Tea Party and the Occupy Movement

[MooseMom]

I have to say that I agree with both of the latest posts from Cariad and Willis.  Thank you!  I am always thrilled to be introduced to another point of view when presented logically and thoughtfully, and Willis, you do a great job with that!

[okarol]

I will never understand why people enjoy arguing politics back and forth on a dialysis forum rather than going out and volunteering for their candidate or cause.
 

[MooseMom]

I will never understand why people enjoy arguing politics back and forth on a dialysis forum rather than going out and volunteering for their candidate or cause.
 

Oh, I'll tell you why!  It's because IHD is more than a mere "dialysis forum".  I got the impression that we are a community, a family of sorts, and in communities and families, all sorts of things are discussed.  Why talk about movies or books or any other topics that are on this forum and not on the "General Discussion" section?

We are more than renal patients.  Our illnesses do not define us.  We have a myriad of interests and passions that make us three dimensional individuals, and Okarol, you have done a marvellous job in creating a safe place for us to discuss all kinds of things! 

I find that discussions about politics are good in discovering how people see the world, and I find it fascinating to make such discoveries, especially in people who I consider to be battling alongside me in this fight against ESRD.  If I didn't care about my IHD family, I wouldn't bother entering these political discussions because I wouldn't really care what they thought and why.

And who says that none of us go out and campaign for our candidate or our cause?

[okarol]

Just my opinion - it's a waste of time for me to read all this - just don't have time - but enjoy if you can!

[okarol]

I will never understand why people enjoy arguing politics back and forth on a dialysis forum rather than going out and volunteering for their candidate or cause.
 

And who says that none of us go out and campaign for our candidate or our cause?

Well, I didn't say "none" - but it's because I never read posts about people volunteering. But as I said, haven't the time to read all these so perhaps I just missed it! 

[Jean]

Personally, I will probably never post on a political page again, here or any where else. In the past week or so, I have been told by one "friend" that if I continued to post political items he would de-friend me. Gee, that so frightened me. And another one misunderstood one thing I said and labeled me a "hater" and mentioned on FB that she hardly knew me, only from another group. Wow, after 4 years of being on this group and checking in nearly every day and commiserating with every one on a friendly level, I was shocked at these two reactions. But, I guess its good if you guys can argue back and forth with each other and still remain friends. Evidently that does not work for me, so I just gnaw on my tongue and clamp my jaws shut.

[KarenInWA]

I guess what scares me more than anything is the high probability of this next election being bought by a few rich men. The vast majority of the money being raised in this campaign, both presidential and in the congress/senate, are from millionaires and billionaires who all have something to gain by buying themselves a political party. These powerful, rich men have no care for the common person and family, it is all about them and their fat cat bank accounts. Does this not scare the literal sh!t out of anyone??? I know it does me. "Citizens" United was the absolute worst thing to happen to this country, as far as political change is concerned. Does anyone honestly think these fat cats are donating all this ca$h because of their taxes going up a few measley percentage points? Seriously??? How does that make sense? No, they are throwing all this ca$sh at Romney, et al, so they can buy the White House, Congress, Senate and Supreme Court, then mold the laws of this country to their favor. I seriously doubt this is a conspiracy theory. This is happening, folks. I don't think this is what our Fore Fathers were thinking when they thought the "Land of the Free".

KarenInWA

[MooseMom]

Just my opinion - it's a waste of time for me to read all this - just don't have time - but enjoy if you can!

I feel the same about all of the word games and trivia games on IHD.  To each his own!

[MooseMom]

Personally, I will probably never post on a political page again, here or any where else. In the past week or so, I have been told by one "friend" that if I continued to post political items he would de-friend me. Gee, that so frightened me. And another one misunderstood one thing I said and labeled me a "hater" and mentioned on FB that she hardly knew me, only from another group. Wow, after 4 years of being on this group and checking in nearly every day and commiserating with every one on a friendly level, I was shocked at these two reactions. But, I guess its good if you guys can argue back and forth with each other and still remain friends. Evidently that does not work for me, so I just gnaw on my tongue and clamp my jaws shut.

