Deleted
Joined: Oct 15, 2024 5:25:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 10:11:21 GMT -5
I do. A lot of them. My best friend lives in a trailer court. She's hard working and been working the same place for 27 years, but sucks with money and lost her house to foreclosure, so she's just decided to basically rent forever I guess. Anyhow, she has the most interesting neighbors on the planet. The conversations I've had with these people sitting on her deck is un-freaking real. Also, ex-MIL and 2 of her kids have been living on welfare almost exclusively the past 20 years. Surprisingly, MIL is one of the people I've had to block from my Facebook because her anti-Obama/liberal posts got to be just annoying. WTH? Makes no sense to me. While I hate to see others suffer, I'm secretly hoping Trump kicks them off medicaid.
|
|
bean29
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 10,213
|
Post by bean29 on Jun 28, 2017 10:15:38 GMT -5
I really don't understand where the Republicans are taking us on Healthcare either. They are ignoring the fact that even if you have health insurance, the portion of our budget that gets devoted to health care costs is too high. They should be addressing ways to bring down the cost of delivering healthcare to Americans, not how to cut a portion of Americans from having access to healthcare.
Also I was reading an article yesterday about the affect of cutting Medicaid? $ for special needs students in schools. The administrators basically said that those needs would still need to be provided for, so they would need to cut funding to programs for other students in their schools. To me, they didn't fix anything - they just pushed the responsibility for paying for it off onto the states.
There is so much wrong with where they took us. We really do need discussion and debate on the subject, not here is our proposal lets ram it through and get it approved without thinking it through.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,386
|
Post by movingforward on Jun 28, 2017 10:17:52 GMT -5
I do. A lot of them. My best friend lives in a trailer court. She's hard working and been working the same place for 27 years, but sucks with money and lost her house to foreclosure, so she's just decided to basically rent forever I guess. Anyhow, she has the most interesting neighbors on the planet. The conversations I've had with these people sitting on her deck is un-freaking real. Also, ex-MIL and 2 of her kids have been living on welfare almost exclusively the past 20 years. Surprisingly, MIL is one of the people I've had to block from my Facebook because her anti-Obama/liberal posts got to be just annoying. WTH? Makes no sense to me. While I hate to see others suffer, I'm secretly hoping Trump kicks them off medicaid. I know a couple as well...and they are both Republicans . Like you, I am conflicted... While I don't want to see others suffer, I am hoping Trump kicks them to the curb. After all, they voted for the man...
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,386
|
Post by movingforward on Jun 28, 2017 10:21:12 GMT -5
I really don't understand where the Republicans are taking us on Healthcare either. They are ignoring the fact that even if you have health insurance, the portion of our budget that gets devoted to health care costs is too high. They should be addressing ways to bring down the cost of delivering healthcare to Americans, not how to cut a portion of Americans from having access to healthcare.
Also I was reading an article yesterday about the affect of cutting Medicaid? $ for special needs students in schools. The administrators basically said that those needs would still need to be provided for, so they would need to cut funding to programs for other students in their schools. To me, they didn't fix anything - they just pushed the responsibility for paying for it off onto the states.
There is so much wrong with where they took us. We really do need discussion and debate on the subject, not here is our proposal lets ram it through and get it approved without thinking it through. No one knows where Republicans are taking us on healthcare, and the problem is that a lot of people don't seem to care. People who voted for Trump are expecting their premiums to go down and their coverage to be better. That isn't going to happen with this bill; of course, all we seem to care about is the fact that it won't be the ACA. No one cares if it is actually better
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,247
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jun 28, 2017 10:27:27 GMT -5
IMO that's just a flimsy justification for the selfish attitude. We've had threads where there are facts and figures showing that the idea of the lazy welfare queen does not represent the majority of recipients. And yet the cries of "ooh, there are so many welfare deadbeats!" continue. To be fair though, if you personally know a lot of these deadbeats they kind of stick out in your head when the topic of welfare comes up. The ones using it responsibly as a step up go unnoticed because they're working/in school/staying out of trouble... Very true. People forget that many folks working in Walmart, grocery stores, etc. are getting some support. They notice the assholes, not the ones acting responsibly.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jun 28, 2017 11:05:23 GMT -5
Two reactions to the article:
1) It's not just wrong to assume that people who don't vote for certain things "don't care", accusing them of being uncaring, selfish jerks is making the political divide worse. Of course there are some people who don't care and who are selfish jerks. There are also a lot of people who do care, but don't think that the measures proposed - which often just involve throwing more money at a problem - are good solutions. In so many cases, there is a growing distrust that giving the current government structure more money isn't the way to solve a problem, even a problem you care deeply about.
