PDA

View Full Version : I guess a 'scandal' is in the eyes of the beholder



John Smith
04-30-2015, 08:43 AM
I think the following are scandals:

Too many in congress deny Climate Change for their own financial benefit.

We have to buy a ticket to get to the space station

Our infrastructure, once the envy of the world, continues to crumble.

We still don't provide healthcare for everyone.

There is no effort coming from congress to actually create good jobs and put Americans back to work.

College is too damned expensive.

There seems little in the way of non academic training for those other jobs that need to be done.

We simply fail to provide that opportunity we like to believe we provide.

We have plenty of money to give to our bloated military, but can't afford to feed hungry children, or educate them.

To me, these are the real scandals.

Gerarddm
04-30-2015, 09:49 AM
Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!


Bah. :-(

Canoeyawl
04-30-2015, 09:58 AM
I think the following are scandals:

Too many in congress deny Climate Change for their own financial benefit.

We have to buy a ticket to get to the space station

Our infrastructure, once the envy of the world, continues to crumble.

We still don't provide healthcare for everyone.

There is no effort coming from congress to actually create good jobs and put Americans back to work.

College is too damned expensive.

There seems little in the way of non academic training for those other jobs that need to be done.

We simply fail to provide that opportunity we like to believe we provide.

We have plenty of money to give to our bloated military, but can't afford to feed hungry children, or educate them.

To me, these are the real scandals.

Almost all of these could be "fixed" with tax increases.


Our for-profit prison system.

This one is more than a scandal. It is a disgusting abuse of power to imprison an impoverished populace to glean the pickings from their pockets.

Michael D. Storey
04-30-2015, 10:03 AM
I think the following are scandals:

Too many in congress deny Climate Change for their own financial benefit.

We have to buy a ticket to get to the space station

Our infrastructure, once the envy of the world, continues to crumble.

We still don't provide healthcare for everyone.

There is no effort coming from congress to actually create good jobs and put Americans back to work.

College is too damned expensive.

There seems little in the way of non academic training for those other jobs that need to be done.

We simply fail to provide that opportunity we like to believe we provide.

We have plenty of money to give to our bloated military, but can't afford to feed hungry children, or educate them.

To me, these are the real scandals.

Well said. There is no excuse, no explanation for any one of these issues.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-30-2015, 10:13 AM
".. in the eye of the beholder.."

In the Philippines, a "scandal" has a specialised meaning - it is a celebrity sex tape.

The ordinary meaning of the term "political scandal" has no relevance in a nation whose politics are those of "Game of Thrones", with added violence, played out on a set resembling the Constitution of the United States.

John Smith
04-30-2015, 11:44 AM
Well said. There is no excuse, no explanation for any one of these issues.

Yes, there is for many. People love tax cuts, even if they, themselves, won't see any. They vote for people who promise them. Norquist if already signing GOP candidates up for the pledge to not raise taxes.

CWSmith
04-30-2015, 11:51 AM
Taxes certainly would help to fix many of these scandals, but I don't think that it starts or stops there.

Universal health care may not cost more money in the long run for a nation that refuses to turn away the sick and uninsured. If we viewed ourselves as part of something bigger and thought it our job to look out for one another, we would have the will to fix this.

Likewise, better education in the trades would probably repay itself with better trained people doing better work.

And as for military spending vs "entitlement", well doesn't that obnoxious term speak for itself?

George Jung
04-30-2015, 12:37 PM
I believe you're giving too much credence to 'not enough money', when in fact the scoundrel is 'no political will'. These things are happening, or not, because of political philosophy. More money/taxes wouldn't affect that.

John Smith
04-30-2015, 12:50 PM
I believe you're giving too much credence to 'not enough money', when in fact the scoundrel is 'no political will'. These things are happening, or not, because of political philosophy. More money/taxes wouldn't affect that.

I disagree. There has been a concerted effort to cut taxes by the GOP since Reagan. We can look at periods of time when this country did well, pretty much everyone. Taxes were higher.

We now live in a deceitful concept that we can cut taxes and balance the budget. We cannot pay off a $17 trillion debt with cuts in a $3.5 trillion annual budget.

We also have many who believe all spending is equal. It is not. There is a difference between simply spending and investing in the nation's future. Pricing "opportunity' out of reach of more and more young people does not bode well for the future of this country. Investing in their future would make far more sense.

