Colorado is pretty fair towards Dads which is nice especially since two of my four grandkids come from my son-in-laws previous marriage. I tend to forget they aren't blood related.
America this week, what the hell?
- Thread starter amalik
- Start date
- Status
Colorado is pretty fair towards Dads which is nice especially since two of my four grandkids come from my son-in-laws previous marriage. I tend to forget they aren't blood related.
-JD-
New member
Right, so this entire assertion is a baseless assumption. My point was based on first hand experience with the actual implementation of this type of system, as well as observation of many other countries employing similar systems.
nevada
Senior Member
you have a hard time with reading comprehension?
its not baseless. in fact I specifically said its based on how things are CURRENTLY GOING.
you based your opinion on the matter based on how its currently going for you, I did the same. if my opinion is baseless, yours is as well.
Thefishguy77
New member
I can't say if your life would be different here in Washington as it is in Colorado. But in Washington if she wants the kids she's going to get full custody 8 out of 10 times. Regardless of her ability to be a parent or her employment history or any history for that matter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
nevada
Senior Member
I had meant to address this other point earlier, but since you typed it in MY quote, it didn't transfer over.
I do believe the military is pulling their own. as long as they are in a position that the military is meant to be. in protection of the country.
politicians? absolutely NOT. no government job should be a career. at best, it should be a part time job. but ideally, it should be solely a volunteer position.
in nature, the strong survive, the weak do not. I believe that is how it should be. THAT is how we build a strong society. not by propping up the weak...
I would say that is more like 9 out of 10..
Victor_inox
New member
please quote one point at the time, you created a chaos with multi quote sorry about that.
You about 2500 years too late for society of that type. Let`s kill weak kids and enslave weak adults. Wait, that haven`t changed much ....
Victor_inox
New member
you can move,or you can campaign to change laws.
Thefishguy77
New member
Don't forget not get divorced. As for moving that hasn't workout well for those who have moved to escape BS gun regulation as it will just follow to your new state eventually. Colorado is on its way. You guys are mirroring Washington like Washington mirrored California back in the 80's & 90's. You have been warned. [emoji3]
Buy geographic size Washington is very conservative. But when you factor in 2 cities Seattle and Tacoma. The two largest cities with low income high handout ratio in Washington it effectively turned Seattle in to a democrat state. 2 cities. California is the same way. Remove the Bay Area and LA county and your a very conservative state. But that's not the way it goes so we fight to try and just get someone center elected. Forget right wing. Just center would be great.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Buy geographic size Washington is very conservative. But when you factor in 2 cities Seattle and Tacoma. The two largest cities with low income high handout ratio in Washington it effectively turned Seattle in to a democrat state. 2 cities. California is the same way. Remove the Bay Area and LA county and your a very conservative state. But that's not the way it goes so we fight to try and just get someone center elected. Forget right wing. Just center would be great.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Interesting commentary in here. I ruffled a few feathers in the other thread when I suggested not having children as a means of ensuring an adequate nest egg for retirement. Part of my reasoning has to do with the risk of divorce, especially since I live in California where the court system favors the mother. Child support and alimony payments will pretty much ruin any chance of a favorable retirement savings scenario.
This is a pretty good website describing family law in all 50 states. The California section is pretty sobering:
Real World Divorce: Custody, Child Support, and Alimony in the 50 States
This is a pretty good website describing family law in all 50 states. The California section is pretty sobering:
Real World Divorce: Custody, Child Support, and Alimony in the 50 States
Thefishguy77
New member
More like 100 years too late. It's only with modern medicine that so many "weak, injured" people survive. It's funny the liberal mentality is you need to keep advancing this type of care but at the same time the population is too high and needs to be reduced. Even though one directly combats the other.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-JD-
New member
I was referring specifically to the implementation and utilization of the healthcare system in single payer countries.
You seem to be speaking of some sort of general sense of how society is going and trying to use that to imply how it would possibly affect the healthcare system in the US should it be restructured into a single payer system.
One is based on actual real world implementation. The other, a baseless hypothetical.
Thefishguy77
New member
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2016/09/0...eaders-concerned-over-spraying-in-zika-fight/
Regardless of national funding for Zika spraying. It looks like it will be a fight in every major city.
Spraying has been postponed in Miami beach are due to protests.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Regardless of national funding for Zika spraying. It looks like it will be a fight in every major city.
Spraying has been postponed in Miami beach are due to protests.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thefishguy77
New member
http://www.judicialwatch.org/the-bl...-behavioral-experts-expand-use-govt-programs/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Victor_inox
New member
Point being?
nevada
Senior Member
yes, a general sense of how things would go, considering how they are CURRENTLY going. I don't think its too far fetched.
you are trying to compare the way things are in Canada, with the US. and telling me that your type of system WOULD work here, BECAUSE it works there. that is asinine. we are not Canada, you are not America.
just because something works one place, does not automatically mean it will work someplace else.
I have no idea how things are there, however I do know how they are here. I don't know your experience, but I would have to guess the same goes for you. so how is it that you can say it will work?
things are a MESS here with government programs. putting then in charge of yet another aspect of our lives, after they have proven countless times that cannot do the simplest of things would be disastrous.
furthermore, whether it works or not, we do not want it. we want to be in control of our own lives. pretty sure this country even exists in the first place because of that...
