Most Terrible Issue Facing America Today ? (1 Viewer)

[Mr. Blue Sky]

I debated whether or not to put this into some other discussion, but i think it’s worth its own thread.. there are many different threads here covering a variety of very pressing topics.. Which two or three, for you, are the most immediate and ‘fire alarm’ type issues today, as i type this in mid March of the year 2025 ? To be clear, almost every issue that comes out every day is horrible, but i am trying to prioritize my horror .. My list:

1) the environment .. with almost every single regulation being rolled back and the EPA soon be eliminated, expect absolutely no action on climate change and expect even more hurricanes, tornados , wildfires etc al and premiums to be even more sky high and unaffordable , IF you can even acquire insurance at all .

2) Having a megalomaniac Russian asset in the White House with the nuclear codes.. ‘Nuff said .

3) Social Security.. I’ve been paying into it since im 14 yrs old working fast food, if they want to cut me a check for hundreds of thousands of dollars (plus interest) and call it even, then that’s fine .. otherwise, it looks like the Republicans will finally get their wish to “privatize” Social Security .


.. sorry to denigrate Immigration, the economy, racism, LGBTQ+ and everything else.. hopefully we can figure out a way to address all of these things.. but what are your top two or three ?

 

[Saint Jack]

And I’m being serious when I say this.
What does privatizing Social Security mean? What’s the difference between now and potentially privatizing it?
And how can they do this in less than one presidential term?

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

And I’m being serious when I say this.
What does privatizing Social Security mean? What’s the difference between now and potentially privatizing it?
And how can they do this in less than one presidential term?

I mean, how can they do half the repugnant s*** they’ve already done in 55 days ? By not acknowledging norms, and by going off the rails .

Im no economist, only a citizen who has paid into SS for the last 35 plus years…. So i cant dissect the exact meaning of privatization, there are many folks here smarter than myself who maybe can do that.. but to me privatization means making SS into an ‘investment’ scheme as opposed to what it was designed to be- which is a social safety net for the elderly and disabled .

 

[Dragon]

I mean, how can they do half the repugnant s*** they’ve already done in 55 days ? By not acknowledging norms, and by going off the rails .

Im no economist, only a citizen who has paid into SS for the last 35 plus years…. So i cant dissect the exact meaning of privatization, there are many folks here smarter than myself who maybe can do that.. but to me privatization means making SS into an ‘investment’ scheme as opposed to what it was designed to be- which is a social safety net for the elderly and disabled .

Privatization typically means operating for profit, which raises a critical concern when applied to social security. If private entities are involved, they will seek to generate revenue, meaning a portion of the funds meant for beneficiaries would be redirected toward profits. As a result, those who have paid into the system may receive less than they otherwise would under a non-profit-driven model.

 

[bird]

And I’m being serious when I say this.
What does privatizing Social Security mean? What’s the difference between now and potentially privatizing it?
And how can they do this in less than one presidential term?

Imo, here is a simplistic possible scenario…

Every account held by a social security number would be turned over to the large Wall Street banks who would have access to all data from the SSA. They would establish accounts for those numbers and any and all FICA taxe dollars as well as employer contributions would be routed to the banks. The banks would then advertise that “you” would be in control of the monies and, again, imo, the funds would not be backstopped above the FDIC level. Thus catastrophic social/political upheaval would impoverish the vast majority of citizens.

Oh, I almost forgot…they would likely cap the amount that would be subject to withdrawal ( what is the social security payments currently) in order to have more funds with which to engage in speculation ie betting.

 

[MT15]

I read that the Social Security Administration operates on 0.5% administrative overhead. Nobody in the private sector would be able to come near that, so anyone who tells you that privatizing Social Security would be in the best interest of the public is a morally bankrupt liar.

It’s a cash grab for the financial sector. It would decrease the average person’s payouts.

 

[coldseat]

The American voting public and specifically those that voted for Trump/MAGA. Until they realize that they've bought into massive amounts of propaganda and understand they damage they're causing to our country, we're royally forked. We can only truly move forward once those people have some type of awakening. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[faceman]

#2 should be #1

Trump and his entire cabinet are clear and present dangers

 

[efil4]

Privatization typically means operating for profit, which raises a critical concern when applied to social security. If private entities are involved, they will seek to generate revenue, meaning a portion of the funds meant for beneficiaries would be redirected toward profits. As a result, those who have paid into the system may receive less than they otherwise would under a non-profit-driven model.

from my limited understanding of SS, the current overhead for administrative costs still come from the fund itself. However, its meant to "break even"

As you noted, privatization would mean whomever is in charge of administrating the fund, would do so for profit. That raises all sorts of issues, not to mention the fiduciary responsibility they would assume ( but i would be willing to bet that whomever was granted the award of administration, would be released from fiduciary issues )

currently, the fund as around $2.8 TRILLION. if a private firm charged just 1% administrative fees, that would equate to around $25 billion in revenue. I dont even think there is a firm, today, capable of handling the administration of 73 million Americans.

its pure fantasy at this point.

 

[bird]

from my limited understanding of SS, the current overhead for administrative costs still come from the fund itself. However, its meant to "break even"

As you noted, privatization would mean whomever is in charge of administrating the fund, would do so for profit. That raises all sorts of issues, not to mention the fiduciary responsibility they would assume ( but i would be willing to bet that whomever was granted the award of administration, would be released from fiduciary issues )

currently, the fund as around $2.8 TRILLION. if a private firm charged just 1% administrative fees, that would equate to around $25 billion in revenue. I dont even think there is a firm, today, capable of handling the administration of 73 million Americans.

its pure fantasy at this point.

