Jump to content
IGNORED

Joy & Austin 29: RV Living


Coconut Flan

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, justodd said:

I once had a friend who had the great misfortune to be diagnosed with advanced leukemia on her wedding night. She spent the first few months of marriage in the hospital, and there were many points where they didn’t think she was going to make it. This was someone who’d experienced a horrible illness at literally one of the worst possible times in her life, and knew exactly how expensive and stressful it was, so I was shocked when the concept of universal healthcare came up in conversation a few years later and she spat at it like it was a snake ready to bite her.

 

My sister (living in the US with her masters degree in business) has been perpetually unemployed or underemployed. Like -- for YEARS this has been the case. She hires in with a company and then they're sold & she's out of work etc. Through NO FAULT of her own. 

Also through no fault of her own - she is a Type 1 diabetic and has been since she was about 10. She also has leukemia and is in remission. This makes my sister every insurance companies worst nightmare. Her state offers insurance for the poor - which she'd qualify for if she used every lick of her small savings, sold her (small, a bit run down house) and went without any health care for 6 months. She's rationed insurance. She's looking into buying it in Canada because it's SO much cheaper (and I live here). 

You would think this constant worry and hand wringing my parents do about her and her health would at least give them pause to entertain some kind of universal health care? Maybe something that allows for pre-existing conditions? Nope. Instead they post on FB things like "Well, those drug companies are making too much money!" But then vote people IN who let those companies make that much money. And don't consider that maybe a basic level of health care is probably a GOOD idea. Nope. 
I think they've now stepped back from the current president - but I'm sure they'll find some replacement GOP'er who will also not do a damn thing to help people like my sister. 

It just baffles me. Here it is - hitting reeeeeally close to home.

 

  • Upvote 7
  • Sad 2
  • Love 37
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

You know what, I agree that it would not be fair for the US to subsidize the Rodriguii lifestyle. But I think that if the Rodriguii were Italian then Italy should help them. Simply because in my country schooling is mandatory and good healthcare is affordable. The state would make an investment in those children that they would pay back one day becoming skilled adults that can pay back into society. In the US they don't stand a chance at becoming adults useful for society.

ETA that small problem about the Rodriguii kids having a right to a better chance in life remains, but I guess that freedom is better /sarcasm

This is the huge problem with American conservatism, most have an "I've got mine fuck you" attitude toward everything. They figure they worked for it they should get to keep it and not have to share with anyone, unless they want to. The problem is these conservatives are always the 1st ones with their hands out when something goes slightly amiss for them, they can't see the world past their front porch and there for if it isn't affecting them it isn't a problem. If it is affecting them then the whole world better hop on and help out.  I'm not saying this is all conservatives, but a large chunk of them, at least all the ones I know anyway, and I know a lot of them, too many for my liking, as I'm related to most of them, and most of them are assholes. 

 

  • Upvote 28
  • Sad 1
  • Love 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, allthegoodnamesrgone said:

This is the huge problem with American conservatism, most have an "I've got mine fuck you" attitude toward everything. They figure they worked for it they should get to keep it and not have to share with anyone, unless they want to. The problem is these conservatives are always the 1st ones with their hands out when something goes slightly amiss for them, they can't see the world past their front porch and there for if it isn't affecting them it isn't a problem. If it is affecting them then the whole world better hop on and help out.  I'm not saying this is all conservatives, but a large chunk of them, at least all the ones I know anyway, and I know a lot of them, too many for my liking, as I'm related to most of them, and most of them are assholes. 

 

The other thing that is so strange is how many of these people are also professing Christians.  It's like they mixed up the Gospels with The Fountainhead.  

  • Upvote 22
  • I Agree 10
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Struggling because you can’t have the latest phone or shiny new car is one thing, but struggling to breathe because you’re rationing your asthma meds, or having to go to bed hungry is something altogether different. Many “conservatives”  see no difference between the 2. I actually know a couple of them.

Black and white thinkers...

  • Upvote 28
  • I Agree 2
  • Thank You 2
  • Love 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, ModestisHottest said:

The other thing that is so strange is how many of these people are also professing Christians.  It's like they mixed up the Gospels with The Fountainhead.  

Right?  Jesus says to give to the needy, not to interrogate them about why they're needy.  It seems that for evangelicals, "Judge not, lest ye be judged" applies to child molesters but not to the poor. 

  • Upvote 30
  • I Agree 6
  • Love 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cat Damon said:

So because a few people might abuse the system no one should get it?

No...the abusers should be better identified so that the people who really need help can get it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, lumpentheologie said:

Right?  Jesus says to give to the needy, not to interrogate them about why they're needy.  It seems that for evangelicals, "Judge not, lest ye be judged" applies to child molesters but not to the poor. 