2) Many of us are getting more cynical about how these things are funded. Increasing the price of a Big Mac by a couple of cents is one thing - people can choose whether or not they buy Big Macs. But that's not usually the type of funding that's being discussed at a political level. At a political level it's usually about tax increases that are paid for by few people. And it's no coincidence that generally the people who have enough income to be the targeted group are also smart enough to understand and resent the huge amounts of government waste and mismanagement. It's not surprising that people who don't think government will spend their money responsibly don't want to be the ones that are forced to hand over more to the very same government that's failing on so many levels.
I'm a lot more impressed by people who are willing to spend their own money on an issue than berate others for not spending theirs. It's unfortunate, but so many of the people I see that profess their willingness to "pay a little more to solve ____" are not really the ones that are going to pay for _____. If the author of the article were willing to disclose how some of the proposals would impact her personal finances and what she was willing to give up to contribute, it would be more meaningful. The author claims "If I have to pay a little more with each paycheck to ensure my fellow Americans can access health care? SIGN ME UP." but she fails to disclose exactly how much $$$ "a little" is for her and what that means. I have no idea if she's going to be willing to sacrifice $200 a year while she's asking me to pay an additional $25,000 a year. For some reason, the willingness of someone to "sacrifice" eating out a few times a year while they ask me to sacrifice 100x that amount seems a little hypocritical.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 28, 2017 11:48:39 GMT -5
This gets the heart of one of the fundamental differences in worldview between conservatives and liberals.
Swamp, Busymom and others believe that a conservative view is born out of callousness, hatred, and, as the author put it, a "screw you I got mine" attitude. I'd like to point out that this view (of conservatives by liberals) is perpetuated by the media and used as fuel to motivate liberals to get to the polls and try to delegitimize the conservative point of view.
But the truth is the fundamental difference isn't born out of callousness or "not caring" it's a philosophical difference about what role the government/state should play in addressing these issues (poverty, healthcare, education, ect.) Conservatives don't think these things are important or urgent, just that it's not the government's job to fix those problems with ever increasing inefficiency, taxes, and further limiting our freedom and liberty. And conservatives believe that when it's the job of the government/state to act, that it should be the lowest level of government possible (i.e. local or state). In short, it's not the state's job the provide for you.
It also comes down to personal responsibility. If you make bad choices, you should suffer the consequences. If you remove all or most of the negative consequences of bad choices you inadvertently encourage more bad choices. And you start to get into the fundamental issue of fairness in taking from someone who made good choices and giving to someone who made bad choices.
Then there's the simple economic realities that there's just not enough money to fund every entitlement program that can be dreamed up. It's not just about taxing the rich, it's that even if you took every dollar every 1% makes it still wouldn't fund social security/Medicaid/medicare/public education/single payer. The math just doesn't work.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on Jun 28, 2017 12:07:24 GMT -5
Two reactions to the article: 1) It's not just wrong to assume that people who don't vote for certain things "don't care", accusing them of being uncaring, selfish jerks is making the political divide worse. Of course there are some people who don't care and who are selfish jerks. There are also a lot of people who do care, but don't think that the measures proposed - which often just involve throwing more money at a problem - are good solutions. In so many cases, there is a growing distrust that giving the current government structure more money isn't the way to solve a problem, even a problem you care deeply about. 2) Many of us are getting more cynical about how these things are funded. Increasing the price of a Big Mac by a couple of cents is one thing - people can choose whether or not they buy Big Macs. But that's not usually the type of funding that's being discussed at a political level. At a political level it's usually about tax increases that are paid for by few people. And it's no coincidence that generally the people who have enough income to be the targeted group are also smart enough to understand and resent the huge amounts of government waste and mismanagement. It's not surprising that people who don't think government will spend their money responsibly don't want to be the ones that are forced to hand over more to the very same government that's failing on so many levels. I'm a lot more impressed by people who are willing to spend their own money on an issue than berate others for not spending theirs. It's unfortunate, but so many of the people I see that profess their willingness to "pay a little more to solve ____" are not really the ones that are going to pay for _____. If the author of the article were willing to disclose how some of the proposals would impact her personal finances and what she was willing to give up to contribute, it would be more meaningful. The author claims "If I have to pay a little more with each paycheck to ensure my fellow Americans can access health care? SIGN ME UP." but she fails to disclose exactly how much $$$ "a little" is for her and what that means. I have no idea if she's going to be willing to sacrifice $200 a year while she's asking me to pay an additional $25,000 a year. For some reason, the willingness of someone to "sacrifice" eating out a few times a year while they ask me to sacrifice 100x that amount seems a little hypocritical. Unfortunately, I have been exposed to far too many selfish jerks recently. I'm generally not a hateful, suspicious person, but I'm really having a rough few weeks.