They would break it up.
Deutsche Bank
Goldman Sachs
Citigroup
J.P. Morgan Chase
Morgan Stanley
Wells Fargo
Bank of America

As a combination they would handle it. Not well but still…

 

[zztop]

The American voting public and specifically those that voted for Trump/MAGA. Until they realize that they've bought into massive amounts of propaganda and understand they damage they're causing to our country, we're royally forked. We can only truly move forward once those people have some type of awakening. I'm not holding my breath.

Even if they suddenly all woke up tomorrow, the country will be damaged for decades after this mess. This is why I was having panic attacks in my sleep election night. The amount of damage that will be done in the next 3.9 years will be staggering, and take forever (or maybe never) to fix.

 

[J-DONK]

The core issue is Income Inequality.

America is far beyond the roaring 20's levels. We are approaching Russian oligarchy levels.

We all talk about raising up the the bottom 50%. The top .1% needs to be clipped.

Elon is a poster child for why massive amounts of wealth is undemocratic, and is not healthy for a functioning Republic.

 

[SFIDC3]

The core issue is Income Inequality.

America is far beyond the roaring 20's levels. We are approaching Russian oligarchy levels.

We all talk about raising up the the bottom 50%. The top .1% needs to be clipped.

Elon is a poster child for why massive amounts of wealth is undemocratic, and is not healthy for a functioning Republic.

That core issue is due to one shared characteristic among the rich and powerful.....greed.....whether it's greed for money or power or both.....

Fixing the tax code to actually be equitable, eliminating the loopholes that allow the uber wealthy and corporations to avoid paying their fair share would fix the majority of the countries problems.....but it will probably never happen.....

 

[Dragon]

As an outsider in some ways, I feel that one of the most critical issues facing the U.S. today is the vastly different realities people live in. With such starkly contrasting worldviews, it becomes incredibly difficult to reach a shared vision for the kind of society people want to build.

One cultural difference I’ve noticed between the U.S. and the European countries I’ve lived in—Denmark, Germany, England, and Sweden—is the emphasis on winning in the U.S. From an early age, American children are often taught that being “first” is more important than being a good teammate or classmate. While competition can drive innovation and success, this prioritization of individual achievement over collective well-being may contribute to a mindset where personal success is valued above building strong communities and workplaces.

Of course, this does not mean teamwork isn’t valued in the U.S. Many industries—such as sports, the military, and corporate environments—depend heavily on collaboration. However, on a broader societal level, individualism often takes precedence over collective responsibility. This stands in contrast to many European countries, where there is a stronger emphasis on balancing personal ambition with social cohesion.

For example, a recent study published by LinkedIn Denmark surveyed CEOs from the country’s top 100 companies on the most important qualities they seek when hiring. The overwhelming priority was the ability to work well in a team and be a good colleague. While teamwork is also valued in American workplaces, the societal focus on personal success may sometimes overshadow the importance of collective progress.

I suspect that this deep-rooted "I vs. Us" mentality is one of several factors contributing to division in the U.S. today. While economic inequality, political polarization, and media fragmentation all play major roles, cultural values around individualism and competition likely reinforce these divides.

 

[TampaJoe]

As an outsider in some ways, I feel that one of the most critical issues facing the U.S. today is the vastly different realities people live in. With such starkly contrasting worldviews, it becomes incredibly difficult to reach a shared vision for the kind of society people want to build.

One cultural difference I’ve noticed between the U.S. and the European countries I’ve lived in—Denmark, Germany, England, and Sweden—is the emphasis on winning in the U.S. From an early age, American children are often taught that being “first” is more important than being a good teammate or classmate. While competition can drive innovation and success, this prioritization of individual achievement over collective well-being may contribute to a mindset where personal success is valued above building strong communities and workplaces.

Of course, this does not mean teamwork isn’t valued in the U.S. Many industries—such as sports, the military, and corporate environments—depend heavily on collaboration. However, on a broader societal level, individualism often takes precedence over collective responsibility. This stands in contrast to many European countries, where there is a stronger emphasis on balancing personal ambition with social cohesion.

For example, a recent study published by LinkedIn Denmark surveyed CEOs from the country’s top 100 companies on the most important qualities they seek when hiring. The overwhelming priority was the ability to work well in a team and be a good colleague. While teamwork is also valued in American workplaces, the societal focus on personal success may sometimes overshadow the importance of collective progress.

I suspect that this deep-rooted "I vs. Us" mentality is one of several factors contributing to division in the U.S. today. While economic inequality, political polarization, and media fragmentation all play major roles, cultural values around individualism and competition likely reinforce these divides.

You have some valid points.

Our culture does stress individualism. Being competitive. Hard work. We have gotten away from civility and proper etiquette. Hopefully we can get that back at some point.

 

[Dragon]

You have some valid points.

Our culture does stress individualism. Being competitive. Hard work. We have gotten away from civility and proper etiquette. Hopefully we can get that back at some point.

It's not about civility or etiquette—it’s about genuinely caring for your neighbors.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Our culture does stress individualism. Being competitive. Hard work. We have gotten away from civility and proper etiquette. Hopefully we can get that back at some point.

Don't hold your breath! The Republican Party has embraced a separatist ideology and a militaristic doctrine that focuses on destruction of our enemies by any means necessary! That type thought have no room for civility or etiquette, they have said so in their own voices.

 

[TampaJoe]

It's not about civility or etiquette—it’s about genuinely caring for your neighbors.

And we do.