Why are we a divided Nation?

It is baloney that somebody who is in pain has to wait 6 months in theUs we often have to wait months for a top dr.

First of all it is a misconception the teachers cannot be fired. I have seen several fired over the years but it takes a lot of work on the part of the principal. Also the first three years a teacher is on probation and a good principal can see whether the teacher has the talent or not.
Thank goodness for the teachers union. When I began teaching I had 45 in the class. I was paid a non-living wage, kids with special needs were ignored etc.

 

How is a "wealth tax" socialist?

I'm rather proud to be called al leftist. It comes from those who were on the left side of the Estates General in the French Revolution , the peasants and the bourgeosie, not the nobles and the clergy on the right. We're the ones that survived, the ones on the modern side of history

 

Only a rightwinger would stereotype democrats like that. Name calling like trump with childish insults. You left out that we are kakaheads
Only a right winger would not realize that North Korea is disrespecting us, only a right winger would support brutal dictator’s and alien need allies, only a right winger would justify turning on the Kurds who helped us. I really wouldn’t talk about us not having reality

[

 

and the red states are the most uneducated and take more tax money then they give

 

The irony of your post is laughable. Republican principles nearly destroyed the global banking system. Only after it all came crashing down did Greenspan - the architect of the Republican economic platform, the Wizard of Wall Street - admit that he was wrong. Then he rode off into the sunset.

As Henry Paulson [Wall Street Wizard No. 2] stated, the concept of market discipline failed. This means that a core principle of free-market economics failed. Ayn Rand is dead!

But republicans still push deregulation.

Greenspan admits his model failed. This is directly from the horse's mouth. But to Republicans, it's like it never happened. They still pedal the same old voodoo.

 

Trump is no right-winger. I don't justify any of that, and I am a right-winger. Trump is an isolationist and a narcissist who likes other narcissists. Neither of those are right-wing positions.

 

How dare they not be fancy. Disgusting.

 

first starters it is unconstitutional and none of the dipshits running for president are aware of that or they don't f****** care.

Second it's about pillaging the wealthy 2 pay for nonsense we don't need which is exactly what socialism is.


don't you find it too worrisome that these idiots don't know the first thing about the country they're trying to run?

 

And Blue States produce most of the wealth. All of those Blue Cities they hate are the economic engines of the country.

So let's take them all away. We could dump the Red States and hardly notice the difference; with the exception that nobody like trump would EVER be elected in the real America.

 

I can't comment specifically on America (not being an American and all!), but the worldwide pattern is pretty obvious. It was the move to Progressivism which caused all the trouble. The Left actually did an amazingly good job prior that .. and had sound and reasonable policy, with a focus on the material improvement of the lived existence of the working classes. It was the Progs who insisted on abandoning the working classes in favour of elites, foreigners, and identity politics.

 

Age you making comments concerning how we do things in America then? How you do things in your country is your business. How we do things in America is ours

 

Some of my relatives migrated to your country. Educated professionals .. who migrated purely for the American culture and way of life, not for money.

 

You, apparently, have no real idea of what socialism is, or how taxation works.

 

So did mine, they came here for freedom, (though it was mainly the freedom to make money) American culture IS mainly about making money, which you can only really do if you're a free man. Do you object to that?

 

Meaning of hip to the propaganda.

 

It was the Democratic policies of the 1990s that pushed bankers to make mortgage loans to people unable to pay and then deregulated how banks could make investments with government guaranteed funds that led to the collapse of the banking system. Bush's mistake was in not allowing all those banks that had crashed to go bankrupt. It would have been much cheaper to pay back all those people who had had money in those banks than to rescue the banks, but that wasn't what happened. Instead, Bush salvaged the banks and did nothing to punish the bankers for taking unnecessary risks with other people's money. It is absolutely just and proper to institute regulations when you are guaranteeing someone else's money, which is what the Federal Reserve Bank does. If there was a bank out there that didn't sign on to the Fed's guarantee system (is there one out there?), that bank should be entirely free of such regulations and should be able to take whatever risks it wants, on its own dime. And if it fails, that's its own problem and not ours. Market discipline didn't fail, the government failed to allow market discipline to work by propping the banks back up after they engaged in stupid behavior. So what did the banks learn from this? Not to take stupid risks? No, they learned that they will get bailed out by the government, meaning there will be another round of bank failures sometime in the future because they will still be taking stupid risks.

I watched the video. What it seemed like Greenspan thought was that market discipline would keep banks from failing, but that's not what market discipline means. Market discipline means that bad decision making leads to failure while good decision making leads to success. But if you don't let banks fail, market discipline isn't going to work.

 

Remind me what color the states are that refused the Medicaid expansion even though they pay for it?
That I would say is heartless.

 

My relatives migrated to offer their kids access to a freer and more flexible culture, and better educational prospects.

PS: what is it that I'm supposed to object to?

 

It is probably true, blue state cities on the coasts control the lions share of economic activity and therefore income. But that income is confined to very few individuals, it is not distributed throughout the city or state. To make matters worse, people in red states and others living in rural areas generally have a higher standard of living due to the difference in cost of living compared to the cost of living in coastal cities.

I don't mean to be nit-picking, but it is the farms, timber, and mining, that are the foundation of the economic engine.

 

Incredibly important truth, there. Thank you!

 

You'd have no food or water within a month. I think you'd notice.

Cities and coastal areas produce most of the wealth because that's where trade happens. Democrats just get in the way of that, they don't facilitate it in any way. Economic growth among cities is highest where tax rates and regulations are lowest.

This is old (2011), but take a look at this slideshow of top performing cities. I counted just three out of the 25 being in blue states/areas. The rest are located in red states like Texas.

https://www.forbes.com/pictures/eddk45edeml/americas-25-best-performing-cities-2/#29961ff3a0e6

"From 2007 through 2015, as many as 9,000 companies have left California, according to Joe Vranich, president of Spectrum Location Solutions in Irvine. And no one should wonder why. Just by simply putting California behind them, these companies are saving 20 percent to 35 percent a year in operating costs, Vranich says."

"Last year, for instance, Chief Executive magazine ranked California the worst state in which to do business. It was the 11th straight year the state was embarrassed by the magazine’s basement grade."

http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2017/04/misguided-state-policies-lead-companies-leaving-california/

The bluest states tend to be the biggest losers of population.



Five million Americans have moved out of California in the last ten years.

https://www.charismanews.com/opinion/63520-16-reasons-people-are-leaving-california-by-the-millions

 

It is not heartless to ask people to pay their own bills. It IS heartless to demand other people pay your bills for you. Why does California have 31% of all the homeless people in the country? Could it have anything to do with the fact that California's welfare program is the most generous in the country? Here's a basic equation for you: That which you subsidize grows. That which you tax contracts. Democrats subsidize homelessness and tax wealth creation. So Democrats get lots of homeless and drive companies out of state or out of business. Republicans refuse to subsidize homelessness and try to tax wealth creation as little as possible and thereby increase business and get the homeless out of town or off the streets.

 

Students compete every day for grades.

Social Security is a fully indexed guaranteed pension. You're talking about investments.with some risk. Are you prepared to let people lose a good chunk of their retirement without giving them welfare?

 

Social Security is not a fully indexed guaranteed pension, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, in which those who were promised money years ago are given money by the new suckers putting money in today. And like all Ponzi schemes, eventually you run out of suckers and the system collapses.

Social Security: The Most Successful Ponzi Scheme in History
https://mises.org/library/social-security-most-successful-ponzi-scheme-history