And it does bug me that most people on welfare are children and disabled, or they do work, but any talk of welfare reform immediately goes to "I don't want to take care of those selfish bums."
If I had a choice to work part time and keep my Medicaid, child care subsidy, food stamps, etc., or full time and lose all my assistance, it's a no brainer. I think we need to work on reforming the program so working your way up the ladder is permitted.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on Jun 28, 2017 12:09:59 GMT -5
This gets the heart of one of the fundamental differences in worldview between conservatives and liberals.
Swamp, Busymom and others believe that a conservative view is born out of callousness, hatred, and, as the author put it, a "screw you I got mine" attitude. I'd like to point out that this view (of conservatives by liberals) is perpetuated by the media and used as fuel to motivate liberals to get to the polls and try to delegitimize the conservative point of view.
But the truth is the fundamental difference isn't born out of callousness or "not caring" it's a philosophical difference about what role the government/state should play in addressing these issues (poverty, healthcare, education, ect.) Conservatives don't think these things are important or urgent, just that it's not the government's job to fix those problems with ever increasing inefficiency, taxes, and further limiting our freedom and liberty. And conservatives believe that when it's the job of the government/state to act, that it should be the lowest level of government possible (i.e. local or state). In short, it's not the state's job the provide for you.
It also comes down to personal responsibility. If you make bad choices, you should suffer the consequences. If you remove all or most of the negative consequences of bad choices you inadvertently encourage more bad choices. And you start to get into the fundamental issue of fairness in taking from someone who made good choices and giving to someone who made bad choices.
Then there's the simple economic realities that there's just not enough money to fund every entitlement program that can be dreamed up. It's not just about taxing the rich, it's that even if you took every dollar every 1% makes it still wouldn't fund social security/Medicaid/medicare/public education/single payer. The math just doesn't work. I'd like to point out to you that I'm able to form my own opinions without the media telling me what to thing, thanks.
I want our discussions to be more than "welfare rewards bad choices, don't make bad choices."
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 28, 2017 12:50:59 GMT -5
Actually I took the gist of her point to be that she was just tired of trying to explain her POV to people who just seemed clueless about it and unable to get it. She was tired of hearing the selfish and greedy rejoinders as well. By the nature of that line of thought I think she was writing as a liberal to liberals. I know in the title she used the second person, YOU. But in the article she talks about "those people" in the third person. In addition she is writing this on "Huffpost", which I presume is a liberal blog, aimed at more liberal people. So, all you uptight people, don't worry, you really aren't part of the convo. But, somewhat snarky kidding aside, I get her point. I too get tired of arguing these points to people, as I'm sure they get tired arguing them to me. That is why I seldom do it IRL, and I don't do it on Facebook either. I confine MY political rants to our friendly local YMAM Politics board right here, where everyone is polite and friendly all the time. As long as you preach the liberal line!!😂
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,386
|
Post by movingforward on Jun 28, 2017 13:03:24 GMT -5
Two reactions to the article: 1) It's not just wrong to assume that people who don't vote for certain things "don't care", accusing them of being uncaring, selfish jerks is making the political divide worse. Of course there are some people who don't care and who are selfish jerks. There are also a lot of people who do care, but don't think that the measures proposed - which often just involve throwing more money at a problem - are good solutions. In so many cases, there is a growing distrust that giving the current government structure more money isn't the way to solve a problem, even a problem you care deeply about. 2) Many of us are getting more cynical about how these things are funded. Increasing the price of a Big Mac by a couple of cents is one thing - people can choose whether or not they buy Big Macs. But that's not usually the type of funding that's being discussed at a political level. At a political level it's usually about tax increases that are paid for by few people. And it's no coincidence that generally the people who have enough income to be the targeted group are also smart enough to understand and resent the huge amounts of government waste and mismanagement. It's not surprising that people who don't think government will spend their money responsibly don't want to be the ones that are forced to hand over more to the very same government that's failing on so many levels. I'm a lot more impressed by people who are willing to spend their own money on an issue than berate others for not spending theirs. It's unfortunate, but so many of the people I see that profess their willingness to "pay a little more to solve ____" are not really the ones that are going to pay for _____. If the author of the article were willing to disclose how some of the proposals would impact her personal finances and what she was willing to give up to contribute, it would be more meaningful. The author claims "If I have to pay a little more with each paycheck to ensure my fellow Americans can access health care? SIGN ME UP." but she fails to disclose exactly how much $$$ "a little" is for her and what that means. I have no idea if she's going to be willing to sacrifice $200 a year while she's asking me to pay an additional $25,000 a year. For some reason, the willingness of someone to "sacrifice" eating out a few times a year while they ask me to sacrifice 100x that amount seems a little hypocritical. As usual, I think you make some excellent points and I completely agree with the concept that throwing more money at problems is not necessarily the answer. What I would like to see is both sides working together to restructure social programs (like swamp mentioned). What actually annoys me though is the right constantly talking about increased taxes going to poor people when in reality the money goes to fund various projects, not just to support poor people. I don't think EITHER political side is actually financially conservative. They all want our money, they just have differences on how it gets spent. It just really annoys me that this issue never gets addressed.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 28, 2017 13:04:20 GMT -5
Also, this is such a broad topic it's hard to get into specifics.
