# Let's be selfish: 3 Item Lists of what YOU want from Uncle Sam



## vilk (Jul 29, 2016)

I thought it might be interesting if we all made a list of the top _three_ and only three *specific things* that we would like from the government over the next 4 years. Yeah, it's fine, maybe even encouraged if don't really worry about the implications of what you want. My real aim here is to see how similar or different our three item lists are. 

1. Help my debt. I'm enslaved to student loans for life. I hear ambitious talks about abolishing student loan debt. I'd settle for just abolishing interest on it. I understood I borrowed money, and I knew I'd have to pay it back. It's just that as a dumb 18 year old kid I didn't understand how much extra I'd be paying and how it would affect my life after graduation and how the sharks will set the amount at whatever they want even if it means you living under a bridge. But hell, if the powers that be want to clear it all out, I'm not gonna protest that either. Yeah, this one is kinda selfish. That's OK in this thread!

2. Stop fighting wars. Yes, I realize that death and destruction is excellent for the economy. I guess I just don't care. Pull out of Afghanistan, pull out of Iraq, pull out of everywhere. Let Japan make their own damn military, and why do we have a base in Holland? For real, the age of savage martial rampages is over. We got flying, bomb shooting robots that run on sun energy. But guess what? I'd like to put the kibosh on the use of those except for national self defense against attacks on US soil. Keep all the military power here, and then if someone tries to come f/// with us they're toast. And other people in other places can deal with their own problems, and at least in the future we can't say that those problems are something that we've caused. 

3. End the war on drugs. I don't even fully understand how the SCOTUS hasn't been obligated to do this already. The history of how and why it was started (Grand Cyclops Anslinger) and the way in which it's been systematically used to harm minority populations, especially blacks, seems like some kind of violation of the Civil Rights Act. At the very least, I want some kind of executive action dealio that consumption and production of cannabis be legal for personal recreational use. The notion that I can't grow this well-studied, safe, cheap medicinal plant on my own property is preposterous. Commerce law is complicated, but we need to say _no more punishing people for having a flower_.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just so we don't get stuck on these issues, please think about what's important to *you personally*. You wanna see ID included in every textbook? Punish women for abortions? Put firearms training into middle school PE curriculum? Good, write that. Write it here. In your 3 item list.


----------



## tedtan (Jul 29, 2016)

I have to come up with two separate lists for this question, as I think what benefits me the most isn't necessarily what benefits the country and the majority of the population the most.


*For myself:*

1. Cut taxes: I pay too much for what I receive in return. And use the tax revenues received more responsibly - there is way too much waste by the (bloated) US government.

2. Increase freedom: we've lost a lot of personal freedom and privacy in the last couple of decades, especially since 9/11. I want it back, though I don't see that ever happening.


*For the country overall:*

1. Redistribute taxes appropriately: small businesses and all but the wealthiest of individuals pay way too much, proportionally, in taxes in the US. We need to reduce taxes on all but the wealthiest individuals and medium and large businesses. 

2. Revamp the education system: everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status, should have the opportunity to improve themselves and their lot in life through good, affordable (free?) education. This will be necessary in order for the US to remain competitive in the future as well, as we are currently losing ground in this area.

3. Revamp the healthcare system: With people living longer and longer, there will be more and more need for healthcare services and the current system leaves a lot to be desired. I don't have a perfect solution to this problem, but we, collectively, need to work to develop one sooner rather than later.

4. End the war on drugs: I don't personally partake in drug usage, but the war on drugs is obviously not working. If we legalize drugs (or at least some drugs), tax and regulate them as we do with alcohol and tobacco, it will solve many more problems (including much of the violence in the US) than keeping the war going does. We tried it, it didn't work, it's time for a new approach.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 29, 2016)

Great question! Here is my personal answer:

1. Protect me and my family from bad guys trying to do harm.
2. Protect my property in case someone tries to steal it or vandalize it.
3. Aside from that, stay out of my life.

I feel for you with your student loan debt. I think that the crux of the problem is that employers do not pay what higher education costs for jobs that require higher education, for the most part. I made it out of college just in time to have paid a reasonable amount of tuition (I had a rather modest scholarship, which helped a little, but mostly worked my way through school). On the other hand, some (not most, certainly not all) students sluff off for four years, learning nothing of career importance, and have a lot of parties. As a taxpayer, I don't want them taking my money.

The idea that war is good for the economy is a myth. War is good for innovation, in some perspectives, and disparity caused by war is great for austerity, but it's awful for the economy. It's simple: a bunch of our most able young men die, our stuff gets blown up, and people who could be building better domestic infrastructure are either fighting or building weapons instead. There's little economic upside and a whole lot of economic downside.

The war on drugs is insane. The war on terror is even more insane. War on inanimate objects in general is stupid. As if people battling addiction don't already have enough conflict, let's go slap them up and toss them in prisons, because.... well, because freedom! And war on terror?! I have never heard a more asinine phrase in my life. War *is* terror! War on terror is like kicking your ass for peace. Actually, I can totally see that becoming a thing.


----------



## synrgy (Jul 29, 2016)

1. Universal health care
2. Universal health care
3. Universal health care


----------



## sharedEQ (Jul 29, 2016)

vilk said:


> 1. Help my debt. I'm enslaved to student loans for life. I hear ambitious talks about abolishing student loan debt. I'd settle for just abolishing interest on it. I understood I borrowed money, and I knew I'd have to pay it back. It's just that as a dumb 18 year old kid I didn't understand how much extra I'd be paying and how it would affect my life after graduation and how the sharks will set the amount at whatever they want even if it means you living under a bridge. But hell, if the powers that be want to clear it all out, I'm not gonna protest that either. Yeah, this one is kinda selfish. That's OK in this thread!



Get a government or teaching job. Many public service jobs give debt forgiveness within ten years.


----------



## vilk (Jul 29, 2016)

bostjan said:


> On the other hand, some (not most, certainly not all) students sluff off for four years, learning nothing of career importance, and have a lot of parties. As a taxpayer, I don't want them taking my money.



Well, I mean, if you fail too many of your classes you get kicked out of most universities. Everyone gets a high school diploma if you walk into the building for four years. But in college, even if you try your damnedest, people who fail the tests/courses don't get the degrees, and they generally get expelled before they're allowed to fail for too long. Scholarships and grants get revoked right away. I would imagine that if our country adopted a system of sending students to their state universities for free, it would definitely:
1. Tighten down admissions. Since they're no longer just exploiting people for money, they probably wont take anyone and everyone like they have been.
2. Stricter penalties for failing your courses and increased critical attention paid to people who change their major too many times.

It might even result in fewer people attending college in lieu of technical school. It might result in liberal arts becoming the studies of our upper class, since they don't translate into jobs. 


Idk, I think the whole "I don't want students partying on my tax dollars" criticism of expanding our public education is kind of a mistaken way of thinking. In fact, I think making college education an extension of our public education system would be one of the more effective ways to attack the party subculture that has redefined what college is for so many people.


----------



## sharedEQ (Jul 29, 2016)

1) Create a business environment that is favorable to big business. Incentivize giving jobs to american citizens. This will raise GDP, tax revenue, and strengthen the country.

2) Limit offshore investment into US real estate market. This practice is pricing americans out of the market and has long term deliterious effects on families and the economy.

3) Take a harder line against foriegn governments and their unfair trade practices. China has pegged their currency to the dollar and does not allow their economy to grow. If thier people had more civil liberties, the cost of doing buiness would be higher and would solve trade imbalances. This would move jobs back home. The key to solving the worlds economic woes is enforcing floating currencies.

4) Separate social liberalism from fiscal irresponsibility. Republicans are fiscally and socially conservative. Dems are fiscally and socially liberal. People will not vote republican because they want social liberties, and we are stuck with fiscally destructive democratic policies as a result. 

5) Stop subsidizing student loans for .... degrees. Unless a student is in a STEM career, taking loans will end up a life long burden which will hurt the economy and the people taking these loans. (Thye cant stimulate the economy, buy new cars and houses when they are burdened with crippling debt.) This practice would help to encourage students into fields where they are needed and ensure that USA remains a technology leader. We don't need any more journalists or insurance agents with college degrees.


----------



## Mathemagician (Jul 29, 2016)

1) A proper single-payer solution to healthcare costs. I want social security, and other worthless programs gone and I want to know that my mom and her church friends can all go to the doctor, regardless of if they were lucky enough to raise a super-successful child or 4. This includes access to things like mental health (veterans, abuse victims,) women's health, and counseling.

2) Simplification of the tax code. 0 up to $20,000 then 7.5% up to $50,000 then 15% on all income above that. That's it to income tax across the board, flat and done deal. No matter what you make, it stays the same. Same for Bonuses, and carried interest. 

Sales tax = whatever the state/city/etc charges. Online purchases receive tax based on where the buyer is located, to prevent online versus brick and mortar tax arbitrage (helps smaller businesses, Amazon don't give a ....)

