Donald Trump

[Cicero]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

His blend of libertarian politics + traditional USA neo-con views rub me the wrong way. Libertarian ideology, in my books, is a bunch of fanciful rubbish. It doesn't fly anywhere other than where libertarian thinkers have imagined it to work (looking at Ayn Rand & the people she's influenced) - ultimately, it's impossible because you have to rely on society at large to regulate it's behavior as one. Then you've got to believe that people are basically good, which just isn't true, and you'd have to act like things like greed or jealousy won't impact peoples outlook on how they live their lives. That's just not realistic. I think libertarians are just dishonest ultra-conservatives tbh. But aside from generalisations, let's delve into his actual points.

This one is something only a conservative American would argue in my books - because I think it reflects poorly on American society that the state does not provide a better healthcare system to its population - but he believes that people don't have a "right" to healthcare because people are not entitled to a doctors time and resources. Perhaps it's because I'm from a country where if I ever needed to get to a doctor, we have NHS, but I just do not understand America's unwillingness to allow all Americans to go to doctors. Well it's not just not letting them go to doctors, because all Americans can go to the Emergency Room... which if you can't afford, will be covered by the taxpayers at a greater expense than if they'd just been covered by the state in the first place. His rationale also doesn't fly with the US Constitution's 6th Amendment (right to an attorney) or with how emergency rooms currently operate.

When he was confronted with this, he essentially said he didn't believe indigent defendants should have counsel provided. He didn't address emergency rooms. So I suppose ideologically he was consistent in regards to lawyers. But I'd say it's ideologically repugnant to just think the poor should be fucked when it comes to protecting their legal rights under America's highest law of the land or that poor people shouldn't go to the doctor... or if they do, they should be a greater burden on the taxpayer (which is, ideologically inconsistent - and I think objectively a shit policy).

When confronted about Kansas's massive tax cut plan, that he was very very supportive of, and how that in reality money had not trickled down. Here's what the after effect of Kansas's tax plan: https://www.businessinsider.com/kansas-experiment-with-tax-cutting-failed-on-its-own-terms-2017-6 ;and here is Ben Shapiro's response:

 

 

He didn't have a response when asked to make any sort of comment. Ultimately, if you're going to support policy ideas and they fail spectacularly... you should at least show you've learned something from the failure. He didn't even have an excuse as to why Kansas's tax cut plans failed.

He's anti-abortion, which I think is just fucking stupid. He also says it's because "all life needs to be protected." Yeah, up until the fetus pops out... at which point the little fucker is expected to pull himself up by his own bootstraps & not have government protect in the form of healthcare, environmental regulations, etc. It's intellectually lazy. He throws around the term "leftist" to every person that's to the left of him. He defines leftist as "people who believe equality of outcome is the primary purpose of government" - there's plenty of people to the left of him that don't fit this definition. Literally anyone left-leaning that isn't a communist or socialist would not be considered a leftist under his definition. What does he call these people? Leftists. It's intellectually lazy. He dismisses any criticism of Israel as anti-Semetic. Again, intellectually lazy.

And the intellectual laziness is irritating to me, because he's very clearly not a stupid person. But his smug media persona makes him money and works for him - so why not role with it if you're him? I can appreciate that he's a voice for conservatives and libertarians that isn't quite as batshit insane as the Republican base. That doesn't mean he should be President, or any sort of real politician. If he's going to be involved in politics, he should stick to his media role. Alternatively, I welcome him leaving his media role and focusing on literally anything apolitical. Or if he must do political journalism, he's a good communicator and a good writer... I wish he'd do real journalism instead of political punditry.

Where in the US Constitution, or anywhere, does it say every American has a right to free healthcare? Shapiro's rationale, is based on the governing laws of the United States, such as having a right to an attorney.

There is then the whole left/right argument on morality, which becomes tedious. You can argue the morality of denying someone healthcare, yet at the same time argue the morality of someone demanding treatment for free or at any given price.  Denying someone into an emergency room without healthcare is immoral, so is going through life not having health insurance anticipating nothing will ever happen to you or your loved ones. That's actually just fucking stupid and selfish to accept the rest of society to pay your bills for you. I'd actually be eager to see how a free competitive market in health care would look. His premise on anti-abortion has and always will be the fact a fetus is technically human life. Now would a free competitive market not allow more affordable enrollment plans then we have today? 

Personally, Shapiro in office is a bit far-fetched. I agree with a vast majority of his views (the myth of white privilege and systematic racism, transgendersim, pro guns, getting rid of socialism, etc). He's made it abundantly clear where he stands, in which he would quite literally fail at the elections. 

