True. But a certain person here insists that Europe/Canada are too 'socialist' like that's a bad thing.
The Easiest and the Hardest Places to Live in the USA
- Thread starter QuickSilver
- Start date
True. But a certain person here insists that Europe/Canada are too 'socialist' like that's a bad thing.
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
Yes.. and quite the antithesis of the American South. Lack of affordable healthcare alone make the death rate higher in the South. Lack of well paying jobs for the benefit of Corporate profit make the poverty rate in the south higher than anywhere. Not to mention the remnants of Jim Crow. Republicans in the South have Gerry-rigged the system.. and have worked diligently to deny people the vote.. thus insuring the continuation of this travesty.
Again, your opinions and not one telling how minimum housing costing more for the people is better than in the US. We had health care before Obama care and for me, it cost less as now I have to buy insurance to get back the things Obama care will not cover.
There are other things not evident in the European governments, not including Canada which has a good economy and housing and cost similar to the US, but speaking of the countries like French, Germany, and many other smaller ones where the people and the way they live is rigidly controlled by the governments. Germany for instance, at least in one city where my son was living, they had a small bowl of oil of some sort. Placed on a mantel or shelf in your residence and periodically checked to see if you were keeping your heat down to where this oil would not evaporate. The words were to stay cool in the winter or get in trouble. Absolute control over the people and not one of real freedom as we now have in the US. But with trying to go to the European style of government we could then be no better anymore.
Why so many Europeans come to the US, and have been coming for so many years? Maybe to get away from the very same type of governments some seem glad to create. So far our constitution will stop too much from happening and that is the way our government can and will work to keep from going so far to the left.
There are other things not evident in the European governments, not including Canada which has a good economy and housing and cost similar to the US, but speaking of the countries like French, Germany, and many other smaller ones where the people and the way they live is rigidly controlled by the governments. Germany for instance, at least in one city where my son was living, they had a small bowl of oil of some sort. Placed on a mantel or shelf in your residence and periodically checked to see if you were keeping your heat down to where this oil would not evaporate. The words were to stay cool in the winter or get in trouble. Absolute control over the people and not one of real freedom as we now have in the US. But with trying to go to the European style of government we could then be no better anymore.
Why so many Europeans come to the US, and have been coming for so many years? Maybe to get away from the very same type of governments some seem glad to create. So far our constitution will stop too much from happening and that is the way our government can and will work to keep from going so far to the left.
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
The thing we wish we had here was your National Health care. It's a travesty that the richest country on earth refuses to recognize that healthcare is a RIGHT and not a privilege... It's an embarrassment.
AZ Jim
R.I.P. With Us In Spirit Only
- Location
- SURPRISE, ARIZONA
I have another headache.
hangover
Member
Would you rather pay $15k a year to keep a single mother with two children on welfare, or pay $120k per year to keep them in prison? Desperate mothers do desperate things that get them thrown in prison. Unsupervised children become criminals too.
Would you rather cut off health care to the poor, and just have them go to the emergency room and have it put on your insurance tab? Would you rather have a pandemic in this country, because only the rich can get health care?
Would you rather destroy Social Security, and have millions of elderly living on the streets? Would you rather have the elderly commit crimes so they can get into prison to get free meds and a warm bed?
Your "final solution" sucks.
Lethe200
Senior Member
- Location
- San Francisco Bay Area
>>after 200 years of enforce poverty under the Democrats >>
Wow, that would be a really neat trick! There WAS NO Democratic party before 1828. It was formed from Jeffersonian Republicans, who were anti-aristocracy. The Democrats during the Civil War split between North-South lines, which helped Lincoln get elected as a Republican.
Wow, that would be a really neat trick! There WAS NO Democratic party before 1828. It was formed from Jeffersonian Republicans, who were anti-aristocracy. The Democrats during the Civil War split between North-South lines, which helped Lincoln get elected as a Republican.
Unfortunately you have just spoken of things not really part of our political system for either side of the political efforts.
