Kawasaki Concours Forum
Mish mash => Open Forum => Topic started by: Conrad on December 27, 2016, 05:58:35 AM
-
People are getting less and less intelligent.
Spearheading the stupidity are the teenagers of the United States.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/27/us/mall-disturbances-after-christmas/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/27/us/mall-disturbances-after-christmas/index.html)
CNN) — Disturbances that included gunfire, massive brawls and food-court fights played out at more than a dozen malls across the country in what proved to be a chaotic day after Christmas.
The disturbances, some of which were captured on social media, prevented some shoppers from clearing off clearance racks and returning Christmas gifts as they intended.
The mall incidents, which ranged from minor melees to mass evacuations, occurred nationwide from Colorado to Tennessee, Texas to New Jersey. Here's what happened at six of those malls.
Aurora, Colorado
It all started with a social media post that promised a fight at the Town Center at Aurora.
Aurora Police Department spokesman Sgt. Chris Amsler said about 100 people had gathered in the food court before the brawls broke out -- prompting the Colorado mall to close early on Monday afternoon..
"(It) kind of morphed into this large disturbance," Amsler said.
When off-duty police officers working as security guards tried to break up a fight, people circled the officers, who called for backup, Amsler said.
As police officers on duty arrived, fights broke out throughout the mall, at a movie theater and at a nearby park-and-ride lot, he said.
He estimated 500 people were involved. Authorities arrested five people, all juveniles, and recovered no weapons, he said. One person assaulted at the park-and-ride lot suffered "significant" injuries and was taken to a hospital, Amsler said.
Memphis, Tennessee
In Memphis, Tennessee, seven people were arrested after incidents at two malls, CNN affiliate WMCA reported.
Police said a group started a disturbance in the Wolfchase Galleria food court and started running, which prompted some customers to call 911, WMCA said.
Then a crowd gathered outside Oak Court Mall, about 10 miles west, and started a disturbance, WMCA said. Both malls were cleared and closed early for the night.
Fayetteville, North Carolina
In Fayetteville, North Carolina, people panicked after teenagers fought in the food court, Fayetteville police spokesman Shawn Strepay told CNN affiliate WRAL. No shots were fired, despite reports of gunfire, Strepay said.
"Once people start running in that area or chairs are getting knocked over, tables, that sort of thing, that echoes and it could resemble the sound of a gunshot to a lot of people," he said.
Elizabeth, New Jersey
The first calls from the The Mills at Jersey Gardens came in just after nightfall Monday. Witnesses said they thought they had heard shots fired. That, along with a fight, led to what Elizabeth police Officer Greg Jones described as a "chaotic panic and everybody running all at once."
Ultimately, though, patrons had mistaken the sound of a chair slammed during a fight for gunfire, city officials told CNN affiliate News 12 New Jersey. Two people, an 8-year-old and 12-year-old, were injured, the station reported.
Fort Worth, Texas
The security guards had no other choice but to place the Hulen Mall on lockdown. At one point, police told CNN affiliate KTVT, at least 100 people were involved in a series of fights.
Fort Worth Police spokeswoman Tamara Velle said officers initially responded to reported gunfire inside the mall. After breaking up the fights, officers stopped by each store to let people leave while the lockdown remained in effect, KTVT reported.
There were no reported injures or property damage -- thanks in large part to local police, Kelle said.
"You keep hearing the horror stories of the mall shootings across the nations right now," Velle told KTVT. "Anytime we're hearing about a mall shooting and it's the day after Christmas, (where) you have tons of people holiday shopping ... we're going to get in there as fast as we can."
-
Reinstate the draft.
-
Reinstate the draft.
I'm ALL for that! Either that or some kind of forced public service. Kids these days need some structure and discipline, it seems that a LOT of parents aren't giving this to them.
-
Children fight in the food court, and they shut the mall down? An 8 and 12 YO arrested? ::)
Every news story has an agenda... ::)
-
Everybody's afraid of a shootout.
-
Children fight in the food court, and they shut the mall down? An 8 and 12 YO arrested? ::)
Every news story has an agenda... ::)
The 8 & 12 yr old were injured, not arrested.
-
I figured I read through it too fast. ;D
-
I agree with reinstating the draft. And for girls too. I c all it equal rights have equal responsabilities.
Bob Skinner
-
The draft has been used only 5 times in the past, and each was during a war (or war-like conflict)- Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam. It was only needed as a measure to obtain necessary personnel for the actual fighting of the war. I am guessing there would be no purpose in a draft in a non-wartime.
Not everyone is cut out for military-type service, and certainly not everyone requires military service in order to be a responsible, organized, or disciplined person. But many young people do need something productive to fill their time, especially when the traditional family unit is so horribly broken (seems to be almost the norm now).
