- Joined
- Nov 23, 2014
- Messages
- 15,144
- Trophies
- 0
- Location
- Canberra, Australia
- Website
- boot9strap.com
- XP
- 11,119
- Country
I'm sorry. OP can live there if he wants. I can understand identifying with the culture and not caring about all that other stuff.
"Durr, gun are scary! America is so dangerous and no one should ever want to live there!"
"Durr, minimum wage is too low. I can't live a life of luxury from flipping burgers! No one should ever want to live there!"
"Durr, health insurance isn't paid through insanely high taxes and instead you have lower taxes and privatized insurance? I don't know what all that means, but I'm fairly certain it means no one should ever want to live there. Durrrrrrr"
I agree Trump's as ass...
But sadly, when that ass got the presidence, it wasn't him who won, it was all that hate, division and racism among all United States of America's citizens (I'm American, even though I don't live and wasn't born in that country) against anything and anyone that were diferent. Even when that ass leaves the presidence and someone else take his place, all that hate, division and racism will persist. Because Trump just appeared to make it more public and in a very stupid way, "politically correct". And that`s something that sadly will prevail after that ass are long gone.
As long as that ass is the president I wouldn't want to live in that country. It used to be a really nice place to live in but not anymore.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2011
- Messages
- 31,284
- Trophies
- 2
- Age
- 38
- Location
- Dr. Wahwee's castle
- XP
- 18,969
- Country
No, but there are plenty of people who live in and outside of the US who are bitterly asshurt that Clinton didn't win the election and blame everything bad on that fact alone. Both sides are never satisfied whoever wins, someone always finds flaws in the POTUS.
Counterargument: Guns are only as dangerous as the people who own them. The same argument can be said of knifes, sure they can be used in a kitchen, but they can be used as a weapon.
You place a ban to prevent gun or knife ownership, and only lawbreakers will find illicit means of obtaining them. People shouldn't have to suffer for the actions of dumbass criminals.
As for free healthcare: The US is too big of an infrastructure for it, and it's not truly "free" because Obamacare has cost the economy nearly 1 trillion US dollars, and with any country with free
healthcare, the quality of the care given goes down. I would love to hear an instance where one country with socialized medicine is truly top notch and high quality, with little to no wait time
in hospital waiting rooms.
The other problem with Obamacare is that those who are underemployed get royally raped right in the arse, because if you don't pay for "free" healthcare, you get a 600 dollar fine. Gee, that's
really fair for those people who are getting only 10 hours a week at their jobs thanks to their bosses. How is that fair again? People use the argument "Car insurance is required if you have a car, why not health insurance?" Well, there's a flaw, it's not federal law to own a car, so therefore you don't need insurance.
I wouldn't mind Obamacare if they removed that bedamned penalty. If they get rid of that, I wouldn't hate it as much as I do, I'm all for universal healthcare, but the way it's going about in the US is a bloody joke.
These are only my opinions, I'm not passing these off as being factually correct, etc, if people don't like the way they're presented, then I have nothing further to say on it.
What I find hilarious is people thinking that Clinton would've been better, we don't know that for sure and is only an guess. If she's anything like her husband was when he was POTUS, I'd rather lick a toilet seat. She was a proponent of that stupid-ass TPP, which would've screwed many internet users' rights over.
People wanted Obama impeached, everyone wanted a POTUS impeached at one point or another, like Bill Clinton, he was supposedly impeached but never got removed from office. It's a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation.
If people want to hate my guts for voicing my opinions for being too "controversial", so be it.
Last edited by the_randomizer,
Guns are only as dangerous as the people who own them. The problem is the law is quite relaxed in the United States with regard to allowing people who shouldn't have guns to have guns.
You're complaining about health care costs, but one of the reasons it costs so much is because we decided to allow health insurance companies to act as a for-profit middleman. Taking out the for-profit middleman would bring down costs, which is one of the many reasons why a Medicare-for-all system is superior to what we have. There's also no correlation between greater access to healthcare and the quality of care going down. The quality of care in the United States isn't that dissimilar from the quality of care in other countries.
That's a necessary evil of keeping around the for-profit insurance companies. Without the mandate, healthy people (particularly young people) don't buy health insurance, which raises costs on those who do. With the destruction of pre-existing conditions, people are also less likely to buy insurance until they a.) have medical reasons to do so, or b.) have a mandate. Without the mandate, costs go up. When costs go up, more people leave the pool. When more people leave the pool, costs go up even more.
I'm not defending the for-profit insurance companies that are allowed to exist under Obamacare (they should have been destroyed), but we if start with the premise that this is how the system will work, the mandate is required.