Sales tax needs to exist so the wealthy cough up a bit more when they buy expensive toys, to offset for the reduction from a 40% max on cap gains, carried interest and capital gains taxes are also low to not punish saving/investing/risk taking. 

3) A revamp of our education system to teach people HOW to learn again. Most people will not become programmers making great money, but they need to know how to learn new things. You can't just go to school and get a job and live/retire. An end to the charade of ignorance counting as equal to knowledge. Things like no longer questioning evolution or climate change, instructing young kids on what calories are and how easy it is to be fit and look good by just knowing what you're eating. "Doritos are awesome and I'll have a bunch tonight, but I won't buy 3 bags when I go shopping" type thing. 

An education system that is equal across the board. Every grade learns the same content, no more inner city schools struggling to get books or having sub-par materials. 

Kids are graduating and only know how to regurgitate facts. Maybe don't .... on informing kids of trades they can learn that lead to reward if a bit demanding career options. 

Give kids the tools to help themselves and they will. "What is a 401k, how do I cook basic meals, what is compound interest?" Type things. 

The list gets much longer if I go beyond just my "top 3". But I wanted to be fair and follow the rules set forth herein.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 29, 2016)

vilk said:


> 2. Stricter penalties for failing your courses and increased critical attention paid to people who change their major too many times.



That already exists when it comes to paying for school. If you have a low pass/fail ratio and/or too many courses you lose access to all grants, scholarships, and loans at pretty much all institutions.

In my opinion, if an individual is paying for college completely on their own universities shouldn't have a say or concern in the number of courses someone is taking or their graduation date. As I understand it, once you pass a certain number of courses you get put on academic probation and the cost of college increases by like 50%. It's ultimately their money and their time being wasted. 

---

1. Universal healthcare
2. Election reform (automatic voter registration, any citizen can vote over 17, all elections open, paper ballots, nationwide universal rules/laws for voting, election day as national holiday, and term limits)
3. Education reform (open access to pre-k, removal of state testing, fix 'common core', introduction to college and technical path in high school, cheaper or free technical school and university)

While I'm technically cheating now , but we also need to bring jobs back home so that the people being educated have somewhere to work, otherwise more education solves absolutely nothing.


----------



## vilk (Jul 29, 2016)

flint757 said:


> automatic voter registration, any citizen can vote over 17, all elections open, paper ballots, nationwide universal rules/laws for voting, election day as national holiday, and term limits


----------



## QuantumCybin (Jul 29, 2016)

Cool thread. I find it hard to say I affiliate with any one party but every test I've ever taken tells me I'm a libertarian, and I did vote for Gary Johnson in 2012  but here's what I'd selfishly like:

1. Somehow make college more affordable, if not free. Move some of that cash we spend on the military to focus more on education. I'm not nearly intelligent enough to actually explain how that could happen but yeah.

2. End the war on drugs. Come on, man. Just let me smoke my weed and munch on some mushrooms occasionally and stay out of my business 

3. Allow more than two parties to have federal funding. I've mentioned it before but it seems more relevant now given the two primary presidential candidates....bipartisanship SUCKS.


----------



## Demiurge (Jul 29, 2016)

Great topic! I don't want to repeat too much... I'm on-board for ending the war on drugs though I think that maybe some policing is needed in the right places: my city is one of many with a huge opioid problem with people selling junk right behind city hall, yet people are still getting busted-up over weed- ridiculous. I'd also like to see some sort of relief with college tuition- things cost money and will still need to cost money, but perhaps something like making a portion of the principle (and not just interest) of student loan payments tax deductible might be a step in the right direction.

Now for something that hasn't been mentioned: do something about the goddamned TSA/airport security. Can there be a happy medium between allowing ISIS sleeper-agents stowing machetes and dirty bombs on commercial jets and having rent-a-cops stripsearching Grandma before she flies back to Palm Springs under the notion that profiling _everybody_ is the solution? Air travel is simultaneously a technological miracle and one of the most monumental annoyances in modern life- I believe this can be fixed.


----------



## broj15 (Jul 29, 2016)

1. End the war on drugs. At this point it's a waste of money/resources for everyone. Everyone but the owners of privatized prisons who get access to free labor performed by drug "offenders". Plus, if I don't have sovereignty over my own body/consciousness then what freedoms do I really have? 

2. Stay out of the affairs of foreign countries. It costs the tax payers a lot of money, which is hard to justify when we have our own problems going on here. I'm not saying to let tyranny run rampant. If dictators and tyrants are left unchecked then it won't be long before someone tries to pull something on our soil (yes, I know that last bit is incredibly ironic considering I live in america ).

3. Give me back my privacy. It's understandable that someone would be monitored if they have ties to a foreign government that we're not on friendly terms with, or they involved in some sort of organized crime, but the average american citizen has a right to their privacy.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jul 29, 2016)

Cheaper health care
Cheaper education
Mandatory vacation for ALL jobs


----------



## Randy (Jul 29, 2016)

Blonde
Brunette
Redhead


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Jul 31, 2016)

I only have one:

Legalize Drugs and Murder


----------



## ZeroTolerance94 (Jul 31, 2016)

HEALTHCARE. HEALTHCARE. HEALTHCARE.

That's all I give a .... about.

And here's how we do it and what went wrong.

Obama decided that we _have_ to have health insurance. It's required by law now, and that's where they ....ed up. 
Because now i'm paying health insurance simply to avoid a fine, and that health insurance doesn't cover .....
I pay $240/month for health insurance that doesn't cover me for practically anything because of this whole "yearly maximum deductible" nonsense.

So I pay $240/month for health insurance.
I got bit by a dog and had to go to the hospital. Went to the hospital, and got 4 simple sutures. 
My bill was $1001.60.

WHAT THE ..... I HAVE INSURANCE, RIGHT?
Yeah but it's useless.

Here's what I want to see.

Take the money I pay for health insurance, and ....ing tax me. Just give everybody in the country a 10% income tax, across the board. You work? You pay 10% of it for healthcare. Done.
Use that money, and provide hospitals and doctors that I can go to, tax payer funded. 

The healthcare system is so ....ed in this country, the only way out of the current position... is a completely socialist, universal healthcare system. Provided by the federal government.

"Oh but I want to keep my doctor"
Fine, you can still pay for your insurance or pay for your doctor if you want...
...But you're still gonna pay that tax. So you _can_ use the "free" hospitals should you need to.

I don't give a .... if I get taxed more for universal healthcare.
As long as it means I don't have to give that $240/month to an insurance company that is as ....ing lying and deceiving as Hillary Clinton. 

That's it.
End rant.


----------



## TechDeathWannabe (Aug 3, 2016)

Tl;dr version:

1: A better education system.
2: Ending the war on drugs, and ending the FDA's rule over tobacco, as well as abolishing "sin taxes".
3: The option of one free high-end/custom instrument instead of financial aid for college, if the student so desires, and can fulfill the requirements.



Long version:
(Sorry in advance for the run-on sentences and the unprofessional/imperfect grammar. That's not a snide 'fvck you' apology, it's just a warning. )


1: A better education system.

I was homeschooled, and I never attended a public school, but my PS peers, (and PS teachers we talked to), would make comments claiming I was smarter, or that I knew more, and the blame fell on being homeschooled. 
Yes, I could choose a more personal path of study at home, (within guidelines), but that doesn't excuse public school from making me seem more intelligent than my peers. I'm average at best. 

2: Ending (what seems to be) the pathetic war on drugs, and large organizations (FDA) regulating tobacco, including the removal of "sin taxes".

I don't use drugs, and haven't ever "experimented" with them either, but it seems like a futile battle. And I'd also agree that we should have control over our own bodies. Especially if we aren't harming anyone else.
And tobacco? I'm biased and jaded. I feel like cigarette smoking is such a huge problem because it is regulated by people other than just the growers and users. Pipe tobacco isn't -currently- regulated by any one organization, as far as I understand, and I don't hear any pipesmokers complain about being addicted, they smoke because they enjoy it, and it's peaceful. And when they haven't smoked in a day or so, I don't notice any bitchiness or hostility, they're just ready for a smoke, and perhaps a book or favorite album. And sin taxes just piss me off. Hobbies aren't necessarily cheap, adding extra taxes because of the hobby of choice? I call bullsh!t.
Plus, as a vaper, with the FDA claiming authority over vaping, and trying to regulate it and label it as a tobacco product, that raises costs for me, because now instead of not being a tobacco user, best I can give is "it depends".  (There's a rant just under the surface, but I'm shutting up about this one. )


And for 3? ... Tough call.
I feel like our foreign affairs are kinda screwed up currently, and like we get involved in too many wars and disputes that would be more easily resolved if we kept our asses out of other people's business.
I also think that prospective candidates shouldn't have government funding for campaigns, focusing more on being a straightforward and honest Human than a political figure who's trying to buy your votes with money that we as a country probably shouldn't be spending on such a trivial thing. I could be ridiculously stupid for feeling that way, but I feel like expensive campaigns are too close to being an attention whore, or asking a hungry kid to give you a cookie while you eat pizza in front of him.  Somewhat of a bad analogy, but moving on.
I also think that prison vs poverty is a bit fvcked up. I am not speaking from personal experience (I think I'd be classified as middle-/lower-class, but I'm definitely not in poverty, and I'm not in prison either), so I could have it all wrong, but it sounds as if prisoners have it easier than citizens in poverty. Again, I could be completely wrong. That is just how it seems, from the few discussions I've heard about it.
And religion's role in the White House seems to be a huge can of worms, and I'm not sure where I stand, but if only considering the country, I think it should be strictly business. I have my beliefs, and you have yours, but I do think having a biased leader is potential for disaster.