-
How about two years mandatory military service for everyone upon graduation from HS, or age 18 if you aren't going to school? College bound kids can start at 20, after their military service has ended. They'd probably be better students that way.
-
I prefer two years military or government service after primary schooling. Some people just can't handle military discipline.
We need some way to re-instill patriotism in our young-ins.
I also like 16 years of (free) public education, with the following two years of government service. Anyone who drops out of school still must serve the remainder of the 16 year time plus the two years in military/government service. This would be an incentive to stay in school.
Bob Skinner
-
Not to split hairs here but I have an aversion to 'government service'. I'm tired of bending over and servicing the government every time the tax collector comes around. Maybe 'community service'?
-
I'm with you on that one, Gary.
I had a good buddy that was a Sergeant Major in the Army. His wife worked a govt job that gave waivers to people that couldn't enlist normally due to all kinds of reasons. Ironically, he would wash them out after a few weeks. I thought this hilarious of course. He wanted me to join up and kept bothering me to do it. I finally said, you've known me long enough do you really think it would work out? He said no. Seems I have issues with authority figures...especially ones I think that are stupid.
-
Cuda,
Trying to figure out what your statement had to do at all with the current conversation?
-
How about two years mandatory military service for everyone upon graduation from HS, or age 18 if you aren't going to school? College bound kids can start at 20, after their military service has ended. They'd probably be better students that way.
I like this idea but there would need to be an option of military service or some type of public service. As others has said, not everyone could make it through military service.
I spent 4 years in the Army after graduating HS. I would have never made it through college if I had gone to school right after HS. I lacked the discipline needed to make it through college then.
-
Don't worry It's just the Trump effect
You can say anything, do anything , demean everyone , it's OK :)
It's the new normal.
Sounds like fun....you up first?
-
Don't worry It's just the Trump effect
You can say anything, do anything , demean everyone , it's OK :)
It's the new normal.
Sounds like fun....you up first?
Not here, please. Take it to the Arena boys. I'm sure it will be fully appreciated there.
-
I thought the way Heinlein postulated in his book "Starship Troopers" was interesting..
There were 2 levels of citizenship - One by birth, and a higher level you earned by military or Govt service - the higher level entitled you to vote, and hold government office, among other things..
That meant, he said, that the people who determined who that gov't was, were the same people who understood what the government did and didn't do, and knew the value of "good" government...
Neat premise, but it'd never fly.
Jamie
-
Not here, please. Take it to the Arena boys. I'm sure it will be fully appreciated there.
We're always open. :)
-
I thought the way Heinlein postulated in his book "Starship Troopers" was interesting..
There were 2 levels of citizenship - One by birth, and a higher level you earned by military or Govt service - the higher level entitled you to vote, and hold government office, among other things..
That meant, he said, that the people who determined who that gov't was, were the same people who understood what the government did and didn't do, and knew the value of "good" government...
Neat premise, but it'd never fly.
Jamie
It's that part about privilege by birth that won't fly. We've got enough of that already.
-
I thought the way Heinlein postulated in his book "Starship Troopers" was interesting..
There were 2 levels of citizenship - One by birth, and a higher level you earned by military or Govt service - the higher level entitled you to vote, and hold government office, among other things..
That meant, he said, that the people who determined who that gov't was, were the same people who understood what the government did and didn't do, and knew the value of "good" government...
Neat premise, but it'd never fly.
Nope. Kinda like I wish people that were on aid and not paying taxes shouldn't be able to vote during those periods- it is a conflict of interest to be able to just vote in whatever will keep paying for you to take everyone else's money! Of course, that kind of stuff could be abused (and has been in the past).
-
Nope. Kinda like I wish people that were on aid and not paying taxes shouldn't be able to vote during those periods- it is a conflict of interest to be able to just vote in whatever will keep paying for you to take everyone else's money! Of course, that kind of stuff could be abused (and has been in the past).
Sounds like government employees unions. ::)
-
Don't worry It's just the Trump effect
You can say anything, do anything , demean everyone , it's OK :)
It's the new normal.
The events cited by the OP could just be the last hurrah for mayhem before the "law & order" Prez gets inaugurated on 1/20. The next 4 - 8 years could be interesting sociological times. :banana
-
I thought the way Heinlein postulated in his book "Starship Troopers" was interesting..
There were 2 levels of citizenship - One by birth, and a higher level you earned by military or Govt service - the higher level entitled you to vote, and hold government office, among other things..
That meant, he said, that the people who determined who that gov't was, were the same people who understood what the government did and didn't do, and knew the value of "good" government...
Neat premise, but it'd never fly.
Jamie
It's that part about privilege by birth that won't fly. We've got enough of that already.
I didn't read the book but what I got from Jamie's post was that there were ONLY two levels. One, the lower level, was at birth. The second and higher level was only reachable by government or military service.