I don't take issue with property taxes and paying for public schools, for example. I don't consider that welfare. Sure I want the money to be well managed and the schools to be run efficiently, but I don't have problems with the concept.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 28, 2017 13:12:43 GMT -5
Also, this is such a broad topic it's hard to get into specifics.
I don't take issue with property taxes and paying for public schools, for example. I don't consider that welfare. Sure I want the money to be well managed and the schools to be run efficiently, but I don't have problems with the concept.
Even that is a huge can of worms.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 15, 2024 5:25:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 16:11:49 GMT -5
And then to me there is the issues with, we point out the individual welfare scammer, who is not the norm, but ignore the corporations who routinely exploit these programs to an infinitely more significant degreee. OMG, that lady got 128$ in food stamps she didn't deserve... meanwhile pharma defrauds Medicaid of hundreds of millions and it's just a part of business...
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,512
|
Post by chiver78 on Jun 28, 2017 16:15:29 GMT -5
Actually I took the gist of her point to be that she was just tired of trying to explain her POV to people who just seemed clueless about it and unable to get it. She was tired of hearing the selfish and greedy rejoinders as well. By the nature of that line of thought I think she was writing as a liberal to liberals. I know in the title she used the second person, YOU. But in the article she talks about "those people" in the third person. In addition she is writing this on "Huffpost", which I presume is a liberal blog, aimed at more liberal people. So, all you uptight people, don't worry, you really aren't part of the convo. But, somewhat snarky kidding aside, I get her point. I too get tired of arguing these points to people, as I'm sure they get tired arguing them to me. That is why I seldom do it IRL, and I don't do it on Facebook either. I confine MY political rants to our friendly local YMAM Politics board right here, where everyone is polite and friendly all the time. that is exactly how I read it, and pretty much what I said in my own FB post where I shared it. I'm tired, and don't really know what else to say.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jun 28, 2017 16:15:32 GMT -5
And then to me there is the issues with, we point out the individual welfare scammer, who is not the norm, but ignore the corporations who routinely exploit these programs to an infinitely more significant degreee. OMG, that lady got 128$ in food stamps she didn't seserve... meanwhile pharma defrauds Medicaid of hundreds of millions and it's just a part of business... And if you REALLY want to drive the conservatives on this board batty, start rolling out the statistics about corporate welfare . . .
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 29,250
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Jun 28, 2017 16:21:58 GMT -5
I just want to clarify that my personal views come from my personal life experiences, not anything the media has to say.
Just one example: I worked 2 jobs, one full & one part-time, to help DH & I save up for our first house. We should have been "ahead" of the game, but then we found out when DS was a toddler that he was on the autism spectrum. We went through ALL of money we'd saved, & dug ourselves deep into debt, trying to cover copays so DS could get the therapy he needed. (At one point he was getting therapy 7 days a week, and on the days he received 2 different types of therapy, you guessed it: there were 2 copays.) Eventually, we got an additional health insurance policy through the state (yes, DS had 2 different types of health insurance), which WE PAID FOR, but it covered all of the copays, so the 2nd insurance actually paid for itself. But, it took years to pay off all of the other debt we'd incurred. So, I feel for people whose life gets turned upside down due to unexpected health or disability issues. And, it is highly disturbing after all of these years that our health programs could actually be covering less in the future.
So, do I find it unbelievable that some people think it's o.k. for others to suffer, even when they're doing the best they can? YES! And, for the record, our family has never been on welfare. But, as life has already taught me, you can never say never...