Why pay $15k to keep a single mother on welfare if we can find a way for her to earn some money and make a living. I think one child would be OK, but a second or third means other measures need to be taken. Who were the fathers? Why not make that an important thing to control. Find them and make them responsible for the mother and child. That would help keep the mother from doing illegal things and maybe not needing welfare either.
Before Obama care many did have insurance of their own or employers/unions provided. It was not necessary to pay for all ailments to get along. You could buy insurance to pay for any hospital type situations and allow you to manage your own aspirin cures and local medicines. Nothing wrong with the emergency room solution. I see that a lot where I am living now. On weekends that is one of the best ways to get medical care as doctors also like to close their offices and have some family time. I have used that option myself, I am covered but don't want to wait for Monday for any service I may need. And no we should not force everyone to get the same coverage as that is unnecessary for many of us. And the rich surely can afford to pay their own way. No problem with medical insurance for all. But it needs to be done by states to fit the needs of different states rather than just something bashed together in DC and demanding all to follow it as demanded.
I don't know who is trying to destroy SS. This is just more of the liberal left nonsense. Last I heard there was a movement to change the way the SS is run to make sure it does not go broke. Which is the way it may end up if not properly run and cared for. Making sure it does not go broke is not destroying SS.
What is my final conclusion that sucks? I did not know I had posted a final conclusion.
Why pay $15k to keep a single mother on welfare if we can find a way for her to earn some money and make a living. I think one child would be OK, but a second or third means other measures need to be taken. Who were the fathers? Why not make that an important thing to control. Find them and make them responsible for the mother and child. That would help keep the mother from doing illegal things and maybe not needing welfare either.
Before Obama care many did have insurance of their own or employers/unions provided. It was not necessary to pay for all ailments to get along. You could buy insurance to pay for any hospital type situations and allow you to manage your own aspirin cures and local medicines. Nothing wrong with the emergency room solution. I see that a lot where I am living now. On weekends that is one of the best ways to get medical care as doctors also like to close their offices and have some family time. I have used that option myself, I am covered but don't want to wait for Monday for any service I may need. And no we should not force everyone to get the same coverage as that is unnecessary for many of us. And the rich surely can afford to pay their own way. No problem with medical insurance for all. But it needs to be done by states to fit the needs of different states rather than just something bashed together in DC and demanding all to follow it as demanded.
I don't know who is trying to destroy SS. This is just more of the liberal left nonsense. Last I heard there was a movement to change the way the SS is run to make sure it does not go broke. Which is the way it may end up if not properly run and cared for. Making sure it does not go broke is not destroying SS.
What is my final conclusion that sucks? I did not know I had posted a final conclusion.
applecruncher
SF VIP
- Location
- Ohio USA
@BobF….
I hear what you’re saying,…kinda… and we have talked about this issue. Even when the name and location of the father is known, specifically how do you make them responsible?
If he has no job, no income, no values, no desire to improve his life, how does one get money from him? And while there are some who do try to do the right thing, there are so many more who just go on about their merry way making more children. Furthermore, it takes two to tango, and (imo) the female is just as responsible…she knew what she was doing and she knew that it could result in a child 9 months later. Yet, many go ahead and repeat the pattern/cycle.
hangover
Member
Come on man, you gotta be honest if we're really going to talk about this. Do you really not know that the cons have been trying to destroy Social Security since it started? Do you really not know that the cons have been crying for "privatization" of Social Security for the last thirty years? Do you know what "privatization" is? It's risking the money you put in SS on the stock market. Do you have any idea how many elderly would have been thrown out in the street in the 2007 crash? Do you think it won't happen again? Do you really not know that they've raided the SS fund of over $3 trillion to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and the Iraq/Afghan wars?
Trying to pass things off as "liberal nonsense" is a con job. Everyone knows that the cons have always hated SS, aid to the poor, and affordable healthcare. You're not fooling anybody.