I want to “like” your comment 100 times over! It SO accurately sums up fundies!! 

  • Upvote 14
  • I Agree 1
  • Thank You 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wanted to say that I LOVE this thread drift. I don't feel I have much to add at the moment, but I avidly read all of you. Very intelligent discussions on everyone's part, arguments, questions, etc. The best thing: no one is insulting anyone, nor throwing personal attacks. At least to me that is what politics should really be about. The fundementals of how we want to define our societies.

Carry on. ?

  • Upvote 25
  • I Agree 4
  • Love 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the huge problem with American conservatism, most have an "I've got mine fuck you" attitude toward everything. They figure they worked for it they should get to keep it and not have to share with anyone, unless they want to. The problem is these conservatives are always the 1st ones with their hands out when something goes slightly amiss for them, they can't see the world past their front porch and there for if it isn't affecting them it isn't a problem. If it is affecting them then the whole world better hop on and help out.  I'm not saying this is all conservatives, but a large chunk of them, at least all the ones I know anyway, and I know a lot of them, too many for my liking, as I'm related to most of them, and most of them are assholes. 
 


Plus, if you have a lot of money it starts to multiply itself (as opposed to having debt of any sorts - then you pay additional fees) and I don't wanna know many of the rich people could live off the interest rates of their bank accounts alone. They for sure didn't work for that money. Same goes for inherited wealth. If the conservatives truly were for "I worked for it so I gotta keep it" they would at least vote for representatives who propose a inheritance tax.
What a lot of conservatives don't seem to get either is how thin the line between being well off and poor is in the US because of the lack of a good safety net.
  • Upvote 21
  • I Agree 4
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No...the abusers should be better identified so that the people who really need help can get it.


Fair point at first. But in my country people voted for social detectives to do exactly that. But this comes with a whole set of problems: Firstly, it's very humiliating being investigated by one when you've been branded with the stigma of being a recipient of social welfare and can barely live from that money. They get being punished for earning a little aside and not declaring it all while the same government is diligently creating more loopholes for the rich and companies to pay even less taxes or avoid paying it all. That's stealing money from the government as well but the poor get punished while the rich do it legally. Secondly, those social detectives cost a lot of money. I haven't seen any statistics yet but I guess it's a lot more than what they find with those who allegedly abuse the system.
You see, it's not that easy.
  • Upvote 15
  • Sad 2
  • I Agree 4
  • Love 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Smash! said:

You see, it's not that easy.

I don't think anyone's suggesting it's easy.  Hopefully the US can learn from the successes and failures of programs that have been tried in other countries.

  • Upvote 1
  • Bless Your Heart 4
  • I Agree 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BernRul said:

But if the system is not fixed by the government, and the parents aren't supported, the children will fail. Then the cycle starts up again

You can't hear it but I'm giving everything you said a standing ovation. 

  • Upvote 16
  • I Agree 5
  • Thank You 2
  • Love 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dandruff said:

I don't think anyone's suggesting it's easy.  Hopefully the US can learn from the successes and failures of programs that have been tried in other countries.

Maybe the US can learn from the UK where Amazon has paid just £62m tax on £7BILLION sales in the last two decades, through tax avoidance. £62m is less than many smaller operations pay in a year. The government would be wise to spend its resources clamping down on corporate tax avoidance, rather than chasing Darren on Farley Street who makes a few quid on Uber whilst also claiming income support. I don’t get why so-called fiscal conservatives can’t see  that there is more money to be saved going after the big fish rather than the little guy. 

  • Upvote 21
  • I Agree 4
  • Love 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Dandruff said:

How does society meet the needs of the needy while also not encouraging problematic choices?  Children shouldn't have to suffer and sometimes die because their parents are actively scheming or trusting that someone else will take on responsibility for their well-being instead of them.  Perhaps early monitoring and support to all young families would help, though I'm not sure how well the concept would be tolerated in the US.  I suspect it could be accomplished though, if people and the powers-that-be cared enough, and that it would eventually reduce suffering and economic burden.

I think society has to worry a bit less about encouraging problematic choices. The solution is certainly not to punish people. When a society becomes fairer and education is provided, particularly early childhood education, the problematic choices become less of an issue.

I definitely don’t like calling them choices. We cannot put ourselves in the shoes of someone who has grown up with extreme deprivation and carries trauma, or the collective trauma of a community steeped in violence or poverty. Addiction, teen pregnancy, inability to work or even illiteracy are the consequences of a shitty start in life. Often borne out of desperation. It’s just not fair to call them choices. 

