PDA

View Full Version : Scariest sound bytes yet from Clinton


Pages : [1] 2

Cochise
05-29-2007, 11:10 AM
Clinton: Shared Prosperity Should Replace 'On Your Own' Society

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) -- Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an "ownership society" really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

That means pairing growth with fairness, she said, to ensure that the middle-class succeeds in the global economy, not just corporate CEOs.

"There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."

Clinton spoke at the Manchester School of Technology, which trains high school students for careers in the construction, automotive, graphic arts and other industries. The school highlighted one of the nine goals she outlined: increasing support for alternative schools and community colleges.

"We have sent a message to our young people that if you don't go to college ... that you're thought less of in America. We have to stop this," she said. "Our country cannot run without the people who have the skills that are taught in this school."

Beyond education, Clinton said she would reduce special breaks for corporations, eliminate tax incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas and open up CEO pay to greater public scrutiny.

Clinton also said she would help people save more money by expanding and simplifying the earned income tax credit; create new jobs by pursuing energy independence; and ensure that every American has affordable health insurance.


What does this sound like to all of you?

It's time to replace a society where you do things on your own with one where everyone is given an equal share of prosperity... the government's job is to dole out 'fairness'. Using the term "ownership society" like it's a four letter word.

Is Engels her speechwriter?

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-29-2007, 11:31 AM
OMG it's TEH SOCIALISM!!111!!!ONE

Calling Joe McCarthy to the breach, McCarthy FTW!!!

Direckshun
05-29-2007, 11:33 AM
True or false, Cochise:

Over the past seven years of the Bush presidency, the gap between the rich and the poor has widened.

Cochise
05-29-2007, 11:36 AM
True or false, Cochise:

Over the past seven years of the Bush presidency, the gap between the rich and the poor has widened.

I have not seen numbers, but it's happening in every developed country so I wouldn't doubt it.

I called this frightening because of what the quotes betray about her view of the role of government and "ownership society".

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-29-2007, 11:39 AM
I have not seen numbers, but it's happening in every developed country so I wouldn't doubt it.

I called this frightening because of what the quotes betray about her view of the role of government and "ownership society".

It also happened under Reagan and Bush I.

There's a reason why the gap between rich and poor widens disproportionately among Republican administrations--supply side economics only favors the side with the supply of cash.

chagrin
05-29-2007, 11:41 AM
Socialism blows, gimme a break guys - none of you will enjoy it like you think you will. The economy would go in the toilet for 15 years, for real not the imagined shit you all talk about. The gap widens because it comes down to the individual, more people are looking for a handout and not working to make something opf themselves. Let me remind you that the greatest generation, the ones who worked for 100 years before us, made this country what it is, gave us the corporate foundations. You would want it handed over to you and your kids, just for being here. If that ever happens, we're fuggin doomed.

Furthermore, Capitalism is about the repsonsibility OF THE INDIVIDUAL!
grow up :rolleyes:

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-29-2007, 11:44 AM
Socialism blows, gimme a break guys - none of you will enjoy it like you think you will. The economy would go in the toilet for 15 years, for real not the imagined shit you all talk about.

Furthermore, Capitalism is about the repsonsibility OF THE INDIVIDUAL!
grow up :rolleyes:

She's not advocating hardcore Leninist socialism. I know it's political expedient for you to categorize her as doing so, but it's a ridiculous claim.

I actually favor a mixed economy...not that you care, but I just thought I'd throw it out there so you wouldn't continue to miscategorize my desires.

chagrin
05-29-2007, 11:46 AM
Listen, for those of you who haven't actually ever spent any time away from America - more Government, on the surface, seems to be great. Except for the working class (okay, this means 85-95% of the population) work their ASSES OFF and have little to nothing, however you're right, healthcare is cheaper but your herded around like a bunch of sheep, going to work all friggin day and night and have little to show for it.

Here YOU have the opportunity to MAKE IT HAPPEN for yourself, it's simple really.

On one hand you cry about wiretapping for terrorists, you guys haven't seen shit until you get the Govenrment half in bed with your dumb asses.

chagrin
05-29-2007, 11:47 AM
She's not advocating hardcore Leninist socialism. I know it's political expedient for you to categorize her as doing so, but it's a ridiculous claim.

I actually favor a mixed economy...not that you care, but I just thought I'd throw it out there so you wouldn't continue to miscategorize my desires.

Wasn't specifically aimed at you, and socialism is socialism, if it makes YOU feel better to deflect and fuggin catergorized every little thing, go ahead. What she said is what she desires, Socialistic Government, everyone knows it, and should be frightened by the idea.

Not that you care

chagrin
05-29-2007, 11:48 AM
She's not advocating hardcore Leninist socialism. I know it's political expedient for you to categorize her as doing so, but it's a ridiculous claim.


Since you guys like to see facts, please quote me where I catergorized her words as hardcore Leninist socialism.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-29-2007, 11:50 AM
The gap widens because it comes down to the individual, more people are looking for a handout and not working to make something opf themselves. Let me remind you that the greatest generation, the ones who worked for 100 years before us, made this country what it is, gave us the corporate foundations. You would want it handed over to you and your kids, just for being here. If that ever happens, we're fuggin doomed.

Furthermore, Capitalism is about the repsonsibility OF THE INDIVIDUAL!
grow up :rolleyes:

No one here is advocating getting shit because of birthright. There is a difference between a government providing for the survival and potential prosperity of its citizens and them giving everyone a "free ride". You keep trying to demonize government invention like it's some kind of plague.

Let me offer an idea to you: Capitalism is not a fair process. If you think it's a meritocracy, you're sorely mistaken. There's a reason why a very narrow demographic of society holds the majority of the resources, and it's not because the process that led to them getting their skrilla was just.

Direckshun
05-29-2007, 11:50 AM
I have not seen numbers, but it's happening in every developed country so I wouldn't doubt it.

I called this frightening because of what the quotes betray about her view of the role of government and "ownership society".
Okay, well since you're not terribly confident what the answer is, I'll clue you in.

It's true. It's widened, considerably.

Clinton isn't talking about reverting to socialism. She's talking about keeping the gap as it is, or god forbid, closing it a little.

Capitalism does not necessitate that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, but that's exactly what's happened over the past 50 or so years, without relenting. I for one support capitalism, but this country needs its middle class to sustain its economic superiority, and that gap can't get much wider without calling it into jeopardy.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-29-2007, 11:51 AM
Since you guys like to see facts, please quote me where I catergorized her words as hardcore Leninist socialism.

How's this:


Is Engels her speechwriter?

chagrin
05-29-2007, 11:53 AM
No one here is advocating getting shit because of birthright. There is a difference between a government providing for the survival and potential prosperity of its citizens and them giving everyone a "free ride". You keep trying to demonize government invention like it's some kind of plague.

Let me offer an idea to you: Capitalism is not a fair process. If you think it's a meritocracy, you're sorely mistaken. There's a reason why a very narrow demographic of society holds the majority of the resources, and it's not because the process that led to them getting their skrilla was just.

Demonizing Government invention? LOL! I showed you a prime example of my point - I chose to show the silliness of some here in another example and you took it upon yourself to think I am coming down at you - which I am not.

chagrin
05-29-2007, 11:54 AM
How's this:


haha, very funny

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-29-2007, 11:57 AM
Here YOU have the opportunity to MAKE IT HAPPEN for yourself, it's simple really.


What percentage of CEO's are black?
How about female?

There are 8 female CEOs of fortune 500 companies.
There are 4 black CEOs of fortune 500 companies

Do you really believe that the women just want to sit around and make babies and the black community has no desire to succeed in business?

Are you that naive?

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-29-2007, 11:59 AM
Demonizing Government invention? LOL! I showed you a prime example of my point - I chose to show the silliness of some here in another example and you took it upon yourself to think I am coming down at you - which I am not.

You're deflecting instead of engaging in a debate. I've asked numerous questions of you on here, none of which you have answered. Check my post directly above this, as well as the second half of the post you quoted in your above reply, but totally ignored.

Cochise
05-29-2007, 12:01 PM
Okay, well since you're not terribly confident what the answer is, I'll clue you in.

It's true. It's widened, considerably.

Clinton isn't talking about reverting to socialism. She's talking about keeping the gap as it is, or god forbid, closing it a little.

Capitalism does not necessitate that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, but that's exactly what's happened over the past 50 or so years, without relenting. I for one support capitalism, but this country needs its middle class to sustain its economic superiority, and that gap can't get much wider without calling it into jeopardy.

Like I said, I don't doubt it, subjective terminology aside, since it's happening globally.

Whether there is a gap or isn't, like I said, what's interesting about this is what she believes about the government's role in society. That "ownership society" is bad; that the government exists to distribute fairness; that instead of a society where success is a do-it-yourself proposition, everyone should be given an equal share of whatever prosperity there is.

'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need', per se?

It's tell-tale. She believes that government exists to remedy all social problems. I wonder if you could even name one social 'problem' that she doesn't feel the government should fix.

Government should be like a night watchman, and not an enormous squid that has a tentacle wrapped around every aspect of American society, trying to micromanage society and eliminate anything that could be perceived as offensive or unfair or problematic.

That seems to be the question. Can you have a problem without conjoining government responsibility? Sounds like she says no, that the government is required to resolve every problem, large or small. That is the danger, that there's no problem facing American society that more government won't fix.

Watch, we'll see it in the primaries when Hillary and Obama try to out-big government each other.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-29-2007, 12:04 PM
Quote:Originally Posted by chagrin
Since you guys like to see facts, please quote me where I catergorized her words as hardcore Leninist socialism.

How's this:

Quote:Originally Posted by chagrin
Is Engels her speechwriter?

Quote: Chagrin:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need', per se?

:shrug:

Baby Lee
05-29-2007, 12:23 PM
Quote:Originally Posted by chagrin
Since you guys like to see facts, please quote me where I catergorized her words as hardcore Leninist socialism.

How's this:

Quote:Originally Posted by chagrin
Is Engels her speechwriter?

Quote: Chagrin:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need', per se?

:shrug:
Cochise ≠ Chagrin.

Cochise
05-29-2007, 12:33 PM
Cochise ≠ Chagrin.

Apparently you can't use any sort of delivery here but wooden/literal.

Comparing A to B does not mean that you are saying B and A are similar in all points. It simply meant in this case that I think B would totally agree with the comments made by A.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-29-2007, 12:36 PM
Cochise ≠ Chagrin.

Remind me to use the quote function next time :banghead:

Donger
05-29-2007, 03:29 PM
The world needs ditch-diggers, too.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2007, 04:07 PM
Shared society and not "own" society?
Sounds like abolition of private property.
But Hillary is NOT a Leninist...she's a Fabian.

OTOH, I do think the gap is widening in that wages have not kept abreast of inflatiin...but I say it's due to increase in govt and existing degrees of socialism....including a managed global economy (Nafta, Gatt...'er Republican socialism) as opposed to more economic freedom property rights etc. etc. etc.

There once was a time our govt helped the folks become owners...not the other way around.

VAChief
05-29-2007, 04:10 PM
What would a fair judge of a "big government" philosophy be? If you look at spending under modern day presidents after adjusting for defense, homeland security, and inflation...government spending has grown at the largest percentage rate under Bush than any president since Nixon/Ford.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2007, 04:13 PM
What would a fair judge of a "big government" philosophy be? If you look at spending under modern day presidents after adjusting for defense, homeland security, and inflation...government spending has grown at the largest percentage rate under Bush than any president since Nixon/Ford.
Absolutely! Some claim we get more socialism under the Reps because our gaurds are down. Dem pres with Rep congress is a good divided govt strategy to keep them out of our hair. And we'll all remain alive to boot. JMO.

Reps = Right Wing Socialists
Dems = Left Wing Socialists

Oh Snap
05-29-2007, 05:14 PM
shes a ****in socialist.

Adept Havelock
05-29-2007, 05:46 PM
shes a ****in socialist.

What makes you think that? The Lincoln/Lenin banners at her political rally?

.

mlyonsd
05-29-2007, 06:18 PM
It would be absolutely fitting for the dems to pick Clinton as their candidate......the only in the top three of their party that would lose a national election.

CHIEF4EVER
05-29-2007, 10:26 PM
Government should be like a night watchman, and not an enormous squid that has a tentacle wrapped around every aspect of American society, trying to micromanage society and eliminate anything that could be perceived as offensive or unfair or problematic.

That seems to be the question. Can you have a problem without conjoining government responsibility? Sounds like she says no, that the government is required to resolve every problem, large or small. That is the danger, that there's no problem facing American society that more government won't fix.

Watch, we'll see it in the primaries when Hillary and Obama try to out-big government each other.

Bingo. I get so effing sick of hearing how 'the gap between rich and poor is widening' or 'xyz is soooooo unfair because I am [insert ethnic group/gender/supposedly disadvantaged and downtrodden group here]'. That can be roughly translated as 'I need the gubment to hold my hand when I piss because I can't manage anything on my own'.

I grew up dirt ass poor and nobody ever gave me anything. I managed to pull myself up by my bootstraps and succeed. Am I rich? Depends on how you view rich. Monetarily, no and I never will be. Am I comfortable and a landowner? Yep. And I didn't need Uncle effing Sam to help me do it.

The Socialists among us (read: the left) would neuter the rugged individualism and yearning for freedom in this country if not checked by those of us who don't want Socialism cloaked in the moniker of 'The Progressive Movement'. I lived in a country for years that had a Socialist government (Germany) and Socialism isn't all it is cracked up to be for the unitiated idealogues among us. You work your ass off only to give the government the vast majority of your income to pay for the lazy to sit on their asses on your dime. That's reality folks. Ask Donger, he lived in England.

I am not demonizing 'Progressives', most have the best of intentions. Most are also coming fresh out of an Alice in Wonderland-esque pipe dream judging by some of the posts I read here. There are others, however, who are weak minded enough to have bought their liberal university indoctrination hook, line and sinker without even questioning it. Those are the dangerous ones.....the lemmings.

Best case scenario - the government (at all levels in toto) take enough taxes to pay for the military, the police and basic governing. Other than that they leave us the hell alone. Just my opinion.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2007, 10:31 PM
Well, get used to it guys, because there's more coming no matter who wins the election. Hitlary is just upfront about it.

CHIEF4EVER
05-29-2007, 10:34 PM
Well, get used to it guys, because there's more coming no matter who wins the election. Hitlary is just upfront about it.

Not if enough of us get together and evoke change. One of the big problems I see is that people have gotten into the mindset that those inside the beltway are some sort of Monarchs who can't be stopped from doing what they are doing. People forget that We, the people are the sovreigns.