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jun 28, 2017 16:34:24 GMT -5
Actually I took the gist of her point to be that she was just tired of trying to explain her POV to people who just seemed clueless about it and unable to get it. She was tired of hearing the selfish and greedy rejoinders as well. By the nature of that line of thought I think she was writing as a liberal to liberals. I know in the title she used the second person, YOU. But in the article she talks about "those people" in the third person. In addition she is writing this on "Huffpost", which I presume is a liberal blog, aimed at more liberal people.So, all you uptight people, don't worry, you really aren't part of the convo. .... The bolded part is a big source of the growing political divide and increased tension, IMO. It is ludicrous that our media is quickly polarizing into "liberal" and "conservative" media and the assumption is that viewers read the sources that most align with their beliefs. That is growing the divide, increasing mistrust and is also one of the reasons for the surprise election results this last November. I would like to see a reverse of this trend and a migration to at least a few sources that have the main goal of being objective rather than influencing. Until that time, I try to read some of the sources on both sides of the divide so that I have an understanding of both sides of issues. I can't be the only Libertarian type that reads HuffPo... and if I am, that again is part of the problem.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jun 28, 2017 16:36:10 GMT -5
I don't think people DON'T care about helping others. I think people are tired of footing the bill for people that sit on their a$$ all day and not contribute a nickel to society. Ask anyone and they are happy to have their taxes pay for welfare to help others get on their feet again, not make it a lifetime or generational way of living. I mean really? Why would anyone think it is okay to have other people go to work everyday to pay for their living. Redic at the very least. I'm glad you know about the circumstances of every poor,person in the country. Most adults on food stamps work. Please tell me home someone in a nursing home can get a job. I dont want to foot the bill for lazy ass people either, but I also,realize that telling people to get a job isn't the panacea for all. For capitalism to work, we need unemployment. I recongize luck has a large role in where you end up in life. One disease can change my life drastically. DH works in a cancer center. Lives are ruined by that disease. Another thing I've noted over the years is the unwillingness to pay for consistent and effective prevention of welfare abuse. There aren't enough people to check out the reasons given for needing welfare. The social workers (master's degree required) are paid beans and have huge piles of case files they're expected to handle. The system is a nightmare and needs change. There's no doubt of that. However, change that will actually be effective is going to do the unthinkable - cost money.
|
|
raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 15,024
|
Post by raeoflyte on Jun 28, 2017 18:11:20 GMT -5
Actually I took the gist of her point to be that she was just tired of trying to explain her POV to people who just seemed clueless about it and unable to get it. She was tired of hearing the selfish and greedy rejoinders as well. By the nature of that line of thought I think she was writing as a liberal to liberals. I know in the title she used the second person, YOU. But in the article she talks about "those people" in the third person. In addition she is writing this on "Huffpost", which I presume is a liberal blog, aimed at more liberal people.So, all you uptight people, don't worry, you really aren't part of the convo. .... The bolded part is a big source of the growing political divide and increased tension, IMO. It is ludicrous that our media is quickly polarizing into "liberal" and "conservative" media and the assumption is that viewers read the sources that most align with their beliefs. That is growing the divide, increasing mistrust and is also one of the reasons for the surprise election results this last November. I would like to see a reverse of this trend and a migration to at least a few sources that have the main goal of being objective rather than influencing. Until that time, I try to read some of the sources on both sides of the divide so that I have an understanding of both sides of issues. I can't be the only Libertarian type that reads HuffPo... and if I am, that again is part of the problem. What sources do you like the best (on both sides)?
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jun 28, 2017 18:25:25 GMT -5
The bolded part is a big source of the growing political divide and increased tension, IMO. It is ludicrous that our media is quickly polarizing into "liberal" and "conservative" media and the assumption is that viewers read the sources that most align with their beliefs. That is growing the divide, increasing mistrust and is also one of the reasons for the surprise election results this last November. I would like to see a reverse of this trend and a migration to at least a few sources that have the main goal of being objective rather than influencing. Until that time, I try to read some of the sources on both sides of the divide so that I have an understanding of both sides of issues. I can't be the only Libertarian type that reads HuffPo... and if I am, that again is part of the problem. What sources do you like the best (on both sides)? None. Nothing seems to really fit. Republicans would consider me a raging Liberal on social issues. Democrats would consider me a hard hearted Conservative on fiscal issues. I'm neither nor. I guess since my personal preference is to ask for detailed factual information I tend to like to read the financially oriented news the most. The Wall Street Journal is one of my go-tos. I used to also regularly read the New York Times religiously but after this last election get the feeling that they are openly trying to influence and not even bothering to hide it with even a thin veneer of objectivity. The Economist is always interesting, as is The Atlantic. I try to regularly read a variety, from the Washington Post to Slate to Huffington Post to Forbes... stuff I mostly agree with and stuff I don't.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jun 28, 2017 19:16:44 GMT -5
Actually I took the gist of her point to be that she was just tired of trying to explain her POV to people who just seemed clueless about it and unable to get it. She was tired of hearing the selfish and greedy rejoinders as well. By the nature of that line of thought I think she was writing as a liberal to liberals. I know in the title she used the second person, YOU. But in the article she talks about "those people" in the third person. In addition she is writing this on "Huffpost", which I presume is a liberal blog, aimed at more liberal people.So, all you uptight people, don't worry, you really aren't part of the convo. .... The bolded part is a big source of the growing political divide and increased tension, IMO. It is ludicrous that our media is quickly polarizing into "liberal" and "conservative" media and the assumption is that viewers read the sources that most align with their beliefs. That is growing the divide, increasing mistrust and is also one of the reasons for the surprise election results this last November. I would like to see a reverse of this trend and a migration to at least a few sources that have the main goal of being objective rather than influencing. Until that time, I try to read some of the sources on both sides of the divide so that I have an understanding of both sides of issues. I can't be the only Libertarian type that reads HuffPo... and if I am, that again is part of the problem. No, you're not the only one. I do the same. I'm pretty apolitical but moderate in my core beliefs. I hold some views that would be considered liberal and some that would be considered conservative. Reading sources on both sides of issues, I feel, gives me a bit broader view/understanding.
