{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by CitrusTheNile:
1/28/2016 4:30:39 PM
12
Nice try. In Destiny there is no advantage to having more exotics than another person unless you have the exotics that are a part of the meta. After you have those the rest don't matter. There is no widening gap between new players and older players since there is a physical cap in progression in this game. Everyone has access to obtain the things in game as opposed to people who are systematically oppressed. There is no systemic oppression in Destiny and no biased wages i.e. in Destiny it doesn't matter if you are human, awoken, exo, male, or female. All of the game is equally accessible to everyone.
I will also call you out on the [b]death threat on Bernie Sander's life. [/b] Considering in the real world there are much less extreme actions, but you choose in your story to go with the death of Bernie Sander's.
[spoiler]#FeeltheBern[/spoiler]
Side note: If the US can afford to spend ~10 times more than the second most expensive military power in the world, there is no reason college and healthcare shouldn't be free. For example, the numbers average around 600 billion for the US. Russia, the most cited second place, has a measly ~70 billion.
English
-
Edited by REXEL: 1/27/2016 11:20:06 PM[quote] Side note: If the US can afford to spend ~10 times more than the second most expensive military power in the world, there is no reason college and healthcare shouldn't be free. For example, the numbers average around 600 billion for the US. Russia, the most cited second place, has a measly ~70 billion.[/quote] Well you can't have all of them, someone will probably disagree but the old proverb "you can't have your cake and eat it too" is appropriate to attribute to the structure. You can't have a huge military such as ours and have free healthcare and college with the way everything is structured currently. To fund the other things you would have to cut military spending, which would lead to people in the services losing their jobs inevitably. If you wanted free healthcare you would have to get rid of the "private provider system" we have now. A private system healthcare system and social health system cannot coexist because the two would conflict with eachother. With college you can't have free college and have colleges accepting the current amount of people they do now. France for example has free higher education paid for through taxes, as a result they only accept a limited number of people who are capable. The reality of higher education is that not everyone has the capacity to succeed in the setting rich or poor. For people who are capable college should be more reasonably priced.
-
You can have balance, Lets say we settle for 3-4 times more spending then the next guy and use that 6-7 times to have free if not super cheap healthcare and education for our people. Also we could save some from helping the European Union protect themselves I think they have had plenty of time after world war II to recover. We can keep a force there but they really need to step up their spending in NATO.
-
Edited by REXEL: 1/29/2016 2:39:11 PM[quote]You can have balance, Lets say we settle for 3-4 times more spending then the next guy and use that 6-7 times to have free if not super cheap healthcare and education for our people. Also we could save some from helping the European Union protect themselves I think they have had plenty of time after world war II to recover. We can keep a force there but they really need to step up their spending in NATO.[/quote] For balance to happen you have to make sacrfices to achieve that. With health care you have to get rid of the private provider system we have in order for a "socialized" one to work. I say that because for that to work effectively everyone has to participate in funding it. It won't be a cheap service if you have 10-20 million on it while the rest of the working population is with a private provider. It isn't unreasonable to give people affordable care, because having everyone covered should eliminate people having to pay for the uninsureds treatments. Im not opposed to more affordable education. The problem i have with people demanding free education is that they don't think thoroughly into what that entails. (One of my other posts) France has free education, with higher taxes, and LESS people are accepted into the higher education system to keep taxation reasonable. If college were to be free in the United States less people would have to be accepted if taxes were the outlet used to fund college educations (to keep taxes reasonable). Higher education was only intended for people who will succeed in it, it isn't intended for everyone. That's a harsh realization, but it it's the truth. College doesn't guarantee people high paying jobs, and frankly the message of "you need to go to college" is a bad message parents, schools, etc have been giving over the years. I say that because the trades are in need of people, and not every trade job pays poorly.
-
On medicine we are agreed, though I think private insurance can live on as a supplement to the primary care received through the government program. Like people can carry a second plan to cover a nicer hospital room, to cover family members hotel stays if i need to travel for care, some basic cosmetic surgeries, and other luxuries. On education that is one hell of a knot we have tied here. I mean most of the people I am in college with cannot tell me where England is on a map. So I sometimes feel we need to rebuild the system all together. It seems to fail the majority of students in providing even the most basic knowledge. As far as needing a college degree I agree, but it is still the line towed by many employers so what can you do?
-
Edited by REXEL: 1/30/2016 9:48:51 PM[quote] As far as needing a college degree I agree, but it is still the line towed by many employers so what can you do?[/quote] This is a problem with [i]some[/i] employers. The job field is becoming somewhat paradoxical in the US. Employers want people with degrees, but they're also being extremely picky in terms of skillset. I would say majority of people who come out of college obv have the degree but don't have the skillset. And then there's people who have the skillset, but don't have the degree. Then they don't hire the person who have the degree because they don't have skillset and they don't hire the person who has the skillset but lacks the degree. Entry level has gotten bad as well because certain outfits aren't willing to put time into training. It turns into a vicious cycle because college students are unable to pay the exorbent loan costs due to not having a decent paying job, they'll inevitably default on the loan, and then the college loan bubble continues to grow. Im not a huge fan of the current president, but in his defense there was job growth. The problem however is that a small pool of people fit those jobs, so a lot of them have remained unfilled. Short version: Job requirements have become strict in order to minimize risk.
-
Edited by CitrusTheNile: 1/28/2016 4:29:20 PMI am aware you can't have both. That is what I am saying. There is no reason why we need to spend that much on military compared to other things that should come first. I guarantee that all that money is not being used to fund the military personal i.e. they are a large portion of the US's homeless population.
-
Edited by REXEL: 1/28/2016 4:42:06 PM[quote]I am aware you can't have both. That is what I am saying. There is no reason why we need to spend that much on military compared to other things that should come first. I guarantee that all that money is not being used to fund the military personal i.e. they are a large portion of the US homeless population.[/quote] Veterans are the ones who make up the homeless population, they are not apart of the active service. Unless someone put their 20 years in they aren't getting a pension. Everyone knows the veterans receive rather poor treatment, due to the VA having a slew of problems. I would say personnel cost the most old numbers but in 2012 the pentagon stated the cost for 1 soldier on duty in afghanistan was anywhere from 850,000 to 1.4 million USD. When you multiply that by however many troops are deployed it easily becomes the most expensive expenditure. Employees are always the highest expenditure in anything, thus why jobs are among the first things cut.
-
Interesting thought on veterans, if we spend 6-12 months teaching them to kill why cant we at least spend the same amount of time helping them to live in society after they get back. A lot of vets have trouble reintegrating into society upon return and you know since they did such a solid for us going into hell itself so that I can sit here and argue with you fine people about nonsense, we should do a solid for them and make sure they have the care and support they need to feel whole again.
-
Edited by REXEL: 1/30/2016 7:18:46 PMAgain that's the problem with the VA, veterans deserve better care and no one disagrees with that. The problem is that the organization in charge of doing that has been doing a poor job giving medical and psychological care to veterans. At this point it isnt even so much how it is funded but it's the incompetent decisions made by people working in the VA.
-
Very true this is an example where government fails the people they are suppose to serve. Hopefully congress will start doing the jobs again and stop pouting because a black guy is president. Really its 2016 hes almost out of office just do your job! Jesus Bungie gets more done then these people.
-
I would love to know why it costs so much for one person. -_-
-
Because government, those numbers are from 2012 so the cost is probably higher now.