ChiefaRoo
05-29-2007, 10:40 PM
No one here is advocating getting shit because of birthright. There is a difference between a government providing for the survival and potential prosperity of its citizens and them giving everyone a "free ride". You keep trying to demonize government invention like it's some kind of plague.

Let me offer an idea to you: Capitalism is not a fair process. If you think it's a meritocracy, you're sorely mistaken. There's a reason why a very narrow demographic of society holds the majority of the resources, and it's not because the process that led to them getting their skrilla was just.

Life isn't fair. Is it fair you were born the way you are? Hell no, just be glad your here dumbass.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2007, 10:47 PM
Not if enough of us get together and evoke change. One of the big problems I see is that people have gotten into the mindset that those inside the beltway are some sort of Monarchs who can't be stopped from doing what they are doing. People forget that We, the people are the sovreigns.
Well, that's gonna have to happen. It's eerie, when I picked my daughter up from school, now 13, learning current events and history I told her that I felt there could be an armed revolution in this country. Scarey, but I actually think this could come again in our lifetimes.

ChiefaRoo
05-29-2007, 10:50 PM
Well, that's gonna have to happen. It's eerie, when I picked my daughter up from school, now 13, learning current events and history I told her that I felt there could be an armed revolution in this country. Scarey, but I actually think this could come again in our lifetimes.

Pea. I like you but I really doubt there will be a revolution in this country. What would the revolt be against? Capitalism? Freedom of Speech? You sound kooky when you say stuff like this.

CHIEF4EVER
05-29-2007, 10:53 PM
Well, that's gonna have to happen. It's eerie, when I picked my daughter up from school, now 13, learning current events and history I told her that I felt there could be an armed revolution in this country. Scarey, but I actually think this could come again in our lifetimes.

I don't think it would come to something that extreme personally. Just a revolution at the ballot box by those who are fed up with the horseshit presented by the Dems AND Reps. I just wish a strong and charismatic leader would emerge from the Libertarians who is a small government Conservative.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2007, 10:57 PM
Pea. I like you but I really doubt there will be a revolution in this country. What would the revolt be against? Capitalism? Freedom of Speech? You sound kooky when you say stuff like this.

I just like being dramatic at times....runs in the family when you're parents were amateur actors. But some of that feeling comes from things I hear some people saying in particular a friend of mine in Minnie, who says he's getting his guns ready.


I don't think it would come to something that extreme personally. Just a revolution at the ballot box by those who are fed up with the horseshit presented by the Dems AND Reps. I just wish a strong and charismatic leader would emerge from the Libertarians who is a small government Conservative.
What I'm picking up from talkin to people is that they feel the govt no longer represents them. I have to admit, I feel the same way.

Bob Dole
05-29-2007, 11:05 PM
The world needs ditch-diggers, too.

And they should be compensated just as well as any university professor.

Three cheers for socialism!

Bob Dole
05-29-2007, 11:40 PM
True or false, Cochise:

Over the past seven years of the Bush presidency, the gap between the rich and the poor has widened.

And it has everything to do with the President and nothing to do with a general sense of entitlement?

bkkcoh
05-30-2007, 11:24 AM
Pea. I like you but I really doubt there will be a revolution in this country. What would the revolt be against? Capitalism? Freedom of Speech? You sound kooky when you say stuff like this.


Yeah, the majority of the people would be way too lazy to pick up arms and fight for something they believed. :cuss: :banghead: :hmmm: :harumph: :p

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-30-2007, 12:56 PM
And it has everything to do with the President and nothing to do with a general sense of entitlement?

Dole,

It's verifiable. Look at the rate of increase pre-Reagan, then during Reagan-Bush years. Then compare it to Clinton's presidency, then Bush II.

You will note that it the gap disproportionately widens whenever there is a Republican administration.

Your argument about a culture of entitlement is completely off base, indicative of an attempt to demonize the poor for their status as poor.

bkkcoh
05-30-2007, 12:59 PM
...
Your argument about a culture of entitlement is completely off base, indicative of an attempt to demonize the poor for their status as poor.


Why is that, if the Republicans are tryhing to wean people off of the public teat, of course there will be more of a gap between haves and have nots. I am sure that the people that are being weaned off arent getting jobs as VP of Hallurburton right off the bat.

but the absolute question is, are they going to be better off in the long run trying to sustain their own existence.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-30-2007, 01:04 PM
Why is that, if the Republicans are tryhing to wean people off of the public teat, of course there will be more of a gap between haves and have nots. I am sure that the people that are being weaned off arent getting jobs as VP of Hallurburton right off the bat.

but the absolute question is, are they going to be better off in the long run trying to sustain their own existence.

There is a fundamental philosophical disagreement underlying your post and my beliefs.

You believe that people are perfectly happy just living off of welfare and never trying to better themselves.

While there are no doubt *some* people like that, I think that such a broad-strokes view is overly reductive and an excuse to absolve society from helping out its less fortunate members.

Baby Lee
05-30-2007, 04:43 PM
You believe that people are perfectly happy just living off of welfare and never trying to better themselves.
Can't speak for bkk, but I don't think people are necessarily 'happy' living off welfare. But the welfare system often requires they don't have a job, and don't have a person in the household with a job [ie, Dad]. So their choice is a home with Dad living with them and a job with no help, or do nothing, kick Dad to the curb, and get free help. And it's a tough choice to go with the former.
I'm all for social spending for people to 'better themselves' training, schooling, workfare, but welfare pays people for existing so long as they DON'T try to better themselves.

Bob Dole
05-31-2007, 06:14 PM
There is a fundamental philosophical disagreement underlying your post and my beliefs.

You believe that people are perfectly happy just living off of welfare and never trying to better themselves.

While there are no doubt *some* people like that, I think that such a broad-strokes view is overly reductive and an excuse to absolve society from helping out its less fortunate members.

The fundamental philosophical disagreement is that you believe government is the appropriate entity to take care of the poor, while some of us believe that we should be able to keep our money and take care of our own as we see fit.

Bob Dole doesn't have any problem at all giving money to assist people who have hit upon hard times and are trying to either better themselves, or just get through a rough patch--Bob Dole regularly gives money to people and causes that Bob Dole deems worthy of his support. (Bob Dole intends to contribute an additional $60 later tonight to a fund that will purchase a custom wheelchair for a young girl who lives here). It sure would be nice if Bob Dole could also choose who receives the significant portion of his income that Uncle Sugar takes out of every check to give to the worthless shitbags for whom government assistance is a way of life.

Bob Dole would never suggest that Bob Dole knows best how to spend YOUR income. Why do you presume that you and your brethren know best how to spend Bob Dole's?

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-31-2007, 07:15 PM
The fundamental philosophical disagreement is that you believe government is the appropriate entity to take care of the poor, while some of us believe that we should be able to keep our money and take care of our own as we see fit.

Bob Dole doesn't have any problem at all giving money to assist people who have hit upon hard times and are trying to either better themselves, or just get through a rough patch--Bob Dole regularly gives money to people and causes that Bob Dole deems worthy of his support. (Bob Dole intends to contribute an additional $60 later tonight to a fund that will purchase a custom wheelchair for a young girl who lives here). It sure would be nice if Bob Dole could also choose who receives the significant portion of his income that Uncle Sugar takes out of every check to give to the worthless shitbags for whom government assistance is a way of life.

Bob Dole would never suggest that Bob Dole knows best how to spend YOUR income. Why do you presume that you and your brethren know best how to spend Bob Dole's?

Because while Bob Dole may be a charitable Bob Dole of Bob Dole Bob Dole's Bob Doles Dole Dole Bob Dole, you automatically assume that every other person is going to be like Bob Dole, Dole Bob Dole.

It's a way of passing the buck so that people don't have to give a shit about the poor.

I'm sure that the New Deal reforms, The Marshall Plan, the grain exchange for the Soviet Union and others would be well taken care of by the individual :rolleyes:

mlyonsd
05-31-2007, 07:47 PM
Because while Bob Dole may be a charitable Bob Dole of Bob Dole Bob Dole's Bob Doles Dole Dole Bob Dole, you automatically assume that every other person is going to be like Bob Dole, Dole Bob Dole.

It's a way of passing the buck so that people don't have to give a shit about the poor.

I'm sure that the New Deal reforms, The Marshall Plan, the grain exchange for the Soviet Union and others would be well taken care of by the individual :rolleyes:

Maybe if those that really don't deserve/need assistance would get off their fat asses and try doing something with their lives Bob Dole and the rest of us that are charitable might actually see we're making a difference and give more.

Bob Dole
05-31-2007, 07:59 PM
Because while Bob Dole may be a charitable Bob Dole of Bob Dole Bob Dole's Bob Doles Dole Dole Bob Dole, you automatically assume that every other person is going to be like Bob Dole, Dole Bob Dole.

Bob Dole is certainly not expecting that everyone will be charitable.

It's a way of passing the buck so that people don't have to give a shit about the poor.

I'm sure that the New Deal reforms, The Marshall Plan, the grain exchange for the Soviet Union and others would be well taken care of by the individual :rolleyes:

Bob Dole really doesn't give a rat's ass about the poor outside Bob Dole's community, as they don't impact Bob Dole until you and your comrades demand that Bob Dole give 35% of his income to take care of them. Bob Dole isn't going to single-handedly save the world no matter what, so Bob Dole isn't going to spend time worrying about it.

Bob Dole can, however, make a difference in Bob Dole's own community (and feels that he has to a certain extent). Organized religion could make a difference in their own community if there was a need, instead of building increasingly extravagant amusement parks for Jesus. But since Uncle Sugar implemented all his social programs during the Great Depression, they don't feel they need to do it any more.

But please...continue to stomp your feet in outrage at Bob Dole's "passing the buck". And next time you're down this way, feel free to stop by and hang out for a few hours and Bob Dole will be happy to grill you some grub, share a few brews, and let you witness firsthand the recipients of Bob Dole's tax dollars.

headsnap
05-31-2007, 08:22 PM
True or false, Cochise:

Over the past seven years of the Bush presidency, the gap between the rich and the poor has widened.

damn immigration bill!!! :banghead:


;)

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-31-2007, 08:28 PM
Bob Dole is certainly not expecting that everyone will be charitable.



Bob Dole really doesn't give a rat's ass about the poor outside Bob Dole's community, as they don't impact Bob Dole until you and your comrades demand that Bob Dole give 35% of his income to take care of them. Bob Dole isn't going to single-handedly save the world no matter what, so Bob Dole isn't going to spend time worrying about it.

Bob Dole can, however, make a difference in Bob Dole's own community (and feels that he has to a certain extent). Organized religion could make a difference in their own community if there was a need, instead of building increasingly extravagant amusement parks for Jesus. But since Uncle Sugar implemented all his social programs during the Great Depression, they don't feel they need to do it any more.

But please...continue to stomp your feet in outrage at Bob Dole's "passing the buck". And next time you're down this way, feel free to stop by and hang out for a few hours and Bob Dole will be happy to grill you some grub, share a few brews, and let you witness firsthand the recipients of Bob Dole's tax dollars.

Don't you think that viewpoint is just a might myopic?

Out of sight, out of mind, eh?

If a poor person gets kicked out on the street, and Bob Dole doesn't see it, does it really happen?

Logical
05-31-2007, 08:32 PM
Listen, for those of you who haven't actually ever spent any time away from America - more Government, on the surface, seems to be great. Except for the working class (okay, this means 85-95% of the population) work their ASSES OFF and have little to nothing, however you're right, healthcare is cheaper but your herded around like a bunch of sheep, going to work all friggin day and night and have little to show for it.

Here YOU have the opportunity to MAKE IT HAPPEN for yourself, it's simple really.

On one hand you cry about wiretapping for terrorists, you guys haven't seen shit until you get the Govenrment half in bed with your dumb asses.

Europeans work less days a year, have more vacation, and work less hours per day than the average US citizen. So part of what you say is definitely not true.

go bowe
05-31-2007, 09:03 PM
Cochise ≠ Chagrin.maby cochise > chagrin :fire:

go bowe
05-31-2007, 09:08 PM
Apparently you can't use any sort of delivery here but wooden/literal.

Comparing A to B does not mean that you are saying B and A are similar in all points. It simply meant in this case that I think B would totally agree with the comments made by A.aw geeze, enough with the algebra already...

so what's c and d got to say about all this?

go bowe
05-31-2007, 09:16 PM
* * *

Reps = Right Wing Socialists
Dems = Left Wing Socialistseven for you, this has to be one of the most laughable things i've ever heard...

reps as right wing SOCIALISTs?

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Bob Dole
06-01-2007, 02:49 AM
Don't you think that viewpoint is just a might myopic?

Out of sight, out of mind, eh?

If a poor person gets kicked out on the street, and Bob Dole doesn't see it, does it really happen?

No, Bob Dole does not think it's myopic. It's realistic.

To a certain extent, out of sight is out of mind, and Bob Dole is content with that, because it doesn't really affect him. Bob Dole will deal wih the issues that impact Bob Dole, and Hamas Jenkins can deal with the issues that impact Hamas Jenkins.

Bob Dole won't try to force Hamas Jenkins to address the issues that Bob Dole thinks are important, because Bob Dole doesn't assume that he knows better than Hamas Jenkins. Hamas Jenkins is free to address whatever Hamas Jenkins feels is appropriate.

All Bob Dole asks is that you reciprocate and stop spending Bob Dole's money on the shit that you think is important, and allow Bob Dole the latitude to spend his income as he sees fit. Quid pro quo, Clarice.

Nightwish
06-01-2007, 08:03 AM
Except for the working class (okay, this means 85-95% of the population) work their ASSES OFF and have little to nothing, however you're right, healthcare is cheaper but your herded around like a bunch of sheep, going to work all friggin day and night and have little to show for it.
Except for the "health care is cheaper" part, the rest sounds about like what we've got now. Are you saying that what we've got now, plus cheaper health care, would be worse that what we've got now?

Donger
06-01-2007, 08:05 AM
Except for the "health care is cheaper" part, the rest sounds about like what we've got now. Are you saying that what we've got now, plus cheaper health care, would be worse that what we've got now?

If anyone really thinks that nationalized healthcare is actually going to cheaper in this country than it is now, they're insane.

Or, to channel Hamas, they're myopic.

mikey23545
06-01-2007, 08:23 AM
It's never too early to begin buying the votes of the shiftless with promises of increased handouts, is it Hillary?.....

mikey23545
06-01-2007, 08:30 AM
Europeans work less days a year, have more vacation, and work less hours per day than the average US citizen. So part of what you say is definitely not true.

Hey, don't forget the part about your national economy always sucks and your unemployment is always in the double digits.....

