PDA

View Full Version : Socialism vs. Capitalism



shula_guy
02-11-2010, 11:40 AM
It seems as though we are doing the very thing that history has proven doesn't work: forcing socialism. How can France expect its workers to work hard if it's nearly impossible to fire them? How can we expect welfare recipients to find jobs if it's easy for them to sit at home and get welfare? I know that there is a real need for welfare among some people, but there are others who smoke and drink and do nothing to better themselves. Socialism is forced on the rest of Americans when they are taxed and their money goes to such people. If this continues, Americans will become more and more lazy and our nation will degenerate to a quasi-socialist, nonproductive society.

http://www.fundamentalfinance.com/blogs/socialism-vs-capitalism.php

Ferretsquig
02-11-2010, 12:20 PM
Funny thing is......workers in France work harder than those in the US. They work fewer hours, receive better benefits, but during those hours they do work they're far more productive than their US counterpart. So how can France expect its workers to work hard?

Dolphan7
02-11-2010, 12:35 PM
How would one know if workers in another country work harder than any other? Is there a link, or a study...possibly funded by stimulus money?

Ferretsquig
02-11-2010, 01:03 PM
GDP, labor hours, productivity, etc...

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=PDYGTH

shula_guy
02-11-2010, 01:24 PM
The ideological bankruptcy is neatly captured by British author and advocate for individual rights, Cecil Palmer: “Socialism is workable only in heaven where it isn’t needed, and in hell where they’ve got it”. And government insolvency is explained by famed economist Frederic Bastiat, who made this levelheaded observation nearly 150 years ago about the nascent modern socialism then emerging. “The State is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.” More recently, Margaret Thatcher, being a sensible politician, put it pragmatically: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”




Consequently, we are now approaching a fork in the road. One way leads to more socialism, more demagogues and eventually a dictator who promises that he will make socialism ‘work’. The other leads to the capitalist society that America used to be, with free-markets, limited government and the unconditional rule of law.


Hopefully, we will choose correctly. If we don’t, we know from Winston Churchill what awaits us: “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

http://www.kitco.com/ind/Turk/turk_dec212009.html

poornate
02-11-2010, 01:57 PM
Consequently, we are now approaching a fork in the road. One way leads to more socialism, more demagogues and eventually a dictator who promises that he will make socialism ‘work’. The other leads to the capitalist society that America used to be, with free-markets, limited government and the unconditional rule of law.

When was this capitalist utopia and what changed it?

Dphins4me
02-11-2010, 02:01 PM
Funny thing is......workers in France work harder than those in the US. They work fewer hours, receive better benefits, but during those hours they do work they're far more productive than their US counterpart. So how can France expect its workers to work hard?
Is this opinion? If not, then where is this info?

Dogbone34
02-11-2010, 02:03 PM
socialism sucks

i guess it makes some people feel comfortable

Dolphan7
02-11-2010, 02:09 PM
GDP, labor hours, productivity, etc...

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=PDYGTHAh yes very good link.

This shows "growth" year to year, but if you want to consider this actual productivity....the US is far above France in that category.

Dolphan7
02-11-2010, 02:10 PM
When was this capitalist utopia and what changed it?The roaring 20's. The Depression and the New Deal changed it.

poornate
02-11-2010, 02:18 PM
The roaring 20's. The Depression and the New Deal changed it.

The roaring twenties represented a return to the normalcy that was lost after the Civil war... social hierarchies were reinstated, class warfare ruled the nation, the twenties saw the individual states severely limit the political freedoms of minorities, subjugate poor people into nothing more than labor vassals, and bring on an isolationism that endangered the free world... no thanks... under the excess were the roots of the Great Depression and when observed from the future the twenties were a dark time in our nation...

Ferretsquig
02-11-2010, 02:18 PM
Ah yes very good link.

This shows "growth" year to year, but if you want to consider this actual productivity....the US is far above France in that category.

Stats are compiled based on local currency.....euro in France, dollar in US. A decade ago a Euro was equal to a dollar. Today its 1.365 dollars. I'm not going to calculate the comparative growth rates each year but suffice it say its not even close. Look at the other stats and its easier to see the entire picture.

Dolphan7
02-11-2010, 02:29 PM
Stats are compiled based on local currency.....euro in France, dollar in US. A decade ago a Euro was equal to a dollar. Today its 1.365 dollars. I'm not going to calculate the comparative growth rates each year but suffice it say its not even close. Look at the other stats and its easier to see the entire picture.I am not seeing it. If you take your link, change the drop down to "Labour Productivity"....

...You see the US is at 45.2 for 2008, while France is at 41.2

Dolphan7
02-11-2010, 02:44 PM
The roaring twenties represented a return to the normalcy that was lost after the Civil war... social hierarchies were reinstated, class warfare ruled the nation, the twenties saw the individual states severely limit the political freedoms of minorities, subjugate poor people into nothing more than labor vassals, and bring on an isolationism that endangered the free world... no thanks... under the excess were the roots of the Great Depression and when observed from the future the twenties were a dark time in our nation...But capitalism was running on all cylinders, low taxes, less governmental interference, employment high, prices stable and wages respectable. Not saying it was a great period for equal rights...or that unbrideled capitalism is best....obviously the crash could have been prevented with more oversight no doubt. Isolationism was a foreign policy that really didn't effect our exports.