I like this idea a lot.
-
I might be misunderstanding....been known to happen. ::)
-
Sounds like government employees unions. ::)
As a proud former member, I would like to point out that they serve a useful purpose for the public as well as the members. Since there is no bottom line for management to worry about in Government, they come up with lots of screwy ideas, most of them costly. Surprisingly many would show up about a year after they were made fun of in Dilbert. We would often joke about Dilbert being management's primer. The public (and congress) rarely see this stuff if the unions don't bring it to light. Yes there is some protectionism in the unions ranks, but when there is no bottom line to worry about, management tends to think less about who are the most productive employees, and more about the ones that cause the least amount of problems for themselves. If you think government is unproductive now, you would be shocked at how little would get done without unions. I never once saw a management idea for a proficiency program, it was always the union that wanted one. Management was only interested in proficiency after an employee screwed something up so they could say they took action (with that one employee) then once that box is checked they turn right back to minimizing their own work load instead of coming up with a plan to prevent future screw ups.
OK, I've vented now.
-
I fid it odd that unions by and large embrace government yet government hasthe most unionized employees.
If hovt is so loved why do they need unions? For that matter why do union employees have a union?
-
I prefer two years military or government service after primary schooling. Some people just can't handle military discipline.
We need some way to re-instill patriotism in our young-ins.
I also like 16 years of (free) public education, with the following two years of government service. Anyone who drops out of school still must serve the remainder of the 16 year time plus the two years in military/government service. This would be an incentive to stay in school.
Bob Skinner
I'm sorry, Bob, but there is no such thing as "FREE" public education. I think asking the taxpayers (I definitely am one) to pay for 12 years of that is plenty, especially since there are many that won't benefit from any more "learning" anyway. To me, college is for those that want to actually take on an occupation that needs/requires the additional education. We don't need to be sending kids to college just to get a degree in something that isn't marketable. We have too many philosophy, general studies, art history, etc. students out there already that can't use their degree to get a paying job.
I do like the "if you drop out, just add those years to your other service" part of that. Just make that after 13 years (K-12).
Ok, ready to accept stones being tossed at me.
-
[...]Ok, ready to accept stones being tossed at me.
I won't be one of them. Nothing is free, and not everyone can benefit from higher education any more than everyone could benefit from military service. There is no magic regimen that will work for creating decent people and citizens out of everyone. The human condition is so much more complicated.
-
I'm sorry, Bob, but there is no such thing as "FREE" public education. I think asking the taxpayers (I definitely am one) to pay for 12 years of that is plenty, especially since there are many that won't benefit from any more "learning" anyway. To me, college is for those that want to actually take on an occupation that needs/requires the additional education. We don't need to be sending kids to college just to get a degree in something that isn't marketable. We have too many philosophy, general studies, art history, etc. students out there already that can't use their degree to get a paying job.
I do like the "if you drop out, just add those years to your other service" part of that. Just make that after 13 years (K-12).
Ok, ready to accept stones being tossed at me.
No stones being tossed here either. I agree completely.
-
If you want our kids to compete in the world of open trading then you better find a way to get them some more education. We're ranked in the lower one half worldwide towards educating our young.
For the kids who don't want 16 years of education, they can drop out just like they're doing today. But with this plan they have some "government payback" time.
I don't want the US to fall any closer towards being a third-world country.
-
The fedgov education system has worked exactly as planned.
-
Quote from: wally_games on Yesterday at 01:26:54 pm
I'm sorry, Bob, but there is no such thing as "FREE" public education. I think asking the taxpayers (I definitely am one) to pay for 12 years of that is plenty, especially since there are many that won't benefit from any more "learning" anyway. To me, college is for those that want to actually take on an occupation that needs/requires the additional education. We don't need to be sending kids to college just to get a degree in something that isn't marketable. We have too many philosophy, general studies, art history, etc. students out there already that can't use their degree to get a paying job.
I do like the "if you drop out, just add those years to your other service" part of that. Just make that after 13 years (K-12).
Ok, ready to accept stones being tossed at me.
No stones being tossed here either. I agree completely.
+2
-
My thoughts are that too many embrace the 'need a college degree' mentality. No one knows how to do things anymore. I'd rather we focus more on trade schools and teach young people something useful than give them useless degrees. We're approaching a point where a degree means nothing anymore.
-
....but....but....that would mean fewer snowflakes. Whatever would we do?
-
...especially since there are many that won't benefit from any more "learning" anyway. To me, college is for those that want to actually take on an occupation that needs/requires the additional education. We don't need to be sending kids to college just to get a degree in something that isn't marketable. We have too many philosophy, general studies, art history, etc. students out there already that can't use their degree to get a paying job...