I guess for 3 I will be ridiculously and intentionally selfish, and make musical/artistic expression a higher priority than racking up students in debt, and if someone wanted a free guitar/violin/saxophone/harp/etc, instead of student loans or financial aid, let them have it!  Only the first instrument would be free, but for stuff's sake, even most high-end custom instruments cost less than cheap college, and I'd say music is probably a thousand times better for your soul and well-being.

Eligibility? Proof of residence, completion of basic education, birth certificate, and five referrals who can honestly say that they feel like an instrument would have a positive impact on your life, and on the lives of those around you.

Only other requirement would be no selling it if you got it for free.  "Gifted" instruments would have a special serial number or other identification to make it obvious that it was free/gifted, and unwanted instruments would be returned to a local store, school, or music teacher, to be a free resource for other students.


/ramblings


----------



## TedEH (Aug 3, 2016)

I know that many will either disagree or not understand my point, but I find it disappointing that so many people prioritize recreational drug use. I understand from a political point of view why decriminalizing makes sense, and I'm not disagreeing with that- but I think the fact that we even need to do so is a sign that we as a whole aren't very good at resisting our vices, to the point that we entirely deny our dependence on them. I don't think potheads should be considered criminals, but I also think we don't have a proper respect for the substance and the role it plays in peoples lives. Being a chronic user of any drug is no better than being an alcoholic or something like that, in my books.

That being said, I'll concede that I'm not in the US, and the landscape very well may be different in ways that, if I were to experience or fully understand for myself, might negate or supersede everything I've said so far.

Not to derail the thread, or turn it into a drug debate- but it's a valid observation to make that it's high on many people's lists. (There's sort of a pun in there.)


----------



## vilk (Aug 3, 2016)

^Don't forget that the war on drugs is the reason we have the worlds largest prison system with the most non-violent prisoners, especially disproportionately affecting minority populations. I'm sure many people enthusiastic of ending the war on drugs are just recreational pot smokers, but that doesn't take away from that it is the important and humanist thing to do. Don't forget that people who go to prison have a highly increased rate of being sent back. The War on Drugs _creates_ criminals even beyond non-violent users.


----------



## JD27 (Aug 3, 2016)

Randy said:


> Blonde
> Brunette
> Redhead



I was going to go with Cookies, Beer, and Guitars... but those work.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 3, 2016)

@vilk:

I'm not disagreeing with you. But I look at that situation and try to ask why is that even happening? I mean, the political points are valid, but there's still, at some point in the chain, someone who is looking at that situation, seeing that smoking a bit of weed can have serious legal/political/social consequences, and deciding that their vice/buzz is worth the risks involved. Why does nobody see that as a problem? Again- I'm agreeing that we shouldn't be making criminals out of people for stuff like this- but I don't look at weed as a non-issue outside of the legal/political stuff. Tons of people are smoking, and nobody stops to ask how it's affecting us. I know that studies so far claim that there's no chemical dependence, but I don't believe that there's no dependence at all. Nobody questions why the risks- why the war on drugs- hasn't worked as a deterrent. Why do people need these drugs so badly? There are other ways to get a buzz or to relax or to socialize without taking the legal risk.

You're not wrong, the potheads aren't wrong, etc. But on some level, I find it disappointing- as if they sort of "should be" wrong, but they're not. Does that make any sense? I feel like I'm not clearly articulating my point at all.


----------



## vilk (Aug 3, 2016)

It's well written Teddy, I'm just totally not the kind of audience to hear it if you get my drift lol


----------



## bostjan (Aug 3, 2016)

vilk said:


> Well, I mean, if you fail too many of your classes you get kicked out of most universities. Everyone gets a high school diploma if you walk into the building for four years. But in college, even if you try your damnedest, people who fail the tests/courses don't get the degrees, and they generally get expelled before they're allowed to fail for too long. Scholarships and grants get revoked right away. I would imagine that if our country adopted a system of sending students to their state universities for free, it would definitely:
> 1. Tighten down admissions. Since they're no longer just exploiting people for money, they probably wont take anyone and everyone like they have been.
> 2. Stricter penalties for failing your courses and increased critical attention paid to people who change their major too many times.
> 
> ...



As a former educator involved in public and private universities, community colleges, and technical schools, I have to say that I saw my fair share of young men and women partying too hard and screwing off too much - and failing their classes because of it.

So, yes, they will fail, and yes, they eventually drop out or get expelled, or get de facto expelled by being kicked out of every program, but whilst they are doing so, they are racking up ungodly amounts of low interest loans that are paid for by the government, and that will never ever be paid off.

If you borrow money tax money, use it to not work and just to party and do drugs, and never pay it back, then I am *fully* justified in my statement.

Your point number one is, I believe, the core of the problem. Colleges get paid whether the student passes or not. Whilst they prefer the student stick around to spend more money, they are not typically prone to help keep them from failing, particularly if they don't make the effort to improve. So "party students," in my personal experience, will sign up for classes, party like crazy, miss most classes, go one academic probation, straighten out a little the next semester, go on academic probation again their third semester, flunk out their fourth semester, choose a new major and repeat again, and the schools have no problem with this, in practice. A lot of programs have weeder classes, in which a majority of students fail their first attempt, which colleges love, because it yields them more tuition. We should have weeder placement tests instead of weeder classes, meaning that, if you want to major in mathematics, you should be able to prove that you can handle a calculus class, at least, before you are admitted to class. If you want to major in culinary arts, you ought to be able to show that you can cook something reasonably simple first. If you want to major in criminal justice, then maybe you should first prove that you can pass a general background check first (yes, I've seen this issue first-hand: a guy who wanted to become a police detective with a felony conviction was admitted to the program, because the school wanted "his" money *...actually tax money*).

To your second point - I think everybody deserves a second chance, so long as something changed during the process. I like that college is a good place to get creative and take low-risk gambits with your career before you join the workforce. I don't like the idea of anybody flunking out easily. This reinforces what I said above, though, about being more selective about who gets in. The problem on the consumer side is that Joe Schmo wants to get into an awesome Electrical Engineering job, so he's going to be extra pissed if the school doesn't admit him. But I say tough ...., unless you can prove that you will likely make it through the program. It's expensive to train engineers, and if Joe Schmo can't pass Calculus 1 or Introduction to Electronic Circuits, then he's wasting time and money better spent training him to drive a concrete mixer, or making the most of his talent as an opera singer, or whatever. Either way, Joe Schmo does not have the aptitude necessary to get him through the engineering program. And if Joe Schmo is a real go-getter, then he should be willing to put some energy into being able to pass a tougher entrance examination.

A technical college where I worked, which will remain nameless, had an entrance exam. The questions were all multiple choice with typically four answer options (some questions had only two answer options, making probability of guessing correctly better). The minimum score to get into the program was 13%. That means that a student would have to score twice as bad as a random number generator to be rejected. No one can sanely explain how that makes any sense without reaching the conclusion that the school simply didn't want to exclude students.

And I've also seen plenty of students manage to eek by and take a degree without learning any of the skills necessary. I wouldn't say that's the norm, but it does happen regularly. These people make it out into the real world and quickly realize that it's more difficult than they expected.

So yeah, the education system in the USA is fat and bloated. It needs reform. Too many students going to college who don't need to go means higher taxes and tuition from an economy that has to make up for the waste somehow. If you are serious about higher education, you have to either work harder than humanly possible to avoid debt, get lucky, go into debt, or give up. It's analogous to health care. Going to university is looking more and more like getting sick, from an economic standpoint.


----------



## Drew (Aug 3, 2016)

PURELY selfish? Preservation of the municipal bond tax exemption. The altruistic argument is it reduces borrowing costs for cities and towns and allows them to provide better services for their residents with less interest expense. The selfish argument is that I work on a municipal bond desk, and undoing the existing exemption without at least some sort of grandfather clause on bonds outstanding would absolutely decimate the industry.  

