Forums → WEPR → Rand Paul

@09philj

The thing about US politics that confuses me most is all of the people claiming Obama is a socialist, when he clearly isn't. Is there something in his generally conservative policies I'm missing? Or is US politics usually so far right (and it's people so disinterested in the outside world) that anything less right than the Republicans seen as being lunatic far left?

The "lunatics" in the USA are the Republicans. Often, the media ridicules the right-wing parties and praise the left-wing progressives. So, technically speaking, I am a "radical, racist, sexist, bigot who hates everyone." (which, is not true, I come from a mixed race family, I support gay marriage, and I only hate a very few individuals, but those are the labels Republicans, Libertarians, Tea Party, GOP, etc. members get).

and socialized our healthcare

Obamacare is hardly socialist. The NHS is how you do proper social healthcare. True, it's been in crisis since pretty much day one, and as we all live longer it's going to be put under more strain. Obamacare is a shambles because it's a compromise between public and private healthcare that pleases nobody. When you opt for left wing policies, you can't water them down; you go the whole hog, or find some other solution. Obama is too much of a coward to be so radical, so his plans don't work.

The "lunatics" in the USA are the Republicans. Often, the media ridicules the right-wing parties and praise the left-wing progressives. So, technically speaking, I am a "radical, racist, sexist, bigot who hates everyone." (which, is not true, I come from a mixed race family, I support gay marriage, and I only hate a very few individuals, but those are the labels Republicans, Libertarians, Tea Party, GOP, etc. members get)..

That's because the people often running and speaking for those groups are often pushing for such things. I'm glad you're not one of them.

Also what's wrong with having some systems be socialized? It's not like we have to go to one extreme or the other in every aspect, we can just take the system that best works for the particular field and apply it there. Of course finding the balance between those systems can be tricky at times and it does need to be flexible as well.

The political parties don't matter much now, the riches are the enemy.
These criminals are slowly turning the US into a Medieval kingdom.

@09philj Obamacare is the transitional phase. Unfortunately, people like my mother who can't afford healthcare, even with the government's healthcare, have to pay a tax -- more payments that she can't afford (she can't even go on welfare, a few bucks above poverty line). So, it's true it's not truly socialist, but it's the transitional phase.

@MageGrayWolf

Also what's wrong with having some systems be socialized?

@SSTG

The political parties don't matter much now, the riches are the enemy.
These criminals are slowly turning the US into a Medieval kingdom.

It puts a very heavy tax burden on people, especially entrepreneurs and the upper class, and as well as the middle class.

It's technically possible to create a system where everyone can benefit, even with higher taxes. The Blair administration in the UK was good in that regard. It's just a shame they had to let it slip away what with allowing a total financial collapse. (And also invading Iraq. Nothing to do with the economy, but it's just another one of the things they did wrong.)

The political parties don't matter much now, the riches are the enemy.
These criminals are slowly turning the US into a Medieval kingdom.

Pretty much agree with you there.

It puts a very heavy tax burden on people, especially entrepreneurs and the upper class, and as well as the middle class.

And having a system where people are unable to support themselves and can't get the help they need is better? There are many places where they have socialized systems that don't appear to be crushing it's people but actually helping them. I think if it's something everyone or close to it in a country needs some sort of social option should be available.

But, there are laws that stop people from donating too much money and work arounds are illegal,

Not really, there are almost no laws in the way these days. With your example there were legal avenues Dinesh could have taken to achieve pretty much the same goals.

And having a system where people are unable to support themselves and can't get the help they need is better? There are many places where they have socialized systems that don't appear to be crushing it's people but actually helping them. I think if it's something everyone or close to it in a country needs some sort of social option should be available.

It's technically possible to create a system where everyone can benefit, even with higher taxes. The Blair administration in the UK was good in that regard. It's just a shame they had to let it slip away what with allowing a total financial collapse. (And also invading Iraq. Nothing to do with the economy, but it's just another one of the things they did wrong.)

I'm in the lower class and I'm just fine without this bull crap. Where's the suffering that we're supposedly facing? The ones "suffering" are just leeching off welfare and not getting a job

So you work your menial job at a fastfood place or grocery store, and you make barely enough to cover your housing and food and then you still need your medicine??

