Is it wrong to be "proud to be an American"?

@azoreseuropa there's nothing wrong with people chosing to defend their home country in times of crisis, the problem is when the government of said country uses said crisis as an excuse to invade another country full of innocent people

@pustal I absolutely agree about basic needs of education, health etc that contribute to society. My point is about collectivism, wealth redistribution and leftism being detrimental to society. Some examples of these being hurtful are Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans.

Wealth distribution would hardly be detrimental to society, I'd argue that the lack of it right now is what's so problematic for our nation. We have a tax system in which there are next to no realistic repercussions when the extremely wealthy fail to pay their fair share of taxes, and in some cases are even INCENTIVISED to do so, under the guise that it will in some way stimulate the economy (which... Is literally impossible, if a person or corporation isn't paying into the "communal fund," there is negligible economic growth happening, it's all optics and being able to slap a "made in USA" sticker on stuff)

The way I see it, there are two options which, realistically speaking, I don't think anyone can rationally disagree to:
1. Make taxes optional for large corporations, but if they don't pay them in full, they get NO access to any government programs or utilities that they would otherwise benefit from (electricity? Sorry, the grid is a public service. So are roads, they don't pay taxes to help maintain them, they don't get to transport things using them. Etc, etc.)

2. Implement a maximum wage. On the surface that might sound controversial, but it could be set as high as $1,000/hr (or even more). The reason I say this is that the whole idea of trickle-down economics is that as a corporate head makes more money, that will "trickle down" to both their employees through better wages, and the local economy through purchases made to other businesses. However, what we've instead been observing is corporate heads taking increased profit from sales and hoarding it for themselves (a prime (no pun intended) example of this is Jeff Bezos. There is no human alive who should ever have as much money as he does, there is literally no way to use multiple billion dollars within one lifetime, let alone getting that much annually). If we were to punish CEOs for over-paying themselves the same way we penalize under-paying employees, then it would quite literally force them to either invest in their own company (creating better products), or pay their employees better

I'd be willing to explain both concepts and their merits further if you want, I'm in a bit of a rush right now

Making taxes optional wouldn't really hurt people with millions/billions of dollars. They could just pay to have a helicopter landing zone constructed on their property. They could also easily buy and have solar panels installed. I'm pretty sure they would have their food brought to them if they wanted as well.

But it would hurt the company they're supposed to be running. I couldn't care less if they choose to use their money to build themselves near-identical versions of public services that only they can use, if they're that petty and insistent on not giving any money to the government I'm not going to be the one to stop them. However, I am a little bit fed up of people touting the idea that poor people are a drain on society for taking advantage of government programs designed to help them get back on their feet, while standing by while the ultra-rich (along with the companies and funds they oversee) take advantage of public services while doing next to nothing to pay into them

The people they are talking about are able bodied people who choose to live off the government without doing any real work. There are some cases where a single parent does need government assistance so no one is arguing against that.

@Jambione, that's an whole other issue, and it's due to jurisdiction and guard responsabilities. The fact was that if a minor was presented to the public system, the system is responsible to evaluate its options. I'm no doctor and can't say if the UK's NHS usually has bad decisions on it, but that is an anedoctal example of how legislation on guard can work. Nothing stops a country to allow a process transfer to private practice only on parents demand.

There is nothing wrong with being proud of the country you were born and raised in. America has it's pro's and con's. America isn't a poor 3rd world country where people live in fear of their lives every day. They are not forced to follow ONE religion (although Christianity seems to be the biggest one here). There are plenty of jobs available (although, people complain about it being difficult to get one, it's usually the ones that refuse to work in certain places). The cons of America (although some may say it's a matter of opinion) is the current President. He's affecting people in way's that most people don't even realize, and even those not even old enough to vote. The recent tariff's on China will result in higher cost of electronics. Net neutrality could end up restricting websites (and believe me, Comcast/Xfinity will probably be the first ones to charge for access to certain sites, including this one!). Healthcare in America is all about $$$$. Thousands of dollars to stay overnight in a hospital. People buying pharmaceuticals and jacking up the prices of them by 1000x or so. Then you have rights such as same sex marriage that was just made legal in 2016, that could end up being overturned. That was more of a "tease" to people that were granted a same-sex marriage in the past two years. (Please, no homophobic comments about that either, homophobia is stupid. If you are against homosexuals, just don't be friends with them, but no reason to hate them)


EDIT: When I say "America", I am referring to United States in this case. I just woke up and didn't even consider Canada when I was typing this...sorry to any Canadians!

There are so many different issues that go into how you feel about your country. There can be a whole lot of good and a whole lot of bad mixed together. To blanketedly say you are proud or ashamed isn't genuine when you start going through the issues and how you feel about them no matter who you are.

I am glad that I have certain rights in the US that aren't given in some countries, but also wish there were more rights we had that other countries do. I am glad I don't live on the street, but am sad that so many in the richest country do. I respect what those have sacrificed have given to keep us safe, but I know the government have used and abused them for many things that don't help (and in many cases hurt) the security of the citizens. And on and on...

@DrGreed never say no one, my friend: https://www.newsweek.com/tax-plan-social-security-medicare-welfare-republicans-rubio-729133

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/363642-ryan-pledges-entitlement-reform-in-2018 Like I stated before. They are cutting the entitlements from able bodied people who won't work. A struggling single parent actually trying to better their families life and working would not lose their entitlements.

That's not at all what he's saying, and I'd challenge you to produce a direct quote supporting what you think he is from that article. You can't overhaul how medicare/aide and social security work and not have it affect EVERYONE who benefits from it, especially since the conservative talking point on welfare fraud frequently contains the point that malicious benefit-seekers will "churn out" babies just for the benefits (yeah, that's one I've heard way too often)

I never said it wouldn't effect them. I just said they wouldn't lose their benefits if they can show that they are trying.

Edit: the only direct quote they mention was on the radio. Doubt anyone would have saved it but in the video in this link https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/31/gop-lawmaker-the-bible-says-the-unemployed-shall-not-eat/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d053bc77ba56 Jodey Arrington uses the bible of all things (ew) to try and tell people "God" says "if a man will not work, he shall not eat". Which I totally agree with but should be common sense.

I guess I'm curious, then, but how would you amend the welfare system in a way that eliminates fraud while not penalizing legitimate beneficiaries that may just be struggling to find work (for instance) in a way that isn't just reimplementing how the system already functions?...

still waiting for this to turn to flat earth

If they are able bodied and refusing to even try to work then they don't get benefits. Simple. As I repeated like 3-4 times. Also there was talk of work force programs that would help those who are having a hard time finding a job.

@DrGreed No, I understand that. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't understand how the system could realistically be improved without a drastic overhaul, which is why I'm asking how you'd change it

It should also be mentioned, though, that if you are an able-bodied potential worker, to receive welfare benefits you have to prove that you're in the process of searching for a job and actually accept a job offer within a certain amount of months (I think it varies from 6 to 12, but I'm not sure about that one). As a matter of fact, I've heard (although I don't know the accuracy of this, but I'd believe if it were true) that in some states welfare recipients are actually legally obligated to take the first job offer they're given, no matter what it is or how much it pays.

My point in all of this is that I don't understand where the idea that able-bodied people just hang out sipping on unemployment benefits comes from, because that is fundamentally just... NOT how the system works

Wow this thread has derailed from the original topic

200 comments... I haven't even read any of them since the first page. I can't believe I did this again

@TotalInsanity4 They're only making difficult for the people refusing to work. I know people who have taken advantage of food stamps who could have found a job but choose not to because free food.