Nightwish
06-01-2007, 08:35 AM
If anyone really thinks that nationalized healthcare is actually going to cheaper in this country than it is now, they're insane.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't have the benefit of the crystal ball that some of you apparently employ, and my tarot cards unfortunately don't tell me that much.

What I am pretty sure of, though, is that what Clinton seems to be advocating is a sort of Social Capitalism, very like what many European countries have been going with quite successfully for many years (and, if memory serves, led Sweden to have the world's number one economy for several years running back during the 80s), rather than the pure Socialism the doomsayers here are getting into hysterics about.

Donger
06-01-2007, 08:47 AM
Maybe, maybe not. I don't have the benefit of the crystal ball that some of you apparently employ, and my tarot cards unfortunately don't tell me that much.

What I am pretty sure of, though, is that what Clinton seems to be advocating is a sort of Social Capitalism, very like what many European countries have been going with quite successfully for many years (and, if memory serves, led Sweden to have the world's number one economy for several years running back during the 80s), rather than the pure Socialism the doomsayers here are getting into hysterics about.

Has the federal government ever done ANYTHING less expensively than private business?

Nightwish
06-01-2007, 08:52 AM
Has the federal government ever done ANYTHING less expensively than private business?
Last time I checked, public schools are cheaper than private ones. And if you're part of a military family, you can book flight on a military aircraft much cheaper than a commercial one (at least, you used to be able to, subject to available seating, of course).

Remember, we don't know what form that "cheaper health care" will take, if it happens. Could be free, completely socialized health care (which we'll pay for in higher taxes), or could be subsidized health care, with government regulations placed on the pricing of health care providers, could be any number of other models. Let's wait to see what they're advertising before we start screaming that sky is falling, okay?

Donger
06-01-2007, 08:57 AM
Last time I checked, public schools are cheaper than private ones. And if you're part of a military family, you can book flight on a military aircraft much cheaper than a commercial one (at least, you used to be able to, subject to available seating, of course).

Remember, we don't know what form that "cheaper health care" will take, if it happens. Could be free, completely socialized health care (which we'll pay for in higher taxes), or could be subsidized health care, with government regulations placed on the pricing of health care providers, could be any number of other models. Let's wait to see what they're advertising before we start screaming that sky is falling, okay?

Honestly, when I see the HHS budget the size it is NOW, I don't really need to see what they are "advertising" for the future of "free" healthcare.

IMO, it is not the place of government to provide health care or social security.

Nightwish
06-01-2007, 08:58 AM
Honestly, when I see the HHS budget the size it is NOW, I don't really need to see what they are "advertising" for the future of "free" healthcare.

IMO, it is not the place of government to provide health care or social security.
You are entitled to your opinion. But let's wait to see what they're advertising before we start crying that the sky is falling, shall we?

mikey23545
06-01-2007, 09:00 AM
Last time I checked, public schools are cheaper than private ones. And if you're part of a military family, you can book flight on a military aircraft much cheaper than a commercial one (at least, you used to be able to, subject to available seating, of course).

Remember, we don't know what form that "cheaper health care" will take, if it happens. Could be free, completely socialized health care (which we'll pay for in higher taxes), or could be subsidized health care, with government regulations placed on the pricing of health care providers, could be any number of other models. Let's wait to see what they're advertising before we start screaming that sky is falling, okay?

Perhaps Donger meant to say "Has the government ever done anything cheaper and to the same standards/quality".

Surely you aren't comparing private school education to private...and you can't be stupid enough to compare flying on an aircraft paid for by taxpayer dollars to the price of flying on a commercial airliner...

Donger
06-01-2007, 09:01 AM
You are entitled to your opinion. But let's wait to see what they're advertising before we start crying that the sky is falling, shall we?

Sorry, but I've not much faith in the federal government when it comes to social programs, based on history.

And, you know, that $8 trillion in debt they've run up.

Nightwish
06-01-2007, 09:17 AM
Sorry, but I've not much faith in the federal government when it comes to social programs, based on history.
You'll have to forgive me if I don't think that this is an area where it is particularly noble to employ patteeu's "sun always rises" rationale for why we shouldn't try to change things just because everything else we've tried hasn't worked.

And, you know, that $8 trillion in debt they've run up.
Yeah, I know, cleaning up after Bush is going to be a very, very tall order.

Mr. Laz
06-01-2007, 09:22 AM
"mission accomplished" was much scarier

Donger
06-01-2007, 09:22 AM
You'll have to forgive me if I don't think that this is an area where it is particularly noble to employ patteeu's "sun always rises" rationale for why we shouldn't try to change things just because everything else we've tried hasn't worked.


Yeah, I know, cleaning up after Bush is going to be a very, very tall order.

So, you think that the federal government is going to manage nationalized healthcare effectively and efficiently? If so, why? Based on what history?

FD
06-01-2007, 09:37 AM
Last time I checked, public schools are cheaper than private ones. And if you're part of a military family, you can book flight on a military aircraft much cheaper than a commercial one (at least, you used to be able to, subject to available seating, of course).


Public schools generally cost more per pupil than private ones do, and have worse quality. Or do you mean they're cheaper because they're "free"?

banyon
06-01-2007, 09:46 AM
So, you think that the federal government is going to manage nationalized healthcare effectively and efficiently? If so, why? Based on what history?

Translated: Will the very wealthy continue to receive the highest level of care and very best doctors possible and not have to pay a dime for those with no access at all?

Donger
06-01-2007, 09:52 AM
Translated: Will the very wealthy continue to receive the highest level of care and very best doctors possible and not have to pay a dime for those with no access at all?

I take it that's a "yes, I think that the federal government is going to manage nationalized healthcare effectively and efficiently."

Why should the wealthy have to pay for anyone's healthcare, besides their own?

Nightwish
06-01-2007, 09:57 AM
So, you think that the federal government is going to manage nationalized healthcare effectively and efficiently? If so, why? Based on what history?
I don't think anything one way or the other. I just feel that none of you who oppose needed changes in the health care system, based on the fact that nothing we've tried so far has worked, has offered a sufficient argument for why we should leave a broke thing broke.

Cochise
06-01-2007, 10:02 AM
I love the "It's going to be ridiculously expensive/yeah well Bush spent a lot of money" retort. Bush, who by then would be long gone, is justification to cede 15% of the economy to socialism.

Donger
06-01-2007, 10:04 AM
I don't think anything one way or the other. I just feel that none of you who oppose needed changes in the health care system, based on the fact that nothing we've tried so far has worked, has offered a sufficient argument for why we should leave a broke thing broke.

What is "broke" with regards to health care in this country?

Nightwish
06-01-2007, 10:07 AM
Public schools generally cost more per pupil than private ones do, and have worse quality.
An individual taxpayer choosing between a public school and a private one will pay far less for the public school. Yes, they cost more overall, but that cost is covered by tax dollars, the amount of which is attributed to any one individual taxpayer is negligible. As far as quality, that is relative. The public school performance average is brought down by the outliers, but most public schools perform well above the average, and in fact, many perform better than the private school average. Public school teachers, on average, are better educated, have higher degrees, are better paid, are better qualified, and are provided better resources and materials. There are advantages and disadvantages to both public and private schooling. The areas where public schools are at a disadvantage are not bad enough, in the majority of cases, to require significant changes.

Donger
06-01-2007, 10:09 AM
Yes, they cost more overall, but that cost is covered by tax dollars

And those "tax dollars" are generated by magical pixies, right?

Nightwish
06-01-2007, 10:13 AM
And those "tax dollars" are generated by magical pixies, right?
Are you advocating doing away with tax dollars, that no good can come from them? Only the stupidest of the stupid are in line with that position. The amount of money that comes out of your pocket to fund public shools might buy you a couple cheeseburgers a year.

Donger
06-01-2007, 10:16 AM
Are you advocating doing away with tax dollars, that no good can come from them? Only the stupidest of the stupid are in line with that position. The amount of money that comes out of your pocket to fund public shools might buy you a couple cheeseburgers a year.

Not at all. I'm just pointing out that "paid for by tax dollars" does not equal "free."

At least for some.

I got into an argument with one of my uncles in England a few weeks ago. He was bragging about how he doesn't have to pay a thing for his healthcare. I asked him how much he paid in taxes and he said, "about 45%"

Cochise
06-01-2007, 10:19 AM
Tell us Donger, when you immigrated, why did you decide to come here?

Did it have anything to do with ownership society? Do it yourself opportunities? Did you want to be part of a misery-spread-equally society...?

Cochise
06-01-2007, 10:20 AM
Not at all. I'm just pointing out that "paid for by tax dollars" does not equal "free."

At least for some.

I got into an argument with one of my uncles in England a few weeks ago. He was bragging about how he doesn't have to pay a thing for his healthcare. I asked him how much he paid in taxes and he said, "about 45%"

I'm not sure why we have to implode the entire health care system to take care of the percentage who are uninsured. What is the percent of Americans who are uninsured? 15% or something?

Nightwish
06-01-2007, 10:22 AM
Not at all. I'm just pointing out that "paid for by tax dollars" does not equal "free."I never used the word "free." Someone else did. I was simply answering your question about what the government has ever done that is less expensive than when it is done by the private sector. Public schools are less expensive on an individual basis, for those actively involved in the paying of direct tuition and expenses, and only barely more expensive to those who aren't involved in such (to the point of not even being noticeable by them 9 times out of 10).

I don't advocate outright socialism, but neither is the antisocial "up with me, damn the rest" idealism displayed by so many on the right one iota better.

Donger
06-01-2007, 10:26 AM
Tell us Donger, when you immigrated, why did you decide to come here?

Did it have anything to do with ownership society? Do it yourself opportunities? Did you want to be part of a misery-spread-equally society...?

Well, I didn't have a choice. I was only seven. However, my father always had an independent streak. Both of my parents came from working-class families. When my father told his mother he wanted to be an engineer when he was 10, she told him, "Oh no, love. That's beyond your station in life. You need to learn a trade, like a plumber or maybe even an electrician." Thankfully, he didn't heed that wise advice. He was the first in family to go to university and to own his own home. He got an opportunity to move us here for a two year assignment, and we never left, thank God.

As to the motivation, yes, my parents wanted something better than socialism and apathy for their kids. Every single relative that I have over there does nothing but complain about the situation, except to say how great it is that everything's "free." There is no motivation to excel or succeed. It's revolting, and I don't want to see that happen to my country.

Donger
06-01-2007, 10:28 AM
I'm not sure why we have to implode the entire health care system to take care of the percentage who are uninsured. What is the percent of Americans who are uninsured? 15% or something?

Because you're too stupid or too lazy (or both) to take care of it yourself, silly.

patteeu
06-01-2007, 10:31 AM
I don't think anything one way or the other.

QFT :p

Cochise
06-01-2007, 11:11 AM
Well, I didn't have a choice. I was only seven. However, my father always had an independent streak. Both of my parents came from working-class families. When my father told his mother he wanted to be an engineer when he was 10, she told him, "Oh no, love. That's beyond your station in life. You need to learn a trade, like a plumber or maybe even an electrician." Thankfully, he didn't heed that wise advice. He was the first in family to go to university and to own his own home. He got an opportunity to move us here for a two year assignment, and we never left, thank God.

As to the motivation, yes, my parents wanted something better than socialism and apathy for their kids. Every single relative that I have over there does nothing but complain about the situation, except to say how great it is that everything's "free." There is no motivation to excel or succeed. It's revolting, and I don't want to see that happen to my country.

Cool. I guess since you talked of the process of obtaining citizenship I had thought you came on your own accord.

I was just thinking about why people want to come to America, what makes us better than other places. And you can't get away from the fact that you can make your own way here. One of the most fundamental principles of the American way of life is that you can work hard and reap the rewards.

Religious liberty isn't such a big deal in most parts of the world. Some people come here for asylum or whatever.

But it's economic liberty. If people in Europe want to get out from under socialism's thumb they can come here. But where am I going to go for the American way of life once it's replaced by the socialist way of life..? There isn't anyplace like this left in the world, is there?

I don't see why people are in such a hurry to abandon what put us in this place of leadership to begin with. Why throw away what made us great in the first place? It's like we're ashamed of what we've accomplished, and people want to turn us into another France or Germany or the UK.

Donger
06-01-2007, 11:20 AM
Cool. I guess since you talked of the process of obtaining citizenship I had thought you came on your own accord.

I was just thinking about why people want to come to America, what makes us better than other places. And you can't get away from the fact that you can make your own way here. One of the most fundamental principles of the American way of life is that you can work hard and reap the rewards.

If people in Europe want to get out from under socialism's thumb they can come here. But where am I going to go for the American way of life once it's replaced by the socialist way of life..? There isn't anyplace like this left in the world, is there?

I don't see why people are in such a hurry to abandon what put us in this place of leadership to begin with. Why throw away what made us great in the first place? It's like we're ashamed of what we've accomplished, and people want to turn us into another France or Germany or the UK.

I didn't become a citizen until I was 22. Got the green card when I was 16, I think.

For me, it's the independent spirit of this country that I love so much. I hate to see it eroded. We've gone a long way from one Democrat saying, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" to present Democrats saying, "You can't take care of yourself; let your government do it for you."

It literally makes me sick to my stomach to watch. I know that those who want to see it happen do so because it makes them "feel" good, but they don't know what it does to people to be coddled by the state. I do, and it f*cking sucks.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 11:56 AM
And, you know, that $8 trillion in debt they've run up.

It was $1 Trillion before the Reagan Revolution of small gubment conservatives. $4 Trillion and Growing after Bush I. Then that big gubment sumbitch Clinton came in and actually started to turn things around (oh wait, it was teh interwebs). Move on to W and we're racking up record deficits.

So, do you nott mind government as long as it's a bloated defense department, but abhor it when it doesn't produce things that go boom?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 11:58 AM
I don't see why people are in such a hurry to abandon what put us in this place of leadership to begin with

Geographic Isolation and a large, rich landmass??

No, wait, it's that myth of the American Spirit. Sorry.

Donger
06-01-2007, 12:02 PM
It was $1 Trillion before the Reagan Revolution of small gubment conservatives. $4 Trillion and Growing after Bush I. Then that big gubment sumbitch Clinton came in and actually started to turn things around (oh wait, it was teh interwebs). Move on to W and we're racking up record deficits.

So, do you nott mind government as long as it's a bloated defense department, but abhor it when it doesn't produce things that go boom?

I don't like the debt, regardless of which party created it. But, I do regard funding for national defense as being one of the areas within the realm of government spending.

Paying for my healthcare? No.
Paying for my housing? No.
Paying for my food? No.
Paying for my retirement? No.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 12:04 PM
As to the motivation, yes, my parents wanted something better than socialism and apathy for their kids

That's a gross overstatement to beautify your point. You act like Britain was Russia during the collectives, or a socialist wasteland. That's ridiculous. At least be intellectually honest.