 

[SirBalon]

The social divide in the US is possibly the only first world country where it’s an accepted way of living as a majority. There are those that are seen as one thing and those thay are seen as another without remorse. 

[Cicero]

13 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

The social divide in the US is possibly the only first world country where it’s an accepted way of living as a majority. There are those that are seen as one thing and those thay are seen as another without remorse. 

Media helps a lot with that. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Just now, Cicero said:

Where in the US Constitution, or anywhere, does it say every American has a right to free healthcare? Shapiro's rationale, is based on the governing laws of the United States, such as having a right to an attorney.

There is then the whole left/right argument on morality, which becomes tedious. You can argue the morality of denying someone healthcare, yet at the same time argue the morality of someone demanding treatment for free or at any given price.  Denying someone into an emergency room without healthcare is immoral, so is going through life not having health insurance anticipating nothing will ever happen to you or your loved ones. That's actually just fucking stupid and selfish to accept the rest of society to pay your bills for you. I'd actually be eager to see how a free competitive market in health care would look. His premise on anti-abortion has and always will be the fact a fetus is technically human life. Now would a free competitive market not allow more affordable enrollment plans then we have today? 

Personally, Shapiro in office is a bit far-fetched. I agree with a vast majority of his views (the myth of white privilege and systematic racism, transgendersim, pro guns, getting rid of socialism, etc). He's made it abundantly clear where he stands, in which he would quite literally fail at the elections. 

 

1.) But Shapiro stated that he doesn't feel the indigent should be given an attorney provided by the state, which is in the Constitution. But that's essentially mandating that a lawyer's time and expertise be given up as a right. I think he's at least ideologically consistent in his "fuck the poor" attitude here - but the rationale behind his opposition to healthcare

2.) The American healthcare system is just so backwards to me. Denying someone into the emergency room is immoral, but letting someone die slowly without real healthcare is alright? In the UK 8.5% of tax revenue goes towards NHS, in the US 16.8% of the tax revenue goes towards it's totally dogshite health system. America's system keeps a lot of people from getting treatment as well as costs the taxpayers more money; it's not a good policy. When I hear "free competitive market" I hear "let's remove regulations from this industry and let it do what it wants" - generally speaking, that's seldom been good for the working class who may need to use the services of that industry.

Honestly, I don't understand why so many Americans are against a single payer option. It's: a.) cheaper for taxpayers than the current system, b.) cheaper for businesses that pay into their employees healthcare plans, c.) cheaper for a lot of people who will not need private healthcare options; d.) if you do need private healthcare options, those will still be available to you. Win-win-win-win, really. But "THIS IS SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM. IT HAS NO PLACE IN AMERICA" is the typical response - fine, America, ignore what the rest of the Western world has done and keep throwing away money & having people go bankrupt from medical bills.

3.) If a fetus is "technically a human life," I think we can agree that all human beings that are born alive are human life. If the role of government, as Shapiro argues, is to protect life... then there's a lot of policies that the government should be getting involved with to protect life that Shapiro disagrees with fundamentally.

[SirBalon]

40 minutes ago, Cicero said:

Media helps a lot with that. 

I forgot to add "class" after "social" because that changes everything but at the same time I think everyone knows what I was getting at.

As for the media helping a lot with that mindset, I have no idea because I haven't lived in the US and have only visited either on business or leisure for a limited time only.

But I can comment by referring to my interaction with North American people that come from a very diverse social class background and only in the States (out of the first world nations) have I come to the conclusion that there's a massive class divide.  It's almost as if it isn't shameful to look down upon people that can't afford even fresh vegetables let alone health insurance.

Social class has absolutely nothing to do with decency and necessities,. Health should be available to all in the same manner be it the manageable manner that can be concocted by a government so as all are eligible.

[SirBalon]

57 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

But "THIS IS SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM. IT HAS NO PLACE IN AMERICA" is the typical response

But any person that isn't insular will know full well that plain old decency and searching for ways to cater for all has absolutely nothing to do with political ideologies.

Its stupid!

So if we hear about a child closed in a car with the windows up in over 40° heat while the parents go to shop... Do we feel better or worse, more caring or less caring, more shocked or less shocked if the child belongs to a lower social class to one of a higher social class?

Come oooon!  Where are we going with all of this!

The system as it stands is one of greed and nasty connotations regarding the divide of those that have more and those that have less.  Know your place man!  Looks like the States are still stuck in the Victorian times.