Look around: More and more states are passing laws cutting access to abortion/contraception, creating more poor children. Meanwhile, the same people are cutting programs that help to raise/educate these kids. It makes no sense.

To many, it is more important that the gay couple down the street can't get married than whether or not they can find decent jobs.

George Jung
04-30-2015, 02:01 PM
Perhaps you didn't notice, but... you agreed with me, at least in part.

It's not a 'shortage of money', even with our current tax mess; it's 'priorities' (we still spend, what, 4% of GDP on military, more than anyone else), as well as what those Who Can do/don't want done with our tax dollars.

Keith Wilson
04-30-2015, 02:09 PM
Universal health care may not cost more money in the long run for a nation that refuses to turn away the sick and uninsured. The fact that it costs about half as much in every other civilized country as it does here should tell us something.

WszystekPoTrochu
04-30-2015, 02:10 PM
"they" do something wrong -> outrageous scandal
"we" do something wrong -> a minor event exposed in a purely political attack

CWSmith
04-30-2015, 03:21 PM
We now live in a deceitful concept that we can cut taxes and balance the budget. We cannot pay off a $17 trillion debt with cuts in a $3.5 trillion annual budget.

And for some inexplicable reason, we keep falling deeper into debt with the only solution being to cut taxes even more.

You have to admire faith in one's convictions, or do you?

John Smith
04-30-2015, 05:36 PM
And for some inexplicable reason, we keep falling deeper into debt with the only solution being to cut taxes even more.

You have to admire faith in one's convictions, or do you?

There are some accepted beliefs that continue to be accepted in spite of evidence. Cutting taxes for the wealthy does not create jobs, although an awful lot of people continue to believe it does. Raising the minimum wage does not cost jobs; it creates jobs, but an awful lot of people believe it costs jobs.

I cannot understand how people who are concerned with deficit spending worship Reagan. If tripling our debt was a bad thing, his years in office can not have been good, but many people believe both.

Greed and selfishness contribute to our problems. I like paved roads. I like my garbage and bulky waste collected. I don't mind paying my property taxes where I am because the services are good. Back in Montclair, service was very bad, and taxes were very high.

I also think a lot of people look at how dysfunctional congress is and view that as how our government works. A lot of government agencies work pretty well. Medicare is not dysfunctional. Social Security is not dysfunctional. If they suffer budget cuts they may become dysfunctional.

We like to say we lead the world. We should all give some thought to what we actually do lead the world in. It's not something to be proud of.

CWSmith
04-30-2015, 06:09 PM
There are some accepted beliefs that continue to be accepted in spite of evidence.

Two decades of bad judgement have produced a lot of people who single-source their information. From there, you could send them real estate on the moon.

The congress is currently trying to cut support for the geosciences and global climate in particular. Knowledge is dangerous.

John Smith
04-30-2015, 08:57 PM
Two decades of bad judgement have produced a lot of people who single-source their information. From there, you could send them real estate on the moon.

The congress is currently trying to cut support for the geosciences and global climate in particular. Knowledge is dangerous.

I'd say lack of knowledge is dangerous. More dangerous is that which you know which is simply wrong. The problem with money in politics is it has no obligation to provide accurate data. We accept it being used to spread lies as free speech, and we do so at great risk.

I truly believe if we had laws requiring politicians and their designees, news outlets, political ads, etc. to get matters of fact correct, the money wouldn't matter as much.

tomlarkin
05-01-2015, 12:05 AM
We have to buy a ticket to get to the space station

I thought for a second that you were advocating free trips to the space station for anyone who asked.

skuthorp
05-01-2015, 05:23 AM
#15 and #17 from John Smith.
Exactly John.
If it wasn't for our incredibly efficient breeding mechanism I doubt we'd still be here. And maybe we won't.

John Smith
05-01-2015, 10:51 AM
We get distracted. We get lied to. We accept myths as fact. Our media is of little help.

I seem to be the only one in the country that remembers the events of 2002 leading up to the Iraq war. In Oct. the senate passed a congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force, if necessary, to insure Saddam had now weapons in violation of UN resolutions. That's all it was.