At the risk of sounding almost "1984ish", why not make only the "useful" education tracks free - and have the students need to maintain a certain level of competence to avoid having to repay their tuition costs (whether in $ or in time spent in service)... No more degrees that are only useful to propagating that particular subject... For example - I know someone who received a doctorate in Medieval English. They are now a tenured professor teaching Medieval English. I wouldn't go so far as to state that that particular subject is totally useless, but the argument could be made that it really doesn't benefit society at large very much... And there are a whole whack of subjects to which the exact same paradigm could be applied.
I do like the "if you drop out, just add those years to your other service" part of that. Just make that after 13 years (K-12).
I like this idea, but would add "higher education" (i.e. university, college or trade school) with the caveat that the education would have to be deemed beneficial by some more measurable process...
I turned down a music scholarship, not because I didn't like the subject... I just couldn't see how I'd be able to support myself (and a family) with that as a career... Obviously any successful rock star would disagree...
And while we're fixing the world ???, make receiving welfare (and I don't mean to make that sound uniformly derogatory - some people have actually earned it...) a little less acceptable. In the neighbourhood I grew up in, there were many 3rd or 4th generation "welfare families" that had absolutely no real incentive to get out of the program. My family worked hard to not be 'on the dole', and sometimes made do with less than the families on the program were receiving. It's hard to make someone want to work when it's given to them for free.
Way back when.., I was a full-time student with a full-time night job - worked 8hrs, went to school for 6hrs, and slept and did homework the other 10hrs. My marks might have been better if I didn't have to work, but that's how I afforded tuition.
It really ticked me off when I followed somebody that I knew had never held a job, or gone to school, through the supermarket with pasta and bread and other minimum staples in my cart, while they had cheese, steak and snack food in theirs... All the foods I only saw on trips home for holiday dinners...
Sigh, and now my kids ask for Kraft dinner (that's boxed mac and cheese for my American friends.)...
+1
Jamie
-
And while we're fixing the world ???, make receiving welfare (and I don't mean to make that sound uniformly derogatory - some people have actually earned it...) a little less acceptable.
And that won't happen until it becomes a little less acceptable for unwed "children" having children. Because currently you can't punish/correct the parent(s) without it punishing the children. The "solutions" are harsh and will never be acceptable- such as saying "sure, you can have welfare, but only if you get forced birth control and we take away the children you already have."
-
Maybe have to work for it?
Silly me.... work for welfare?
-
Maybe have to work for it?
Silly me.... work for welfare?
Same problem. So they don't work and then what- you can't turn off the money because it will hurt "save the children." They really are a key complicating factor... Not the only one, but the most important for sure.
-
And that won't happen until it becomes a little less acceptable for unwed "children" having children. Because currently you can't punish/correct the parent(s) without it punishing the children. The "solutions" are harsh and will never be acceptable- such as saying "sure, you can have welfare, but only if you get forced birth control and we take away the children you already have."
Here's your statistics on births to unwed mothers. 40% . Draw your own conclusions.
http://www.childtrends.org/indicators/births-to-unmarried-women/# (http://www.childtrends.org/indicators/births-to-unmarried-women/#)
-
Here's your statistics on births to unwed mothers. 40% . Draw your own conclusions.
Wow, that is even more than what I thought it was. Look at what has happened in just our lifetimes (well, some of us, anyway... I didn't see that first metric, myself):
1960 5%
1970 11%
1980 18%
1990 28%
2000 32%
2010 41%
Births to unwed non-hispanic-black mothers was a jaw-dropping 73% in 2010.
-
And that won't happen until it becomes a little less acceptable for unwed "children" having children. Because currently you can't punish/correct the parent(s) without it punishing the children. The "solutions" are harsh and will never be acceptable- such as saying "sure, you can have welfare, but only if you get forced birth control and we take away the children you already have."
...you can't turn off the money because it will hurt "save the children."...
Yup. And then it'll be the fault of those trying to "fix" the problem, not those causing it. Same old, same old...
Certainly a problem with no easy solution... As much a psychological issue as a financial one when you get right down to it. How do you change the mindset of any group that has been conditioned to "adopt" a "successful" way of earning getting enough money to live on with little or no effort? It's that whole "attitude of entitlement" thing... They've learned to think that they 'deserve' it. And we (well, not we personally, but as a society) have done little concrete to disabuse them of the notion.
Not sure if/when it'll happen, but someday the welfare program might bankrupt the providers to the point where it'll have to be discontinued. Can't imagine what'd happen then... Or don't want to imagine it anyway. It wouldn't be good.
(And just to be clear, I'm not picking on unwed mothers or any particular racial group. The issue might be more prevalent is some sections of society, but certainly happens outside those groups as well. I'm an equal opportunity complainer.)
Jamie
-
Yup. And then it'll be the fault of those trying to "fix" the problem, not those causing it. Same old, same old...