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 12:05 PM
Every movement towards a more equal social structure is decried by the right (as that term is defined at that piont in time) as destroying society as they know it.

Labor laws, regulation of runaway corporations, securities laws, regulations of banks, etc. ad infinitum. All destroying the spirit of America and it's entrepreneurship.

And that was in the 1900-1930s timeframe.

Time passes, but the fundamental nature of the debate rarely changes.

Donger
06-01-2007, 12:06 PM
That's a gross overstatement to beautify your point. You act like Britain was Russia during the collectives, or a socialist wasteland. That's ridiculous. At least be intellectually honest.

Have you ever lived there?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 12:06 PM
I don't like the debt, regardless of which party created it. But, I do regard funding for national defense as being one of the areas within the realm of government spending.

Paying for my healthcare? No.
Paying for my housing? No.
Paying for my food? No.
Paying for my retirement? No.

While I don't disagree that paying for the defense is necessary, at what point does it become redundant.

I'd like to know why we can spend more on defense than the next 20 countries combined, but it's somehow an unpardonable sin to provide for the healthcare of those citizens.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 12:07 PM
Have you ever lived there?

If Trent Green says you have to be able to take 55 straight dicks in an anal gangbang in order to make an NFL roster, do I believe him simply because he was in the NFL, or is he fudging the truth to make a point?

:shrug:

Donger
06-01-2007, 12:08 PM
While I don't disagree that paying for the defense is necessary, at what point does it become redundant.

I'd like to know why we can spend more on defense than the next 20 countries combined, but it's somehow an unpardonable sin to provide for the healthcare of those citizens.

Why stop at healthcare? Why not provide a home for everyone? How about food? How about a nice job?

Cochise
06-01-2007, 12:08 PM
I'd like to know why we can spend more on defense than the next 20 countries combined, but it's somehow an unpardonable sin to provide for the healthcare of those citizens.

Because health care is not the government's job. It doesn't matter how nice it is, or how good it makes you feel, it's not the government's job.

Donger
06-01-2007, 12:08 PM
If Trent Green says you have to be able to take 55 straight dicks in an anal gangbang in order to make an NFL roster, do I believe him simply because he was in the NFL, or is he fudging the truth to make a point?

:shrug:

So, that's a "no."?

Donger
06-01-2007, 12:11 PM
Every movement towards a more equal social structure is decried by the right (as that term is defined at that piont in time) as destroying society as they know it.

Labor laws, regulation of runaway corporations, securities laws, regulations of banks, etc. ad infinitum. All destroying the spirit of America and it's entrepreneurship.

And that was in the 1900-1930s timeframe.

Time passes, but the fundamental nature of the debate rarely changes.

That's a good point, actually. I do think that some regulation and labor laws were in the best interest of the masses at that time. However, it started a process of entitlement mentality that (I fear) will eventually lead to a nanny state here.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 12:11 PM
Because health care is not the government's job. It doesn't matter how nice it is, or how good it makes you feel, it's not the government's job.

According to whom? George Will?

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 12:13 PM
I didn't become a citizen until I was 22. Got the green card when I was 16, I think.

For me, it's the independent spirit of this country that I love so much. I hate to see it eroded. We've gone a long way from one Democrat saying, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" to present Democrats saying, "You can't take care of yourself; let your government do it for you."

It literally makes me sick to my stomach to watch. I know that those who want to see it happen do so because it makes them "feel" good, but they don't know what it does to people to be coddled by the state. I do, and it f*cking sucks.


It has nothing to do with feeling good. Indeed, it doesn't make me "feel" much of anything either way. It only has to do with my concepts of good governance.

I could go on forever about this, but the fundamental purpose of any state, I believe, is to provide for the wealth, safety, welfare and education of its citizens. That applies on both an individual and a collective basis, but ultimately Spock has it right -- the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

What we have here, in my view, is a fundamental difference in philosophy as to how best to achieve these goals. We also have a strain between goal 1 (wealth) and goal 3 (welfare, in this case, health).

As you certainly know, but others reading this may not, by "welfare" I don't mean freaking food stamps, but welfare in the broader sense.

In my view, the health care system in this country is irretrievably broken, and a major restructuring is required. I'm not an expert in the issues, so I'm not sure what form the new structure should take, but nearly anything would be better than the POS health system we have now.

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 12:19 PM
That's a good point, actually. I do think that some regulation and labor laws were in the best interest of the masses at that time. However, it started a process of entitlement mentality that (I fear) will eventually lead to a nanny state here.


You are, of course, quoting reactionary senators time immemoriam. Progress (regardless of form) is not evil, but must be balanced with many other competing needs. Status quo is not evil either, but must give way to changing needs and circumstances.

Health care system is profoundly FUBAR, and should change. I'm in favor of nearly any change at all, so long as it is fundamental. It's hard to imagine ti being worse.

I might prefer that a few statess try different systems, sponsored (and even partly funded) by teh Feds within those states, as tests, and then the Feds adopt whichever one works best. Unfortunately, it's not politically feasible.

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 12:20 PM
Because health care is not the government's job. It doesn't matter how nice it is, or how good it makes you feel, it's not the government's job.


neither, at one point in time, were labor laws. Or regulations of meat packing plants. etc. ad infinitum.

Donger
06-01-2007, 12:23 PM
You are, of course, quoting reactionary senators time immemoriam. Progress (regardless of form) is not evil, but must be balanced with many other competing needs. Status quo is not evil either, but must give way to changing needs and circumstances.

Health care system is profoundly FUBAR, and should change. I'm in favor of nearly any change at all, so long as it is fundamental. It's hard to imagine ti being worse.

I might prefer that a few statess try different systems, sponsored (and even partly funded) by teh Feds within those states, as tests, and then the Feds adopt whichever one works best. Unfortunately, it's not politically feasible.

No, I'm actually just stating my opinion. When you give someone something of value for "free," chances are they'll want more, for free. And so on.

That's fine, of course, if they want to live that way. But I should not be forced to assist them.

You choose to call that "progress." I call it something quite different.

Donger
06-01-2007, 12:25 PM
neither, at one point in time, were labor laws. Or regulations of meat packing plants. etc. ad infinitum.

Surely you can differentiate between "protecting the people" and "providing for the people free-of-charge," yes?

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 12:36 PM
No, I'm actually just stating my opinion. When you give someone something of value for "free," chances are they'll want more, for free. And so on.

That's fine, of course, if they want to live that way. But I should not be forced to assist them.

You choose to call that "progress." I call it something quite different.


I do not now, and never have, supported any type of "welfare" class that is entitled to free, permanent benefits allowing them to avoid work. Indeed, my view of an individual's role in society is to utilize their potential to the utmost to not only further themselves, but also to serve the greater society in whatever role they are best capable of doing so.

I strongly support welfare and benefits to help individuals in transitional situations (such as unemployment after lay offs), but generally would not support any type of lifelong governmental assistance. The only exceptions might be programs assisting the handicapped or other permanently disabled individuals.

Absolutely nothing is free. The question is how to apportion costs, if at all, and how that apportionment helps attain goals, if the goal is important to society as a whole.

Donger
06-01-2007, 12:38 PM
I do not now, and never have, supported any type of "welfare" class that is entitled to free, permanent benefits allowing them to avoid work. Indeed, my view of an individual's role in society is to utilize their potential to the utmost to not only further themselves, but also to serve the greater society in whatever role they are best capable of doing so.

I strongly support welfare and benefits to help individuals in transitional situations (such as unemployment after lay offs), but generally would not support any type of lifelong governmental assistance. The only exceptions might be programs assisting the handicapped or other permanently disabled individuals.

Absolutely nothing is free. The question is how to apportion costs, if at all, and how that apportionment helps attain goals, if the goal is important to society as a whole.

I think you and I know where each other stands on these issues.

However, since I don't have a Lombardi Trophy and you have three, could I have one of yours? After all, you can afford to give more.

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 12:40 PM
Surely you can differentiate between "protecting the people" and "providing for the people free-of-charge," yes?


You're providing quality meat to the people, free of charge.

In teh good old days, you'd have to pay for high quality meat, and take your chances with the low. Now low is still "high" compared to what it used to be, and at government expense.

Beleive me, the arguments you use aren't all that different from what was used then.

Then again, I'd use the same arguments if someone were advocating for, say, "high paid jobs for everyone" or something silly like that.

Perspective is everything.

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 12:41 PM
I think you and I know where each other stands on these issues.

However, since I don't have a Lombardi Trophy and you have three, could I have one of yours? After all, you can afford to give more.

No you may not, and the reason si easy. You had an equal opportunity to achieve one. I succeeded. You failed. Too bad.

P.S. Also note that failure to receive a Lombardi will likely lead to civil unrest or rioting. At some point, the masses need appeasing. Such is the way of all governments throughout history.

Donger
06-01-2007, 12:43 PM
You're providing quality meat to the people, free of charge.

In teh good old days, you'd have to pay for high quality meat, and take your chances with the low. Now low is still "high" compared to what it used to be, and at government expense.

Beleive me, the arguments you use aren't all that different from what was used then.

Then again, I'd use the same arguments if someone were advocating for, say, "high paid jobs for everyone" or something silly like that.

Perspective is everything.

So, you'd be okay with providing lower quality healthcare for those who presently can't afford any?

Donger
06-01-2007, 12:45 PM
No you may not, and the reason si easy. You had an equal opportunity to achieve one. I succeeded. You failed. Too bad.

P.S. Also note that failure to receive a Lombardi will likely lead to civil unrest or rioting. At some point, the masses need appeasing. Such is the way of all governments throughout history.

Equal opportunity my ass. Our defense sucked. Since yours was great, we would only have had an equal opportunity to win if you weren't hoarding all the great players.

Fascist, robber baron.

Donger
06-01-2007, 12:47 PM
P.S. Also note that failure to receive a Lombardi will likely lead to civil unrest or rioting. At some point, the masses need appeasing. Such is the way of all governments throughout history.

ROFL

FD
06-01-2007, 12:48 PM
I never used the word "free." Someone else did. I was simply answering your question about what the government has ever done that is less expensive than when it is done by the private sector. Public schools are less expensive on an individual basis, for those actively involved in the paying of direct tuition and expenses, and only barely more expensive to those who aren't involved in such (to the point of not even being noticeable by them 9 times out of 10).

I don't advocate outright socialism, but neither is the antisocial "up with me, damn the rest" idealism displayed by so many on the right one iota better.

Education is not an example of the government doing something less expensive than the private sector. It provides the service less efficiently, spending more per student. The fact that it forces other people to pay for it doesn't make it less expensive.

Not that I'm against public education, but its a bad example for the argument you were making.

And you dont think people notice how much they pay in property taxes?

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 12:49 PM
So, you'd be okay with providing lower quality healthcare for those who presently can't afford any?


I'm trying to stick more to general theory than specifics as to health care, as I'm not an expert.

What I do know is that the health care industry, as whole, is stunningly inefficient, poorly run, and unresponsive. Keep in mind, also, that many hospitals offer "free" health care to anyone who walks in, which has an associated cost as well.

I honestly think if we can come up with a different paradigm, we might be able to improve on all these things, without increasing costs overall. The question, of course, is how to do that, and how to apportion costs among the players.

Keep in mind, also, that our employment-based health care system has two significant drawbacks. First, employers have a serious additional cost to hiring new employees. Second, employees suffer a double whammy when discharged -- loss of job and loss of insurance which they are now less able to pay.

COBRA is a good concept, but often is impractical due to costs when one is out of work.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 12:53 PM
lower quality healthcare

That's entirely relative. For example, I have excellent benefits b/c my wife is a PICU nurse. Does Mike at the local Jeep plant have lower quality healthcare because his deductibles are more and he doesn't get vision and dental? Well...yeah. But is it "low quality healthcare"? No.

If you provide health coverage and routine checkups for people who previously couldn't afford any, it may be low quality compared to say...TO's health care, because he sleeps in a hyperbaric chamber, but it's a hell of a lot better than what they had before and it provides for their basic survival.

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 12:53 PM
ROFL


You laugh, and yet it's a realistic consideration. Governments are overthrown, most often, due to the simple reality of unequal economic distribution leading to massive disaffection.

That's not to say that socialism or communism are good. It is to say that it's good governance to try to ensure that the downtrodden aren't left penniless, hopeless and pathetic.

Nor, of course, do I suggest that the US government is in any kind of imminent danger of being overthrown internally. But Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, recognized that unions were formed out of the desperation of a large and extremely dissatisfied mass of people who were expressing outrage over issues of inequality, etc.

Donger
06-01-2007, 12:53 PM
What I do know is that the health care industry, as whole, is stunningly inefficient, poorly run, and unresponsive.

And do you think that it would be any better when it is run by the federal government?

Keep in mind, also, that many hospitals offer "free" health care to anyone who walks in, which has an associated cost as well.

They are required to do so by law, no?

I honestly think if we can come up with a different paradigm, we might be able to improve on all these things, without increasing costs overall. The question, of course, is how to do that, and how to apportion costs among the players.

I'm fine with that. Who wouldn't be? The kicker is in the question, though.

Donger
06-01-2007, 12:54 PM
That's entirely relative. For example, I have excellent benefits b/c my wife is a PICU nurse. Does Mike at the local Jeep plant have lower quality healthcare because his deductibles are more and he doesn't get vision and dental? Well...yeah. But is it "low quality healthcare"? No.

If you provide health coverage and routine checkups for people who previously couldn't afford any, it may be low quality compared to say...TO's health care, because he sleeps in a hyperbaric chamber, but it's a hell of a lot better than what they had before and it provides for their basic survival.

"provides for their basic survival."

That pretty much says it all for me.

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 12:54 PM
Equal opportunity my ass. Our defense sucked. Since yours was great, we would only have had an equal opportunity to win if you weren't hoarding all the great players.

Fascist, robber baron.


Your point is wide of the mark, since you had equal opportunity to obtain the same coaches and players, and failed.

Not all need to go to Harvard to succeed.

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 12:56 PM
And do you think that it would be any better when it is run by the federal government?

No, which is why I don't want it to be run by the federal government. Private enterprise MUST be in the middle.



They are required to do so by law, no?

I don't know, but assume so. Regardless, it's an inefficiency that can be fixed as part of a broader revision of health care in this country.



I'm fine with that. Who wouldn't be? The kicker is in the question, though.

Well, yes. :-)

And, inevitably, even if costs overall are the same, they'll likely be distributed differently. It's impossible to keep it all EXACTLY the same.