[Dr. Gonzo]

4 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

But any person that isn't insular will know full well that plain old decency and searching for ways to cater for all has absolutely nothing to do with political ideologies.

Its stupid!

So if we hear about a child closed in a car with the windows up in over 40° heat while the parents go to shop... Do we feel better or worse, more caring or less caring, more shocked or less shocked if the child belongs to a lower social class to one of a higher social class?

Come oooon!  Where are we going with all of this!

The system as it stands is one of greed and nasty connotations regarding the divide of those that have more and those that have less.  Know your place man!  Looks like the States are still stuck in the Victorian times.

I agree with you fully. Americans have a weird concept of class though, a lot of people who are working class or lower-middle class won't feel like they're actually a part of that socioeconomic group. Maybe it's because of the whole "American dream" thing - but that's from a time where America had the world's fastest growing Middle Class at a time where the Western middle class had more power and upward mobility than over.

Several decades on, America (and a lot of other Western countries, tbh) isn't the same country it was in the 50s and 60s. Corporate profits go up, wages remain the same. Dividends are paid out to those who have the disposable income to own stocks and shares, workers get bonuses if they're lucky. A lot of people who are directly impacted by the policies that prevent the middle class from growing and only serve to benefit the elites... are the most happy to vote against their interests and to have politicians come in who will continue to fuck them and stop their upward mobility. And a lot of people have that "fuck you, I've got mine" attitude - why should they pay for someone else's healthcare, they've already got healthcare for themselves and their family? Or the elderly who don't want tax money going towards healthcare for the next generation... meanwhile they've got their government provided healthcare.

To be honest, I don't think this is really all that unique to America. My uncle & my cousin are two conservatives who are both working class lads that are dreaming of some toffs lording over them at the expense of their upward mobility. Never mind the fact that a strong middle class with upward mobility is almost always a very strong indicator that a country's having enormous economic growth (See: America in the 1950s or China currently).

[SirBalon]

13 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I agree with you fully. Americans have a weird concept of class though, a lot of people who are working class or lower-middle class won't feel like they're actually a part of that socioeconomic group. Maybe it's because of the whole "American dream" thing - but that's from a time where America had the world's fastest growing Middle Class at a time where the Western middle class had more power and upward mobility than over.

Several decades on, America (and a lot of other Western countries, tbh) isn't the same country it was in the 50s and 60s. Corporate profits go up, wages remain the same. Dividends are paid out to those who have the disposable income to own stocks and shares, workers get bonuses if they're lucky. A lot of people who are directly impacted by the policies that prevent the middle class from growing and only serve to benefit the elites... are the most happy to vote against their interests and to have politicians come in who will continue to fuck them and stop their upward mobility. And a lot of people have that "fuck you, I've got mine" attitude - why should they pay for someone else's healthcare, they've already got healthcare for themselves and their family? Or the elderly who don't want tax money going towards healthcare for the next generation... meanwhile they've got their government provided healthcare.

To be honest, I don't think this is really all that unique to America. My uncle & my cousin are two conservatives who are both working class lads that are dreaming of some toffs lording over them at the expense of their upward mobility. Never mind the fact that a strong middle class with upward mobility is almost always a very strong indicator that a country's having enormous economic growth (See: America in the 1950s or China currently).

The thing is that things are regressing all the time in what you've mentioned about essentially providing for that 1% of the world's population, "the elite".  If this government (UK) could do it, they would!  They'd dump the NHS like what exits out of our human exhaust the day after a shit curry.  The same goes for all nations!  But the fact still stands that we provide for ALL! And we have done for decades as have most European countries.  Most people are proud of that fact and where we are really different in this is that the general consensus (not all mind you because there are pricks in all societies) is that it's a good thing and one that should be fought for.

[Cicero]

2 hours ago, SirBalon said:

 

Social class has absolutely nothing to do with decency and necessities,. Health should be available to all in the same manner be it the manageable manner that can be concocted by a government so as all are eligible.

Not if it leads to a socialist state. There in itself is lies the whole irony of 'morality'. 

3 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

 

Honestly, I don't understand why so many Americans are against a single payer option. It's: a.) cheaper for taxpayers than the current system, b.) cheaper for businesses that pay into their employees healthcare plans, c.) cheaper for a lot of people who will not need private healthcare options; d.) if you do need private healthcare options, those will still be available to you. Win-win-win-win, really. But "THIS IS SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM. IT HAS NO PLACE IN AMERICA" is the typical response - fine, America, ignore what the rest of the Western world has done and keep throwing away money & having people go bankrupt from medical bills.