Everyone also knows that one of the biggest problems in society is lack of parental supervision. When a single mother, or both parents of a family are too busy with jobs, kids get into trouble.
My mother was one of those working single moms, and I got into plenty of trouble. But that was back when there were jobs. She worked at a beauty shop during the day, and a rootbeer stand at night...for $.75 cents an hour...minimum wage. But people could live on minimum wage back then. We ate a lot of beans and rice. Bread was 10 cents a loaf. Rent was $40.00 a month.
Now days, people can't live on minimum wage. Rent alone is $800 to $1.000 a month, and that's in the cheap places to live.
They say that unemployment is 5% but that's because so many have dropped out of the work force, because the jobs aren't real. True, you can get a job picking crops, but it won't pay the bills.
Cons love the idea of getting rid of the Mexicans that pick those crops for $2.00 an hour. And then making the American farmer pay $7.00 an hour to Americans, while his South American competition pays his workers 50 cents an hour, and sells his crops for less than half of what the American farmer can in Wal-Mart.
The cons have always been against fair wages, minimum wages, workers comp, and health benefits. It's always profits for corporations that matter. That's why the cons have been out to destroy unions. If it wasn't for unions, you'd be working seven days a week, ten hours a day, for $2.00 and hour....or less.
What the cons want is a banana republic, where 3% have everything and the rest of this country is peasants.
That's the cons "final solution" not conclusion. And if you were living in the real world, you'd know I'm telling the truth.
You may have to learn all this in your next life. You can believe there is no next life...but if there is...the first shall last and the last shall be first.
Shalimar
SF VIP
- Location
- Vancouver Island Canada
Hangover, you spoke the truth.
Jackie22
Well-known Member
- Location
- Northeast Texas
I read your words but they are not worth my time as I consider much of what you have just posted to be nothing more than liberal twist of facts. Yes there have been effort at times to offer privatized SS. Last i heard it was to be an option, not mandatory. And it never got beyond a presentation and was never part of a Congressional movement or voted on. Beyond that there is the liberal control over our Congress until last year when they finally were out voted. So talking about something does not make it true.
Clean up your distorted thinking about things and you might start making sense. The conservatives are not against health care at all. They were not even allowed to offer ideas to what has become the Obama care situation that even the Democrats say needs some changes and plan to do so. The conservatives want to see the health care controlled by the states. What is wrong with that?
Too many of today's kids never grew up in a family environment. Why has that problem not been taken on by the liberals. Instead they want to waste money with welfare and not control the wild living.
The conservatives want to see industries and merchant to be successful. Otherwise they become failures and even the lower paying jobs go away. Where is your winning number when as you just said the foreigners work for less and undercut our own efforts.
Have a good day sir.
Shalimar
SF VIP
- Location
- Vancouver Island Canada
Snide remarks are the last resort of faulty arguments.
That may be getting contagious. imp
@BobF….
I hear what you’re saying,…kinda… and we have talked about this issue. Even when the name and location of the father is known, specifically how do you make them responsible?
Here is a suggestion. Go back to the welfare reform bill that Bill Clinton had started. It put penalties on welfare keepers. Not sure just how it worked but losing welfare was a threat that was used to reduce the number on welfare. The welfare numbers were coming down while that effort was being enforced. I don't know it that reform is still available or has been removed.
Seems this could be something that could be done to the welfare do nothings. So if they are losing the welfare if they don't end something or do something maybe that would be our last weapon to make welfare a bit of a reality check rather than just a big pillow to lean on while doing nothing productive at all.
So why do so many of the liberals do that?
hangover
Member
Hint: she was talking about you.
hangover
Member
Your holier than thou attitude makes it clear, that you would rather hold on to your "considerations" rather than face the truth. It's like the Catholic church holding on to their "belief" that the world was flat even after Galileo proved it was round. Two hundred years later the Vatican said, "Oh, sorry."