Less selfish, I'd like to see some fiscal stimulus. The Fed has done about as much as they can do to promote economic growth; especially with sovereign interest rates as low as they are (the US Government can borrow at about 1.5% today, which is insanely cheap), I'd love to see some significant infrastructure spending to put Americans to work and improve our decaying infrastructure, which for the most part is approaching the end of its useful life. Both Democrats and Republicans - well, at least Trump - seem to be making indications that this is on the table. 

Also, since this has come up a few times - our sense is that it's less the corporate tax code (which could be improved, sure), but rather the lack of CLARITY on future changes in the corporate tax code, which has been holding up corporate reinvestment. Regardless of who comes to power this January, once the market has a better idea of what the corporate tax code will look like in coming years, we expect companies to start spending the cash they've been stockpiling.


----------



## VBCheeseGrater (Aug 3, 2016)

synrgy said:


> 1. Universal health care
> 2. Universal health care
> 3. Universal health care



my list is a bit similar.....

1. Universal Health Care
2. Universal Health Care
3. Universal Health Care

The fact that we are still fighting with insurance companies to pay for A PORTION of our medication, jumping through hoops like circus bears just to let them bend us over, and that anyone can go bankrupt just for getting sick in the USA, with or without health insurance, makes me sick.


----------



## vilk (Aug 3, 2016)

I hope it doesn't make you too sick


----------



## cwhitey2 (Aug 3, 2016)

There are a lot of really great ideas in this thread! I can't really disagree with any of them.

Mine would be:

1) Lower the taxes for anyone making under 75k
2) Legalize and tax marijuana just like alcohol 
3) Demilitarize are police, its not a facking war. To many shoot first ask questions later or not at all. Tasers work well...when used. My 'city' actually proved it. (we have great police where is live I'm 100% not anti-police)
4) Stop wars. Period.
5) Let local governments do their job. This whole Obama crap of changing zoning laws so 'less' privileged can live in nice neighborhoods is garbage.
6) Free Beer Fridays...since 2 of my 5 probably rubbed people the wrong way.


vilk...I made 6...because 6 is greater then 3


----------



## celticelk (Aug 3, 2016)

1. Decent Supreme Court justices for current and future vacancies.

2. More infrastructure spending. Fixing our stuff, and putting Americans to work in the process. There's no bad here.

3. Expanded healthcare options. As I've tried to point out before, I don't think that a switch to universal health care is practical (although if I was designing a country from scratch, UHC would definitely be in place), but I think we can keep building on recent successes.

4. Election reform: at a minimum, a national holiday for Election Day and meaningful reform of campaign finance laws.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 3, 2016)

CelticElk, I agree 100%


----------



## fps (Aug 3, 2016)

TedEH said:


> @vilk:
> 
> I'm not disagreeing with you. But I look at that situation and try to ask why is that even happening? I mean, the political points are valid, but there's still, at some point in the chain, someone who is looking at that situation, seeing that smoking a bit of weed can have serious legal/political/social consequences, and deciding that their vice/buzz is worth the risks involved. Why does nobody see that as a problem? Again- I'm agreeing that we shouldn't be making criminals out of people for stuff like this- but I don't look at weed as a non-issue outside of the legal/political stuff. Tons of people are smoking, and nobody stops to ask how it's affecting us. I know that studies so far claim that there's no chemical dependence, but I don't believe that there's no dependence at all. Nobody questions why the risks- why the war on drugs- hasn't worked as a deterrent. Why do people need these drugs so badly? There are other ways to get a buzz or to relax or to socialize without taking the legal risk.
> 
> You're not wrong, the potheads aren't wrong, etc. But on some level, I find it disappointing- as if they sort of "should be" wrong, but they're not. Does that make any sense? I feel like I'm not clearly articulating my point at all.



Not really. Alcohol does, has done, and will do, more harm than weed ever will, whether the latter is legalised or not. Why should one person's buzz be legal and another's not, when actually the illegal one at the very worst is on parity with alcohol. It's more that alcohol is out of the system comparatively quickly, therefore serves the needs of a cycle of working until you can't any more then taking a very short break. I'm not a smoker, but the double standard is ridiculous, and arbitrary, and literally millions of people have suffered as a result of that. I'm in England by the way, but the problem's the same.


----------



## CircuitalPlacidity (Aug 3, 2016)

Weed dependence? Please.... I've lived in Den Haag as well as Denver and have smoked my own weight if not more in weed over my lifetime. When I moved to Texas from Denver I quit without a hitch. Didn't get angry like I did when quitting cigs or anything like that. There is no such thing as weed dependence.


----------



## celticelk (Aug 3, 2016)

I'm fine with legal weed, as long as it gets the same health warnings as tobacco (anything you burn and inhale is a carcinogen, folks) and the same operating-heavy-machinery restrictions as alcohol. I'm *not* in favor of drug decriminalization in general, which is one of many reasons I don't vote libertarian.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 3, 2016)

For clarification, do you mean that you think most drugs should be illegal and considered a crime or a health problem that legally demands getting medicinal help? I don't see what good comes out of turning personal drug users of any kind into criminals with records who are now unable to find a job due to that record (and still not getting the mental/physical help they need).


----------



## Drew (Aug 3, 2016)

celticelk said:


> 4. Election reform: at a minimum, a national holiday for Election Day and meaningful reform of campaign finance laws.



Oh hell, you know what I REALLY want? This. Not only finance reform, but also taking the districting process out of the hands of state legislatures and executive branches, and turning it over to nonpartisan committees tasked with doing far and proportionate districting, to end this insane gerrymandering that's increasingly allowing certain parties to hold insurmountable electoral barriers in certain areas. 

Not gonna hold my breath though.


----------



## celticelk (Aug 3, 2016)

flint757 said:


> For clarification, do you mean that you think most drugs should be illegal and considered a crime or a health problem that legally demands getting medicinal help? I don't see what good comes out of turning personal drug users of any kind into criminals with records who are now unable to find a job due to that record (and still not getting the mental/physical help they need).



I think that users and dealers should be treated differently by the system, for sure. Medical care should definitely be a component of the response to a first violation. Apart from that, I'm not sure what the most effective deterrence system would be. If possession-for-use isn't a felony, maybe it should be a component of tougher sentencing guidelines for those convicted of violent offenses? Maybe repeated violation coupled with evidence of refusing medical care is an offense in itself? I'll confess my lack of sufficient knowledge on the subject.

EDIT: I see, on reflection, that I chose my words poorly in that first post. I should have said that I'm not in favor of blanket legalization of drugs. Thanks for getting me to rethink that.


----------



## celticelk (Aug 3, 2016)

Drew said:


> Oh hell, you know what I REALLY want? This. Not only finance reform, but also taking the districting process out of the hands of state legislatures and executive branches, and turning it over to nonpartisan committees tasked with doing far and proportionate districting, to end this insane gerrymandering that's increasingly allowing certain parties to hold insurmountable electoral barriers in certain areas.
> 
> Not gonna hold my breath though.



YES. Independent nonpartisan redistricting badly needs to happen.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 4, 2016)

fps said:


> Not really.



I think I'm being misinterpreted. I'm not saying weed is more harmful than anything else, and certainly not more harmful than alcohol, nor do I think it should be illegal- I just think we have, very generally speaking, an unhealthy relationship with the substance. We acknowledge and respect what alcohol does to us- we frown upon binge drinking and alcoholism, but we don't have the same respect for how weed affects or drives us.



> Weed dependence? Please....



In terms of chemical dependence, I hear you- I get it, I hear there are studies that show that it's not "addictive" in the medical/chemical sense. There are definitely people who are behaviorally attached to it though. Humans are creatures of habit, and not everyone is equally well equipped to change or break habits. It's great that you were able to quit, but not everyone can do that. For some people, it's a vice, it's a crutch, it's a "I can't really function or cope without this" kind of thing, or it's a social tool, way into the "cool" crowd, etc. We love to find all the excuses to continue using the drug, but don't like to look at (potentially negative) effects it has on us. We just avoid that conversation altogether because "alcohol is worse, right?" That's a big part of what I mean by having an unhealthy relationship with it.


----------



## vilk (Aug 4, 2016)

But that's true of anything. You could say that about women's make-up products. 
It's true of all the foods you eat and all the liquids you drink
Making the distinction for cannabis alone seems meaningless

People do stuff. Lots of different stuff for lots of different reasons. Trying to judge the value of the things we do for personal reasons isn't real. There's no slide rule for it.

Tell me: What's worse? 
To smoke a joint, or failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign?
cheating on your wife or eating donuts for breakfast every day?
not mowing the lawn for weeks or losing money at a poker game?
drinking milk or drinking soy milk?