 

Cheaper for taxpayers? What?  Bernie Sanders was going to rocket taxes through the roof.  And even then, that wouldn't be enough to cover everyone. There would then have to be reduced government funding in other sectors such as education and infrastructure. 

Socialism, in spite how you look at it, is evil. 

[SirBalon]

5 minutes ago, Cicero said:

Not if it leads to a socialist state. There in itself is lies the whole irony of 'morality'. 

Cheaper for taxpayers? What?  Bernie Sanders was going to rocket taxes through the roof.  And even then, that wouldn't be enough to cover everyone. There would then have to be reduced government funding in other sectors such as education and infrastructure. 

Socialism, in spite how you look at it, is evil. 

People have to get over ideologies and look at the needs at hand. Remember that for some of the demographic depending many times in simple geography can cap personal advancement or also disfunctional families bring children into this world and don't do a good job of bringing them up to believe there's a way out. I could go on and on with reasons behind someone may not ever get to a level where they can afford health insurance.

This has nothing to do with a political ideology and more to do with a conditioned society that is greedy and insular. 

[Cicero]

38 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

People have to get over ideologies and look at the needs at hand. Remember that for some of the demographic depending many times in simple geography can cap personal advancement or also disfunctional families bring children into this world and don't do a good job of bringing them up to believe there's a way out. I could go on and on with reasons behind someone may not ever get to a level where they can afford health insurance.

This has nothing to do with a political ideology and more to do with a conditioned society that is greedy and insular. 

What is Greedy and Insular? Me not wanting to give my hard earned money away or a systematic distribution of production where the government steals my hard earned money and gives it to others? Theft is theft. There is one thing to have your taxes go towards a public good, then there is another thing to have your taxes go towards a commodity. 

 

[SirBalon]

4 hours ago, Cicero said:

What is Greedy and Insular? Me not wanting to give my hard earned money away or a systematic distribution of production where the government steals my hard earned money and gives it to others? Theft is theft. There is one thing to have your taxes go towards a public good, then there is another thing to have your taxes go towards a commodity. 

 

Insular in two senses mate, on the one hand insular in selfishness and not caring about anyone outside your circle and also insular in the sense of not looking outside your nation at how others function and manage to offer a health service for everyone.  Not all those countries are socialist countries if that's what makes you afraid.

Another thing, paying tax isn't the government thieving unless you don't want to have any services at all and want to pay for every time you call the police or whatever else the tax system pays in your state.

Imagine someone that works 70 odd hours a week in manual labour (that's working hard, probably harder than you're working and sorry for the assumption, definitely harder than I'm working) and has three children to feed, clothe and educate...  Maybe that person can't offer their family a health service that dignifies him to the same level as come one earning double or triple what he does.

Finally... Health is NOT a commodity!

This isn't me hitting out at you but everyone that thinks that way.

Here in the UK we have a big problem that continues to grow with the health system (NHS) and it really needs funding.  We also have a housing crisis and the police have had cuts after cuts after cuts with the streets becoming more dangerous than ever not only for us the general public, but also for them who have a job in protecting us all and upholding the law!  Now I am lucky enough to earn a decent living and I wouldn't mind my tax to be raised if I was guaranteed that the money would be going into the sectors that most need it.  It's called collaborating and contributing.

[Kowabunga]

11 hours ago, Cicero said:

Where in the US Constitution, or anywhere, does it say every American has a right to free healthcare? Shapiro's rationale, is based on the governing laws of the United States, such as having a right to an attorney.

There is then the whole left/right argument on morality, which becomes tedious. You can argue the morality of denying someone healthcare, yet at the same time argue the morality of someone demanding treatment for free or at any given price.  Denying someone into an emergency room without healthcare is immoral, so is going through life not having health insurance anticipating nothing will ever happen to you or your loved ones. That's actually just fucking stupid and selfish to accept the rest of society to pay your bills for you. I'd actually be eager to see how a free competitive market in health care would look. His premise on anti-abortion has and always will be the fact a fetus is technically human life. Now would a free competitive market not allow more affordable enrollment plans then we have today? 

This overarching focus on morality puts me off. It's about material conditions of the people and arguably also efficiency of the system. The US health system doesn't really work well.