|
|
mcsangel2
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 6, 2011 10:53:06 GMT -5
Posts: 226
|
Post by mcsangel2 on Jun 28, 2017 19:53:10 GMT -5
Oh, bad choices definitely shouldn't be rewarded. My H's friend definitely shouldn't have been born with cerebral palsy. My good friend definitely shouldn't have had a medically fragile child that she needed to quit work to care for. People definitely should take care of themselves so that they don't get dementia and other age related illnesses. Heck, people shouldn't live past 80. How irresponsible.
Do y'all know what's going to happen to nursing homes if Medicaid is abolished? Or more specifically, what will happen to the patients who would be living in nursing homes?
|
|
TheOtherMe
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 14:40:52 GMT -5
Posts: 28,131
Mini-Profile Name Color: e619e6
|
Post by TheOtherMe on Jun 28, 2017 20:32:36 GMT -5
Oh, bad choices definitely shouldn't be rewarded. My H's friend definitely shouldn't have been born with cerebral palsy. My good friend definitely shouldn't have had a medically fragile child that she needed to quit work to care for. People definitely should take care of themselves so that they don't get dementia and other age related illnesses. Heck, people shouldn't live past 80. How irresponsible.
Do y'all know what's going to happen to nursing homes if Medicaid is abolished? Or more specifically, what will happen to the patients who would be living in nursing homes?
How is someone with dementia supposed to work? They can hardly function and they need Medicaid. I used to do volunteer work helping those who cannot pay their own bills. All of my clients were on Medicaid. One was schizophrenic. Did I ever learn a lot about that disease from her. There is no way she could work. She barely survives in the that housing vouchers allow her to rent and her food stamps have gone down every year I had her as a client. Are people like her just supposed to go away? Did anybody happen to see the young man named Mike Phillips on Lawrence O'Donnell the other night? He is severely physically disabled and Medicaid has allowed his mother to give up her life to be his full time caretaker. She does it with love. Mike is an extremely intelligent man who is disabled. We can't let people like him not receive assistance from Medicaid. Link to story: www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/mother-and-son-medicaid-isn-t-about-politics-it-s-about-lives-975086147987
|
|
bean29
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 10,213
|
Post by bean29 on Jun 28, 2017 20:46:17 GMT -5
Two reactions to the article: 1) It's not just wrong to assume that people who don't vote for certain things "don't care", accusing them of being uncaring, selfish jerks is making the political divide worse. Of course there are some people who don't care and who are selfish jerks. There are also a lot of people who do care, but don't think that the measures proposed - which often just involve throwing more money at a problem - are good solutions. In so many cases, there is a growing distrust that giving the current government structure more money isn't the way to solve a problem, even a problem you care deeply about. 2) Many of us are getting more cynical about how these things are funded. Increasing the price of a Big Mac by a couple of cents is one thing - people can choose whether or not they buy Big Macs. But that's not usually the type of funding that's being discussed at a political level. At a political level it's usually about tax increases that are paid for by few people. And it's no coincidence that generally the people who have enough income to be the targeted group are also smart enough to understand and resent the huge amounts of government waste and mismanagement. It's not surprising that people who don't think government will spend their money responsibly don't want to be the ones that are forced to hand over more to the very same government that's failing on so many levels. I'm a lot more impressed by people who are willing to spend their own money on an issue than berate others for not spending theirs. It's unfortunate, but so many of the people I see that profess their willingness to "pay a little more to solve ____" are not really the ones that are going to pay for _____. If the author of the article were willing to disclose how some of the proposals would impact her personal finances and what she was willing to give up to contribute, it would be more meaningful. The author claims "If I have to pay a little more with each paycheck to ensure my fellow Americans can access health care? SIGN ME UP." but she fails to disclose exactly how much $$$ "a little" is for her and what that means. I have no idea if she's going to be willing to sacrifice $200 a year while she's asking me to pay an additional $25,000 a year. For some reason, the willingness of someone to "sacrifice" eating out a few times a year while they ask me to sacrifice 100x that amount seems a little hypocritical. I admit we are top 10%? Taxpayers, so I also have some reservations about some people paying more, b/c we are part of the group who will pay more. I think we need to discuss the issues, and craft a plan. Lifetime limits are problematic, but when I heard there was a patient in the midwest costing 1,000,000 per day, well no we cant afford to spend that kind of $$ to keep 1 person alive.