It's like the GOP claiming to be fiscally conservative, when Reagan tripled the national debt, Bush 41 doubled it again in only four years, and Bush 43 doubled it again adding more than all previous POTUS's added together.
Republican lack of honesty is undeniable.
Posted before. proof of you comments about the Bush raising the debt so high. Last I read Bush left the Presidency to Obama at about the 11 trillion level. Prior to his last two years it was at 7.5 trillion but in his last two years he had a Democrat Congress and his debt then went to about 11 trillion. Now with Obama it is at 18.5 trillion.
Look up National Debt and see the numbers your self. Or better yet go to http://www.usdebtclock.org/ or to http://usadebtclock.com/ or to http://www.advisorperspectives.com/...-to-gdp.html?federal-debt-to-gdp-politics.gif This is a chart showing party, president, congress, and debts all overlaid. Some good comparisons on here if looking to see who was in charge when the debts were increasing or going down.
hangover
Member
> Ronald Reagan’s First Term – $656 billion increase
> Ronald Reagan’s Second Term – $1.036 trillion increase
> George H.W. Bush’s Term – $1.587 trillion increase
> Bill Clinton’s First Term – $1.122 trillion increase
> Bill Clinton’s Second Term – $418 billion increase
> George W. Bush’s First Term – $1.885 trillion increase
> George W. Bush’s Second Term – $3.014 trillion increase
That's $5 trillion for Bush 43 without counting the $1.2 trillion he left Obama with for FY 2009, which Bush signed before leaving office...which makes over $6 trillion....plus the debt Obama has added was fixing the economic mess Bush made. And Reagan still tripled the national debt, and Bush 41 still doubled it in only four years.
Adding it up to those numbers, the last three con POTUS's added $8.3 TRILLION DOLLARS. So Tell us how honest the GOP claim of being fiscally responsible is, instead of pointing your finger at Obama.
http://thenationaldebtcrisis.com/the-national-debt-by-president/
Did you bother to read any of those I posted? If you had you would see not posted in the link you keep using. Go to the http://www.advisorperspectives.com/...-to-gdp.html?federal-debt-to-gdp-politics.gif and then follow the bottom line to see who was in charge of the Congress for most of those years. Also look a Clinton's years and see how the National Debt declined a bit and look to who was in charge of Congress those years. More to see about our debt than just the total debt. Look to George Bush and his last two years. His debt went up on his first 6 years but in his last 2 years it jumped well up. Look to who was in charge of his last two years. Lots to learn if using the proper tools.
I have not compared directly what those numbers from your selection to the charts I suggested. I have looked into the publication that you linked too. Interesting comment about the SS going broke. Just like I said in this forum before. SS's problem is not because of any political party at all. It has become overworked and now has more collecting and fewer contributing. It needs some adjusting or changes to keep it from going broke. Time for the Congress to get off it's butt and take charge. Who in our government has been responsible for its funds to be borrowed with no way to pay back? SS is in trouble from misuse and overuse. Let us fix it if we really want to keep it.
I have not compared directly what those numbers from your selection to the charts I suggested. I have looked into the publication that you linked too. Interesting comment about the SS going broke. Just like I said in this forum before. SS's problem is not because of any political party at all. It has become overworked and now has more collecting and fewer contributing. It needs some adjusting or changes to keep it from going broke. Time for the Congress to get off it's butt and take charge. Who in our government has been responsible for its funds to be borrowed with no way to pay back? SS is in trouble from misuse and overuse. Let us fix it if we really want to keep it.
hangover
Member
Clinton balanced the budget with a Republican congress. Bush 43 destroyed that balanced budget with that same REPUBLICAN congress in his first six months, by giving $3 trillion in welfare tax cuts to millionaires. Then added another $3 trillion with his stupid Iraq war started with lies...with A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS.
Reagan tripled the national debt after promising to balance the budget in his first four years. He never submitted one single balanced budget to the congress in his eight years as POTUS.
You fail in your attempts to defend con lies of being fiscally responsible.