[Cicero]

10 hours ago, SirBalon said:

Insular in two senses mate, on the one hand insular in selfishness and not caring about anyone outside your circle and also insular in the sense of not looking outside your nation at how others function and manage to offer a health service for everyone.  Not all those countries are socialist countries if that's what makes you afraid.

Another thing, paying tax isn't the government thieving unless you don't want to have any services at all and want to pay for every time you call the police or whatever else the tax system pays in your state.

Imagine someone that works 70 odd hours a week in manual labour (that's working hard, probably harder than you're working and sorry for the assumption, definitely harder than I'm working) and has three children to feed, clothe and educate...  Maybe that person can't offer their family a health service that dignifies him to the same level as come one earning double or triple what he does.

Finally... Health is NOT a commodity!

This isn't me hitting out at you but everyone that thinks that way.

Here in the UK we have a big problem that continues to grow with the health system (NHS) and it really needs funding.  We also have a housing crisis and the police have had cuts after cuts after cuts with the streets becoming more dangerous than ever not only for us the general public, but also for them who have a job in protecting us all and upholding the law!  Now I am lucky enough to earn a decent living and I wouldn't mind my tax to be raised if I was guaranteed that the money would be going into the sectors that most need it.  It's called collaborating and contributing.

Did you not read my point regarding public goods vs commodities? Paying tax towards a public good, (police, military, fixing the roads, etc) isn't socialist. That is no way in the same form as socialised healthcare. Taking something you haven't earned and giving it to someone else is morally reprehensible, regardless of the reason. 

If someone has 3 kids and doesn't have enough money to feed, cloth, or educate them., they shouldn't have 3 kids. Since when is it the obligation of others to have their money taken away from them, just so that these children can be provided for? That isn't fair to these people nor is it fair for these 3 children to have a father that can't provide for them. 

Healthcare is undoubtedly treated as a commodity in the states from what I've seen. Like I said, the concept of morality in healthcare will always be contradictory/two sided. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

12 hours ago, Cicero said:

Not if it leads to a socialist state. There in itself is lies the whole irony of 'morality'. 

Cheaper for taxpayers? What?  Bernie Sanders was going to rocket taxes through the roof.  And even then, that wouldn't be enough to cover everyone. There would then have to be reduced government funding in other sectors such as education and infrastructure. 

Socialism, in spite how you look at it, is evil. 

NHS is much cheaper than the US healthcare model for taxpayers. Also compare literally every EU country’s tax spending on healthcare compared to the US.

The last sentence is silly. If taxation is theft, don’t ever get on a road ever again in your life. Or why should any of my taxes go towards US schools? I don’t have kids and when I do, hopefully I won’t be sending them to school in the US to be some fuckers target practice.

Using your logic, it’s evil to make my taxes fund these schools/shooting ranges.

[Cicero]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

NHS is much cheaper than the US healthcare model for taxpayers. Also compare literally every EU country’s tax spending on healthcare compared to the US.

The last sentence is silly. If taxation is theft, don’t ever get on a road ever again in your life.

See my post above 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Just now, Cicero said:

See my post above 

See my edit

[Cicero]

8 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

NHS is much cheaper than the US healthcare model for taxpayers. Also compare literally every EU country’s tax spending on healthcare compared to the US.

The last sentence is silly. If taxation is theft, don’t ever get on a road ever again in your life. Or why should any of my taxes go towards US schools? I don’t have kids and when I do, hopefully I won’t be sending them to school in the US to be some fuckers target practice.

Using your logic, it’s evil to make my taxes fund these schools/shooting ranges.

Again, my whole argument is what is socialist and what isn't. Taxes going towards public goods such as the police, military, fixing roads, and public education isn't socialist. Your slippery slope fallacy towards school shootings isn't going to change my stance either. This in itself is a whole other argument. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

8 minutes ago, Cicero said:

Again, my whole argument is what is socialist and what isn't. Taxes going towards public goods such as the police, military, fixing roads, and public education isn't socialist. Your slippery slope fallacy towards school shootings isn't going to change my stance either. This in itself is a whole other argument. 

Why should I pay for kids to go to school but not for them to go to the doctor?

They don’t need education to live long lives. They do need healthiness.

You’re picking and choosing what social services are “socialist” and which ones aren’t. But at the end of the day they are both social services.

The school shooting stuff is more to highlight how American political priorities are fucked up - how people who like guns rights are considered more important than proventing children from being shot, or how it’s okay for them to be the only western nation without a public health service.

[SirBalon]

1 hour ago, Cicero said:

Taking something you haven't earned and giving it to someone else is morally reprehensible, regardless of the reason.