Jean, I'm not on FB but I understand there is an IHD FB page.  I've never seen it, but I have been told that it is a different beast from this forum.  Is that true, do you think.  These people who threatened to defriend you and labeled you a "hater"...are they on IHD here or on FB?  If there are on IHD here, I am shocked and disappointed and don't blame you for hesitating posting about your political thoughts.  I despise that sort of bullying.  There is no cause for it, and I am sorry that happened to you.  I'd like to think that most of us can post without getting into a slanging match, but maybe I'm just being overly optimistic.

Karen, oh yes, I am very creeped out by all of the money sloshing about in this election.  I am bothered greatly by it because the question has to be asked...what are these donor millionaires expect they are buying?  President Obama is being criticized by his own people for not liking fundraising and for not smoozing the big donors like Bill Clinton did, but personally I prefer my President to BE uncomfortable with this sort of thing, KWIM?  I don't like the idea of any politician having to spend so much time massaging egos in return for a handsome check.  I don't think that's how their constituents like to see their representatives spend their time, and I'd bet that the politicians don't really like it, either.

[cariad]

Personally, I will probably never post on a political page again, here or any where else. In the past week or so, I have been told by one "friend" that if I continued to post political items he would de-friend me. Gee, that so frightened me. And another one misunderstood one thing I said and labeled me a "hater" and mentioned on FB that she hardly knew me, only from another group. Wow, after 4 years of being on this group and checking in nearly every day and commiserating with every one on a friendly level, I was shocked at these two reactions. But, I guess its good if you guys can argue back and forth with each other and still remain friends. Evidently that does not work for me, so I just gnaw on my tongue and clamp my jaws shut.

Jean, I'm so sorry. Very sad that people have to be so childish. This reminds me of the behaviour of a couple of Aidan's friends a few years ago. I think the last time he heard "do what I say or I won't be your friend anymore" he was 5. Not sure how adults can look themselves in the mirror after behaving that way. I, too, hope you're not talking about anyone here because I would welcome your thoughts (though I am sure we would disagree on most things).

Now concerning the post above. This shows how differently people can look at the same things and see something SO different! I'm not a Tea Party person and have never attended a political rally of any kind. But it never seemed to me that the Tea Party folks were (or are) clamoring for anarchy. Rather, they want the government to be run by a more strict interpretation of the US Constitution than is currently in vogue by both parties. And that is not advocating anarchy even if one disagrees with that position.

The part about still wanting government was meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek, but honestly, wasn't it Rick Perry who said if here were President he would devote his life to making government as insignificant a part of life as he could? Sure, if you're rich, why pay for public libraries and parks, just buy your own. Why pay for police and firefighters, just hire your own. Why finance high-speed rail, Governor Walker? You have a motorcade! This I-got-mine attitude from the wealthy and the people who actually think this system is not rigged against them is, in a word, gross.

Who was it who suggested that people who cannot afford the basic necessities of life go to prisons or workhouses? The response this character received was "Many cannot go there and many would rather die" to which this symbol of avarice replied "If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

And as for centralization insuring "greater fairness and stability"... to me it seems that greater centralization limits choices and makes things LESS fair and LESS stable. If California passes laws or implements taxes that people don't like they can move to Arizona or Texas if they think that gives them better choices. If the Federal government makes the laws all the same then people lose their freedom of choice since they can't get away from bad government decisions.

This strikes me as just a reworking of the old "our medical system gives you such amazing freedom! You can just go to any doctor you please!" Yeah. Right. Have you had to face financing a move, recently? Because I have. Have you had to decide whether to rip your kids away from their friends and their schools that you trust and take a risk on another state? Because I have. Have you tried to sell a house in this new economy? I haven't, and that is because the numbers I've received from the experts are basically telling me that I cannot afford to. A system that operates on the principle of "It you don't like it, just move" only works for the rich. Like our medical system only works for the rich. This solution is little more than on-your-bike Thatcherism.

*Plus* once you have a house in an area where, oh, just to pull an example out of the air, some under-educated governor begins to destroy your school system, no one is going to want to buy that house off of you and you are well and truly stuck. Just like the insurance company that justifies their evil deeds by claiming "We don't deny anyone treatment, we just deny the payments." In this country, it is exactly the same thing. If one hates the US Federal government so much, one always has the freedom to move to another country. There are always choices and freedoms in this world if you have enough dosh, fairness comes from choices that are available to all. A stable society comes from people not seething with anger every time they see the news where yet another politician/wall street banker/CEO has just destroyed hundreds of lives and been paid extravagantly for their trouble.