The difference between Trump and Obama is whether or not the President did anything worth being impeached over. Obama did not break any laws. Best case scenario for Trump, he demonstrably obstructed justice. Worst case scenario for Trump, he colluded with Russia. That's the difference.
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2014
- Messages
- 15,144
- Trophies
- 0
- Location
- Canberra, Australia
- Website
- boot9strap.com
- XP
- 11,119
- Country
Just because you add "durrrr" to things doesn't make them false or true. Guns ARE scary. There are way more massacres because of them (we used to have as many massacres as the US, then after Port Arthur in 1996 our prime minister brought in tougher gun laws and we have had none since) and police are cornered into being brutal because of the large risk anyone they interact with could have a gun and would feel to qualms about shooting them. I used to think maybe there was something wrong with all American policemen or maybe the system was bad somehow, every time I saw on the news that yet another American policeman shoot an innocent bystander. But someone pointed out what it is like from a policeman's point of view and now I sympathise.
Having no public system to fall back on is awful. If you can't afford health insurance, you could die from a treatable illness. Not to mention, there is very little regulation so hospitals and drug manufacturers can charge what they like. Here, we have a system called the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Certain drugs are placed on it (ones that have proven to be very effective and safe, and needed by a large number of people) and it means that people can buy them at a capped price with the government paying the remainder. This way everyone has access to life saving medication no matter what their circumstances. The government negotiates prices so the drug companies can't charge too much, if they want their drug on the Scheme (which they do, because then you get an insane number of sales). In the US, the government lacks that buying power - it can tell drug companies that they would like them to only charge a certain amount but they would just laugh. Very few people have access to the US' equivalent (Medicare drug benefit D), only the disabled and elderly, and even then they have to pay for it. So the government has no power to stop them charging ludicrous amounts of money for stuff people need to stay alive. In fact, the government doesn't even negotiate with them as a whole, it makes each insurance company providing the Medicare benefit D negotiate with the drug companies individually. And how do you think a little company facing a massive drug conglomeration is going to fare? Quite badly - therefore very expensive drugs. Capitalism doesn't work with medicine - how much is your life worth? You can't just choose not to buy it because it is too expensive. Capitalism works when people can choose not to buy your stuff if you charge too much, so you are forced to charge less if you want sales. But medicine can be "worth" infinity $ since we are talking about your life.
In terms of hospitals, here, there is a set benefit paid per item number. Hospitals can charge more if they wish, but people can always choose a public hospital that only charges the set benefit (so free for the patient) or their insurance provider can direct them to go to a private hospital that charges a lower amount over. This keeps hospital prices at an acceptable level, plus someone who can't afford any insurance can still be treated, they might just have to go on a waiting list or be in a large shared room. In the US, with no free services for people to fall back on, hospitals can charge what they want because the alternative is death.
Minimum wage being low should concern everyone. Not just because those working full time on minimum wage would be living in abject misery (have some compassion for your fellow countrymen!) but also because they can't afford to be spending much which makes businesses suffer. It is a bit of a vicious cycle - you reduce prices (in a business that low income earners tend to spend at, say fast food or a grocery store), and pay your staff less, and they in turn have less disposable income and spend less in your shops. Increasing the minimum wage (very slowly and gently) would mean more business for those stores and they could afford those wages without losing money overall. If they can be clever about it they can even benefit from the increased spending power of the poor without their wage bill going up too much - and profit from the whole thing. It would also increase pressure on the higher paid workers - not the rich ones but the ones just below middle class), because they would complain about getting minimum wage and would want to still be a little above the ones really at the bottom. This would push the middle class up a tiny bit, and then people above them would hardly move at all, then the slightly rich would probably not move, with the actual rich not really noticing the whole affair. It benefits everyone, not just the actual poor who are getting a massive boost to their pay packet.
Last edited by Quantumcat,
Or
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Or Chicago
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Depending on where you live the minimum wage can probably support 6 people and it's supposed to support 3 to 4 so it's not very low
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2014
- Messages
- 15,144
- Trophies
- 0
- Location
- Canberra, Australia
- Website
- boot9strap.com
- XP
- 11,119
- Country
Why did our overall crime levels go down after we got tough gun laws in 1996? And why did we have no more massacres when we previously had 1-3 a year? Removing guns out of the system makes it a lot harder to commit crime, or kill people accidentally. Your argument is one from emotion rather than facts.