Donger
06-01-2007, 12:56 PM
You laugh, and yet it's a realistic consideration. Governments are overthrown, most often, due to the simple reality of unequal economic distribution leading to massive disaffection.

That's not to say that socialism or communism are good. It is to say that it's good governance to try to ensure that the downtrodden aren't left penniless, hopeless and pathetic.

Nor, of course, do I suggest that the US government is in any kind of imminent danger of being overthrown internally. But Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, recognized that unions were formed out of the desperation of a large and extremely dissatisfied mass of people who were expressing outrage over issues of inequality, etc.

Except that now, our "poor" will revolt because their Dish Network bill keeps going up.

I seem to remember a country called the Soviet Union. IIRC, it's people also revolted. I wonder why? They had everything for free, too. They must not have understood how great they had it...

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 12:57 PM
And do you think that it would be any better when it is run by the federal government?



They are required to do so by law, no?



I'm fine with that. Who wouldn't be? The kicker is in the question, though.

Top thirty countries in Human Development Index

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, and standard of living for countries worldwide.


1 Norway 0.965 ()
2.Iceland 0.960 ()
3.Australia 0.957 ()
4.Ireland 0.956 ( 4)
5.Sweden 0.951 ( 1)
6.Canada 0.950 ( 1)
7.Japan 0.949 ( 4)
8.United States 0.948 ( 2)

What do most of those countries above the US have in common??

A mixed economy with elements of a welfare state.

Donger
06-01-2007, 12:59 PM
Your point is wide of the mark, since you had equal opportunity to obtain the same coaches and players, and failed.

Not all need to go to Harvard to succeed.

We're having fun, of course, but your recurring theme is equal opportunity. Does not everyone in this country PRESENTLY have an equal opportunity to succeed?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 01:00 PM
Except that now, our "poor" will revolt because their Dish Network bill keeps going up.

I seem to remember a country called the Soviet Union. IIRC, it's people also revolted. I wonder why? They had everything for free, too. They must not have understood how great they had it...


Where does providing for the Welfare of your citizens, allowing them access to Healthcare, education, unemployment benefits and disability assistance equate to

"Giving them everything for free"???

Donger
06-01-2007, 01:01 PM
Where does providing for the Welfare of your citizens, allowing them access to Healthcare, education, unemployment benefits and disability assistance equate to

"Giving them everything for free"???

See above.

"provides for their basic survival."

Are you going to charge them for that?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 01:03 PM
We're having fun, of course, but your recurring theme is equal opportunity. Does not everyone in this country PRESENTLY have an equal opportunity to succeed?

ROFL ROFL

Why then, are the majority of high paying jobs in this country held by white males?

8 of 500 Fortune 500 companies have female CEOs

4 of 500 have black CEOs

Meanwhile half the prison population consists of an ethnic group that is 12% of the population, and you call that an "even playing field"??

Donger
06-01-2007, 01:04 PM
ROFL ROFL

Why then, are the majority of high paying jobs in this country held by white males?

8 of 500 Fortune 500 companies have female CEOs

4 of 500 have black CEOs

Meanwhile half the prison population consists of an ethnic group that is 12% of the population, and you call that an "even playing field"??

So, you don't think that everyone in this country has an equal opprtunity to succeed?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 01:05 PM
See above.

"provides for their basic survival."

Are you going to charge them for that?

No, why not give citizens of your country access to healthcare so that if they do get sick, they aren't further f*cked by a disabling condition that could have been prevented.

You're down to arguing semantics.

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 01:06 PM
Except that now, our "poor" will revolt because their Dish Network bill keeps going up.

Maybe in 100 years that will be true. But it's not true now, and I worry about the here and now.

I also think there's a difference between basic health care and entertainment, but maybe that's just me.

I seem to remember a country called the Soviet Union. IIRC, it's people also revolted. I wonder why? They had everything for free, too. They must not have understood how great they had it...

No, they didn't. True communism has never existed in this world, as you well know. Nor is communism workable in the real world. It's a fine theory, but it goes against human nature, and is therefore conceptually stupid.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 01:06 PM
So, you don't think that everyone in this country has an equal opprtunity to succeed?

I'm going to take inner city education for 600, Alex.

Donger
06-01-2007, 01:07 PM
No, why not give citizens of your country access to healthcare so that if they do get sick, they aren't further f*cked by a disabling condition that could have been prevented.

You're down to arguing semantics.

No, I'm arguing that it's not the place of government to provide for the basic necessities of survival for its people.

Call me crazy, but that's an individual's responsibility.

Cochise
06-01-2007, 01:09 PM
I'm going to take inner city education for 600, Alex.

The people are too stupid to handle it themselves, the wise folks in government need to take care of their affairs for them... got it.

Let's just leave everything up to the experts...

Donger
06-01-2007, 01:10 PM
Maybe in 100 years that will be true. But it's not true now, and I worry about the here and now.

I also think there's a difference between basic health care and entertainment, but maybe that's just me.



No, they didn't. True communism has never existed in this world, as you well know. Nor is communism workable in the real world. It's a fine theory, but it goes against human nature, and is therefore conceptually stupid.

I didn't say that the Soviet Union was an example of true communism. But, it was a great example of a socialist society.

Donger
06-01-2007, 01:11 PM
I'm going to take inner city education for 600, Alex.

Do they not have opportunities to break out? Do they not have access to very specific scholarships?

I think you are confusing opportunity with desire.

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 01:11 PM
We're having fun, of course, but your recurring theme is equal opportunity. Does not everyone in this country PRESENTLY have an equal opportunity to succeed?

Go to an inner city school and ask that question.

Ask any parent of a kid in prviate school why they spend the money.

But none of that matters. Perfect equality of opportunity isn't achievable or relevant, nor really applicable regarding health care.

I just think that (1) the health care system we now have is fundamentally broken, and (2) a minimum level fo health care for all citizens is achievable and desirable, for a number of reasons.

Opportunity doesn't really come up in the health care debate, IMHO.

Donger
06-01-2007, 01:12 PM
The people are too stupid to handle it themselves, the wise folks in government need to take care of their affairs for them... got it.

Let's just leave everything up to the experts...

Hamas is a great example of the contradictory nature of egalitarians.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 01:13 PM
The people are too stupid to handle it themselves, the wise folks in government need to take care of their affairs for them... got it.

Let's just leave everything up to the experts...

In 1999, the median income of African American families was $33,255 compared to $53,356 of whites.

Now, who is paying more property taxes? As a direct consequence, who is going to be able to afford better teachers and better facilities, more outreach programs, etc?

In a capitalist system, who is going to have better career prospects, the applicant who had access to all those systems, or the one who didn't.

Sometimes, it will be B), but the vast majority of the time, it will be A). You seem to base your entire argument on statistical anomalies. That's absurd.

I'm not saying that the government has to personally rear every child, but you could at least attempt to equalize the playing field that is disproportionately slanted.

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 01:13 PM
No, I'm arguing that it's not the place of government to provide for the basic necessities of survival for its people.

Call me crazy, but that's an individual's responsibility.

Then why are there cops? Why are there food laws? Taken to its extreme, you're saying that the Old West and the guy with the fastest gun rules is legimate and desirable society.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 01:14 PM
Do they not have opportunities to break out? Do they not have access to very specific scholarships?

I think you are confusing opportunity with desire.

Got it. Black people don't succeed in numbers proportionate to whites because they are lazy.

Thank you, Mr. Duke.

Donger
06-01-2007, 01:17 PM
Then why are there cops? Why are there food laws? Taken to its extreme, you're saying that the Old West and the guy with the fastest gun rules is legimate and desirable society.

Only in my dreams, Amno.

But seriously, like I've already said, I've no problem with government protecting its citizens from harm (cops, military, food/labor laws, etc.). I just take issue with government providing such fundamental items like food, water, housing, et al.

If you won't do that for yourself...

Baby Lee
06-01-2007, 01:17 PM
Every movement towards a more equal social structure is decried by the right (as that term is defined at that piont in time) as destroying society as they know it.

Labor laws, regulation of runaway corporations, securities laws, regulations of banks, etc. ad infinitum. All destroying the spirit of America and it's entrepreneurship.

And that was in the 1900-1930s timeframe.

Time passes, but the fundamental nature of the debate rarely changes.
There's philosophy, then there's implementation.
The way you couch it, is kind of like thinking the only things that happened with the Chiefs over the past 7 years were Dante's great returns and Priest's and Larry's greatest runs.
My ham-handed analogy addicted way of saying, the nay-sayers, the brake pullers, have a job to do as well.

I'll tell you though, the mix of progressive entitlements and conservative spendthriftiness can cause some real headaches.
Have you had any experience with Medicare set-asides?
My God! What a friggen waste.
So, Medicare is available for our needy and disabled. Great. But some spendthrift got in his head "we just want to care for the unfortunate, not the folks who are disabled where fault can be apportioned. So if some guy [or gal] has a worker's comp or negligence injury that might, some day, make them Medicare, eligible, we want the negligent party, or the employer to set aside money for future care.
Great!!! A brake on Federal Spending!! Someone's looking out for us common folk.
Only, now, settlements get postponed for YEARS while attorneys wrangle over speculating what care is going to be needed decades into the future. Then they package it all up in a proposal that they submit to a government agency that goes over it with a fine toothed comb AGAIN to verify that the calculations are satisfactory. Then the simple settlement needs carefully crafted language that lays out the set-aside and attachs the sign-off from the agency. THEN the injured employee is tasked with accounting for the rest of his natural life for the disbursement from that set aside and reporting back to this agency.

Donger
06-01-2007, 01:18 PM
Got it. Black people don't succeed in numbers proportionate to whites because they are lazy.

Thank you, Mr. Duke.

I couldn't help but notice that you didn't answer my question.

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 01:18 PM
I didn't say that the Soviet Union was an example of true communism. But, it was a great example of a socialist society.


Yes, and true socialism also reacts against basic human nature, and is therefore also stupid.

I strive for a balance, because true capitalism isn't far removed from a state of nature, and has already proven to be woefully unfair, predatory and impractical, except for the extremely elite few.

The robber baron society could not, would not last indefinitely -- nor is it in society's best interests to let it.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 01:22 PM
I couldn't help but notice that you didn't answer my question.

Ok, I'll indulge you:

If you think that a f*cking scholarship program outweighs all the other institutional factors that are levied against the contemporary black person, you aren't dealing in any form of tangible reality.

Oh wait, we gave them a minority applicant scholarship. That will erase the fact that they make 60 cents on the dollar to whites and that a quarter of their population has been in jail.

Seriously dude, you're better than this.

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 01:23 PM
Only in my dreams, Amno.

But seriously, like I've already said, I've no problem with government protecting its citizens from harm (cops, military, food/labor laws, etc.). I just take issue with government providing such fundamental items like food, water, housing, et al.

If you won't do that for yourself...


So you disagree with public water works? Everyone should pump out of a well?

FEMA should be disbanded?

Your view of the purpose of government was in vogue about 80 years ago. :LOL:

Baby Lee
06-01-2007, 01:24 PM
ROFL ROFL

Why then, are the majority of high paying jobs in this country held by white males?

8 of 500 Fortune 500 companies have female CEOs

4 of 500 have black CEOs

Meanwhile half the prison population consists of an ethnic group that is 12% of the population, and you call that an "even playing field"??
If you want to limit thinks to the very top echelon, a few decades ago, Bill Gates was a nerd effing around with circuit boards in his garage. Dude couldn't parlayed that into some weed money and left it at that. But he didn't. You think people give a flying f@ck if their OS was created by a white dude, or an Asian, or AA?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 01:29 PM
If you want to limit thinks to the very top echelon, a few decades ago, Bill Gates was a nerd effing around with circuit boards in his garage. Dude couldn't parlayed that into some weed money and left it at that. But he didn't. You think people give a flying f@ck if their OS was created by a white dude, or an Asian, or AA?

What part is incomprhensible here:

Donger said everyone has equal access:

I used CEOs as a small example of the fallacy of that statement.


Here's a broader one:

In 1995, one-third of African American men between the ages of 20 and 29 were under some form of criminal justice control (in prison, on parole or probation).[1] Some statistics report that African Americans are at least seven times more likely to murder, be murdered and/or incarcerated than white Americans.[2] Studies suggest that the association of racial or ethnic identity with crime rates is a potentially misleading and racialist paradigm, with education and socioeconomic status being more accurate correlates to criminal behavior. From 1976 until 2004, despite their comprising approximately 12% of the population, African-Americans comprised the majority (52%) of criminal offenders arrested and convicted of homicide (murder and manslaughter), and a large proportion (46.9%) of homicide victims. [3] Rates of homicide and other violence among African Americans are no greater than those of similarly situated (i.e., economically disadvantaged) whites or any other ethnic group in the United States.[4]

There are other factors which contribute to the overrepresentation of African Americans caught up in the criminal justice system. African Americans are frequently the targets of racial profiling[5] and negative societal stereotyping. Historians agree that black stereotypes and coping strategies are rooted in America's history of slavery and racial segregation.[8] Additionally, once apprehended and charged with a crime, African-Americans are several times more likely than whites to receive substandard legal representation and harsher sentences for petty crimes, including longer periods of incarceration. Blacks also receive the death penalty far more frequently than whites for similar crimes, particularly when the victim is white.[6] Further, sentencing laws, which generally mandate harsher sentences for certain types of drug offenses and for street crime, as opposed to other types of criminal offenses, place the black poor at a disadvantage when compared to whites.[7

================================================
The lack of education and socioeconomic status, which disproportionately affects blacks leads to all of these consquences. You are a smart guy, you aren't really naive enough to believe the playing field is approaching "equality"

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 01:32 PM
There's philosophy, then there's implementation.
The way you couch it, is kind of like thinking the only things that happened with the Chiefs over the past 7 years were Dante's great returns and Priest's and Larry's greatest runs.
My ham-handed analogy addicted way of saying, the nay-sayers, the brake pullers, have a job to do as well.



Terrible analogy. :p

But I agree, reactionaries do have a job to do. Make sure we stop, look and listen BEFORE we jump. Also to measure twice before we cut. (some better analogies for you :p )

I'm not familiar with Medicare set-asides. I do know that I would hope my "all-encompassing system) would eliminate Medicare -- it being subsumed and made irrelevant by the new system, whatever it is.

There's many ways to do it. Make it a McDonald's value meal, while allowing individuals to upgrade to Morton's steakhouse if they want. Whatever. The goal would be for a new paradigm that is quasi public, quasi private, enterprised based, profit-based, and thereofre striving to be efficient, rather than some massive governmental agency where accountability and cost-consciousness are undervalued.

