for a decade and now he's a bad guy. Get out of here man.

 

[Touring Mars]

I found this quite entertaining...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...t-michael-cohen-or-henry-hill-from-goodfellas

Guess who said the quote, Cohen or Henry Hill from Goodfellas... I'm disappointed that I only got 18/22.

Of course, Henry Hill got off scot-free for living a life of crime and dishonesty, while condemning those who trusted him to life in jail. Go figure.

 

[PocketZeven]

I think he's full of it. He said every single left wing talking points possible. He's just sucking up to the left to get less time. I turned it off when he said Trump is a racist. He no problem working for him for a decade and now he's a bad guy. Get out of here man.

I understand your point of view, but think rationally. Why would he risk lying to congress AGAIN?

 

[TexRex]

I found this quite entertaining...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...t-michael-cohen-or-henry-hill-from-goodfellas

Guess who said the quote, Cohen or Henry Hill from Goodfellas... I'm disappointed that I only got 18/22.

Of course, Henry Hill got off scot-free for living a life of crime and dishonesty, while condemning those who trusted him to life in jail. Go figure.

*sigh*

14...

But then I last saw the movie on VHS and I've seen exactly nothing from the hearing.