While it does keep guns out of some criminals hands, most of them (especially here in the states) still are going to get their hands on illegal guns, same goes for terrorists. If they can easily sneak drugs over the border, then why couldn't they smuggle guns and ammo? And also have you ever considered the flip side of the coin, that there are people who actually carry guns for self protection or recreation? There are numerous incidents where crime has been stopped by good people who used their gun to stop the criminals, but you never hear of them. Why? Because our media's always too busy trying to dig up every cop shooting they can find and act like guns are the problem, not the people behind them.
Last edited by rileysrjay,
, Reason: Accidental double quote
The data is clear that gun restrictions reduce gun violence. As for criminals and terrorists getting their hands on illegal guns, there's no need for that in the United States when we make it so easy for them to get them legally. We have loopholes that allow people to get guns without background checks, and we don't ban people on the terrorist watchlist from being able to buy guns legally. In fact, Al Qaeda once urged people to buy guns in the United States because it was so easy for them to do so.
It's sad to see that liberals are still whining over Trump's victory. The United States is a great country despite it having flaws. No country is perfect, but America certainly is a lot better than other countries.
Can you blame liberals for reacting negatively to what Trump and the Republicans have done or tried to do? When people try to kick millions of people off their health insurance, which would cause many people to die, I tend to get upset.
Whether or not I agree with you depends on which countries and how.
I do agree that in some cases the U.S. is probably too relaxed on gun laws, but if guns were flat out illegal here, terrorists and criminals would still be able to get they're hands on them through the border like they do with drugs, would they not? My whole point is that when you take guns away from the bad guy, they're still going to eventually get their hands on one to kill their victims, but the good guy is probably going to respect the law and not have a gun to protect himself or others.
Liberals don't realize that humans, not guns, kill people.
I'm not arguing that they should be flatout illegal. However, if they were flatout illegal, getting them would be much tougher, and although some criminals would still get their hands on them, many who otherwise would have had guns inarguably wouldn't. The number of deaths from gun violence would plummet.
We do. We also realize that people with guns, not people without guns, are to blame for gun violence. I'm not arguing that guns should be illegal, but some people shouldn't be allowed to have them.
Edit: Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say nuclear weapons were easy to come by. If bad people started obtaining and setting off nuclear weapons, would you say, "Humans, not nuclear weapons, kill people"?
Last edited by Lacius,
Minimum wage is not a good thing at all. After all, the money has to come from somewhere. Potential sources businesses include increasing prices (which decreases business and reduced profits), reducing hours, reducing jobs, or flat out going out of business.
Various sources that agree:
http://dailysignal.com/2017/08/02/minimum-wage-proven-harm-workers-left-support/
http://redalertpolitics.com/2017/08/02/15-minimum-wage-cost-45000-jobs-just-one-county-report/
I have yet to see a source in favor if minimum wage that's based on reality. Posts like this one fail to consider where the money comes from.
If guns were flat out illegal here, criminals would still find ways to kill victims even though gun related violence would go down and keep guns away from people who use them for self defense. Plus have you looked at my point of how easy it would be for them to smuggle thousands of weapons in from South of the border? Smuggling weapons into the US across the border wouldn't be that hard if they can smuggle millions of dollars of drugs across, would it not? Stupid people are still going to find ways to kill their victims anyways, even if it doesn't include guns. What keeps them from using knives or building a bomb? Virtually anything can be used as a weapon if you can figure out how to use it.
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2014
- Messages
- 15,144
- Trophies
- 0
- Location
- Canberra, Australia
- Website
- boot9strap.com
- XP
- 11,119
- Country
The minimum wage is $15,080 per year (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country) but the poverty level for 3 people in a household is $20,090 and for 6 people is $32,570 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States). The minimum wage is 25% less than the poverty level for supporting three people.
I found out that in some states it is higher, but even where it is the highest (Portland, Oregon) it is still only $23,400 which is only a little above the poverty level for three people, and less than the poverty level for four ($24,250). Not to mention living in Portland is probably more expensive than in a country town, say.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Did you understand what I meant when I talked about how increasing the minimum wage means that businesses do more business, and can therefore afford to pay people more? The increase has to be done very slowly (you can't make businesses have to pay double for staff for the period of time where those staff start accumulating money, before they start spending it). How do you explain us having a minimum wage of $19 (around $14 US) and yet little businesses do quite fine? You are just missing half of the equation (as are those YouTube videos).
Last edited by Quantumcat,
Similar threads
-
BakerMan
I rather enjoy a life of taking it easy. I haven't reached that life yet though. -
K3Nv2
-
Psionic Roshambo
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
K3Nv2:
Don't know how Aldis managed to pack better potato salad than Walmart but it is Walmart quality food
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