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,269
|
Post by Ava on Jun 29, 2017 7:13:57 GMT -5
The bolded part is a big source of the growing political divide and increased tension, IMO. It is ludicrous that our media is quickly polarizing into "liberal" and "conservative" media and the assumption is that viewers read the sources that most align with their beliefs. That is growing the divide, increasing mistrust and is also one of the reasons for the surprise election results this last November. I would like to see a reverse of this trend and a migration to at least a few sources that have the main goal of being objective rather than influencing. Until that time, I try to read some of the sources on both sides of the divide so that I have an understanding of both sides of issues. I can't be the only Libertarian type that reads HuffPo... and if I am, that again is part of the problem. I quite agree that the increased polarization of many elements of the media is a bad thing overall. One of the negative impacts of the computer age I suppose. I'm not sure how it gets reversed. There has always been biased media, but in the past access to it was somewhat limited due to several reasons- geography, cost, barriers to entry to name a few- that are no longer barriers. On the other hand, there has always been a combination of good and bad media. I would say that the greatest weapon against biased and slipshod journalism (of all media types) is education. However I also fear for the marginalization of education for many people. Specifically - one of the great assets of what used to be known as a liberal arts education, which was the teaching and promotion of the ability to think critically. This is being compromised at many levels, from the generally shitty "education" kids in poor ghetto areas get, to even "good" educations at institutions of higher learning, where the focus becomes almost entirely on the technical aspects of whatever area of study is being pursued, whether it be business, engineering, biology or even (ironically) education. Good for you for reading sources on the margins. I generally don't. I try to listen to Rush L. occasionally if driving, but I can't take him but in small doses, to be honest. However what little I do hear does give me some insight as to where that "group" of people are coming from. For more mainstream conservative thought I do like various editorialists. Likewise though, I don't read many overtly liberal sources. I try to read and listen to varied sources from what I consider "respectable" sources, many of which you mention in another post. I also find that reading a story from several angles is the best way to try to distill the truth. I also find that the best way to get the nitty gritty of a story is to wait a bit until the more in depth reportage emerges. Of course that doesn't stop me at times from spouting off about a story prematurely here, lol. Sorry if I offend someone here who voted for Trump, but I believe the Trump presidency is a direct result of the decline in education and critical thinking of the majority of the population. That coupled with an archaic election system that needs to be changed. I remember last year going to vote for the internal elections. There was a table with two people sitting, and I wasn't sure if it was the Dem or Republican table, so I approached it to find out. They told me it was the Republican table. The two people sitting there, volunteers probably, were black women. Really? Two black women in a poor neighborhood volunteering for the Republican Party. And by the way, where I live is mostly poor people and minorities. Trump won the Republican internals in my area. With respect to the article, it expresses my exact feelings in a more articulate way I could ever come up with.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 29, 2017 7:33:44 GMT -5
The real problem is that "helping people" is a spectrum and everyone pretty much feels like their amount of contribution is the "right" amount...whether that's zero or living in poverty to give your things to others. The article seemed fairly ridiculous in the use of examples...17 cents for a Big Mac isn't the problem. Nobody is talking about leaving everything else in the world the same, and only raising the price of Big Macs.
The reality is that pretty much everyone cares only to the point they stop feeling guilty. How many of the people who "care" chose not to have biological children to adopt a needy child instead? How many walk around in tattered rags to spend their clothes money on helping the poor? How many can afford nice cars but drive clunkers and use the rest to house the homeless? How many stopped sending their kids to private school in order to give that money to help others? People help up to their level of guilt, then everyone wants to pretend that whatever their level is, that's the "right" one. Precisely. As I mentioned, I think Swamp (and the author) is wrong about the "not caring" part, it's just resistance to the idea that the government should use it's power to coerce people into "helping people," at least past a certain point.