You asked when was this "event", and I can find no better example of this then the 20's. You asked when this event changed and I think the depression and the New Deal brought in a lot of government oversight, taxes, social programs and the like...which in my opinion curtails free markets, not expands them, and restricts personal wealth. And we haven't looked back since. Now we are looking at even more programs that are draining the treaure chest. Personal wealth will be a thing of the past. We will all just work to fund the govt programs...all working toward a finite ceiling, creating a two class system - poor receiving assistance...and those that pay for that assistance.

At least that is the point of the thread no? Yes?

shula_guy
02-11-2010, 02:55 PM
These destructive fallacies have their roots in the Great Depression. When the Great Depression hit, the intellectuals and power elite of the period intervened in the failing economy by forcing entrepreneurs to maintain the high wage rates of the Roaring 20’s. The reasoning was, as Henry Ford put it, “If we can distribute high wages, then that money is going to be spent and it will serve to make storekeepers and distributors and manufacturers and workers in other lines more prosperous and their prosperity will be reflected in our sales. Country-wide high wages spells country-wide prosperity.”


The truth about economics is the exact opposite of what this paradigm of scarcity and consumption would have you believe. High wages do not lead to prosperity; prosperity leads to high wages. Wages are simply a byproduct of production; when production increases, so do wages because they represent an increase in value to the economy. Conversely, as productivity decreases, so must wage rates. In a free market, our ability to consume is entirely dependent on our ability to produce value for others. Free markets award those who produce according to their level of production; were it not so we would have no incentive to produce.

http://newsletter.gw.edu/archive/FeaturedArticle/63

Ferretsquig
02-11-2010, 02:57 PM
I am not seeing it. If you take your link, change the drop down to "Labour Productivity"....

...You see the US is at 45.2 for 2008, while France is at 41.2

Dollars and Euros. Take whatever exhange rate you want.....I go with the mean over the entire year which is ~.6834 Euros to a Dollar. Of course its not very precise....you'd have to look at the growth rates for each quarter compared to the exchange rates, but I'm not going to bother with anything that complex.

poornate
02-11-2010, 03:07 PM
But capitalism was running on all cylinders, low taxes, less governmental interference, employment high, prices stable and wages respectable. Not saying it was a great period for equal rights...or that unbrideled capitalism is best....obviously the crash could have been prevented with more oversight no doubt. Isolationism was a foreign policy that really didn't effect our exports.

You asked when was this "event", and I can find no better example of this then the 20's. You asked when this event changed and I think the depression and the New Deal brought in a lot of government oversight, taxes, social programs and the like...which in my opinion curtails free markets, not expands them, and restricts personal wealth. And we haven't looked back since. Now we are looking at even more programs that are draining the treaure chest. Personal wealth will be a thing of the past. We will all just work to fund the govt programs...all working toward a finite ceiling, creating a two class system - poor receiving assistance...and those that pay for that assistance.

At least that is the point of the thread no? Yes?

Isolationism was an extension of the economic decisions you just discussed... ask 9954 what he wants our free market foreign policy to exclusively concentrate on...

I agree that this was one of the best periods you could have gone to by the way, but i think it also reveals the danger of not having a strong federal government... there was a lot of abuse and corruption during this period, and it led directly to the Great Depression... we are coming out of a period of lowered oversight... remember the burst and boom of the late nineties... now where are we?

Tetragrammaton
02-11-2010, 03:12 PM
I thought we were going to see a head-to-head over capitalism and socialism, and instead it is just moderate capitalism vs. laissez-faire capitalism. I want my money back.

Dolphan7
02-11-2010, 03:13 PM
Isolationism was an extension of the economic decisions you just discussed... ask 9954 what he wants our free market foreign policy to exclusively concentrate on...

I agree that this was one of the best periods you could have gone to by the way, but i think it also reveals the danger of not having a strong federal government... there was a lot of abuse and corruption during this period, and it led directly to the Great Depression... we are coming out of a period of lowered oversight... remember the burst and boom of the late nineties... now where are we?I hear ya brother. I think a nice blend of the two works best. I little govt, and a lot of commerce. Too much of one and little of the other.....we end up in trouble.

poornate
02-11-2010, 03:14 PM
I thought we were going to see a head-to-head over capitalism and socialism, and instead it is just moderate capitalism vs. laissez-faire capitalism. I want my money back.

I prefer my socialism mild and simple... a little health care, some equal access to education, government programs, and transportation, and some labor equity and I think I'm good...