Do you kinda see what I'm getting at here? I think you're drawing undue attention to the potential problems with cannabis without realizing that you can do the same for absolutely any and all things that humans do. So what is the value in making the distinction for cannabis, especially since we know it's not actually dangerous? Human beings have been smoking cannabis since before recorded history. That's right, even longer than we've had written language. And so far, there's no recorded deaths. But that's actually NOT true for so, so many things that we all do all the time every day that makes up our lives.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 4, 2016)

vilk said:


> Do you kinda see what I'm getting at here?



To be honest, I don't see what you're getting at. I'm not trying to make a distinction or exception for any drug or product or behavior. I'm saying that exception already exists in how we treat it.

If you can't get up in the morning without having donuts for breakfast, you have a problem and would do something about it (or be criticized for not doing anything about it). If you can't go about your day without having an alcoholic drink, we'd call you an alcoholic and tell you to do something about it, even if you're not harming anyone and are still otherwise functioning. If you can't go about your day without smoking a joint, you still have a problem, but instead of doing something about it, we find ways to excuse it.

If donuts for breakfast was illegal, we wouldn't risk fines or jail time for it, then claim that we have a perfectly healthy relationship with donuts. If there was a war on donuts, we would just stop eating donuts.

But we don't do that with weed, or with alcohol. On top of that, we've demonstrated that people put getting that buzz pretty high on their list of priorities. I get that there's all the political stuff that goes along with it, but we wouldn't be in those political situations (lots of people in jail for minor drug issues, etc.) if people weren't so driven by these vices. That's the only real point I'm trying to make- that we're heavily driven by our vices, and I think in the case of weed, we make a lot of excuses for it.

I'm not trying to make any case for either not smoking, or for people to change their priorities, I'm just making an observation.


----------



## vilk (Aug 4, 2016)

It's my contention that engaging in vices is part of the human condition. I'm no psychologist, but I would assume we're programmed to seek it out. We can see that it's part of how we've evolved as humans. It's part of who we are, so what makes it bad? I get that you're just making an observation, but I think you're overestimating the importance of it. 

I also think you're underestimating how many people drink alcohol every day and how a lot of people view it, but that's separate. You gotta remember, there was a period of time (uh, all the way until into the 20th century?) when alcohol was safer to drink than water. It still is in some places. I was feeling more confident in the beers when I visited Cambodia. Beer is the reason why we have written language, refrigeration, mass production, all sorts of stuff. There's a really good documentary on it that I highly recommend.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 4, 2016)

I think I've just been in a rambly/ranty mood lately. Starting all the arguments on the internet lately. 

Don't mean to derail the thread.


----------



## estabon37 (Aug 7, 2016)

TedEH said:


> I think I've just been in a rambly/ranty mood lately. Starting all the arguments on the internet lately.
> 
> Don't mean to derail the thread.



I'm not sure about anybody else, to me it looks more like you're 'thinking out loud' than 'derailing the thread'. We've been asked to consider which three things we (selfishly) want from the government. Plenty of people have suggested legalisation / decriminalisation of drugs; you're unpacking the other side of the story, and importantly, you're using your own thoughts rather than relying on the talking points of groups that campaign against drug law reform.

To add to Vilk's argument (which I think is pretty strong), alcohol prohibition in the US in the 1920s showed us how much time and effort it takes to police substances, the potential level of corruption it can breed in those that write and enforce the laws, and who winds up being empowered by these kinds of laws (largely the black market). I understand being against loosening laws on substances from a 'wellbeing' perspective, but speaking practically, I think two factors trump health concerns: removing the burden of enforcing substance laws from police forces (and prison systems), and taking the money out of the hands of dangerous people and putting it in the hands of business owners (maybe even people that could transition from illegitimate business into legitimate business). I mean, imagine the good that could be done by potentially converting many weed dealers into either an employer or employee in a regulated industry, and simultaneously freeing up every cop whose entire job revolved around busting said weed dealers. I don't see how that's not a win-win. Now, imagine the potential harm of telling alcohol consumers that their only means of accessing booze is the black market. Or, instead of imagining it, read this article on how meth became a booming industry in counties in Kentucky when they banned booze. 

Many of us have vices. Many of those vices are 100% legal. If prohibition taught us anything, it should be that adults should be allowed to make their own choices, and not feel that they can't seek support if their choices get the better of them.


----------



## schantist (Aug 7, 2016)

1)Nuke ISIS
2)Nuke Turkey
3)Nuke themselves


----------



## narad (Aug 7, 2016)

schantist said:


> 1)Nuke ISIS
> 2)Nuke Turkey
> 3)Nuke themselves



Constructive.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 7, 2016)

estabon37 said:


> I'm not sure about anybody else, to me it looks more like you're 'thinking out loud' than 'derailing the thread'. We've been asked to consider which three things we (selfishly) want from the government. Plenty of people have suggested legalisation / decriminalisation of drugs; you're unpacking the other side of the story, and importantly, you're using your own thoughts rather than relying on the talking points of groups that campaign against drug law reform.



I can appreciate that view of what I've commented so far. 

I'll reiterate that I'm not against decriminalization or anything like that- I just think (in a thinking out loud way) that giving our vices such high priority is a noteworthy observation to make. It says something about us.


----------



## schantist (Aug 7, 2016)

narad said:


> Constructive.



At least it's more likely to happen than "Universal Health Care"


----------



## flint757 (Aug 7, 2016)

schantist said:


> At least it's more likely to happen than "Universal Health Care"



You say that yet it would seem Colorado might be doing just that.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 8, 2016)

How about start with mental health care. I think this country has a severe mental health epidemic. Everyone seems to be going bat.... right now, and there is little to no infrastructure to help them get better.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Aug 8, 2016)

bostjan said:


> How about start with mental health care. I think this country has a severe mental health epidemic. Everyone seems to be going bat.... right now, and there is little to no infrastructure to help them get better.



I agree 100% 

They just shut down one of the biggest facilities in my area....and set people free. Some actually help with living (mentally disabled) others are just nut jobs. It's sad we put those 2 together in facilities when they aren't even related IMO..but then again I'm not a doctor so what do I know 


Also, get rid a privatized prisons/for profit.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 8, 2016)

I would assert, without any extensive data, that >50% of folks in prison in the USA would have benefited much more from admission into a mental healthcare facility instead. I know that this kind of care costs a lot of money, but on the other hand, how many lives might be saved by keeping these folks medicated and stable(ish)?


----------



## cwhitey2 (Aug 8, 2016)

bostjan said:


> I would assert, without any extensive data, that >50% of folks in prison in the USA would have benefited much more from admission into a mental healthcare facility instead. I know that this kind of care costs a lot of money, but on the other hand, how many lives might be saved by keeping these folks medicated and stable(ish)?



I totally agree. And for profit prisons are part of the problem. More people = more money.

There is a serious mental health crisis going on in America and the media seems to want to blame guns or anything else it can use as a scapegoat instead of looking at the real issues.

Whatever happened to just being labeled crazy? I know that is a bit harsh, but it's reality and if people don't/can't accept it than we can't fix it.
 (I'm actually drinking coffee right)


----------



## bostjan (Aug 8, 2016)

Crazy is a pretty broad and polarizing term, but I get it and I agree. Some people with certain social issues are just not going to function in society without some sort of help, and some of those are dangerous unless they receive mental health care. We don't know a lot about mental health, actually, compared to, say, what we know about lung health or liver health. Some people will say that "that's just the way they are," but science can say quite a few things about brain function, what is "normal," and what is "abnormal," and people who are violent often, if not generally, fall into the category of "abnormal," insomuch as an FMRI can see lack of function in areas of the brain.

What doesn't help at all is attaching a stigma to people with mental health needs, but also, avoiding labeling an individual as dangerous based upon scientific evidence that they are dangerous as well as criminal evidence that they are dangerous, and then throwing them in a prison, where their mental health will only deteriorate further, and releasing them when they've "paid their debt to society" (which is a meaningless statement, as far as I'm concerned), calling them "rehabilitated," and then this individual knows not what to do but continue behaving as conditioned by prison life - well, it's so dysfunctional that it in and of itself is "crazy."

We might as well take a person having a mental health crisis, feed them PCP, tell them that everyone around them is a space alien trying to eat their brain, and give them a pocket knife and set them loose. The result might not be much different.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 8, 2016)

cwhitey2 said:


> There is a serious mental health crisis going on in America



Some more thinking out loud, while I'm here. 

Serious question: Is there actually? I ask this as someone who isn't American, doesn't have access to first hand experience, and hasn't yet seen anything to back this up, outside of a wealth of online self-assessment and personal anecdotes. Google tells me that NIMH considers 1 in 5 people to have some kind of mental illness, but also notes that there's a huge range of severity within that group, so this could include people who are suicidal and people who are mildly inconvenienced in the same statistic. Other websites give entirely different stats (or use the NIMH numbers [or approximations] but interpret/skew them a different way). And then even if we see a rise in statistics, does that means there's more actual instances, or does it mean just an increase in reports? Could it also be a sign of lessened criteria to qualify as "mentally ill"? How do you even judge something like this?

