The issue we're dancing around in the US

[RosieTR]

So, it seems to me that we're dancing around a major issue. Some people think the ACA is a poorly written law, others think it's great, others don't think it should exist, etc. But at heart, there seems to be two very different, difficult to reconcile, visions of what we'd like the United States to be. Vision 1 would like the US to be a bit more like most of the other industrialized nations: universal health care, as well as maybe improved unemployment and childcare benefits, etc. In other words, a bit more socialist. Vision 2 would like to vastly shrink the federal government, and have the states be a bit more that way the EU is organized: weak central governance, no Federal Reserve, etc and the federal government mostly responsible for military security but not much else. I will admit I'm not entirely clear on Vision 2, and it's likely there's a variety of versions around. But they generally would like to dismantle most social services administered by the feds now, and not start new ones. Balancing the budget seems to be big as well, though in that case by drastic reduction in spending, vs maybe an increase in taxes or increase in taxes among the highest earners in Vision 1.

So, do you think this assessment is more or less correct? Do you think there is any way to reconcile it? I'm also curious, because to me the Vision 1 has been repeated around most of the developed world but I am not aware of any examples of Vision 2 so if anyone has thoughts on that I'm interested.

[gimmethesimplelife]

It's probably no surprise to anyone at this point that I'm all for Vision #1. The only way I could ever see that changing would be to reverse the severe income inequalities in the US, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

I do think, however, that this government shutdown? I see this partially as a being a confrontation as to how do we want the future in the US to be? And you have nicely summed this up as Vision #1 and Vision #2. Rob

[bae]

I'm a big fan of Vision #2. In fact, I'd be perfectly happy for my county to declare its independence, and go it on its own as a sovereign nation.

[gimmethesimplelife]

I'm a big fan of Vision #2. In fact, I'd be perfectly happy for my county to declare its independence, and go it on its own as a sovereign nation.Just a side note, if your county ever does secede, have it make up some funky bumper stickers. When I was in Austin in January, I bought this bumper sticker that said Secede Texas on it at the airport in Austin - to me it was the ultimate Texas souvenir. Rob

[bae]

To be fair, I suspect we'd vote 70%+ to join up with Canada. I think we'd be better off if we went the route of Jersey though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey

[goldensmom]

I'm a big fan of Vision #2. In fact, I'd be perfectly happy for my county to declare its independence, and go it on its own as a sovereign nation.
I like that idea. I know how my county government works....there is an issue....it goes on the ballot...people vote...majority wins.....end of story. No representive or senator voting their preference, no electoral college, just people voting.

[Rogar]

I think version #2 is closer to a libertarian or tea party view and that there is another version that is more middle ground where there is less government and more individual responsibility without any big decentralization of government function.

The admittedly liberal Democracy Now program yesterday asked people on the street whether they would rather have Obamacare or Affordable Health Care. The answers were sort of humorous.

[lac]

My vision is 1.5. I need access to affordable and reasonable health care insurance but I'm not asking for a hand-out. I want to pay a fair price to insure myself against catastrophe, like I do with my auto and homeowners insurance. I would also like more transparency in what health costs really cost so we can be better consumers and decision-makers. I'm fine going to the Walmart or Target of healthcare; I don't need to Tiffany's plan that covers ever sliver I get in a finger. Our biggest fear about retirement is access to healthcare insurance for those emergencies. Thankfully we're mostly healthy.

I also want to see the pork barrel spending to stop in Washington. I recently saw an article (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/eric-scheiner/open-business-govt-erect-98670-outhouse)that it cost nearly $100k to install a toilet in Alaska. That is crazy! I recently visited a State Park in IL and heard how they used federal dollars to construct some buildings and "since we are part of the Corp of Engineering the buildings were built to withstand a bombing". Come on already. There is so much waste where common sense would save a fortune.

[ApatheticNoMore]

My ideal vision is neither. Another world is possible. But maybe not in my lifetime. So #1 seems to work pretty well if you need some compromise vision, at least as far as social services go. However if you expand the vision and think about things besides social services things get ugly fast (what to do about the empire etc.).