Different people have different ideas about how much and what society has the duty to provide for. It can run the gambit from nothing to fully funded healthcare and guaranteed livable income.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 29, 2017 7:44:51 GMT -5
Anyone I know that admits to voting for trump has entirely different reasons than you mention here.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jun 29, 2017 8:23:45 GMT -5
.... I believe the Trump presidency is a direct result of the decline in education and critical thinking of the majority of the population. .... Before I started seeking out and actively listening (and it was sometimes really, really hard to just listen with a neutral expression and not reply) to Trump supporters, I would have agreed with this. But after listening to dozens of Trump supporters, I don't agree that in general they are uneducated or lack critical thinking skills. Most of the ones I talked to were highly intelligent and educated (many were more intelligent and educated than I am), but they had different basic beliefs about the issues in this country and what the priorities are. Many of them disliked Trump personally but were less concerned with that than other issues. And one of the main reasons the general media polls were so wrong in predicting the election was exactly that attitude. Trump supporters got tired of being labeled as ignorant rubes, so just stopped discussing their thoughts and plans with the general media. Unless and until the general media gets better at listening to ideas they disagree with and not labeling people who think differently as ignorant, uncaring, selfish jerks (similar to the tone in the article in the OP), it will be difficult for the general media to report accurately because people will be reluctant to discuss issues with them.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jun 29, 2017 8:40:54 GMT -5
The bolded part is a big source of the growing political divide and increased tension, IMO. It is ludicrous that our media is quickly polarizing into "liberal" and "conservative" media and the assumption is that viewers read the sources that most align with their beliefs. That is growing the divide, increasing mistrust and is also one of the reasons for the surprise election results this last November. I would like to see a reverse of this trend and a migration to at least a few sources that have the main goal of being objective rather than influencing. Until that time, I try to read some of the sources on both sides of the divide so that I have an understanding of both sides of issues. I can't be the only Libertarian type that reads HuffPo... and if I am, that again is part of the problem. I quite agree that the increased polarization of many elements of the media is a bad thing overall. One of the negative impacts of the computer age I suppose. I'm not sure how it gets reversed. There has always been biased media, but in the past access to it was somewhat limited due to several reasons- geography, cost, barriers to entry to name a few- that are no longer barriers. On the other hand, there has always been a combination of good and bad media. I would say that the greatest weapon against biased and slipshod journalism (of all media types) is education. However I also fear for the marginalization of education for many people. Specifically - one of the great assets of what used to be known as a liberal arts education, which was the teaching and promotion of the ability to think critically. This is being compromised at many levels, from the generally shitty "education" kids in poor ghetto areas get, to even "good" educations at institutions of higher learning, where the focus becomes almost entirely on the technical aspects of whatever area of study is being pursued, whether it be business, engineering, biology or even (ironically) education. Good for you for reading sources on the margins. I generally don't. I try to listen to Rush L. occasionally if driving, but I can't take him but in small doses, to be honest. However what little I do hear does give me some insight as to where that "group" of people are coming from. For more mainstream conservative thought I do like various editorialists. Likewise though, I don't read many overtly liberal sources. I try to read and listen to varied sources from what I consider "respectable" sources, many of which you mention in another post. I also find that reading a story from several angles is the best way to try to distill the truth. I also find that the best way to get the nitty gritty of a story is to wait a bit until the more in depth reportage emerges. Of course that doesn't stop me at times from spouting off about a story prematurely here, lol. I bolded the parts I want to discuss. Education is key but if there are no unbiased sources, how do you get the raw data to form your own decisions? An example would be our local police force hired its first female police chief a few years ago. That decision was wildly unpopular with the existing (mostly male) base of employees. I've never spoken to her in person, only been at a few meetings where she has spoken and know what I read in the local newspaper. From a logical standpoint, she appears to be very well qualified, has been cleaning up some longstanding issues and implementing community-based policing that's improving relationships in some of our high crime areas. She's also had some missteps - from firing longterm well-loved employees to the department losing some sort of accredation temporarily because certain paperwork wasn't submitted. The coverage in the newspaper, however, does not appear unbiased. Every single article the paper writes about her - even if it's an article about a positive achievement - prioritizes and emphasizes controversy. If the department wins an award, the first 6 paragraphs are about issues and the one closing paragraph mentions the award in a casual manner. The photo that they usually use to accompany the articles is one that makes her look crazy. In person, she's very normal/attractive, but if the only time you'd seen her was this newspaper photo, you'd think she was either a witch or a ranting homeless person. Meantime the county sheriff - who has had some huge missteps and is generally a giant jerk (very obvious in his quotes and his unprofessional behaviour) gets newspaper coverage like he's a beloved star and the stock photo that accompanies those articles looks like a glamour shot of a movie star. Again, in person, he's very normal/attractive - about the same level of attractive as the female police chief. So I can't tell if she's a real problem like the newspaper implies or if she's a good leader facing sexism (which is what one might guess if you read between the lines of the coverage.) There is no other print media coverage here, so how do even educated people find out? You mention Rush L. I struggle to find "hard-core" conservative media that I can read or watch regularly and Rush is a good example of what I struggle with. Although sometimes he makes some very good, interesting points, he's just so angry, negative and borderline abusive that it's hard to keep listening to.
|
|