A friend of mine is in roughly this situation and I'm perpetually sad that she can't just go live in Denmark. In Denmark there's social health care. It doesn't work perfectly, but it does work pretty well.
We also pay our students to study.

Also there's this thing. Note how the US is on top and how much their health care actually sucks compared to Denmark.

That page is using slightly old figures, but then there's this pie chart of 2014.

My favorite part is the 4% that go towards education and science.

People can support themselves

What if you can't get a job? There are plenty of places where getting a job is difficult because there aren't enough to go around. To say nothing of unfortunate circumstances that suddenly land you in debt otherwise not financially stable.

the ones who aren't are the ones taking no initiative.

I knew a guy, lets call him Pete, while volunteering at an Oxfam book shop a while ago. Pete was a good worker, knowledgeable, and generally the manager's right hand man. Also, every week he would have to go down to collect his benefits because he literally couldn't get a paid job. He hated it, but there was nothing he could do. Without benefits he would have been in serious trouble because his best efforts weren't good enough to get a job anywhere.

Let's say you're diabetic. You need insulin on a steady basis, otherwise you die. Insulin is expensive. You have an education, but you can't seem to get a job in your field, and you most certainly can't afford more loans to try for a different education. You manage to get a minimum wage job. Minimum wage in the US is not a livable wage as it hasn't been adjusted alongside inflation. (A livable wage is different from a "you can afford the barest of necessities wage", which seems to be what the government understands it as.)
So you work your menial job at a fastfood place or grocery store, and you make barely enough to cover your housing and food and then you still need your medicine??

As for your chart:
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
Granted, science spending probably has gone down since Obama cut subsides to NASA.

What if you can't get a job?.

I knew a guy, lets call him Pete, while volunteering at an Oxfam book shop a while ago. Pete was a good worker, knowledgeable, and generally the manager's right hand man. Also, every week he would have to go down to collect his benefits because he literally couldn't get a paid job. He hated it, but there was nothing he could do. Without benefits he would have been in serious trouble because his best efforts weren't good enough to get a job anywhere.

and they're trying to make a living, then they get multiple jobs, that's the reality of it and what people do.

You shouldn't need.multiple jobs to afford a living.

But we are off topic.

And then there're the unfortunates who have to rely on food banks to feed their family even if they're in employment.

What some people don't take into consideration is sometime you get sick, real sick and the outrageous cost of hospital and medications can get you in trouble very fast. Your insurance provider will usually send you a letter saying they are dropping you because you are cutting into their profit so screw you, goodbye and good luck.

minimum wage varies, depending on the area, and is adjusted to the cost of living per area. If someone is working entry-level jobs that are usually for inexperienced people, and they're trying to make a living, then they get multiple jobs, that's the reality of it and what people do. Often, there are private organizations, non-profit, that help ease the costs of medical expenses, bills, and even give food in the US (when I lived in Germany, I hadn't heard of any of that). The US is not like Europe.

I think you need to look up the cost of living and compare it to minimum wage. Minimum wage is not a living wage in the vast majority of the United States. You can easily look up stats on that. Minimum wage is set via politics, which is nothing like a precise algorithm adjusted for cost of living.

No one should need to have multiple jobs to survive. Those who are poor should be under no obligation to break their backs. It's ridiculous that we expect anyone to sacrifice their entire life slaving away for a paycheck solely because others have previously sacrificed their entire lives slaving away for paychecks. Something having happened previously does not make it okay.

Further, those who work two jobs typically do so their entire lives. The US is not a place where hard work typically pays off. It is a place where privilege does and has been for a long time. The American Dream is superstition the wealthy use to rationalize the existence of the poor.

Programs that help you financially in the US typically disqualify people at wage levels lower than the cost of living. As an added bonus, there's a huge stigma about them because the wealthy don't realize that you have to be destitute to qualify for them at all, and believe that the average poor person is some kind of evil freeloading mastermind.

People in the US regularly choose between paying their bills and eating. This is not because they have poor money management skills, it it's because they do not have the necessary income to do both. If they have medical expenses on top of that, they will avoid getting necessary medical care because they cannot afford it. This is normal and is generally seen as acceptable.

I'm unable to find a source on guaranteed jobs in North Dakota. Cite?