[okarol]

Just my opinion - it's a waste of time for me to read all this - just don't have time - but enjoy if you can!

I feel the same about all of the word games and trivia games on IHD.  To each his own!

I understand. However, we don't get moderator alerts over name calling or personal attacks for the word games or trivia threads. 

[MooseMom]

Just my opinion - it's a waste of time for me to read all this - just don't have time - but enjoy if you can!

I feel the same about all of the word games and trivia games on IHD.  To each his own!

I understand. However, we don't get moderator alerts over name calling or personal attacks for the word games or trivia threads. 

Well, then those threads must be deathly dull.  LOL!   

[okarol]

Just my opinion - it's a waste of time for me to read all this - just don't have time - but enjoy if you can!

I feel the same about all of the word games and trivia games on IHD.  To each his own!

I understand. However, we don't get moderator alerts over name calling or personal attacks for the word games or trivia threads. 

Well, then those threads must be deathly dull.  LOL!   

  Yes!

[Willis]

And as for centralization insuring "greater fairness and stability"... to me it seems that greater centralization limits choices and makes things LESS fair and LESS stable. If California passes laws or implements taxes that people don't like they can move to Arizona or Texas if they think that gives them better choices. If the Federal government makes the laws all the same then people lose their freedom of choice since they can't get away from bad government decisions.

This strikes me as just a reworking of the old "our medical system gives you such amazing freedom! You can just go to any doctor you please!" Yeah. Right. Have you had to face financing a move, recently? Because I have. Have you had to decide whether to rip your kids away from their friends and their schools that you trust and take a risk on another state? Because I have. Have you tried to sell a house in this new economy? I haven't, and that is because the numbers I've received from the experts are basically telling me that I cannot afford to. A system that operates on the principle of "It you don't like it, just move" only works for the rich. Like our medical system only works for the rich. This solution is little more than on-your-bike Thatcherism.

*Plus* once you have a house in an area where, oh, just to pull an example out of the air, some under-educated governor begins to destroy your school system, no one is going to want to buy that house off of you and you are well and truly stuck. Just like the insurance company that justifies their evil deeds by claiming "We don't deny anyone treatment, we just deny the payments." In this country, it is exactly the same thing. If one hates the US Federal government so much, one always has the freedom to move to another country. There are always choices and freedoms in this world if you have enough dosh, fairness comes from choices that are available to all. A stable society comes from people not seething with anger every time they see the news where yet another politician/wall street banker/CEO has just destroyed hundreds of lives and been paid extravagantly for their trouble.

Uh, yeah...I've lived in 8 states and moved within my current state 4 times. Some of those moves were dictated by the US Army and even with them paying expenses I always lost thousands of dollars. (One reason I got out.) The other moves were all for economic reasons. It would be nice to live less than 3000 miles from my family but that's just the way it is. And BTW, my daughter lives in South Korea working for the US Army (as a civilian) and in Alaska for 5 years before that. You gotta do what you gotta do.

And leaving the U.S. (expatriation) is not as easy as it sounds. It can literally take years waiting for an appointment at a US Embassy in order to renounce ones citizenship. In the meantime, the US claims the right to tax your worldwide income (the only major country that does). And then there's the heavy "exit fees": besides income taxes, every asset you own (or sell prior to expatriation) is "marked-to-market" and taxed on its capital gains. If any expat returns to the U.S. at any time for more than 30 days total within a given year, the IRS will tax them 100% of the WORLD-WIDE income, not just their US income. And if you think these barriers are just for the "rich"... well, anyone with total world-wide income and assets (such as a house) worth more than $250,000 ($500,000 per couple) gets hit with the exit tax. So even though the Iron Curtain came down in Europe decades ago, the U.S. government has a pretty tough Green Curtain to keep its citizens from escaping.

 

[MooseMom]

I lived overseas for 20 years and frequently entered and exited the US.  Many of my stays were for up to 90 days.  I was never taxed, and I still had assets here in the US, though not as much as $250K.  But then again, I never renounced my citizenship.  And I certainly never had to wait years for an appointment of any kind at the US Embassy, although I suppose it is possible if you are in some mysterious and remote corner of the earth.