Thefishguy77
New member
JD.
You make your point of how a single payer system works there and that's good for Canada. Apparently you have a better more efficient more honest government. We here in America have a long history last 100 years of government not being able to manage even the simplest of tasks it has been charged with. There is a saying here that exist for a reason. "Put the American government in charge of the Sahara desert and in 5 years there would be a shortage of sand." I'm not saying your system doesn't work well for Canada but that's doesn't mean it will work well for America.
Maybe this will help explain it. San Fransisco spends 250 million dollars on homeless yearly. If they gave that same amount of money to the homeless people most of them would be homeless again in under 5 years. It's not because it's not enough money. It's because the homeless have a pattern of running their lives the way they do. Sure some would turn their lives around but most would be right back out on the streets.
We could tell our government what they are supposed to do. The Constitution actually clearly lays that out. But just because they have a written set of instructions and feed back from the voters at least every 2 years doesn't mean they will do it. As our current government demonstrates.
Do you understand why most of the voters on both sides of the aisle don't want this. Obama care is becoming less and less popular as the predicted rates are increasing and increasing and the choices of insurers is decreasing.
Edit: using the high homeless estimate number in San Fran the homeless are estimated to be at 7,500 so that works out to be 33,333.00 pre person. That's a medium income for a full time working American outside of a major high tech city. Yet the city government can't figure out why they are all homeless. Our city governments run just the same as our federal governments.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You make your point of how a single payer system works there and that's good for Canada. Apparently you have a better more efficient more honest government. We here in America have a long history last 100 years of government not being able to manage even the simplest of tasks it has been charged with. There is a saying here that exist for a reason. "Put the American government in charge of the Sahara desert and in 5 years there would be a shortage of sand." I'm not saying your system doesn't work well for Canada but that's doesn't mean it will work well for America.
Maybe this will help explain it. San Fransisco spends 250 million dollars on homeless yearly. If they gave that same amount of money to the homeless people most of them would be homeless again in under 5 years. It's not because it's not enough money. It's because the homeless have a pattern of running their lives the way they do. Sure some would turn their lives around but most would be right back out on the streets.
We could tell our government what they are supposed to do. The Constitution actually clearly lays that out. But just because they have a written set of instructions and feed back from the voters at least every 2 years doesn't mean they will do it. As our current government demonstrates.
Do you understand why most of the voters on both sides of the aisle don't want this. Obama care is becoming less and less popular as the predicted rates are increasing and increasing and the choices of insurers is decreasing.
Edit: using the high homeless estimate number in San Fran the homeless are estimated to be at 7,500 so that works out to be 33,333.00 pre person. That's a medium income for a full time working American outside of a major high tech city. Yet the city government can't figure out why they are all homeless. Our city governments run just the same as our federal governments.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Victor_inox
New member
What percentage of that $33.333 goes directly to homeless? I bet half of it stolen in between.
Federal government spent $54.000 or so to house one inmate in federal penitentiary. states vary from 3000 to 60000 Number may be slightly off but close enough. How many of those inmates would never go to prison if such money were given to them in one form or another?
Education, housing, healthcare?
Most of inmates doing crazy time for not violent offences. Incarceration increase recidivism rates. Impossibility to find a job after conviction is another factor for recidivism and homelessness.
who win in the process? society? hell no!Private companies who makes money on housing/guarding inmates.
Federal government spent $54.000 or so to house one inmate in federal penitentiary. states vary from 3000 to 60000 Number may be slightly off but close enough. How many of those inmates would never go to prison if such money were given to them in one form or another?
Education, housing, healthcare?
Most of inmates doing crazy time for not violent offences. Incarceration increase recidivism rates. Impossibility to find a job after conviction is another factor for recidivism and homelessness.
who win in the process? society? hell no!Private companies who makes money on housing/guarding inmates.
-JD-
New member
You've pretty much confessed your ignorance in this post. You have no idea how things work here.
I've been to the US. Lots.
Also, I'm not speaking only of Canada. Single payer healthcare systems exist in nearly every developed country besides the US, and they work. Have you ever visited any of these countries and experienced the systems there?
Again, you have no basis for your assumption on how things would work in the US. Some vague comparison to other government programs isn't really an apples to apples comparison. Nor is it even true that all government programs in the US dont work, or fail.
Thefishguy77
New member
That's making my point more that we can not trust the federal government to run a single payer system in health care. Any more than we can trust them to do the right thing with the criminal justice system.
As to your question regarding inmates we will never know. I am sure if we put that money towards education it would help some but I would be surprised if it did a large percentage. After all who you are is based on who your parents raised you to be. If they were absentee parents due to work or divorce or never married or jail then I doubt anything but education would possible help and usually that only helps if you have family there to encourage you to go get educated.
Crime usually starts at a young age. Not a choice a lot of adults go out and say. I'm sick of working think I'm going to be a criminal. As for other handouts at what point do we draw the line of your not teaching them to work your teaching them to put a handout.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-JD-
New member
No. It was the privatization of the system and the profit motive that has corrupted the criminal justice system. The same problem you have with healthcare costs.
- Status
Similar threads