Certainly a problem with no easy solution... As much a psychological issue as a financial one when you get right down to it. How do you change the mindset of any group that has been conditioned to "adopt" a "successful" way of earning getting enough money to live on with little or no effort? It's that whole "attitude of entitlement" thing... They've learned to think that they 'deserve' it. And we (well, not we personally, but as a society) have done little concrete to disabuse them of the notion.
Not sure if/when it'll happen, but someday the welfare program might bankrupt the providers to the point where it'll have to be discontinued. Can't imagine what'd happen then... Or don't want to imagine it anyway. It wouldn't be good.
(And just to be clear, I'm not picking on unwed mothers or any particular racial group. The issue might be more prevalent is some sections of society, but certainly happens outside those groups as well. I'm an equal opportunity complainer.)
Jamie
There's been a plan for that for some time....
Cloward–Piven strategy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".
If for some reason you want to read more... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy
-
There's been a plan for that for some time....
Cloward–Piven strategy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty distributing poverty equally to everyone"[/b.
If for some reason you want to read more... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy
FIFY
-
You should make that correction on Wiki.... :thumbs:
-
Hmmmm....
So let me paraphrase what I just read... (admittedly my point of view may be slanted somewhat, never having received any monies from the government that I didn't either give them ahead of time, or was expected to pay back..)
"We'll tax the people that make more than a certain arbitrary minimum income (that work hard for what they're getting), to establish a fund, or pool or money, which we will then give to the people that aren't earning enough to meet a the same arbitrary minimum income, and this will (magically) eliminate poverty." (Italics are me just being sarcastically dumbfounded...)
Now, lets set this arbitrary minimum at 25k (for lack of a better number to play with, that's about double the US poverty line about half the US median wage)
Let's also assume that someone (say middle-lower class income) is making 40k, working 40 hours a week (still less than the median), trying to save some for retirement, and paying work related costs (transportation, clothing, daycare, etc.) Why wouldn't they just take the 25k, and not worry about those costs, or working, or retirement (since it goes on forever, maybe called something else in their old age...)
How is that different from what we have? Except that unemployed Moe would get a little more, and maybe Larry and Curly would see the irony of working to make just a little more than what they'd give them anyway? How could that possibly positively affect society? I can see producers and retailers having to pay higher wages, since there'd need to be higher incentive to work, driving up costs of goods and services, necessitating an increase in the arbitrary minimum income, causing producers and retailers to have to pay higher wages, since there'd need to be higher incentive to work, driving up costs of goods and services, necessitating an increase in the arbitrary minimum income, causing.. well you see how it might go...
It boils back down to attitude and work ethic. You're taxing the (comparatively) rich, and giving it to the poor. Reminds me of the 60s protests that (maybe tongue in cheek) said Eat The Rich.
Ten Years After said it 45 years ago : "Tax the rich, feed the poor, till there are no rich no more" but I don't think they envisioned a world where we were all equally poor...
Jamie
(I think I should probably bow out of this conversation... It's cutting into my work time, as well as having a negative effect on my blood pressure... :( )
-
Is this your 'aha' moment with the twisted 'logic' of the Amerikan left?
-
Related to my original post.
After a huge brawl last week, the Fox Valley Mall in Aurora (IL) is implementing a new policy banning unescorted teenagers on designated high-traffic days. Mall managers say that on days the Parental Escort Policy is in effect, no one under 18 will be admitted unless accompanied by someone 21 or older.
Each adult must show identification and can supervise up to four young people. The move comes after a brawl on the day after Christmas when some 75 police officers were called to break up a large fight that resulted in eight arrests.
-
Is this your 'aha' moment with the twisted 'logic' of the Amerikan left?
Not the first, though I'd never heard of the Cloward–Piven strategy before. I like the first half of their idea, the one aout overloading and then scrapping the current welfare system. Just not too happy with what they plan to replace it with.
Left is Left anywhere. I don't think your 'left' is as bad as some I read aout around the world... France comes to mind...
In Canada, our Liberal party is slightly more left than your Democrats, I think. Although it may just seem like that since there are fewer protesters...
And then there's the NDP. Waaayyy left in most of their policies...
But I guess that Canada generally is a little less on the 'right' end of the political spectrum than y'all.
Jamie
-
Related to my original post.
After a huge brawl last week, the Fox Valley Mall in Aurora (IL) is implementing a new policy banning unescorted teenagers on designated high-traffic days. Mall managers say that on days the Parental Escort Policy is in effect, no one under 18 will be admitted unless accompanied by someone 21 or older.
Each adult must show identification and can supervise up to four young people. The move comes after a brawl on the day after Christmas when some 75 police officers were called to break up a large fight that resulted in eight arrests.
Sorry - got way off topic there...