[monrein]

And leaving the U.S. (expatriation) is not as easy as it sounds. It can literally take years waiting for an appointment at a US Embassy in order to renounce ones citizenship. In the meantime, the US claims the right to tax your worldwide income (the only major country that does). And then there's the heavy "exit fees": besides income taxes, every asset you own (or sell prior to expatriation) is "marked-to-market" and taxed on its capital gains. If any expat returns to the U.S. at any time for more than 30 days total within a given year, the IRS will tax them 100% of the WORLD-WIDE income, not just their US income. And if you think these barriers are just for the "rich"... well, anyone with total world-wide income and assets (such as a house) worth more than $250,000 ($500,000 per couple) gets hit with the exit tax. So even though the Iron Curtain came down in Europe decades ago, the U.S. government has a pretty tough Green Curtain to keep its citizens from escaping.

 

I just renounced my US citizenship about a month ago.  I got an appointment at the consulate here in Toronto within a month, had my first appointment then second appointment about two weeks later.  I had to pay US$450 to give up my citizenship although it cost me close to $6000 for an accountant to file 6 years of back taxes and a lawyer to explain why I had not filed the FBAR (foreign bank account reporting) forms.  Let me add that I owed the US government nothing in taxes, NOTHING, have never lived in the US although I did spend two summers there (age 16 and 17) visiting my parents who lived there.  They could still decide to fine me for not reporting my "foreign" accounts, although these accounts are only in my home country, Canada.  I never filed taxes because I never owed any money and the FBAR requirements are a part of the tax filing process so I didn't know about them until I read about the nasty consequences that people like me could face in the newspaper here.  All US citizens living abroad are required to file all these forms and the process is fairly complicated.  My husband and I do our own tax returns but this was too complex. 
I renounced because I can't really ever live in the US anyway...who would insure me???  We met several people at the consulate who were renouncing and the consular officer said that this has increased quite dramatically in recent years due to new reporting requirements.  Most US expats are unaware of the onerous and potentially very costly reporting requirements and these apply even if one is a US citizen simply by virtue of having been born in the US.  One guy who renounced the same day as me came back to Canada with his parents at 10 months old, never lived there and never had a passport, just passive citizenship.
They insist on two appointments because a wad of forms must be completed and they want to make sure that the decision to NOT want to live in the US or hold US citizenship is not some form of temporary, possibly permanent, insanity. 

[Gerald Lively]

I have some experience in politics, my entire career to be more exact.  The mantra I followed about the purpose of government and my job was what Lincoln said, “ . . . a government of the people, by the people, and for the people . . .”

It follows that to a major extent, government is responsible, directly or indirectly, for the health and welfare of its citizens, especially in terms of the basics per Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.   In theory, this democratic republic is supposed to function as a “bottom-up” organization but we don’t do that anymore.  We are suffering from a systemic organizational illness that causes government to work from the “top down”.  It seems there no one out there running for office or is currently holding office, that is aware of this problem.

Want an argument on politics?  Write some complaint to your congressman and see how far you get.  He/she will tell they know better than you.

My reaction to the Tea Party is that it is made up from the remnants of a shattered group of far-right extremists like the old John Birch Society, Goldwater supporters and the disgruntled uninformed who simply want to avoid paying taxes.  This seems to be a byproduct of the California Prop 13 mess where the general public was asked if they wanted to reduce their taxes.  Well, hell yes, they said.  Since then, 1978, California’s school system went from #1 in the nation to #27.  ENRON fraudulently wiped out California’s reserves then filed for bankruptcy just before a court ruled in California’s favor, and the state has no ability to raise taxes to work its way out of a $12 billion budget problem, since the far-right is blocking every effort to raise taxes. And during that time George W. Bush turned his back on California for political reasons.

This seems to be the model that congressional Tea Party members are working from.  It is a given that people want government services but they are not willing to pay for those services.  So, a university education is too expensive for the middle class now, unless they are willing to go deeply in debt.  The Tea Party is also a Global Warming denier and now the US is faced with a corn crop that is only going to be 30% of average.  Maslow’s Needs list is almost beside the point as the issue could become a problem of feeding the people anything.  Malthus is in play!