  • Upvote 19
  • I Agree 1
  • Love 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and here we reach Ye Olde Debate on structure versus agency when it comes to determining life choices. This way intractability and darkness lies; here be dragons; etc. The dark, bottomless pool or sociology and political science... 

  • Upvote 1
  • Haha 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DandruffTalking about investigating poor people's "personal responsibility" is like saying "but what about false rape claims?" whenever rape is brought up.

Like yeah it happens, but it is nowhere near the problem you make it sound to be, especially when compared to the overwhelming issue. 

  • Upvote 21
  • I Agree 7
  • Thank You 2
  • Love 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bal maiden said:

I don’t get why so-called fiscal conservatives can’t see  that there is more money to be saved going after the big fish rather than the little guy. 

Because fiscal conservatives care way more about letting the rich keep their money than they do about anything else. 

  • Upvote 16
  • WTF 1
  • I Agree 12
  • Love 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because fiscal conservatives care way more about letting the rich keep their money than they do about anything else. 

 

... and they often enough sit in the directors board of exactly those companies or are otherwise intertwined with them.

Perfect example from my country: The cost for health insurance has gotten up a lot in the recent years to the point where it's starting to be a real problem for families to afford it. Medication is a lot more expensive here than in our surrounding countries. But our lovely representatives voted against a bill that would make medication cheaper and would disburden families a bit. Pharma has a big influence on our parliament (I don't wanna know how much taxes those companies - if at all - pay) so it's not surprising.

  • Upvote 14
  • Disgust 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bal maiden said:

 I don’t get why so-called fiscal conservatives can’t see  that there is more money to be saved going after the big fish rather than the little guy. 

Man, I told myself I wouldn't weigh in again on this because between this and my Jordan Peterson comments on another thread, I'm worried I'm going to become FJ's resident libertarian kook but...

There are plenty of fiscal conservatives in the libertarian community at least who speak out against corporate welfare and think this problem should be attacked first. There's a few paleoconservatives still who feel the same way. 

However, I do agree there are odd double standards among a lot of mainstream conservatives and most Republicans. I understand why politicians do it--that's where they get their money from. I just don't understand why the people support it. 

3 hours ago, lumpentheologie said:

Because fiscal conservatives care way more about letting the rich keep their money than they do about anything else. 

I don't think it's No True Scotsman to say that most standard Trump-supporting Republicans aren't fiscally conservative in the least. They support bailouts, tariffs, hawkish foreign interventions, immigration bans, and superfluous defense spending. I mean Trump thinks he gets to "order" companies what to do and where they can do business. Friedman and von Mises would shit a brick. 

If you're saying that most people who label themselves "fiscally conservative" aren't, then yes, I completely agree. 

Edited by nausicaa
  • Upvote 13
  • I Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, lumpentheologie said:

Because fiscal conservatives care way more about letting the rich keep their money than they do about anything else. 

Um... no. We care about making sure the resources that we have are used wisely. Big difference.

Signed,
A self-proclaimed fiscal conservative who is moderate on many social issues

  • Upvote 8
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BernRul said:

@DandruffTalking about investigating poor people's "personal responsibility" is like saying "but what about false rape claims?" whenever rape is brought up.

Like yeah it happens, but it is nowhere near the problem you make it sound to be, especially when compared to the overwhelming issue. 

Not to mention, it takes time and money to investigate these things. Money that could be better spent developing programs and services that genuinely help people rise out of poverty.

  • Upvote 17
  • I Agree 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Irishy said:

We cannot put ourselves in the shoes of someone who has grown up with extreme deprivation

I recommend There Are No Children Here by Alex Kotlowitz for a heart-wrenching depiction of the life of children in hard-core poverty and the forces that conspire to keep them that way. It's expensive and difficult to be poor, even having clean clothes for school can be challenging. Poor folks can't afford the giant economy size packages that save money, or costco or sams club memberships. Drug testing poor folks proved to be a waste of money. Medicare false claims abuse is a far bigger waste of money than aid for poor people in the US. Defense wastes a ton of money too. 

I sometimes think certain social policies don't reward responsible behavior, but no decent society can turn its back on children, no matter how awful the parents. Education and training is the way out of poverty, as is affordable housing. But nobody wants affordable housing in their neighborhood (NIMBY). 

Social Security was a response to the great depression and a recognition government has a responsibilty to look out for the basic welfare of citizens.  Private means of assistance coexist with public welfare, and both are necessary in US society. 

  • Upvote 17
  • I Agree 2
  • Thank You 2
  • Love 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HerNameIsBuffy locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.