Though I don't blame the malls for their policies, it's a shame that innocents have to be affected by the actions of the "mob" of miscreants that caused this...
Jamie
-
Sorry - got way off topic there...
Though I don't blame the malls for their policies, it's a shame that innocents have to be affected by the actions of the "mob" of miscreants that caused this...
Jamie
No apology needed. I've been enjoying the direction of this thread. If one can enjoy such a thing that is. ;)
-
Not as bad as watching a kidnapping and torture so enjoy away. :)
-
Related to my original post.
After a huge brawl last week, the Fox Valley Mall in Aurora (IL) is implementing a new policy banning unescorted teenagers on designated high-traffic days. Mall managers say that on days the Parental Escort Policy is in effect, no one under 18 will be admitted unless accompanied by someone 21 or older.
Each adult must show identification and can supervise up to four young people. The move comes after a brawl on the day after Christmas when some 75 police officers were called to break up a large fight that resulted in eight arrests.
Same thing happened here in Cleveland last week.... only there were almost 500 kids involved in the "flash mob", same rules are being implemented also, I say simply take every cell phone from every kid you grab, and smash it so social media can disperse its own demise....
It seems to all stem from kids making these plans on line....
-
Though I don't blame the malls for their policies, it's a shame that innocents have to be affected by the actions of the "mob" of miscreants that caused this...
That is the truth with just about everything in modern "society." Everything gets dumbed-down and restricted to the least-common-denominator. Can be very frustrating. And when we treat people like that (remove rights, treat them as irresponsible, don't allow failure), they tend to continue to act like children forever because they aren't EXPECTED to act properly anymore.
-
If they want to fight and brawl...well....let them.
The next giant sports stadium that come up for demolition because it is outdated should instead be turned into a Coliseum in the old Roman sense. Everybody who wants to brawl gets tossed in.
Oh, but there won't be any tax-payer supported medical facilites. Survivors are on their own.
Oh, wait didn't they make that movie already?
-
http://youtu.be/pmRAiUPdRjk (http://youtu.be/pmRAiUPdRjk)
-
I really can't believe you all think that it's the people on welfare that make your taxes "too high"...
The budget is like Thanksgiving dinner. Three HUGE portions of Turkey, Stuffing, and Mashed potatoes, with 3 little peas and 1 slice of carrot.
(Social Security, Military Spending and Medicare/Medicaid being the big three, with everything else being the peas and carrot.)
Exactly why do we need to have a military that we spend more than the next 9 countries combined?
Didn't D.D. Eisenhower really warn us to beware the military/industrial complex in the late 50's? If you aren't going to fight a war to win, why bother being a glorified police force? (we haven't tried to win since 1945)
Social Security was never intended to replace employer defined benefits retirement and personal savings. It was intended to prevent old people from dying in abject poverty. Not as a method used to play for another 30 years. (or in the case of disability insurance, make up for outsourcing, automation, and general unemployment.)
But blaming welfare is myopic and fails to address the real elephants in the room. Just saying...
-
The more general word is 'entitlements', which are basically contracts that were entered into with fixed input / output but a changing population has made them untenable.
As far as the military goes, I believe you have to think of it differently now than before the end of WWII. Today, military power along with economic presence and stability are used as tools to gain international influence, not win outright, full scale wars. So the real question becomes, at least in my mind, is how much are we spending on, for example, the military, and what are we getting back for that expense? It is a complex question but it shows up pretty readily in places like gasoline stations; ask any European what gasoline costs them and then try to balance that against our military cost (and I am including death and injury in the word 'cost'). And the really ironic part of all of this is that we are spending a HUGE sum of money on items that we will not / can not use; that is basically what caused, or at least really fueled, WWI: countries had so much of their GDP tied up in arms that would 'go bad' (become obsolete, actually deteriorate and so forth) that had to join in the war to have their previous couple of decade expenditures work for them.
Then again, I think things are really pretty good, at least in the first- world. Each decade since the industrial revolution has seen our average amount of work going down with our average consumption rising; in fact in the last 100 years or so, skyrocketing. I mean c'mon, heated clothing for motorcycles really sucked before the 1970s (it was called more thermal underwear and gritted teeth). ;D
Brian
I really can't believe you all think that it's the people on welfare that make your taxes "too high"...
The budget is like Thanksgiving dinner. Three HUGE portions of Turkey, Stuffing, and Mashed potatoes, with 3 little peas and 1 slice of carrot.
(Social Security, Military Spending and Medicare/Medicaid being the big three, with everything else being the peas and carrot.)
Exactly why do we need to have a military that we spend more than the next 9 countries combined?