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 01:37 PM
Hamas -- while I agree with you on many principles, I admit I'm dumbfounded by the difficulty blacks have in achieving success in this country as compared to some other minority groups, in particular Asians.

I wonder if there isn't something socio-economic that gets in the way of their success.

And note please, that not all things socio-economic are "fixable" by government. I'm hard-pressed to see what additional affirmative action or other laws are needed to give African-Americans a better chance at attaining equality in this country.

Indeed, my disdain for permanent entitlement programs makes me wonder when affirmative action programs will ever end. Sooner or later, there needs to be a "sink or swim" situation brought about. I am white, of course, and have never dealt with them directly, but I'm familiar with affirmative action programs to some degree, and the economic dislocation and odd results that arise due to them. They are not, inherently, good for economic efficiency.

I wish I knew the answer to this.

Cochise
06-01-2007, 01:40 PM
I don't think anyone claimed that all opportunities are equal.

We are just saying that it's not the government's job to ensure that everyone's life experience is equal in every way.

A lot of people grew up richer than me. My family didn't have the money to send me to college. So what? Those were just my circumstances. Circumstances don't define you. They just define what you need to do.

Some people work harder in life than others. Some people are trust fund babies, some claw their way into an education, and some people stuff envelopes for 50 years. I don't sit here all day and complain about how I wasn't born to some oil magnate and how it isn't fair that some people are, so the government should make me equal with them. That's ridiculous.

We don't need to engineer society into total conformity. This is the way the system should be. There are opportunities to move out of your caste, you can get out something roughly proportionate to what you put in.

I thought everyone's father probably told them "Life's not fair" when they were little but I guess not. :shrug:

Baby Lee
06-01-2007, 01:42 PM
Hamas -- while I agree with you on many principles, I admit I'm dumbfounded by the difficulty blacks have in achieving success in this country as compared to some other minority groups, in particular Asians.

I wonder if there isn't something socio-economic that gets in the way of their success.

And note please, that not all things socio-economic are "fixable" by government. I'm hard-pressed to see what additional affirmative action or other laws are needed to give African-Americans a better chance at attaining equality in this country.

Indeed, my disdain for permanent entitlement programs makes me wonder when affirmative action programs will ever end. Sooner or later, there needs to be a "sink or swim" situation brought about. I am white, of course, and have never dealt with them directly, but I'm familiar with affirmative action programs to some degree, and the economic dislocation and odd results that arise due to them. They are not, inherently, good for economic efficiency.

I wish I knew the answer to this.
Thanks for the input, Mr. Grand Kleagle! :p

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 01:47 PM
I don't think anyone claimed that all opportunities are equal.

We are just saying that it's not the government's job to ensure that everyone's life experience is equal in every way.

No, it's not. Nor is it practical or achievable, so don't even worry about it. :)

Some people work harder in life than others. Some people are trust fund babies, some claw their way into an education, and some people stuff envelopes for 50 years. I don't sit here all day and complain about how I wasn't born to some oil magnate and how it isn't fair that some people are, so the government should make me equal with them. That's ridiculous.

Yes, I agree with all this. I also grew up quite "unwealthy", though I won't pretend for a second I was seriously disadvantaged in any way.

We don't need to engineer society into total conformity. This is the way the system should be. There are opportunities to move out of your caste, you can get out something roughly proportionate to what you put in.

I thought everyone's father probably told them "Life's not fair" when they were little but I guess not. :shrug:

I say it all the time.

The goal isn't to make life fair. The goal is to ensure, to the degree we can, that we minimize structural unfairness in ways that make sense given our economic ability. Keep in mind that giving people opportunities to succeed is in our national self-interest. There might be, right now, today, the next Albert Einstein, but we'll never have te benefit of that because he's in a horrible inner city school, and will never have the chance to realize his potential.

Can we unlock all those people from teh chains of their circumstances? No. Can we give everyone an elite education? No. Can we fix all the wrongs in life? No.

Shoudl we try? Well, only in a limited degree. Only to the extent we can afford to, and where we don't cause more dislocation and upheaval than we might gain in benefit.

But this isn't about education -- it's about health care. A very broken, illogical, unfair, inefficient system. I refuse to believe that this country can't do better than the total POS system we now have in place. I also can't believe that we can't provide a "floor" of health care to all our citizens, especially when we already provide a "floor" to many fo them through Medicaid and free access to hospitals, etc.

The system can be MUCH more efficient, and I'd like to see a new system in place. One that doens't ensure complete fairness by any means -- Bill Gates can, and should, be able to get better health care than Poor Ma Jones, but that doesn't mean Poor Ma Jones can't even get some prescription medicine to get over a flu.

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 01:49 PM
Thanks for the input, Mr. Grand Kleagle! :p


:)

As you can see, although liberal, I"m always brutally honest about my thoughts/opinions

Cochise
06-01-2007, 01:49 PM
Hamas -- while I agree with you on many principles, I admit I'm dumbfounded by the difficulty blacks have in achieving success in this country as compared to some other minority groups, in particular Asians.

I wonder if there isn't something socio-economic that gets in the way of their success.

I honestly believe it's because who the heroes of the culture are.

And by that I mean, if you went to the 'vanilla' small town where I grew up to the high school, and asked students who they most admired or wanted to grow up to be like, what would they say? Who are your heroes? Who do you want to be like? Some might say athletes, but also maybe doctors, lawyers, maybe politicians. If you went to the inner city to an african-american school, I think that you would hear more about athletes, rappers, actors, etc.

If you asked a kid from my hometown in the suburbs who the most successful person they could think of was, they might say Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or someone like that. In the city they are going to tell you it's Kobe Bryant or Jay-Z or whoever.

I hope no one will take the low road and call me a racist here, because I'm just trying to make an observation.

I think that people aspire to be what their culture regards as success. White suburban middle-american culture puts people up like doctors and lawyers and financiers and businessmen as the picture of success. But I think that in a lot of cases young, urban african-american culture fixes the picture of success on athletes and rappers. So people in the suburbs grow up with goals like becoming educated, getting a successful career, etc.

If you aspire to be like people who are educated, you will get educated. If you aspire to be like people who aren't educated, then you probably won't pursue education either.

And it's also what the people around you consider marginal success. If you grow up in Bel Air then making $15 an hour doesn't fit your definition of success. If you grow up in the ghetto then $15 an hour probably sounds pretty good. But the flip side of that is that the guy from the ghetto might be content with $15 an hour - he's made it. Whereas someone else expects more, they need more to be considered successful where they come from.

I think there will continue to be lots of problems until people change what their picture of the ideal is.

CHIEF4EVER
06-01-2007, 01:55 PM
Translated: Will the very wealthy continue to receive the highest level of care and very best doctors possible and not have to pay a dime for those with no access at all?

Translated: I believe that those who worked to get wealthy should have what they earned stolen from them to pay for others who haven't earned it in any way other than being poor. Forced generosity if you will.

Cochise
06-01-2007, 01:58 PM
I say it all the time.

The goal isn't to make life fair. The goal is to ensure, to the degree we can, that we minimize structural unfairness in ways that make sense given our economic ability. Keep in mind that giving people opportunities to succeed is in our national self-interest. There might be, right now, today, the next Albert Einstein, but we'll never have te benefit of that because he's in a horrible inner city school, and will never have the chance to realize his potential.

Can we unlock all those people from teh chains of their circumstances? No. Can we give everyone an elite education? No. Can we fix all the wrongs in life? No.

Shoudl we try? Well, only in a limited degree. Only to the extent we can afford to, and where we don't cause more dislocation and upheaval than we might gain in benefit.

But this isn't about education -- it's about health care. A very broken, illogical, unfair, inefficient system. I refuse to believe that this country can't do better than the total POS system we now have in place. I also can't believe that we can't provide a "floor" of health care to all our citizens, especially when we already provide a "floor" to many fo them through Medicaid and free access to hospitals, etc.

The system can be MUCH more efficient, and I'd like to see a new system in place. One that doens't ensure complete fairness by any means -- Bill Gates can, and should, be able to get better health care than Poor Ma Jones, but that doesn't mean Poor Ma Jones can't even get some prescription medicine to get over a flu.

I agree with all of this, except the premise that our health care system is poor, and that it can be MUCH better by the government annexing it. How does our system compare with the rest of the world? How does it compare in efficiency to a government program?

Obviously there are some problems...insurance companies, other 'process' leeches, litigation. But there's no need to throw a pretty nice car into a compactor because the windshield is broken or it needs a new muffler.

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 02:02 PM
I agree with all of this, except the premise that our health care system is poor, and that it can be MUCH better by the government annexing it. How does our system compare with the rest of the world? How does it compare in efficiency to a government program?

Obviously there are some problems...insurance companies, other 'process' leeches, litigation. But there's no need to throw a pretty nice car into a compactor because the windshield is broken or it needs a new muffler.

1. I do NOT propose making health care some kind of completely federalized system.

2. litigation is such a miniscule percentage of health care costs as to be insignificant.

3. These quotes are from wiki:

"Current estimates put US healthcare spending at approximately 15% of GDP, which is the highest in the world."

"The overall performance of the United States health care system was ranked 37th by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2000."

Talk about two facts that do not add up...

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

Donger
06-01-2007, 02:03 PM
Ok, I'll indulge you:

If you think that a f*cking scholarship program outweighs all the other institutional factors that are levied against the contemporary black person, you aren't dealing in any form of tangible reality.

Oh wait, we gave them a minority applicant scholarship. That will erase the fact that they make 60 cents on the dollar to whites and that a quarter of their population has been in jail.

Seriously dude, you're better than this.

I don't think that. I'm just pointing out that they have opportunities to break out. Is it the government's fault that they don't take the opportunity offered?

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 02:04 PM
Translated: I believe that those who worked to get wealthy should have what they earned stolen from them to pay for others who haven't earned it in any way other than being poor. Forced generosity if you will.


Yes, yes, and the holy trinity to you are JP Morgan, JD Rockefeller and Ford Fricke, no doubt. You're so far to the right you're off the charts.

(please note that I'm a chronically blaspheming agnostic/atheist, so the statement about holy trinity is entirely tongue in cheek)

Donger
06-01-2007, 02:04 PM
So you disagree with public water works? Everyone should pump out of a well?

FEMA should be disbanded?

Your view of the purpose of government was in vogue about 80 years ago. :LOL:

Nope. Those exist to make sure that the product isn't dangerous and provide assistance in time of disaster.

I'm talking about providing the basic needs of life on a daily basis.

Hamas seems to think the government should provide that. I don't.

Donger
06-01-2007, 02:06 PM
Donger said everyone has equal access:

Err, no, I didn't.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 02:15 PM
Hamas -- while I agree with you on many principles, I admit I'm dumbfounded by the difficulty blacks have in achieving success in this country as compared to some other minority groups, in particular Asians.

I wonder if there isn't something socio-economic that gets in the way of their success.

And note please, that not all things socio-economic are "fixable" by government. I'm hard-pressed to see what additional affirmative action or other laws are needed to give African-Americans a better chance at attaining equality in this country.

Indeed, my disdain for permanent entitlement programs makes me wonder when affirmative action programs will ever end. Sooner or later, there needs to be a "sink or swim" situation brought about. I am white, of course, and have never dealt with them directly, but I'm familiar with affirmative action programs to some degree, and the economic dislocation and odd results that arise due to them. They are not, inherently, good for economic efficiency.

I wish I knew the answer to this.


Personally, I think that there are non-socioeconomic manifestations to the problem--namely the black community's lack of desire to take on offensive portrayals and stereotypes through rap music for one.


Please realize that I'm not absolving the black community from blame here.

There exists a nuanced position wherein one's success can be far more difficult to achieve. That same person or group can also hurt their own chances.

It doesn't have to be one or the other. In fact it's both, but simply because there are elements of the black community causing it problems does not mean that the broader scope of America should just say "the hell with you, fix it yourself".

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 02:16 PM
We're having fun, of course, but your recurring theme is equal opportunity. Does not everyone in this country PRESENTLY have an equal opportunity to succeed?


Donger and Cochise, here is your answer.

Donger
06-01-2007, 02:19 PM
Donger and Cochise, here is your answer.

Did you notice the question mark at the end of that question?

BucEyedPea
06-01-2007, 02:21 PM
According to Thomas Sowell's book Ethnic America , a great study in the traits and values of each of America's ethic groups, there are two groups that have failed to prosper as much other groups...on their own.

They are the Irish and the Blacks.

The two groups who relied on govt (politics) the most to get what they needed.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 02:22 PM
Did you notice the question mark at the end of that question?

Did you notice the rhetorical nature of said question, as well as your continued rebuttals of my attempt to disprove it in the previous posts?

Cochise
06-01-2007, 02:23 PM
1. I do NOT propose making health care some kind of completely federalized system.

2. litigation is such a miniscule percentage of health care costs as to be insignificant.

3. These quotes are from wiki:

"Current estimates put US healthcare spending at approximately 15% of GDP, which is the highest in the world."

"The overall performance of the United States health care system was ranked 37th by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2000."

Talk about two facts that do not add up...

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

As far as #2 goes, what I was getting at was all the costs above and beyond paying for the heath care. insurance (being insured against litigation, money recovered by litigation, etc.) is a big one.

Some companies are starting to take action against it. Some of them are becoming self insured, to cut the insurance company's profit layer out of the process. There's one major employer in Kansas City that did it in the past couple of years, and others are looking at it. All you really have to do is be able to process claims. I think that's where we are headed. If we break down the insurance industry alone, that would drive our costs down substantially.

That's just me... have a lot of reasons why I dislike insurance companies.


If you look at those rankings of national health care systems, I think you see a lot of things on there that aren't really great information. Like the U.S. being #37 in the world. Here's one list that I found:


1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States

Aside from knowing nothing about what they think makes a health care system "good," what jumps out at me about that list?

China and India, the two countries more populous than the US, are not ahead of us. Of the next most populous countries (Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Russia, Nigeria, Japan, Mexico) rounding out the top 10, only Japan is.

The point of this is that it's a lot easier to give quality care to a few people than a lot of people. So the solution is to stop many private providers from proving care to a relatively few patients, and instead have the government increasingly provide care to a huge number of patients?

It doesn't work that way. There will not be a net benefit IMO.

To me it seems like having 10 classes of 20 students, where one of those classes doesn't have a teacher, and instead of hiring a new teacher we just disperse the students into all the other classes, increasing the class size for everyone.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 02:23 PM
According to Thomas Sowell's book Ethnic America , a great study in the traits and values of each of America's ethic groups, there are two groups that have failed to prosper as much other groups...on their own.

They are the Irish and the Blacks.

The two groups who relied on govt (politics) the most to get what they needed.

So basically, the blacks and the blacks of Europe.