By the way what do things like the Federal Reserve have to do with anything? Isn't it's purpose mostly to enrich the banksters? IF you really want the full socialist vision publically owned banking is it (though I'd distrust it too).

[gimmethesimplelife]

My vision is 1.5. I need access to affordable and reasonable health care insurance but I'm not asking for a hand-out. I want to pay a fair price to insure myself against catastrophe, like I do with my auto and homeowners insurance. I would also like more transparency in what health costs really cost so we can be better consumers and decision-makers. I'm fine going to the Walmart or Target of healthcare; I don't need to Tiffany's plan that covers ever sliver I get in a finger. Our biggest fear about retirement is access to healthcare insurance for those emergencies. Thankfully we're mostly healthy.

I also want to see the pork barrel spending to stop in Washington. I recently saw an article (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/eric-scheiner/open-business-govt-erect-98670-outhouse)that it cost nearly $100k to install a toilet in Alaska. That is crazy! I recently visited a State Park in IL and heard how they used federal dollars to construct some buildings and "since we are part of the Corp of Engineering the buildings were built to withstand a bombing". Come on already. There is so much waste where common sense would save a fortune.Version 1.5 might be a sane compromise provided that it included access to health care for all, and if those who are getting insurance at the lower end still provide some value to society somehow. I could back 1.5 under those conditions. Rob

[redfox]

... I'd be perfectly happy for my county to declare its independence, and go it on its own as a sovereign nation.

Go for it. Only the über wealthy could stay in the islands then, and I'll have a fabulous consulting career teaching said folks how to clean their own toilets.

[Rogar]

I have to say that I've never understood some of the aspects of decentralization. In the corporate world, it is mergers that are the more common, where synergies of work functions reduce the required number of workers and economies of scale make operations cheaper and improve profits. I don't understand how, for example, the EPA could be decentralized when water and air pollution can typically affect many or all states.

[bae]

Go for it. Only the über wealthy could stay in the islands then, and I'll have a fabulous consulting career teaching said folks how to clean their own toilets.

Jersey manages to have a somewhat diverse population, including people employed in the plumbing trade. So I'm not sure what you are basing your conclusion on.

[dmc]

I am thinking of moving. I want mild winters though. And of coarse a place like #2. I would prefer not to be an ex-pat though as I like to visit the kids.

The current President, the great divider, will only be around a few more years. Hopefully we will get a leader next time. Hopefully Barry will spend more time on his golf game and get off the campaign trail.

[mira]

I have to say that I've never understood some of the aspects of decentralization. In the corporate world, it is mergers that are the more common, where synergies of work functions reduce the required number of workers and economies of scale make operations cheaper and improve profits. I don't understand how, for example, the EPA could be decentralized when water and air pollution can typically affect many or all states.
I suppose because each area has its own unique characteristics and requires an individual approach in many ways - there can't be a one-size-fits-all solution to every issue concocted by a central administration that has little awareness of each area's situation.

[RosieTR]

I'm a big fan of Vision #2. In fact, I'd be perfectly happy for my county to declare its independence, and go it on its own as a sovereign nation.

Interesting. Do you mean all counties? Or just yours? Personally, I wouldn't want to have to fuss with a passport to go into another county (I work in one county and live in another, and sometimes take a route to work that crosses a third county). I wouldn't even want that for another state, really, although living in a large state means I somewhat rarely travel to other states. But then I'm for vision 1. I feel a strong kinship with other Americans even in far away areas of the country, even if I don't agree on all aspects of their lifestyles. I felt shock and grief for Sept 11 even though it technically had little impact on my day-to-day life. I felt inspiration and pride at the US Women's Gymnastics team victories in the Olympics even though none of the competitors were from my state or county. And so forth. As for federal taxes, I suppose I would say that it doesn't bother me as much to think my tax money is going to help support people who don't pay taxes (because they have a low income and have kids, for example, or are disabled), because I think it's part of being human to help others and I don't think most people who need help are truly moochers. Being of a scientific bent, I would prefer if the US analyzed other countries' systems and then modified ours to reflect the most efficient ones. I doubt that will happen because the skills that lead one to become elected to Congress or the Presidency are not necessarily the same skills that would create a logical system of government. Especially in the age of media- and money- driven campaigns rather than the statesmanship debate styles that were present before TV.