Edit:
To go a step farther, would it maybe be beneficial to come up with better terminology- something that makes a distinction between someone who maybe does have a legitimate abnormality but still otherwise functions for the most part, compared to someone who is unable to function day-to-day without assistance?


----------



## celticelk (Aug 8, 2016)

schantist said:


> At least it's more likely to happen than "Universal Health Care"



This is supposed to be a point in favor of your proposed nuking?


----------



## cwhitey2 (Aug 8, 2016)

bostjan said:


> Crazy is a pretty broad and polarizing term, but I get it and I agree. Some people with certain social issues are just not going to function in society without some sort of help, and some of those are dangerous unless they receive mental health care. We don't know a lot about mental health, actually, compared to, say, what we know about lung health or liver health. Some people will say that "that's just the way they are," but science can say quite a few things about brain function, what is "normal," and what is "abnormal," and people who are violent often, if not generally, fall into the category of "abnormal," insomuch as an FMRI can see lack of function in areas of the brain.
> 
> What doesn't help at all is attaching a stigma to people with mental health needs, but also, avoiding labeling an individual as dangerous based upon scientific evidence that they are dangerous as well as criminal evidence that they are dangerous, and then throwing them in a prison, where their mental health will only deteriorate further, and releasing them when they've "paid their debt to society" (which is a meaningless statement, as far as I'm concerned), calling them "rehabilitated," and then this individual knows not what to do but continue behaving as conditioned by prison life - well, it's so dysfunctional that it in and of itself is "crazy."
> 
> We might as well take a person having a mental health crisis, feed them PCP, tell them that everyone around them is a space alien trying to eat their brain, and give them a pocket knife and set them loose. The result might not be much different.




Where is that damn like button 


Well said sir. I think the stigma attached most certainly does not help.

The government not giving a .... doesn't help either.


I feel like the governments attitude is 'if we don't acknowledge a problem there is none'.




TedEH said:


> Some more thinking out loud, while I'm here.
> 
> Serious question: Is there actually? I ask this as someone who isn't American, doesn't have access to first hand experience, and hasn't yet seen anything to back this up, outside of a wealth of online self-assessment and personal anecdotes. Google tells me that NIMH considers 1 in 5 people to have some kind of mental illness, but also notes that there's a huge range of severity within that group, so this could include people who are suicidal and people who are mildly inconvenienced in the same statistic. Other websites give entirely different stats (or use the NIMH numbers [or approximations] but interpret/skew them a different way). And then even if we see a rise in statistics, does that means there's more actual instances, or does it mean just an increase in reports? Could it also be a sign of lessened criteria to qualify as "mentally ill"? How do you even judge something like this?
> 
> ...




There is an issue, but they ignore it like it doesn't exist.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 8, 2016)

TedEH said:


> Some more thinking out loud, while I'm here.
> 
> Serious question: Is there actually? I ask this as someone who isn't American, doesn't have access to first hand experience, and hasn't yet seen anything to back this up, outside of a wealth of online self-assessment and personal anecdotes. Google tells me that NIMH considers 1 in 5 people to have some kind of mental illness, but also notes that there's a huge range of severity within that group, so this could include people who are suicidal and people who are mildly inconvenienced in the same statistic. Other websites give entirely different stats (or use the NIMH numbers [or approximations] but interpret/skew them a different way). And then even if we see a rise in statistics, does that means there's more actual instances, or does it mean just an increase in reports? Could it also be a sign of lessened criteria to qualify as "mentally ill"? How do you even judge something like this?
> 
> ...



Maybe true as a side issue. I was speaking about how so many people in the USA need mental healthcare and instead end up in prison, or living on the streets, homeless...

Here is some data:


----------



## cwhitey2 (Aug 8, 2016)

bostjan said:


> Maybe true as a side issue. I was speaking about how so many people in the USA need mental healthcare and instead end up in prison, or living on the streets, homeless...
> 
> Here is some data:



Home run.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 8, 2016)

bostjan said:


> Here is some data:





I think I was trying to make a distinction between "there are more mentally ill people right now" and "there's roughly the same number of mentally ill people but we're handling them poorly right now".


----------



## bostjan (Aug 8, 2016)

TedEH said:


> I think I was trying to make a distinction between "there are more mentally ill people right now" and "there's roughly the same number of mentally ill people but we're handling them poorly right now".



Ahh, I see...Well, there are more people, in general, so there are more mentally ill people by absolute numbers, and we aren't dealing with them properly. Maybe the same number by ratio, though - I don't know, maybe not. It'd be to hard to tell anecdotally, and I don't have any data.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Aug 8, 2016)

TedEH said:


> I think I was trying to make a distinction between "there are more mentally ill people right now" and "there's roughly the same number of mentally ill people but we're handling them poorly right now".



We don't actually know since we don't _really care_ to keep track anymore.


----------



## MFB (Aug 8, 2016)

cwhitey2 said:


> I agree 100%. They just shut down one of the biggest facilities in my area....and set people free.



Am I the only one who thought of this argument?


----------



## flint757 (Aug 8, 2016)

It's fascinating how politicians operate at times. They'll make sweeping, dangerous decisions just because it makes a good headline, despite the fact that they just move the goal post rather than solving the actual problem. Reagan closing mental health facilities, Clinton kicking people off welfare, and on and on. As long as they can put positive spin on it they're all down to do it. They've even mastered the art of changing the language of war (example: secretary of war renamed to secretary of defense despite nothing in the job changing) so that people don't care that our government murders men, women, and children abroad. They even came up with fancy terms like collateral damage to mask the number of people our government has 'unintentionally' murdered.

Our country is sub-par at a lot of things, but the one thing we excel at is media spin and propaganda!


----------



## cwhitey2 (Aug 8, 2016)

MFB said:


> Am I the only one who thought of this argument?




hahahaah that is great example 



BUT....NY (use as an example since I live in it) could definitely spend its money more wisely.


----------



## schantist (Aug 8, 2016)

celticelk said:


> This is supposed to be a point in favor of your proposed nuking?



Looking at 'Murica's track record, the odds are probably 50:1 in favor of nuclear shenanigans over a proper sustainable health care system.


----------



## TheStig1214 (Aug 9, 2016)

1) An end to the "War on Terror" Literally the biggest ....ing waste of money that I've had to watch over most of my lifetime. If you want to fight terror, do it on the homefront, and actually properly train/fund the TSA and get your .... together with Central Intelligence. You can't fight terrorists on their turf, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

2) An end to the "War on Drugs". Second biggest waste of money I've seen. Just decriminalize it, keep people from selling/advertising to children, treat it like alcohol. Teen alcohol and drug usage has been going down over time, and it certainly hasn't been from the War on Drugs, it's from education.

3) Now that we aren't wasting money fighting things, please reform the Healthcare system. All I know is my family gets half our monthly healthcare bill paid by my dad's job, and the other half is on us. We are a family of 3 with no chronic illnesses, and we still pay more than what I make at my $14/hr full time job every month. I have no clue how I am going to be able to afford any of it once I'm out of school.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Aug 9, 2016)

TheStig1214 said:


> I have no clue how I am going to be able to afford any of it once I'm out of school.



Sadly you won't be able to.


My buddy is on it now and he told me his copay is $6,000 if he goes to the hospital. If true that is facking ridiculous.


----------



## will_shred (Aug 9, 2016)

I'll try to make my list reasonable, and achievable. 

Zero interest student loans provided by the government with extended payback periods and an option to discharge in bankruptcy. Traditional economics says that student loans have higher interest rates because they are more risky, but that kind of falls apart when you can't ever get rid of the debt. So we should either pay much, much lower interest rates, or we should be able to discharge student debt. I think having both would seriously increase access to college, which I believe is a right. 

Double NASA funding 

Rollback common-core and let teachers teach, while still giving schools much needed federal funding. One area where I feel like the government should step back is schooling, besides providing the funding and the infrastructure, the teacher evaluations and testing are out of control. I also think that schools should have more freedom to evaluate their staff as they see fit. This is my perspective after talking to many public school teachers on both sides of the political spectrum. For many school districts the cost to implement common core is coming out to be more then the federal funding they receive for conforming to the standards, its insane.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Aug 9, 2016)

will_shred said:


> Rollback common-core and let teachers teach, while still giving schools much needed federal funding. One area where I feel like the government should step back is schooling, besides providing the funding and the infrastructure, the teacher evaluations and testing are out of control. I also think that schools should have more freedom to evaluate their staff as they see fit. This is my perspective after talking to many public school teachers on both sides of the political spectrum. For many school districts the cost to implement common core is coming out to be more then the federal funding they receive for conforming to the standards, its insane.




Since you are form NY it should make you happy to know that down here basically all but 1 school no longer use common core and that 1 schools use is extremely limited (I'm actually making their school work as I type this!).