ROFL ROFL....


Sorry :p

Donger
06-01-2007, 02:25 PM
Did you notice the rhetorical nature of said question, as well as your continued rebuttals of my attempt to disprove it in the previous posts?

It wasn't rhetorical. I honestly don't know.

You seem to confirm that they do, indeed, have opportunity to succeed, perhaps even greater opportunities, as compared to some white guy in Overland Park. Are they offered scholarships just because of their position in society?

If so, is it not correct to say that don't take advantage of those opportunities? And, is that anyone's fault but their own?

Cochise
06-01-2007, 02:25 PM
(please note that I'm a chronically blaspheming agnostic/atheist, so the statement about holy trinity is entirely tongue in cheek)

You humanists have your trinity too... Marx, Freud, and Darwin? :p

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 02:26 PM
As far as #2 goes, what I was getting at was all the costs above and beyond paying for the heath care. insurance (being insured against litigation, money recovered by litigation, etc.) is a big one.

Some companies are starting to take action against it. Some of them are becoming self insured, to cut the insurance company's profit layer out of the process. There's one major employer in Kansas City that did it in the past couple of years, and others are looking at it. All you really have to do is be able to process claims. I think that's where we are headed. If we break down the insurance industry alone, that would drive our costs down substantially.

That's just me... have a lot of reasons why I dislike insurance companies.


If you look at those rankings of national health care systems, I think you see a lot of things on there that aren't really great information. Like the U.S. being #37 in the world. Here's one list that I found:



Aside from knowing nothing about what they think makes a health care system "good," what jumps out at me about that list?

China and India, the two more countries more populous than the US, are not ahead of us. The next most populous countries (Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Russia, Nigeria, Japan, Mexico) rounding out the top 10 do not either.

You have to go all the way down to #14 on the population list to find a country in the top 37 health care systems. You have to go down to the 19th most populous country to find another one. The most populous country on that list, Germany, doesn't even have a third of the population the United States does.

The point of this is that it's a lot easier to give quality care to a few people than a lot of people. So the solution is to stop many private providers from proving care to a relatively few patients, and instead have the government increasingly provide care to a huge number of patients?

It doesn't work that way. There will not be a net benefit.

To me it seems like having 10 classes of 20 students, where one of those classes doesn't have a teacher, and instead of hiring a new teacher we just disperse the students into all the other classes, increasing the class size for everyone.

Couldn't one also argue that the relative wealth of the United States as a whole could easily offset the cost of implementation of such a system??

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 02:27 PM
It wasn't rhetorical. I honestly don't know.

You're a little too smart to put one on a tee like that.

Nice try though :)

Baby Lee
06-01-2007, 02:31 PM
So basically, the blacks and the blacks of Europe.


ROFL ROFL....


Sorry :p
Sicilians?

"Now tell me, am I lyin'?"

CHIEF4EVER
06-01-2007, 02:33 PM
Yes, yes, and the holy trinity to you are JP Morgan, JD Rockefeller and Ford Fricke, no doubt. You're so far to the right you're off the charts.

Wrong. As I have stated before, I grew up dirt ass poor. Rural white trash. While I don't have any problem helping those in need voluntarily, FORCING me to do so when I had to make it on MY own raises my hackles. I am not rich but I have managed to raise a good Son and give him a better life than I had growing up. All by not being a whining 'victim of societal bias' and working my ass off for what I have and was able to provide my family with. That doesn't make me 'off the charts right wing' or a devotee of Morgan or Rockefeller. It just makes me disagree with the notion that the poor are f*cked because they were born poor or went to an inner city school etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum and people who work hard should have to pay for them. Most people who are still poor that I grew up with are still poor based upon their own life choices. So am I now required to subsidize bad decision making on the part of irresponsible people? There are people living down the road from me who are 2d and 3d generation Welfare recipients. They are poor because they have been beholden to the government for their entire lives and have become lazy because they do absolutely nothing all day but watch TV in government housing while those of us who have struggled get to pay for their sloth. Is that a Progressives idea of fair? I don't mind welfare for those who are truly in need of it (disabled, retarded etc.) and gladly would pay the necessary taxes to help them, but I have a serious problem with paying for those who are poor for any other reason.

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 02:33 PM
You humanists have your trinity too... Marx, Freud, and Darwin? :p

Marx was an idealist who didn't seem to have a good grasp of basic human nature.

The other two I'll grant you. :D

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 02:34 PM
Sicilians?

"Now tell me, am I lyin'?"

http://www.darkfiber.com/blackirish/

:)

Cochise
06-01-2007, 02:35 PM
Couldn't one also argue that the relative wealth of the United States as a whole could easily offset the cost of implementation of such a system??

Should we scrap an entire system because access is problematic for 10-15% of potential users?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 02:35 PM
Sicilians?

"Now tell me, am I lyin'?"

What movie was that in...my FIL mentioned it once, but I have no clue what it is....Help?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 02:37 PM
Should we scrap an entire system because access is problematic for 10-15% of potential users?

I don't even think it works that well for a lot of the people who do have "access"...it goes beyond just the people w/o coverage.

Donger
06-01-2007, 02:39 PM
It doesn't have to be one or the other. In fact it's both, but simply because there are elements of the black community causing it problems does not mean that the broader scope of America should just say "the hell with you, fix it yourself".

It's refreshing to see you admit that they do indeed have opportunity, but some don't take advantage of it.

Good for you!

Baby Lee
06-01-2007, 02:39 PM
What movie was that in...my FIL mentioned it once, but I have no clue what it is....Help?
True Romance, penned by Quentin, directed by Tony Scott.

That line came from a scene where Christopher Walken was a mobster torturing Dennis Hopper, who was the security guard dad of Christian Slater, who had taken off with one of the mob's whores [Patricia Arquette], . . oh and a suitcase of blow.

Donger
06-01-2007, 02:40 PM
Should we scrap an entire system because access is problematic for 10-15% of potential users?

The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 02:42 PM
It's refreshing to see you admit that they do indeed have opportunity, but some don't take advantage of it.

Good for you!

Opportunity is not anything close to a level playing field (I'm just looking for an approximation, not the real thing).

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 02:43 PM
The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.


Well, the "few" here is some 40'ish miillion people.

And if the needs of the many are also being poorly served, in many, many instances, and the entire system is sort of dysfunctionally inefficient, then massive overhaul seems well warranted.

Donger
06-01-2007, 02:45 PM
Well, the "few" here is some 40'ish miillion people.

And if the needs of the many are also being poorly served, in many, many instances, and the entire system is sort of dysfunctionally inefficient, then massive overhaul seems well warranted.

Still a few as compared to the rest.

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 02:46 PM
Opportunity is not anything close to a level playing field (I'm just looking for an approximation, not the real thing).


Can I ask an honest question -- I'm not trying to be a jerk -- why does it seem to me (maybe I'm wrong and it's just my own perceptions that are off) that other minority groups have done a better job of succeeding in American society, than African Americans? In particular, I'm currently thinking of Asians. On top of racial barriers they also have a linguistic barrier, and yet they seem to have done better overall.

Am I misperceiving that? Do others think the same, or disagree? And if I'm right, WHY the hell is that the case? You'd think African-Americans would have a better chance of success given the lack of a language barrier, initially anyway.

I'm not counting CEO noses. Just an overall comparative assessment.

Donger
06-01-2007, 02:47 PM
Opportunity is not anything close to a level playing field (I'm just looking for an approximation, not the real thing).

Well, there will always be poor people. There will always be stupid people. There will always be lazy people.

I know that's hard for egalitarians to ackowledge (and more so to accept), but it's just a fact of life.

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 02:47 PM
Still a few as compared to the rest.

And yet you ignore the rest of my post.

"Barely works" for 200 million and doesn't work at all for 40 million, while the remaining 50 or so is perfectly happy with status quo, doesn't seem all that spectacular to me.

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 02:48 PM
Well, there will always be poor people. There will always be stupid people. There will always be lazy people.



I agree. Human nature cannot be avoided. Some are bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, harder working. Ergo, others are smaller, slower, dumber, and lazier.

Donger
06-01-2007, 02:50 PM
And yet you ignore the rest of my post.

"Barely works" for 200 million and doesn't work at all for 40 million, while the remaining 50 or so is perfectly happy with status quo, doesn't seem all that spectacular to me.

I wonder how many of those 40 million TRULY can't afford health coverage? How many of them can they afford other luxuries, and yet CHOOSE to not have insurance? How many of them don't have insurance but pay out of pocket for medical?

That's one of the points of this argument that irritates me. Not having insurance does not mean no medical care. Doctors will take cash. In fact, they love it.

Donger
06-01-2007, 02:51 PM
Can I ask an honest question -- I'm not trying to be a jerk -- why does it seem to me (maybe I'm wrong and it's just my own perceptions that are off) that other minority groups have done a better job of succeeding in American society, than African Americans? In particular, I'm currently thinking of Asians. On top of racial barriers they also have a linguistic barrier, and yet they seem to have done better overall.

Am I misperceiving that? Do others think the same, or disagree? And if I'm right, WHY the hell is that the case? You'd think African-Americans would have a better chance of success given the lack of a language barrier, initially anyway.

I'm not counting CEO noses. Just an overall comparative assessment.

It's that extra tendon, I think.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 02:51 PM
Well, there will always be poor people. There will always be stupid people. There will always be lazy people.

I know that's hard for egalitarians to ackowledge (and more so to accept), but it's just a fact of life.

Yeah. But you can mitigate the proportion of poor people, and that definitely isn't happening in today's society with an ever growing gap btw the have's and have-nots.

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 02:53 PM
I wonder how many of those 40 million TRULY can't afford health coverage? How many of them can they afford other luxuries, and yet CHOOSE to not have insurance? How many of them don't have insurance but pay out of pocket for medical?

That's one of the points of this argument that irritates me. Not having insurance does not mean no medical care. Doctors will take cash. In fact, they love it.


So you don't think America has poor people?

And, additionally, you think that being without medical insurance is remotely a good idea for anyone?

Let me just say that anyone that I know that has two cents to rub together has health insurance. I find it hard to believe that many people COULD afford it but opt not to. Even if this applied to very few people, I suspect the vast majority of uninsured people are uninsured because it's either health insurance or rent/food, and they opt for the latter.

Donger
06-01-2007, 02:53 PM
Yeah. But you can mitigate the proportion of poor people, and that definitely isn't happening in today's society with an ever growing gap btw the have's and have-nots.

Why should poor, stupid, lazy people earn any more than they do now?

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 02:53 PM
It's that extra tendon, I think.


:spock:

Edit: if this is a joke (as I assume it is), I don't get it.

Baby Lee
06-01-2007, 02:54 PM
It's that extra tendon, I think.
It's the bone in their ankle, dummy.

Funnily enough, Howard made that reference on Mastertape Theater this morning, from a broadcast in 1989, referencing what Dinkin's advantage over Giuliani was in the mayoral race.
I spit out my coffee in laughter.

Donger
06-01-2007, 02:55 PM
So you don't think America has poor people?

And, additionally, you think that being without medical insurance is remotely a good idea for anyone?

Let me just say that anyone that I know that has two cents to rub together has health insurance. I find it hard to believe that many people COULD afford it but opt not to. Even if this applied to very few people, I suspect the vast majority of uninsured people are uninsured because it's either health insurance or rent/food, and they opt for the latter.

1) Yes, I suspect that America has poor people.

2) No, it's not a good idea, especially if you like going to the doctor.

3) I don't know. That's why I asked. Would some people choose Dish Network over health insurance? Oh, I don't know about that one. What about drugs?

Baby Lee
06-01-2007, 02:56 PM
:spock:

Edit: if this is a joke (as I assume it is), I don't get it.
Jimmy the Greek.

Donger
06-01-2007, 02:56 PM
:spock:

Edit: if this is a joke (as I assume it is), I don't get it.

ROFL

Radar Chief
06-01-2007, 02:56 PM
Well, there will always be poor people. There will always be stupid people. There will always be lazy people.

I know that's hard for egalitarians to ackowledge (and more so to accept), but it's just a fact of life.

Yea well, the world needs ditch diggers too.

Cochise
06-01-2007, 02:57 PM
And yet you ignore the rest of my post.

"Barely works" for 200 million and doesn't work at all for 40 million, while the remaining 50 or so is perfectly happy with status quo, doesn't seem all that spectacular to me.

I don't think "barely works" is accurate at all. Why do you think it barely works?

If some people don't have coverage, ok. That's a social problem, let the policy-makers decide what to do with that.

But do 200 million people really not get what they need from the health care system? Can they not see a doctor if they want to? Can they not get any medications? Do people die in the United States in huge numbers of appendicitis or scurvy or typhoid or diarrhea or cholera? No.

Maybe the level of customer service is not what most people expect, maybe it's more expensive than most people find reasonable. But the total social value of health care in America is not 'barely acceptable'. On a five point scale I think it is satisfactory. Not completely satisfactory, but satisfactory.

Where do you get the idea that quality of care is so poor here?

Why don't we just expand coverage to the 10-15% of people who don't have ANY, and not scrap the car because it needs a new set of tires?

BucEyedPea
06-01-2007, 02:58 PM
So basically, the blacks and the blacks of Europe.


ROFL ROFL....

Ha!Ha!


Sorry :p
You will be afta you'a getta da' greetin' froma da' family....that is afa BabyLee.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 02:58 PM
Why should poor, stupid, lazy people earn any more than they do now?

So are people who are poor always stupid and lazy??

Cochise
06-01-2007, 02:58 PM
Why should poor, stupid, lazy people earn any more than they do now?

Hell, most of them are doing well to be employed.

Baby Lee
06-01-2007, 03:00 PM
On a five point scale I think it is satisfactory. Not completely satisfactory, but satisfactory.
On a 1-10 scale, I'd give that assessment a 'thumbs up.' ROFL ROFL

Cochise
06-01-2007, 03:01 PM
So are people who are poor always stupid and lazy??

People who live below the poverty line by and large are people who do not maintain steady employment. You can be a total moron and maintain steady employment. I work with some. Lazy is another matter.

Donger
06-01-2007, 03:01 PM
So are people who are poor always stupid and lazy??

Hell no. I know some stupid and lazy people who are quite well off. But sure, as a general rule, most of the stupid and lazy aren't going to be joining many country clubs.

Cochise
06-01-2007, 03:01 PM
On a 1-10 scale, I'd give that assessment a 'thumbs up.' ROFL ROFL

LMAO I mean, very unsatisfactory/unsatisfactory/neutral/satisfactory/very satisfactory.

Radar Chief
06-01-2007, 03:01 PM
So are people who are poor always stupid and lazy??