Didn't D.D. Eisenhower really warn us to beware the military/industrial complex in the late 50's? If you aren't going to fight a war to win, why bother being a glorified police force? (we haven't tried to win since 1945)
Social Security was never intended to replace employer defined benefits retirement and personal savings. It was intended to prevent old people from dying in abject poverty. Not as a method used to play for another 30 years. (or in the case of disability insurance, make up for outsourcing, automation, and general unemployment.)
But blaming welfare is myopic and fails to address the real elephants in the room. Just saying...
-
I believe my taxes are to high but I'd rather feed a soldier than a pos hoodrat bum.
I really can't believe you all think that it's the people on welfare that make your taxes "too high"...
The budget is like Thanksgiving dinner. Three HUGE portions of Turkey, Stuffing, and Mashed potatoes, with 3 little peas and 1 slice of carrot.
(Social Security, Military Spending and Medicare/Medicaid being the big three, with everything else being the peas and carrot.)
Exactly why do we need to have a military that we spend more than the next 9 countries combined?
Didn't D.D. Eisenhower really warn us to beware the military/industrial complex in the late 50's? If you aren't going to fight a war to win, why bother being a glorified police force? (we haven't tried to win since 1945)
Social Security was never intended to replace employer defined benefits retirement and personal savings. It was intended to prevent old people from dying in abject poverty. Not as a method used to play for another 30 years. (or in the case of disability insurance, make up for outsourcing, automation, and general unemployment.)
But blaming welfare is myopic and fails to address the real elephants in the room. Just saying...
-
What has the price of gasoline in Europe got to do with this? Europeans choose to tax gasoline at a high rate. They fund public transportation and have well maintained roads. They drive small, fuel efficient, and sometimes fun cars...
We practically don't tax gas, our vehicles guzzle fuel, and have crap roads. I guess it's priorities.
-
Sounds like you'd be happier if you moved to Europe.
-
I assume you are addressing me.....
The price the consumer pays for fuel is directly linked to that persons' country's international status. Economics, especially international economics, is a complicated topic but as always, there are fundamental truths that are pretty simple and obvious. What I was trying to say is that the expenditure going into defense is not all going into defense; a lot of it is the simple case of projecting potential power. Read back on Theodore Roosevelt's 'Great White Fleet' and see how he used that to get the US as close to a colonial power as the country ever was, and all without engaging any 'enemy' (real or imagined) or firing a shot.
Europeans get further back in the line for petroleum than some other countries, and they pay more because of that (and they do tax fuel quite highly also). I might suggest you look up the company Aramco and then see if you can find another company named 'Germanco' or 'Italco'. :-)
Priorities, yes but also other factors. I have been to western Europe and will readily agree that their rail systems are magnificent, especially the ICE in Germany- outstanding. But a much larger percentage of their population uses public transportation than the US population does, which in turn makes it financially feasible. Americans often say things such as 'We should have those wonderful trains and train stations here' but the fact of the matter is that Americans to use individual transportation (autos) because they are more convenient if less efficient. Different countries, different people, different ways of life and one cannot pick up a piece of a foreign country and put it into place someplace else with a substantially if not radically differing systems because that does not work. By the way, the German "free" health insurance costs them 17% of their wages; I have seen the paychecks. And they have a saying in Germany that paychecks must be written on onion skins because when you open the envelope, it makes you cry. In my very limited experience, utopia is always just over the next hill..... no matter how many hills you travel.
Brian
What has the price of gasoline in Europe got to do with this? Europeans choose to tax gasoline at a high rate. They fund public transportation and have well maintained roads. They drive small, fuel efficient, and sometimes fun cars...
We practically don't tax gas, our vehicles guzzle fuel, and have crap roads. I guess it's priorities.
-
The cost of gasoline is pretty stable everywhere. (depending on the price of a barrel of crude) Europeans pay more because of taxes. The cost of the product is about the same.
And I'm not implying that mass transit is the same. They have higher densities, and closer population centers that just don't work here. (for a lot of reasons)
Since I don't know anything about other countries health care delivery systems, I can't say anything, except that I wonder if our decision to let health care insurance companies make a 20% margin, (they only have to spend $0.80 of every $1 on actual care) is part of the reason we pay more an get less? Just asking.
-
The healthcare question is extremely complex. There is no one reason it is expensive. Here are just a few reasons:
1) Frivolous litigation
2) Lack of paying participants
3) Entitlement mentalities
4) Regulation (over regulation in some areas, under in others)
5) Unnecessarily aggressive end of life care
6) Waste (of money, in the form of things being bought and done that are not needed or never used)
7) Over-caution on "medical devices" (which carry unnecessary and insane premium prices)
8 ) Lack of preventative care
9) Drug abuse
10) Inappropriate use of the emergency room
I could go on, but you get the idea.
Please keep in mind that I also believe that further "socializing" healthcare won't fix it. It will help with some aspects, and hurt with others.