Common core has been the worse idea...ever for public education.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 9, 2016)

The reason common core doesn't work is that teachers teach effectively in different ways, same as students learn effectively in different ways, depending on the individual. What's more, a student who learns best, say, through mnemonic devices paired with a teacher who teaches best using tactile teaching, might not work at all if the teacher sticks only to mnemonics. You are not going to get a group class to have the benefits of one-on-one teaching, period. What's more, is that teaching a class through multiple intelligences, without the subject material lending itself to such, is just going to further confuse struggling students and it takes away valuable class time from actual effective methods.


----------



## TheStig1214 (Aug 9, 2016)

I've never even been a fan of the traditional school system anyway. Just because a kid is 13 means he's ready for trigonometry? That's stupid. Match kids with like intelligence and put them in classes together, also let's get rid of all the stupid BS mandatory classes. I've never used anything from any English classes since 8th grade in college, and I was awful at English in high school, just felt like mandatory storytime paired with shoving ideas on how to interpret things in my head.

If you want to be a writer or a journalist, by all means take English forever. I'm a numbers person, I don't give two ....s that Holden Caufield was the only fake person in the book all along or how the conch in Lord of the Flies represented democracy. If I want to read something, I will when it becomes engaging to me. I plowed through Moby Dick because of Mastodon, and I'm starting to read a bit of Hunter S Thompson because of Regular Car Reviews.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 10, 2016)

While I'm inclined to lean your direction on education, our brains are largely shaped by these courses whether we think we use them or not. Some classes are simply more about having an educated, cultured populace rather than it being directly useful to your potential career; which you wouldn't have known what you're good at or not had you not taken these courses and done good or bad at them. English as a whole is ridiculously important though. Having good grammar, punctuation, and vocabulary is paramount to good, reasoned conversation and is necessary in everyday life. Reading literature and finding context clues, using deduction, and being able to turn a piece of literature into a simple summation is just as useful for developing ones critical thinking skills as doing trig proofs. This is coming from a math nerd. My ethics course I took in college really broadened my mind and taught me how to have well reasoned arguments. That is something people need a lot more of honestly.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 10, 2016)

TheStig1214 said:


> shoving ideas on how to interpret things in my head.



That's a very strange way to describe exactly what English classes are supposed to be teaching you. 

The "English" courses I had to take in college were renamed to "communications" - because that's what it boils down to. It may not matter that you recognize a specific metaphor in a specific book, but it's important that you know how to recognize metaphor in general, lest you always take things literally.

I don't know where you are in life, but I pretty often find myself in situations where communications skills end up being very important- and I don't consider myself great in that area, nor do I work in anything that sounds like literary devices would come in handy - but that's how business works. Poor communications make for bad business. (Anyone who's ever been upset that a video game didn't work as they wanted while the dev was quiet about it can back me up on that one.)

It's actually kind of disappointing how often I've seen college-educated people who somehow made it through their education but still lack some very basic writing skills. And handwriting. Nobody has good handwriting anymore.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Aug 10, 2016)

Mental health issues where I live.


http://www.pressconnects.com/story/...8/09/man-slashes-throat-jc-wal-mart/88483204/


----------



## thrsher (Aug 10, 2016)

im ok with the amount i pay in taxes considering my property taxes warrant a tax write.

now insurances, what a ....ing scam that is. i just had my renewal on my car insurance, and my premium went UP! another year older, another year of spotless driving, and my premium goes up and they tell me its everyone because more claims have been submitted, ....ing bull..... about 13% of my regular income is for all the difference insurances i have and if i chose to opt out of medical since that's the most expensive, im going to get fined for it.


----------



## broj15 (Aug 10, 2016)

bostjan said:


> I would assert, without any extensive data, that >50% of folks in prison in the USA would have benefited much more from admission into a mental healthcare facility instead. I know that this kind of care costs a lot of money, but on the other hand, how many lives might be saved by keeping these folks medicated and stable(ish)?



not completely related, and this might derail things a bit (sorry in advanced) but this made me think of something in the prison system that NEEDS to be reformed. Prisoners SHOULD NOT have the right to free education (free to them at least) while they are incarcerated. I know that one of the prison system's goals is SUPPOSED to be reform/rehabilitation and reintegration into society, however I can't jive with the fact that the person in my family (though none of us communicate with them) with the highest level of education received that education for free while being incarcerated for sexually assaulting a minor.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 10, 2016)

broj15 said:


> not completely related, and this might derail things a bit (sorry in advanced) but this made me think of something in the prison system that NEEDS to be reformed. Prisoners SHOULD NOT have the right to free education (free to them at least) while they are incarcerated. I know that one of the prison system's goals is SUPPOSED to be reform/rehabilitation and reintegration into society, however I can't jive with the fact that the person in my family (though none of us communicate with them) with the highest level of education received that education for free while being incarcerated for sexually assaulting a minor.



An argument for such a system is not that it benefits them, but that it should theoretically benefit society. A lack of education has most criminals going back to a criminal life which brings society as a whole down. Is it fair on a grander scale, probably not, but that's not really the point. CPS functions in a similar way, and it is indeed equally frustrating. Since the goal is reform though, I don't really see a way around that.


----------



## narad (Aug 10, 2016)

bostjan said:


> Crazy is a pretty broad and polarizing term, but I get it and I agree. Some people with certain social issues are just not going to function in society without some sort of help, and some of those are dangerous unless they receive mental health care. We don't know a lot about mental health, actually, compared to, say, what we know about lung health or liver health. * Some people will say that "that's just the way they are," but science can say quite a few things about brain function, what is "normal," and what is "abnormal," and people who are violent often, if not generally, fall into the category of "abnormal," insomuch as an FMRI can see lack of function in areas of the brain.*



This simply isn't true. On rare occasions certain deformities or underdeveloped regions have been generally linked to a decreased ability to distinguish right and wrong, but that's where the science ends. How much of an impairment would this be? Entirely unclear. And under an fMRI there is no real bounds for normal activity, only heightened activity with respect to a resting state. The measurements are scientific, but the conclusions are extremely shakey.

But worse it doesn't offer a treatment. That is a deformed brain, not a chemical imbalance, and a mental healthcare practitioner can not treat a mental deficiency. 

Other conditions of depression, anxiety, etc., aren't categorically existent in the brain like a virus in the bloodstream. They're not a science - they're a man made label applied to deviations in desirable behavior or state of mind. And I'd be very hesitant to base policy on that kind of "science." Being an argumentative wife in the 1930s could get you a lobotomy. So could being a trouble-making child. If a lobotomy isn't your thing, maybe electroshock therapy? In the 1950s-70s, homosexuality was classified as such. I'm sure if there was a pill they could produce at the time that would zap your sex drive they'd have probably marketed that as the cure of a mental illness the same way today's psychiatrists will push prozac for your depression. How is today's approach any different? 

Personally I think the cry for improved mental healthcare after a mass shooting is often misplaced. I'm not against more funding for such facilities, but the idea that shootings are a symptom of an underlying mental health pandemic seems far-fetched. It's like people want to dismiss the possibility that you can be perfectly sane and still want to kill dozens of people.  We've spent millions of years evolving while slaughtering each other, so if you're not a creationist you have to acknowledge that a brain capable of mass killing has, for most of human existence, been a perfectly normal brain.

Really I don't think the solution to violence is to medicate millions of additional people when all this is doing is masking an underlying societal problem, of a way of life that for too many people lowers their sense of self worth and prevents them from finding happiness.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 11, 2016)

narad said:


> This simply isn't true. On rare occasions certain deformities or underdeveloped regions have been generally linked to a decreased ability to distinguish right and wrong, but that's where the science ends. How much of an impairment would this be? Entirely unclear. And under an fMRI there is no real bounds for normal activity, only heightened activity with respect to a resting state. The measurements are scientific, but the conclusions are extremely shakey.
> 
> But worse it doesn't offer a treatment. That is a deformed brain, not a chemical imbalance, and a mental healthcare practitioner can not treat a mental deficiency.



Here's a paper that says so.

Here's a less scholarly one that touches on your points, but still proves what I said is true.

What i said was not an absolute statement, if you read it again, so "That simply isn't true" is inaccurate and unnecessarily combative.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Aug 11, 2016)

thrsher said:


> im ok with the amount i pay in taxes considering my property taxes warrant a tax write.
> 
> now insurances, what a ....ing scam that is. i just had my renewal on my car insurance, and my premium went UP! another year older, another year of spotless driving, and my premium goes up and they tell me its everyone because more claims have been submitted, ....ing bull..... about 13% of my regular income is for all the difference insurances i have and if i chose to opt out of medical since that's the most expensive, im going to get fined for it.




I HATE insurance.

Best example I have:

Broke my phone last night, I have insurance ($11 per month). I go to att and they say there is nothing they can do for me because it's third party insurance. Ok whatever I'm due for an upgrade anyways. While looking over the cost of the new one the sales guy tries to sell me insurance.....I looked him square in the face and laughed...no thanks guy.