The US has been operating economically under the “trickle-down” theory since 2000 and despite effort to change that, Congress has blocked any and all proposed changes. And the economy spirals downward.

And the defense budget is larger than it was in the final days of WWII adjusted for inflation.  Yet, people programs fall by the wayside in favor of the defense budget.  And we are involved in “wars of choice”.
 
If you owned your home in 2008/2009, you lost the equivalent of 40% of your equity – meaning, it cost almost double to build than what the home is worth.
 
And the far-right is blocking everything for the stated purpose of making Obama a one-term president.

And Congress corruption and bribery takes the form of campaign contributions.

And Americans are dying in a war that means nothing in regards to the Governments first priority, the people.

And no one listened to Lincoln.

gerald

[jbeany]

I agree that the "For the People" thing seems to have passed in one ear and out the other for most politicians.  I think the "By the People" part seems to be doing the same with the hard right.  They don't want to pay taxes to help the poor, but then they don't want to pay taxes to pay the police and prison system.   Without assistance and opportunities, how do they expect anyone to do anything else but struggle - which often means crime is the only option for survival.  I don't have any illusions that everyone on welfare deserves it, or that none of them are scamming the system, but it seems crazy to punish the ones who do honestly need help. 

Or worse yet, waste what money is in the system with ineffective programs to catch the ones who shouldn't be getting the aid.  The new push for random drug-testing for welfare recipients is one example.  In theory, I agree with it.  If they are drug addicted, they should be limited to food stamps at the most, and no SSI income unless they agree to treatment.  In practice, however, the math just doesn't add up.  I don't remember the exact numbers, but Florida managed to save something like $200,000 by kicking drug addicts off welfare with the random tests.  Sounds good until you realize that implementing the system of random drug tests cost several million, and will continue to cost more than it saves.

[cariad]

Uh, yeah...I've lived in 8 states and moved within my current state 4 times. Some of those moves were dictated by the US Army and even with them paying expenses I always lost thousands of dollars. (One reason I got out.) The other moves were all for economic reasons. It would be nice to live less than 3000 miles from my family but that's just the way it is. And BTW, my daughter lives in South Korea working for the US Army (as a civilian) and in Alaska for 5 years before that. You gotta do what you gotta do.

OK, so it seems we agree. Moving state, even moving house, is a costly endeavor that most middle and low income people cannot afford to do on a whim. That was my point. If you are a CEO making tens of millions, what's a few thousand to abandon a state when things don't go your way politically? If there is more standardization (not saying each state should have the exact same laws, just that centralization absolutely has its place) than the wealthy are better off just staying and working to actually improve matters in that state. Yes, you do what you've got to do, except when you decide economics be damned, I'd rather be happy and let the rest sort itself out. If you've read anything of the fascinating story of my life, then you know I've been living without my husband (and my kids have been living without their dad) since December of last year due to economic reasons. No more. That ends August 3.

And leaving the U.S. (expatriation) is not as easy as it sounds. It can literally take years waiting for an appointment at a US Embassy in order to renounce ones citizenship. In the meantime, the US claims the right to tax your worldwide income (the only major country that does). And then there's the heavy "exit fees": besides income taxes, every asset you own (or sell prior to expatriation) is "marked-to-market" and taxed on its capital gains. If any expat returns to the U.S. at any time for more than 30 days total within a given year, the IRS will tax them 100% of the WORLD-WIDE income, not just their US income. And if you think these barriers are just for the "rich"... well, anyone with total world-wide income and assets (such as a house) worth more than $250,000 ($500,000 per couple) gets hit with the exit tax. So even though the Iron Curtain came down in Europe decades ago, the U.S. government has a pretty tough Green Curtain to keep its citizens from escaping.