-
It would seem that a barrel of crude has a fixed price but not everyone (every country) buys it on the open market at current 'value'.
Mass transit is about the same, the difference is that Americans demand and get individuality and convenience (we drive everywhere) and pay a premium for that ability. Europeans use mass transit because they have to for a variety of reasons. So the often stated thought that 'we' should have nice, clean, efficient and <relatively> inexpensive mass transit systems here in the US as they do in, say, Germany is backwards. We have chosen individual transport and will not make use of mass transit....
Health care is a touchy subject (yeah, I see the pun but did not mean it). The realities just do not fit in with our social and moral wants and expectations. The fact is that it should be managed, just like every other aspect of life but we use emotion to drive the system. Some years ago I read the results of a study that showed more than 50% of all health care expenditure is in the last six weeks of life; this shows that we are basically throwing a huge amount of resources at something that almost always has the usual conclusion that cannot be altered. Some years ago Canada caught on to the realities of life and basically put a cap on medical spending; great for the economy, not so good for good ole' Uncle Louis who needs a new liver at 87 years of age. In the olden' days of, say, 100 years ago, medicine was limited by technology and so it was basically impossible to spend a great deal of money on it because of that limitation. Put simply, it was not possible to run up a $200,000 medical bill because there was just nothing technically available that was that expensive. Today, we have access to vast resources in medicine and medical treatment and the only way to deal with the economics of this is to limit how much is used by society. We can do that is a couple of ways but basically are now transitioning between an older method (not everyone has access to top level medical care, the classic capitalist method) to a more universal distribution which MUST result in universal limits in medical benefits for everyone. I am not going to get into that debate, and will not even share my opinions on the subject but basically, those are the two options we are struggling with right now.
Brian
The cost of gasoline is pretty stable everywhere. (depending on the price of a barrel of crude) Europeans pay more because of taxes. The cost of the product is about the same.
And I'm not implying that mass transit is the same. They have higher densities, and closer population centers that just don't work here. (for a lot of reasons)
Since I don't know anything about other countries health care delivery systems, I can't say anything, except that I wonder if our decision to let health care insurance companies make a 20% margin, (they only have to spend $0.80 of every $1 on actual care) is part of the reason we pay more an get less? Just asking.
-
We can do that is a couple of ways but basically are now transitioning between an older method (not everyone has access to top level medical care, the classic capitalist method) to a more universal distribution which MUST result in universal limits in medical benefits for everyone.
...but in reality will not.... "The classic Socialist method."
-
Of all the expenditures mentioned here the only ones that are mentioned in CotUS as a function of government is militaru and roads.
And everyone talks about mass transit.
It is unprofitable. Everywhere it relies on heavy taxes to sustain it. If it was profitable you would see private companies competing to do it.
-
Of all the expenditures mentioned here the only ones that are mentioned
If you want to talk about waste of money, look at what we pay to service the national debt. Money that is 100% flushed down the toilet and should never have happened in the first place. What a wonderful example we set for citizens- to spend more than we take in, and do it over and over again, decade after decade.
$20 TRILLION dollars of debt, 44% of it held by foreign creditors! $166,000 per tax payer. $223 BILLION dollars of expense to pay for it in 2015 alone- just one year. That is probably something like $2,000 of expense PER YEAR for every working person in the country.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ (http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
-
Ya'll think you got it bad....... :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Try the RSA.... :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
-
I had spoken with a pair of brothers who emigrated from S.A. and they told some pretty ugly stories. It sounded like the country was basically imploding, almost like the very structure of society was breaking down. Now I know two people do not represent an entire country and hey, they could have just been telling stories but what data I have seen seems to align with what they said. Very unfortunate by the sounds of it.
Brian
Ya'll think you got it bad....... :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Try the RSA.... :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
-
One of my really good friends came here from Johannesburg RSA about 10 years ago. Was offered a job and accepted it without even asking his wife or kids. All she asked was when do we leave...the stories they tell. Electric fences, tall walls, flame thrower anti carjack devices... eh no thanks.
He became an American two years ago. Can drive a golf ball, but can't chip or putt to save his life. Lol
-
Yeah but does he putt on the wrong side of the green?
:-)
Some years ago there was a long distance rider named David Jones from Australia who came to the US and rode a couple of rallies. He had a big cardboard sign just over the dash of his bike with the words "Keep Right" and an arrow pointing toward the right (seriously). Sadly he was killed on his last rally in the US in a deer- strike in Idaho.
Brian
One of my really good friends came here from Johannesburg RSA about 10 years ago. Was offered a job and accepted it without even asking his wife or kids. All she asked was when do we leave...the stories they tell. Electric fences, tall walls, flame thrower anti carjack devices... eh no thanks.
He became an American two years ago. Can drive a golf ball, but can't chip or putt to save his life. Lol