On the drive home my Dad got to thinking. He says to me do you know how much I pay for home insurance. $32 facking dollars a month and they cover $250,000 for the house and 90,00 for the goods inside.

My monthly insurance for 2 lines was $25 total. Now it's 000000.00


Point being, .... insurance companies.


----------



## narad (Aug 11, 2016)

bostjan said:


> Here's a paper that says so.
> 
> Here's a less scholarly one that touches on your points, but still proves what I said is true.
> 
> What i said was not an absolute statement, if you read it again, so "That simply isn't true" is inaccurate and unnecessarily combative.



No, that's not what it says. 

You said:
"and people who are violent often, if not generally, fall into the category of "abnormal," insomuch as an FMRI can see lack of function in areas of the brain."

Article 1 says, in summary:
Violent schizophrenics have a decreased function of frontal lobe activity compared to non-schizophrenics, but a different decreased function when compared to violent anti-social/depressives. Unfortunately the rest of the article is tucked behind a paywall, but you can believe that 68 citations in 10 years is not exactly ground-breaking, widely believed or widely impactful science. 

Article 2 says, in summary:
A jury should understand precisely what fMRI measures and the extent to which conclusions can be drawn from these sources in order to make informed decisions. It lists ways in which reduced functioning in various areas may be linked to violent activity. You'll noticed this is not a localized, clear-cut account. It also says nothing of violent offenders often, if not generally, having abnormal fMRI scans.

What is being shown is more the opposite: that when individuals have cognitive impairments in particular areas, they may be less in control of their decisions and more likely to commit violent acts. What you're saying is that often violent offenders have a cognitive impairment. If I told you that all tall men wear hats, you should probably not conclude that men who wear hats are often tall.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 11, 2016)

narad said:


> Personally I think the cry for improved mental healthcare after a mass shooting is often misplaced. I'm not against more funding for such facilities, but the idea that shootings are a symptom of an underlying mental health pandemic seems far-fetched. It's like people want to dismiss the possibility that you can be perfectly sane and still want to kill dozens of people. We've spent millions of years evolving while slaughtering each other, so if you're not a creationist you have to acknowledge that a brain capable of mass killing has, for most of human existence, been a perfectly normal brain.



I've got nothing to add of any real value, but this is a more eloquently put version of why I questioned the idea of a "mental health crisis". 

I can't speak on the science-y stuff, cause to be honest, I don't have the kind of faith in science where I can just say "it's in a paper, so it must be true", nor do I have the knowledge or vocabulary to make a very strong point, but I don't think we have enough knowledge of the brain (or whatever other organs or systems are involved) to be able to really identify or treat behaviors the same way we treat normal medical conditions.

I don't have time at the moment to read those papers, but when I do, maybe I'll have a more informed point to make.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 11, 2016)

narad said:


> No, that's not what it says.
> 
> You said:
> "and people who are violent often, if not generally, fall into the category of "abnormal," insomuch as an FMRI can see lack of function in areas of the brain."
> ...



Read what you typed out.


----------



## narad (Aug 11, 2016)

TedEH said:


> I can't speak on the science-y stuff, cause to be honest, I don't have the kind of faith in science where I can just say "it's in a paper, so it must be true", nor do I have the knowledge or vocabulary to make a very strong point, but I don't think we have enough knowledge of the brain (or whatever other organs or systems are involved) to be able to really identify or treat behaviors the same way we treat normal medical conditions.



Yea, I mean, below left is the brain of a normal, functioning man with headaches and below-average intelligence:







There's almost nothing there! No one really understands how this is even possible (it occurs because of fluid buildup, but I mean no one understands how you can lead any semblance of a normal life with so little matter). Pretty safe to say he has decreased activation across the frontal lobe, yet, not a violent man.

Again, a women with no cerebellum *at all*:





Yet, walking around, doing things that studies indicate the cerebellum is typically responsible for.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 11, 2016)

A. What you posted above are anomalies, not at all usual cases.
B. The man in question, you call "normal," but did have issues with quite low intelligence and chronic problems with his extremities. So he was really not "normal," but rather just suffered less effects than expected from what you see in the MRI.
C. The woman with no cerebellum, able to walk, did have some quite notable mobility issues and had great difficulty speaking. So she did have effects that were very much linked to what you see in the MRI. The anomaly was that she had ability to coordinate movement at all.

Not that these are not interesting cases or anything like that, just that they are highly unusual. But again, my point, with which you took issue, was that I said "and people who are violent often, if not generally, fall into the category of "abnormal," insomuch as an FMRI can see lack of function in areas of the brain," not that an FMRI can diagnose behavioural problems with some said degree of accuracy.


----------



## narad (Aug 11, 2016)

C'mon man, are you just going to argue with everything?



bostjan said:


> A. What you posted above are anomalies, not at all usual cases.



I never said otherwise. Just interesting cases which exemplify the brain's power to adapt and to defy efforts to localize processing of different phenomena within certain areas of the brain.



bostjan said:


> B. The man in question, you call "normal," but did have issues with quite low intelligence and chronic problems with his extremities. So he was really not "normal," but rather just suffered less effects than expected from what you see in the MRI.



I point out that he had below-average intelligence, but he's not what you'd clinically refer to as retarded. He doesn't behave weirdly. There are many people who function at his level that you would describe as "normal", and he has no diagnosed conditions. He has a family and a government job. The problem with his extremities were a result of increasing pressure on the brain, not the lack of brain mass.



bostjan said:


> C. The woman with no cerebellum, able to walk, did have some quite notable mobility issues and had great difficulty speaking. So she did have effects that were very much linked to what you see in the MRI. The anomaly was that she had ability to coordinate movement at all.



You say "quite notable mobility issues", article says "the missing cerebellum resulted in only mild to moderate motor deficiency." You say "great difficulty speaking", article says "mild speech problems such as slightly slurred pronunciation."



bostjan said:


> But again, my point, with which you took issue, was that I said "and people who are violent often, if not generally, fall into the category of "abnormal," insomuch as an FMRI can see lack of function in areas of the brain," not that an FMRI can diagnose behavioural problems with some said degree of accuracy.



Yea, that's still not a true statement. So according to you, if I took some large sample of the general violent population and put them under an fMRI, I'd be able to see a lack of function in systematic areas of the brain with a significant portion of the sample population (enough to correspond to something occurring "often"). And that's not been done (or at least has not been shown to have been done, by you) nor does experience with fMRIs lead me to believe that it would be true.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 11, 2016)

EDIT: Nevermind. I didn't say that some people need mental healthcare so that I could get into an argument with somebody about how the human brain is intended to work.


----------



## coreysMonster (Sep 6, 2016)

1. Cut taxes, utilize a smaller budget more intelligently.

2. End the war on drugs, this ties into 1. Stop spending so many tax dollars policing the public for things that aren't hurting anybody. Instead use the tax money to

3. Have a health care system worthy of a 1st world country in the 21st century. I mean goddamn.

Bonus 4: End for-profit prisons.

Bonus 5: I have to pay the state yearly to drive a vehicle that I own. Call it a tax and be done with it, don't pretend like yearly registration isn't simply another revenue stream for the government.


----------



## TedintheShed (Sep 13, 2016)

1) I want the entirety for the fruits of my labors back- something they haven't a right to abscond. 

2) That it only does what was intended to do- "protect the rights of the governed". This can be achieved in conjunction with volunteerism. This means no foreign wars, no occupations, not even a military prescience in Europe. 

3) Nothing else. No heath care system, no Social Security and no social safety nets. This also means that that corporations, who are granted the legal right to lobby, would no longer be able to sway government. The end result would be college and healthcare (as a few examples of where the intertwining tendrils of government have inflated prices) would be affordable.

These three things would take care of virtually all other issues-


----------



## vilk (Sep 13, 2016)

would be affordable to some people, while others starve and die of sickness in the streets and alleys*

The one thing whole LEAVE ME ALONE, GOV'T doesn't take into account is that there is a certain percent of the population that just sucks. They can't do anything right, and while it might be argued that it's only their own fault, it isn't as though most people ask to be born, or raised all f///ed up and whatever. Or they used to be normal people, and then some insane sh/t happens to them and destroys their life. Goes on every day. 

What happens to those people? 

_Volunteers! Now that everyone is a rich rich man because we don't have taxes, surely we'll all spend our time among the toiling masses of suckage!_

...well, you hope so. But not necessarily. So what if not? So then they die and you don't care? Darwin's Survival of the Fittest? Will there at least be a municipal task force for body removal and disposal (but who would pay them? Or are they volunteers?)?

Just curious. And this is posed at any of you guys who take this position, not just ted. Do you just not care? I'm not telling you that you should, I'm just asking you if you don't.


----------