My father has been a business owner for over 30 years, and before that made his living as - wait for it - a tax attorney. I read this and then, since I am just about to emigrate myself, immediately called dad for clarification. You are neglecting to mention the numerous mitigating factors in your summary of WORLD-WIDE taxation. There will be no "exit tax" for me as I do not plan on renouncing my citizenship - I can't, I'd be stateless. If I do renounce, my assets are taxed at the value on the day on which I renounce, which, if I understand correctly, could be used quite strategically by the savvy ex-pat. Additionally, all assets are only taxed over and above what I paid for them originally. According to Dad, no profit, no tax. Dad just sent me an article explaining tax for UK residency of US citizens and there are safeguards to avoid double taxation (have not had time to read it carefully). My father does not know my husband's future salary, but he has said we will not be double taxed and if we are, it will be, in his words, trivial. He ended the conversation with this amusing (considering he used to be a tax lawyer) advice: Don't let your life be ruled by tax.

I just renounced my US citizenship about a month ago. 

monrein, I came across the reporting requirements in my bit of research, and so long as you understand that you MUST file regardless of whether you have income or not, it will be a relatively painless process. Filing each year triggers the 3-year statute of limitations, whereas, as you unfortunately learned, there is no such statute if one does not file. My father recalled 30 years ago filing returns for a US ex-pat who did not file each year, he mentioned something that prevented the client from fees, I think it might have been paying taxes in his host country plus having off-shore accounts - something like that. We have always had our taxes done for us because our case is almost always stupidly complicated, so I will let the accountant handle this. I am sorry this was such an expensive surprise. I will agree that in your case, it just isn't fair. Also, we're sorry to lose you, you darling Canuck, you!

[Willis]

My father has been a business owner for over 30 years, and before that made his living as - wait for it - a tax attorney. I read this and then, since I am just about to emigrate myself, immediately called dad for clarification. You are neglecting to mention the numerous mitigating factors in your summary of WORLD-WIDE taxation. There will be no "exit tax" for me as I do not plan on renouncing my citizenship - I can't, I'd be stateless. If I do renounce, my assets are taxed at the value on the day on which I renounce, which, if I understand correctly, could be used quite strategically by the savvy ex-pat. Additionally, all assets are only taxed over and above what I paid for them originally. According to Dad, no profit, no tax. Dad just sent me an article explaining tax for UK residency of US citizens and there are safeguards to avoid double taxation (have not had time to read it carefully). My father does not know my husband's future salary, but he has said we will not be double taxed and if we are, it will be, in his words, trivial. He ended the conversation with this amusing (considering he used to be a tax lawyer) advice: Don't let your life be ruled by tax.

I think your father's advice is sound! I was just trying to briefly summarize from memory how the US sorta frowns on citizens renouncing their citizenship and tries to exact its pound of flesh. Of course there are tons of individual mitigating factors that can come into play. But it seems ironic how many legal and financial barriers there are for renouncing US citizenship compared to the almost total lack of concern over immigration (legal or otherwise).

 

[cariad]

But it seems ironic how many legal and financial barriers there are for renouncing US citizenship compared to the almost total lack of concern over immigration (legal or otherwise).

I can understand how it would seem that the federal government has little concern for immigration, but considering I watched my own little immigrant go through the process of naturalization, I can assure you that this is not the case. Also, growing up in Southern California where people (mostly domestic workers) would disappear suddenly never to be heard from again, it was hardly a secret that immigration caught up with them.

My husband is Welsh and could account for every last moment of his existence in America, but it still took two and half years for him to be issued a green card. Then I insisted he become a citizen because the law states (or it did way back when he first filed for a green card) that if you do not "act like a citizen" then they will revoke the card. Acting like a citizen meant spending at least half your time over a three year period  living in America. We have been talking about leaving the US since the start of our marriage, so I suspected the day would come that we might not be able to maintain his green card. And I truly did not want to go through this expensive and somewhat degrading process twice. I agree that immigration desperately, desperately needs to be reformed, like so much else in this country it is a costly, bulky, inscrutable, and often counterproductive process with rules that are rather arbitrarily applied. I don't have the answer, though. Usually I can at least have an idea what direction I would like to see the country go, but with immigration I just know that the current system makes no sense and is breeding fear and racism.

Turning back to the question about when and if the more moderate or at least more diplomatic Republicans are going to take a stand against the GOP extremists, I read this article and have great hope that this could mark the beginning of the end for wild accusations coming from two-bit members of congress: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/19/boehner-calls-bachmann-accusations-pretty-dangerous/ It quotes John Boehner and John McCain denouncing Michelle Bachman and 4 other congresspeople for calling for an investigation of Huma Abedin (aide to Hilary Clinton) over suspected ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Score one for decency.