In Nov., the UN Security Council unanimously passed a resolution supporting this. Following those two resolutions SADDAM CAVED and granted the UN weapons inspectors access he had been denying.

Hillary's own words in her floor speech, as her first reason for her vote for that resolution expressed the hope that it would force Saddam to grant that access, and the inspectors could then disarm him of any weapons he wasn't supposed to have without the need of the military.

It was BUSH who denied them the extra time once they had the access. I'm sure many voted in hopes of avoiding what seemed an inevitable war. Once the inspectors got access, military action was NOT necessary.

It was also BUSH who changed the objective from 'disarming' Saddam to 'removing' Saddam. That's wen UN support disappeared. We got angry and had "Freedom Fries".

As a nation, we've forgotten most of this, and we've come to accept a vote for that resolution as support for the war.

Shame on us. I think this is a scandal.

CWSmith
05-01-2015, 11:44 AM
Shame on us. I think this is a scandal.

Well, we paid for it in money and blood as did others. The bigger question might be why have we not learned the lesson? It's going on now in our congress over Iran.

John Smith
05-01-2015, 12:09 PM
Well, we paid for it in money and blood as did others. The bigger question might be why have we not learned the lesson? It's going on now in our congress over Iran.

In part because no one has been held accountable. We've done things we like to brag we don't do. We'll continue to brag that we don't do them. We still think we wear the white hats. How many from Wall Street have been held accountable?

Congress may be getting involved over an agreement with Iran, which is, according to the constitution, strictly within the province of the Executive branch, unlike a treaty that congress would have to ratify. Meanwhile, as we send machines and advisors into battle zones, and we make air strikes, congress refuses to weigh in, which IS THEIR JOB.

I saw a clip last night on arguments against gay marriage being presented before the Supreme Court. One argument was gay marriage will lead to 900,000 abortions over the next decade.

What does it say that a professional attorney can argue such nonsense to our highest court. What does it say if the court buys this garbage?

We've all seen polls over the last few years that show people who don't like Obamacare tend to like the ACA. They also like the individual pieces that make up Obamacare. How is it possible that they don't know the thing/s they like is/are Obamacare? That's the power of continually spreading misinformation.

A deep question: Cheney has been wrong every time he's opened his mouth. Why do people still listen?

CWSmith
05-01-2015, 01:18 PM
I saw a clip last night on arguments against gay marriage being presented before the Supreme Court. One argument was gay marriage will lead to 900,000 abortions over the next decade.

The guy was a dork. When his "marriage is for procreation" argument came back at him with a "what about a 70's couple that marries late in life" his reply was "well, the man can still father children". Dork.

Believe me, most people are laughing at this one. Even our ultra-conservative and highly partisan Supreme Court won't vote to ban gay marriage now. Some will vote for it, but I'll be shocked and very disappointed if it's a majority.

WI-Tom
05-01-2015, 04:43 PM
Even our ultra-conservative and highly partisan Supreme Court won't vote to ban gay marriage now. Some will vote for it, but I'll be shocked and very disappointed if it's a majority.

Sad to say, I won't be shocked. I think it's more likely they do CYA move by leaving gay marriage up to individual states than banning it outright. If they do, it'll be a shameful case of institutionalized discrimination. But I'm afraid they will...

Tom

John Smith
05-01-2015, 05:01 PM
The guy was a dork. When his "marriage is for procreation" argument came back at him with a "what about a 70's couple that marries late in life" his reply was "well, the man can still father children". Dork.

Believe me, most people are laughing at this one. Even our ultra-conservative and highly partisan Supreme Court won't vote to ban gay marriage now. Some will vote for it, but I'll be shocked and very disappointed if it's a majority.

I wouldn't bet a nickel on what this court will do. The fact that amendments have been brought up to make same sex marriage unconstitutional tells me it IS constitutional. That should make it a 9 - 0 decision. But this court is apt to do anything and may well decide on ideology rather than law.

John Smith
05-01-2015, 05:02 PM
Sad to say, I won't be shocked. I think it's more likely they do CYA move by leaving gay marriage up to individual states than banning it outright. If they do, it'll be a shameful case of institutionalized discrimination. But I'm afraid they will...

Tom

then they will have to address the question of one state recognizing a marriage from another state. Another "Pandora's" box.