Not meaning to answer for Donger, but no. ‘Course, stupid and lazy people aren’t always poor either. Paris Hilton, prime example.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 03:03 PM
Not meaning to answer for Donger, but no. ‘Course, stupid and lazy people aren’t always poor either. Paris Hilton, prime example.

Exactly. Yet it appears that Donger's underlying premise is that the current society is a meritocracy and everyone who makes it deserved to make it and everyone who doesn't has some kind of flaw and deserves their lot in life.

BucEyedPea
06-01-2007, 03:05 PM
Here's another tidbit about black's progress ( American blacks):
They went from a 100% illiteracy rate to a 75% literacy rate 50 years after emancipation. This is when public schools were a relatively new idea and fighting for a foothold in the south; even made illegal for them to attend private schools. This is a remarkable achievement....and long before the era of big govt.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 03:07 PM
Here's another tidbit about black's progress ( American blacks):
long before the era of big govt.

What was that post-Civil War program again??

Donger
06-01-2007, 03:09 PM
Exactly. Yet it appears that Donger's underlying premise is that the current society is a meritocracy and everyone who makes it deserved to make it and everyone who doesn't has some kind of flaw and deserves their lot in life.

Not at all. Some people 'make it' by playing the lottery. I'm just saying that I don't think it's right to elevate people beyond their capabilities just to make yourself feel good about yourself, especially when your taking my f*cking money to do it.

Amnorix
06-01-2007, 03:09 PM
Jimmy the Greek.

Is that what he said? I thought he said that back when African-Americans were slaves, that their masters had bred them to be bigger, stronger whatever. Maybe that was someone else.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 03:11 PM
I'm just saying that I don't think it's right to elevate people beyond their capabilities .

You just said it right there...ROFL ROFL

It's not about making me feel better about myself. I don't advocate these policies for selfish reasons.

Donger
06-01-2007, 03:12 PM
Is that what he said? I thought he said that back when African-Americans were slaves, that their masters had bred them to be bigger, stronger whatever. Maybe that was someone else.

One of my SiLs is Asian, Vietnamese to be precise. I asked her your question long ago. She was born here, but her folks were first generation. She said that in most Asian cultures, education is treated almost as if a gift, and a gift that is to be cherised.

She wasn't that comfortable discussing it, but that was the gist of it.

BucEyedPea
06-01-2007, 03:12 PM
What was that post-Civil War program again??
Emancipation....aka freedom

In less than a decade after emancipation, the American Missionary Association moved into the South and established more than a thousand schools to educate the children of the recently freed slaves.

Freedman's Bureau was also a big contributer to black education spending $3.5 million from 1865 to 1879.

BTW, speaking of Italian blacks, most didn't even value education....you were considered a traitor if you did that in America. Is why many were laborers. And of course we founded our private police force.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 03:15 PM
Emancipation....aka freedom

In less than a decade after emancipation, the American Missionary Association moved into the South and established more than a thousand schools to educate the children of the recently freed slaves.

Freedman's Bureau was also a big contributer to black education spending $3.5 million from 1865 to 1879.

BTW, speaking of Italian blacks, most didn't even value education....you were considered a traitor if you did that in America. Is why many were laborers. And of course we founded our private police force.

I was referring to Reconstruction...which was a pretty big Gov't program....

Donger
06-01-2007, 03:16 PM
You just said it right there...ROFL ROFL

It's not about making me feel better about myself. I don't advocate these policies for selfish reasons.

I was referring to your second part. It's not a "flaw" to be stupid. It's an unfortunate fact. Being lazy, however, is indeed a flaw.

BucEyedPea
06-01-2007, 03:16 PM
Oh duI was referring to Reconstruction...which was a pretty big Gov't program....


Oh duh! :doh!: I didn't know that educated blacks. Was what I took it to mean.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 03:20 PM
Oh du


Oh duh! :doh!: I didn't know that educated blacks. Was what I took it to mean.

It didn't solely, but it was a pretty big gov't program that attempted to rebuild a new society in the south, with black inclusion.

(although it was a miserable failure...but that's more b/c of Johnson, IMO).

Donger
06-01-2007, 03:23 PM
It's not about making me feel better about myself. I don't advocate these policies for selfish reasons.

Then why do you advocate them?

BucEyedPea
06-01-2007, 03:23 PM
One of my SiLs is Asian, Vietnamese to be precise. I asked her your question long ago. She was born here, but her folks were first generation. She said that in most Asian cultures, education is treated almost as if a gift, and a gift that is to be cherised.

She wasn't that comfortable discussing it, but that was the gist of it.
Doesn't surprise me. Their families really push them very hard to excel academically too.

According to Sowell, at least Chinese Americans have higher incomes than Americans in general and higher occupational status. A quarter work in scientific and professional fields. This is despite some of the harshest discrimination and violence faced by immigrants in our history. Similarly for other type Asians, like the Japanese.

Jewish people also place a high value on education.

Baby Lee
06-01-2007, 03:25 PM
Is that what he said? I thought he said that back when African-Americans were slaves, that their masters had bred them to be bigger, stronger whatever. Maybe that was someone else.
I honestly don't know the precise origin of that particular bit of lore, but it's in the same vein of racial gaffes Jimmy, Perot [you people], and that golfer [let 'em serve fried chicken], have made in the past.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 03:27 PM
Then why do you advocate them?

:spock:

Because I think it's ethical.

It doesn't affect me one way or the other, just like the Darfur conflict doesn't affect me. But that doesn't mean that something shouldn't be done about it.

Donger
06-01-2007, 03:28 PM
:spock:

Because I think it's ethical.

It doesn't affect me one way or the other, just like the Darfur conflict doesn't affect me. But that doesn't mean that something shouldn't be done about it.

Why is it important for you to act ethically?

Radar Chief
06-01-2007, 03:29 PM
Is that what he said? I thought he said that back when African-Americans were slaves, that their masters had bred them to be bigger, stronger whatever. Maybe that was someone else.

Your right, Jimmy “the Greek” did say something similar to that. I think he also said something about blacks could run faster and jump higher than whites because they have an extra muscle, or tendon, or whatever, in their legs.
The guy said some pretty goofy chit.

BucEyedPea
06-01-2007, 03:32 PM
So you don't think blacks dance better 'n stiff white anglo-saxon protestants?

Donger
06-01-2007, 03:32 PM
You know what? This is one weird thread...

Baby Lee
06-01-2007, 03:32 PM
So you don't think blacks dance better 'n stiff anglo-saxon whites?
Is that coming to Fox this fall??

Donger
06-01-2007, 03:33 PM
Is that coming to Fox this fall??

White Men Can't Break Dance, directed by little Spike Lee.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 03:34 PM
Why is it important for you to act ethically?

ROFL ROFL.

Cochise
06-01-2007, 03:34 PM
:spock:

Because I think it's ethical.


I'd prefer if you didn't use the government to impose your idea of morality on me. :Poke:

BucEyedPea
06-01-2007, 03:35 PM
Is that coming to Fox this fall??
So I hear.

Latinos, Blacks, Creoles and WASPs will be featured though.

BTW, did that horse head arrive at your place?

Donger
06-01-2007, 03:36 PM
ROFL ROFL.

Huh?

Baby Lee
06-01-2007, 03:37 PM
So I hear.

Latinos, Blacks, Creoles and WASPs will be featured though.

BTW, did that horse head arrive at your place?
Man, you're dumber than Gotti's offspring.
You don't Fed-Ex your enemy some random horse head. There's no poetry in that.
You cut the head off his prize thoroughbred and stick the head next to him while he sleeps.

:p :p

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 03:37 PM
I'd prefer if you didn't use the government to impose your idea of morality on me. :Poke:

I said ethics, not simple reductive moralism.

If you are conflating a desire to help the poor with evangelicism....ROFL.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 03:38 PM
Huh?

That was a completely ridiculous response, unless you are advocating living in a hedonistic state. Are you?

Donger
06-01-2007, 03:40 PM
That was a completely ridiculous response, unless you are advocating living in a hedonistic state. Are you?

No. I was asking why it is important for you (personally) to advocate policy that is ethical.

BucEyedPea
06-01-2007, 03:41 PM
Man, you're dumber than Gotti's offspring.
You don't Fed-Ex your enemy some random horse head. There's no poetry in that.
You cut the head off his prize thoroughbred and stick the head next to him while he sleeps.

:p :p
That was implied. :harumph:

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 03:51 PM
No. I was asking why it is important for you (personally) to advocate policy that is ethical.

It's not because it makes me feel good.

It's more closely akin to a conditional utilitarianism--greatest good for the greatest number, but also aware of the fact that there will be gaps and fissures in that policy.

patteeu
06-01-2007, 04:10 PM
It was $1 Trillion before the Reagan Revolution of small gubment conservatives. $4 Trillion and Growing after Bush I. Then that big gubment sumbitch Clinton came in and actually started to turn things around (oh wait, it was teh interwebs). Move on to W and we're racking up record deficits.

So, do you nott mind government as long as it's a bloated defense department, but abhor it when it doesn't produce things that go boom?

A lot of that comes from the built-in spending growth of the entitlement programs, most of which were implemented by well-meaning democrats. Republicans have to take some responsibility for the contribution attributable to defense spending (particularly under Reagan), but they shouldn't be on the hook for the sad spending legacies of the New Deal and the Great Society.

BucEyedPea
06-01-2007, 04:22 PM
It's not because it makes me feel good.

It's more closely akin to a conditional utilitarianism--greatest good for the greatest number, but also aware of the fact that there will be gaps and fissures in that policy.
I have an idea for you. This is just a suggestion. I draw on the past privatization efforts of the left. You do have a few of these on the left.

Put together an Abraham Lincoln Brigade for Dafur. You can still buy guns in America. Maybe, even Ollie North will help ya' with some sort of back door deal so long as it doesn't involved govt funds. Sounds good to me. It's a free country, nothing can hold you back. Just start some fundraising drives and recruiting.

And look here, they even have their own private Veteran's Group.:p
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/6496/800pxbatallnlincolngh3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

You see, I think foreign aid, a good chunk of it should be privatized.

Donger
06-01-2007, 04:29 PM
It's not because it makes me feel good.

It's more closely akin to a conditional utilitarianism--greatest good for the greatest number, but also aware of the fact that there will be gaps and fissures in that policy.

And why do you want to do the greatest good for the greatest number?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 04:34 PM
And why do you want to do the greatest good for the greatest number?

Seriously dude, the topic isn't about why I hold my beliefs, and I'm growing tired of this hackneyed attempt at the climax of "A Few Good Men". It's transparent and futile.

It has nothing to do with making me feel warm and fuzzy inside. You can take my word for it, or you can continue down this Danny Kaffee impersonation.

Now, I"m going to go watch "Knocked Up"....

Why?

Because it makes me feel good :p

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 04:36 PM
A lot of that comes from the built-in spending growth of the entitlement programs, most of which were implemented by well-meaning democrats. Republicans have to take some responsibility for the contribution attributable to defense spending (particularly under Reagan), but they shouldn't be on the hook for the sad spending legacies of the New Deal and the Great Society.

So the fact that 45 years of New Deal spending racked up a 1 trillion dollar deficit therefore means that years 46-57ish will rack up 3 trillion more.

:spock:

Donger
06-01-2007, 04:42 PM
Seriously dude, the topic isn't about why I hold my beliefs, and I'm growing tired of this hackneyed attempt at the climax of "A Few Good Men". It's transparent and futile.

It has nothing to do with making me feel warm and fuzzy inside. You can take my word for it, or you can continue down this Danny Kaffee impersonation.

Now, I"m going to go watch "Knocked Up"....

Why?

Because it makes me feel good :p

Of course you are growing tired of it. It's icky to you. I was actually hoping that you would have the honesty to admit that at the most basic level, of course you advocate policies that help the less fortunate because it makes you feel good. It's self-evident if you'll have the courage to look hard enough at yourself.

I don't know why liberals won't ackowledge it. It's simple human nature. But, like all egalitarians, you won't. It's nothing to be ashamed of, you know. It's a win-win.

Donger
06-01-2007, 04:43 PM
So the fact that 45 years of New Deal spending racked up a 1 trillion dollar deficit therefore means that years 46-57ish will rack up 3 trillion more.

:spock:

Interest really is a b*tch.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 08:06 PM
Of course you are growing tired of it. It's icky to you. I was actually hoping that you would have the honesty to admit that at the most basic level, of course you advocate policies that help the less fortunate because it makes you feel good. It's self-evident if you'll have the courage to look hard enough at yourself.

I don't know why liberals won't ackowledge it. It's simple human nature. But, like all egalitarians, you won't. It's nothing to be ashamed of, you know. It's a win-win.

You know, this isn't really about me, it's about you.

If I was simply advocating it for nothing other than the warm and fuzzies, which I'm not, then you can dismiss my entire philosophical stance as being nothing other than ego driven, which allows you to not ask yourself difficult questions about why you hold your beliefs, which ultimately rely on forsaking the group for the individual.

I'm sorry, I'm not Nietzschean.

Look, I work in the humanities. Part of my job is to interrogate the policies and discourse of everything around me, including my own beliefs.

You are trying to deflect from the question at hand, which dealt with a question of access, by interrogating why I hold my beliefs.

In the grand scheme of things, my beliefs aren't important. In the short term of the argument, it's vital for you, because it allows you to obfuscate and detour from the question at hand.

Donger
06-01-2007, 08:13 PM
You know, this isn't really about me, it's about you.

If I was simply advocating it for nothing other than the warm and fuzzies, which I'm not, then you can dismiss my entire philosophical stance as being nothing other than ego driven, which allows you to not ask yourself difficult questions about why you hold your beliefs, which ultimately rely on forsaking the group for the individual.

I'm sorry, I'm not Nietzschean.

Look, I work in the humanities. Part of my job is to interrogate the policies and discourse of everything around me, including my own beliefs.

You are trying to deflect from the question at hand, which dealt with a question of access, by interrogating why I hold my beliefs.

In the grand scheme of things, my beliefs aren't important. In the short term of the argument, it's vital for you, because it allows you to obfuscate and detour from the question at hand.

Man, that's the longest non "I care about the poor because it makes me feel better about myself" answer I've ever seen.

Again, I don't understand why you people can't just admit it. I've had this discussion with dozens of folks like you over the years, going back to when I was in school. Some have had the courage, some have not. It's okay to admit that you do things that make you feel good, especially when you are "helping" the less fortunate. Like I said, it's a win-win for you.

As to my own beliefs, I'm perfectly comfortable with them. I've no problem temporarily helping those in need from no fault of their own. I have severe problems with those who choose to live off of the government tit simply because it's easier than working.