A government is there to work for all of its citizens. They are all nationals!

1 hour ago, Cicero said:

If someone has 3 kids and doesn't have enough money to feed, cloth, or educate them., they shouldn't have 3 kids. Since when is it the obligation of others to have their money taken away from them, just so that these children can be provided for? That isn't fair to these people nor is it fair for these 3 children to have a father that can't provide for them.

But those kids exist and you can’t rewind so as they disappear without any previous knowledge of their existence. 

By not having healthcare or treating people as less as sub-human all you get in return are more problems with ghettos, crime and a basic society psychosis of negative sentiments towards the rest of society. Nothing good will come from that, quite the opposite.

It ends up being more expensive to police, pay social welfare because generations will be the same forever.

As I said before... It’s basically a greedy insular society.  

1 hour ago, Cicero said:

Healthcare is undoubtedly treated as a commodity in the states from what I've seen. Like I said, the concept of morality in healthcare will always be contradictory/two sided. 

But it’s not a commodity in the rest of the first world and the majority are right mate. America has got it wrong in this case. 

[6666]

Didn't expect Cicero to be all "Socialism is evil". Maybe he really is American... 

Not to offend anyone but people that take the stance of socialism being unnecessary come across as extremely ignorant. The whole point of the government existing is to make sure that society functions. Obviously capitalism should still be allowed to flourish and getting the balance right between regulations and the freedom that businesses have will always be a discussion but a government's responsibility should always be to society first.

When talking about America, their main issue isn't that they're too socialist, it's the opposite. Large corporations owning their government and heavily influencing their policies, domestic and foreign, has made the way they're run a bit of a joke. The insane amount of money they put into their military isn't up for discussion but spending on education, welfare, healthcare or actually helping people in any way needs to be stopped. Insane.

[SirBalon]

We are all a product of our own society and just as when we leave home for the first time, we are shocked to find out that things don't function in the same manner with other people as they did with our own.  Obviously this is all more detailed and extensive than that.

What I have never been able to understand is people that lean so hard on political ideology that it actually rules their free mind and sets them in situ within a coloured spectrum without a seemingly freedom to move.  They just don't see it because they've only really lived what they've become accustomed to and with that the self feeding of "normality".

Here in the UK we have discrimination against what is perceived to be (rightly or wrongly because you do have all sorts) freeloading off benefits and what not. There's been documentaries made about this and we all know what I'm talking about when I say that this particular weapon was used in part by the leave campaign on the EU... That's how big it is that it can be manipulated for all sorts of outcomes and mindsets.

We are all subject to our own surroundings be it Cicero in the US, me myself in the UK, Asura in India or Devon von Devon in Pakistan etc... etc...  This isn't voluntary thought going on and what I was saying to Cicero is that for me he is thinking things in an erroneous manner because of what I've grown up surrounded by while he is seeing it in the same way accustomed to what he's been raised in.  That doesn't make Cicero wrong because he isn't.  Neither does it make me wrong because it can't be either,. What it SHOULD do is open our eyes and drop the colours we are wearing for a minute to see that many things can be done and that barriers shouldn't be built ever in the attempt to learn new things and new ways of evolving and advancing.

Nothing is perfect in this world and the US have countless problems in their society as do we.  But we can't shut ourselves in our own little worlds thinking our neighbours across the street are inferior to us or maybe those downtown are just a bunch of drags on the system.  It's the system that should be there to try and give us all a helping hand depending on our  individual necessities or status to all have an opportunity to the basic things in life... Health is a basic necessity as is water. We should ALL be entitled to this because  where I was brought up we were all permitted to share the same ward.

[Honey Honey]

The United States government has $21.3tn of debt, a large chunk of which is debt owed to itself  and everyone is still talking like we live in a tax and spend ecomomy  

[SirBalon]

4 minutes ago, Harvsky said:

The United States government has $21.3tn of debt, a large chunk of which is debt owed to itself  and everyone is still talking like we live in a tax and spend ecomomy  

We all learn and can eventually become self sufficient while living within our own debt.  What's for sure is that those of a different social class shouldn't have to pay for the incompetence of our respective government's handling on spending other people's money.

[Dr. Gonzo]

13 minutes ago, Harvsky said:

The United States government has $21.3tn of debt, a large chunk of which is debt owed to itself  and everyone is still talking like we live in a tax and spend ecomomy  

The bigger the US treasury deficit is, the more they're in debt to themselves (and other countries & whoever might be a U.S. Bond holder).