[Willis]

I agree that immigration desperately, desperately needs to be reformed, like so much else in this country it is a costly, bulky, inscrutable, and often counterproductive process with rules that are rather arbitrarily applied. I don't have the answer, though. Usually I can at least have an idea what direction I would like to see the country go, but with immigration I just know that the current system makes no sense and is breeding fear and racism.

That's something we can agree upon! 

 

[Jean]

This occurred to me while I was reading all of the posts on this thread. How did this happen? How did we get soooo many rules and regulations that for the most part people dont understand. It could not have all started out like this, so clogged with forms and rules and what usually seems like obstacles thrown up to stop you from doing whatever it is you think you want to do. In california for instance, you can open a business, get God alone knows how many licenses and hire an attorney to help you get thru the maze and at any time, some agency or another can walk in the door of your business and close you up with one audit and fine you for breaking the law, no matter who you talked to or asked questions of or how much research you did.  Where does this stop? How did our government agencies become so all powerful? I will stop now, I think I know the answer but I would love to hear what the rest of you ( very much smarter than I ) have to say about this.

[MooseMom]

Jean, I don't know if I have the definitive answer to your question, but I do have a theory that is probably more of a rant than a well-researched hypothesis!  LOL!

I think there is a fundamention erosion of trust in our government AND in all of our financial and corporate institutions.  I suspect that people on the right have a distrust of government and those on the left have a distrust of financial and corporate institutions, the result being that no one trusts anyone anymore, and probably with good reason.

I just get the distinct impression that people are out to make a buck in any way that they can and will screw anyone over for the sake of profit.  The notion of acting in the public interest and for the common good seems to go out the window if there if profit to be made.  How many times here on IHD have we read articles where dialysis providers and/or pharmaceutical companies have been fined or prosecuted for, oh, say the overdosing of dialysis patients with epo because it was a good profit stream.  There's a thread about this right now on IHD posted by Bill Peckham.  Why not hide evidence that too much epo kills patients when there's profit to be made?  If you can't trust such a big corporation, what happens?  More rules and regulations to try to protect people from corporate greed, that's what happens.  It's all because we can't trust people any more to be guided by compassion and the desire to do good when there is vast profit to be made.

Look at Enron.  The regulations in place at the time of that scandal were obviously not stringent enough because the bright sparks there found a way to circumvent them.  They had been required to sign off on their accounting reports, but to circumvent that, they got Arthur Andersen to essentially keep a separate set of books and to not let them (Enron) know, thus Enron could claim deniability.  Because of Enron's greed that was so vast that current rules and regulations weren't enough to stop them from cheating, Enron eventually collapsed, AA lost their license and now exists really in name only, thousands upon thousands of Enron (and AA) employees who knew nothing of these shenanigans lost their pensions and their jobs and their insurance, and investors lost everything, too.  I'm from Houston; Enron was based in Houston, and I knew people who worked there and lost everything.  All because of those greedy bastards who thought they were above silly rules and regulations.

So, again, what happens?  There is a renewed push for even more and more regulations.  They wouldn't be necessary if the pursuit of profit ABOVE ALL ELSE AT ALL TIMES was the greatest priority.  And you really think that people truly believe that "self regulation" is going to work?

Amgen, the LIBOR scandal...the rich, the great and the powerful manipulating the world at our expense.  The result is that the vast majority of our country's wealth is in the hands of an extremely small group of people, and we are all stupid enough to be manipulated into thinking that this state of affairs is the rightful manifestation of economic "freedom and liberty".

Does anyone really believe anymore that the NRA is interested in your constitutional rights?  No.  They are interested in money.  They have bought Congress.  All they have to do is start squawking about "freedom and liberty" and people will start running out and buying their own private arsenals, which is the whole point because the aim is to funnel money to the gun manufacturers.  It's all about money, money, money and it has nothing to do with your personal freedom.  But really, the fault is ours for not recognizing or not caring about how all of these people manipulate us. 

[Gerald Lively]

Wow!
Did you miss your Metamuscil or something?