[bae]

Interesting. Do you mean all counties? Or just yours?

I was speaking just of my particular county, which has some unique geographical, resource, and cultural advantages that would allow it to operate just fine, much as many of the other micronations scattered about the planet do.

A county stuck in the middle of Kansas likely has some issues with this approach :-)

[ApatheticNoMore]

Personally, I wouldn't want to have to fuss with a passport to go into another county (I work in one county and live in another, and sometimes take a route to work that crosses a third county). I wouldn't even want that for another state, really, although living in a large state means I somewhat rarely travel to other states.

for sure, but how is the passport thing handled in the EU? I guess you still have to show it. Prior to WWI, you could basically travel anywhere in Europe without a passport (shocking to modern sensibilities? who really had freedom of movement?)


But then I'm for vision 1. I feel a strong kinship with other Americans even in far away areas of the country, even if I don't agree on all aspects of their lifestyles. I felt shock and grief for Sept 11 even though it technically had little impact on my day-to-day life. I felt inspiration and pride at the US Women's Gymnastics team victories in the Olympics even though none of the competitors were from my state or county. And so forth.

I don't really understand nationalism. At all. The best I can approximate is liking some principles in the Bill of Rights say (yea that was me, years ago, and I'd wear flag t-shirts on the 4th, specifying it was only about that nothing else - but that was before W even), or liking the land (it's a beautiful country, many parts of it) and so on. Other than that should my kinship with Americans be any greater than my kinship with the citizens of the world? Morally I don't think so. But I do admit years of tribal warfare in some foreign country is more difficult for me to even have an opinion on than some problem afflicting the U.S. which is a country and culture I have some degree of understanding of. Fine and I don't favor U.S. imperialism to save the world, precisely because it's so plum ignorant (plus anti-democratic as well) plus deceptive. And I don't think global governance would be accountable - however when you are dealing with truly global problems I see no choice. The scale at which concern about other people applies (global) has nothing to do with the scale at which a government should exist.

And so it all that has nothing to do with why I generally think in our very flawed world #1 is preferable. That's mostly just because I think you'll have an overall better society in many ways with social safety nets than with masses of people reduced to poverty and desperation - masses of people functioning at the bottom of Maslow's heirarchy of needs will NOT produce a good society (and they'll suffer a lot for it too of course). But why are so many people in poverty in the first place? Oh I can't dig that deep right now, I don't even know fully!, so call it the economic system, call it whatever, but in very concrete terms some clues: the mass outsourcing of jobs to the global labor market has a certain amount to do with it, and the inability of working people to hold any gains. At least the first was very deliberate public policy and probably the second as well.


As for federal taxes, I suppose I would say that it doesn't bother me as much to think my tax money is going to help support people who don't pay taxes (because they have a low income and have kids, for example, or are disabled), because I think it's part of being human to help others and I don't think most people who need help are truly moochers.

on some level I don't care if they are. Moochers are not the biggest problem that's wrong with the world or the U.S. government. Moochers at worst are very dislikable maybe (and often not even that).


Being of a scientific bent, I would prefer if the US analyzed other countries' systems and then modified ours to reflect the most efficient ones.

to some extent, being of a bent that doesn't see the world as quite that logical ... :)

[RosieTR]

to some extent, being of a bent that doesn't see the world as quite that logical ... :)

Yeah, I know. But it would be better if it were!

I agree #1 is flawed, but the countries I see who have implemented it are by and large places I would not mind living. I have seen no #2's that I would like to live, unless you count the whole of Europe as the best #2 example. But each individual country is managed like #1, and some of their problems of having a shared currency is due to weak EU oversight.