Where is the answer to this mess?

There are far more than one. Even when they get one thing they want they get half a dozen that they never expected. Human beings simply aren't omniscient or omnipresent even when they run the government. About the only thing they can manage after awhile is to be omniannoying.

Like Nancy and Schumer and Biden?

 

Good, we agree then. Personal circumstances should never be a reason for provision of public assistance.

 

I'd have to dispute that - vigorously. There are and have been, many very established societies in which they 'get it right'. They understand that we're driven by universal needs - food, shelter, water, and a 'pack' with whom we share it - and have evolved to make meeting those needs central, knowing that the vast majority will choose to align in the interests of survival. It's only when we start adding in 'extras', that people start to believe they don't have to align. It's the extras which are designed to disempower us - by muting those survival instincts.

 

Wrong, personal circumstances should never be a reason for not providing public assistance.

 

There is no doubt that we will see significant change......
When we rid ourselves of the experienced and the wise and the prudent, and turn our nation over to the emotionally driven governance of those who have known everything since they were 15, and knew that their parents were- stupid. Yeah. That oughta fix it.

 

Most people confuse economics with science. It is not. It is human behavioral analysis. Humans aren't really analyzable.

 

Wrong. Federal government should never provide public assistance. It goes against the concept of treating people equally.

 

No it doesn't.

 

Agreed. Money is the major problem.

 

This where righties are always wrong.
It's not treating people equally. It's providing the chance for equal opportunity.

 

If you say so.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2019/press-release/

 

I do say so. Thanks.

 

This is where you always get it wrong. It is about creating dependence on government. It is the opposite of providing any kind of chance of anything. It pays people for not doing what they need to do to get ahead.

 

Isn't that what 'social media' does (a current example)? Analyze and even 'manipulate'?

 

Another emply denial based on nothing.

 

Their parents were not stupid, just largely short sighted and egotistical.
Younger generations are outwardly emotional while boomers and the not-so-silent generation repress it

 

I don't know. I don't use social media unless this site is considered social media. It is impossible for me to get worked up about a website other than my own. Nobody is forced to access any of them.

If people get worked up because a web site operator has a political bias then, I suppose this site wouldn't quality since it hosts all political biases. My personal opinion is that it is a bad idea for any business anywhere to have a public political bias. It provides no benefit to the business and can reduce the potential customer base. Social media sites can work just like this one. It isn't mysterious. It is just common sense.

 

Teenagers have considered their parents stupid forever I think. It is something we outgrow as we mature.

 

NOBODY over 5 years old could be more short-sighted and egotistical than the politicians in office today.
Those "short sighted, egotistical" people are the ones who made America the worlds greatest nation, with the strongest economy and best standard of living- and one people all wan to migrate to.
Then the people who truly are short-sighted and egotistical who believe they are entitled and don't have to be rational or productive.... Screwed the pooch.

Bitching, burning, abusing, whining, creating propaganda and lies- IS NOT PROGRESS. I realize that comes as a huge surprise and you will blow it off as meaningless, but...
It's true. Only blind people (perception blind, not vision blind) fail to see that. NOTHING is being fixed, improved, resolved or preserved- it's all going the other way, fast.
Sooner you catch on and revise your position, the better off the world will be. The barnyard circus the left is putting on makes them all look incredibly incompetent- and much more along the same lines.

Now you know this is true; we know you know, and we know you will deny you know. No surprise in that.

 

No, money is the only problem.

Once money is removed from the equation, the only problem is for you to decide which of the many candidates you will choose for any given political office.

Wouldn't you rather have a choice of 3 to 10 candidates for the House of Representatives instead of just 2 who are obnoxious and corrupt and so you end up voting for the one that will do the least amount of damage over 2 years?

And, so what if the House has 435 members from 435 different political parties?

Big deal. Since your House was modeled after Parliament, specifically the House of Commons, it is designed to handle 435 different political parties and lest you forget, early in your history, there were dozens of political parties.

What happened to them? Money happened to them. Money passed around in backrooms before there was FOIA or any transparency in government.

 

Citizen's United SCOTUS decision. Worst thing to happen in the last decade+ in the US.

 

It's gonna take a helluva lotta work.

Congress has never enacted meaningful campaign finance reform, it is not on the agenda now, it never will be on the agenda and it never will be enacted.

They will not bite the hand that feeds them and your hand isn't the hand that feeds them.

The next solution would be to elect people who will enact meaningful campaign fiance reform, except they don't have the war chests to compete against the monied interests, so, they'll never get elected.

Reform Rhonda would gladly vote for campaign finance reform with teeth and get Medieval on violators, except she's an Independent and George Soros -- who doesn't even live in your State -- will dump money into campaign ads through PACs to disparage her, even say lies about her, so she'll never get elected. And, even if Soros didn't, the Kook Brothers, who don't live in your State, either, will bury her.

Obviously, it would have to be done on a State-by-State basis.

There's no way to do this on the so-called "national" (snicker) level.

Since State legislatures are controlled by Dummicrats and Repukes, this will have to be a ballot-initiative to amend the State's constitution to incorporate the Amendment.

I only need one State. Others will follow, and then it snow-balls to critical mass and once 34 States are on-board, the US Constitution can be amended.

The biggest hurdle is not getting it on the ballot in any State, it's separating the webmaster and website content from the non-profit that backs the Amendment to handle certain legal issues, namely, slander, libel and defamation.

 

↑
"You think so? Well my personal circumstances don't allow me to run a large business and live by the sea. What are you going to do about it?"

"Nothing."

"Or do you agree that that should never be a criteria for public assisstance?"

"Yep."

Your responses in bold. As per the above exchanges, you've agreed that 'personal circumstances' don't warrant assistance. So either you're two different people working at cross purposes, or you have no idea what you're saying from one moment to the next. Which is it?

 

The problem is that wisdom & prudence aren't age dependent. I know 20 year olds who are wiser and more prudent that some 50 year olds.

 

Not sure I can agree with that as a wholesale concept, but certainly it has to be FAR more human-friendly than the corrupting model we have now.