Dolphan7
02-11-2010, 03:14 PM
I thought we were going to see a head-to-head over capitalism and socialism, and instead it is just moderate capitalism vs. laissez-faire capitalism. I want my money back.You wont ever get that. It doesn't exist. So we end up talking about what we have in reality....which is a blend.

Ferretsquig
02-11-2010, 03:17 PM
If we had examples of a capitalist or socialist state we could argue......theorizing on the potential of utopian societies lacks appeal. No real point trying to look at Bhutan as a socialist example or Somalia as a capitalist one and comparing them to our situation.

Tetragrammaton
02-11-2010, 03:25 PM
If we had examples of a capitalist or socialist state we could argue......theorizing on the potential of utopian societies lacks appeal. No real point trying to look at Bhutan as a socialist example or Somalia as a capitalist one and comparing them to our situation.

Maybe so, but calling Western European countries socialist is a pretty big stretch. A welfare state and more populist labor laws does not equal the intent of Marx or T.H. Green (who is the father of Western European socialist thought, which the article would have known had it been more scholarly).

One of shula_guy's quotes referenced Thatcher stating that you run out of other people's money in socialism. Leaving aside the fact that that makes no sense, comparatively speaking, the countries with more welfare programs and labor laws have lower debt levels than we do. France and Germany have had their debt rising because of the recession, just as we have, but they have operated at comparatively low levels. If they weren't having the birth rate problems that are occurring, the European Union would be in a much stronger position than the United States.

Tetragrammaton
02-11-2010, 03:29 PM
Getting to the more generalized scope of the articles, it is a curious little display of position bias. Anyone can compare the worsts of socialism to the bests of capitalism and look great. Often, TDK will pull the Venezuala or North Korea card in comparison to the United States. Of course, both capitalism and socialism have the potential to be either authoritarian or libertarian. Economic ideology does not inherently affect the liberties of the populace, although I would argue that hardline socialism and hardline capitalism end up with the same sort of dictatorial oligarchy (closed government in one, corporate control in the other).

shula_guy
02-11-2010, 04:19 PM
It is generally accepted that the high political, social, and humanitarian ideals of Communism, Socialism, and other left wing theories have sound reasoning in the theoretical world of philosophy; that their failing is only in the real world, with unsound implementations and *******izations of the pure, original hypotheses. One assumption that these three theories make which is also never questioned is that all men are equal. Specifically, that the only reason one person should have a financial or other life advantage over another individual is because at some point in time, that advantaged person swindled the disadvantaged person. Often times this theory works in reality, and proponents of these theories are quick to cite examples. But there is another dimension to the debate which has been ignored: sometimes, people rise above their disadvantaged beginnings by personal virtue, by dedication, by sweat and tears. That is the great problem that American socialists have always encountered during their evangelical efforts: the American dream of rising above one's beginning, of moving up in the world, socially, economically, and spiritually.


http://members.cox.net/rgk1/socialism.htm

MDFINFAN
02-11-2010, 10:49 PM
http://www.fundamentalfinance.com/blogs/socialism-vs-capitalism.php

how can this article be taken seriously when it based on bs..welfare is 5 years except for those states that allow ppl to get around that, but at the fed level it's 5 yeas..

I don't know anyone in America who can't be fired...and on and on..but hey, believe what you want..

Dolphan7
02-12-2010, 02:26 AM
Dollars and Euros. Take whatever exhange rate you want.....I go with the mean over the entire year which is ~.6834 Euros to a Dollar. Of course its not very precise....you'd have to look at the growth rates for each quarter compared to the exchange rates, but I'm not going to bother with anything that complex.
Yeaaaahhhhh ok.......I am still not convinced.

Ferretsquig
02-12-2010, 12:59 PM
Yeaaaahhhhh ok.......I am still not convinced.

Convinced about what? There's only three numbers to dispute....GDP, workforce size, and average hours worked. Which one is wrong?

Eshlemon
02-12-2010, 03:41 PM
Yeaaaahhhhh ok.......I am still not convinced.

Me neither...and after googling "worker productivity by county" US is at the top of France in 2006 by the UN and instead of the OECDs vice versa.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/03/business/main3228735.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6976084.stm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20572828/


U.N.: U.S. workers are world’s most productive



GENEVA - American workers stay longer in the office, at the factory or on the farm than their counterparts in Europe and most other rich nations, and they produce more per person over the year.

They also get more done per hour than everyone but the Norwegians, according to a U.N. report released Monday, which said the United States “leads the world in labor productivity.”

The average U.S. worker produces $63,885 of wealth per year, more than their counterparts in all other countries, the International Labor Organization said in its report. Ireland comes in second at $55,986, followed by Luxembourg at $55,641, Belgium at $55,235 and France at $54,609.


Only part of the U.S. productivity growth, which has outpaced that of many other developed economies, can be explained by the longer hours Americans are putting in, the ILO said.

The United States, according to the report, also beats all 27 nations in the European Union, Japan and Switzerland in the amount of wealth created per hour of work — a second key measure of productivity.

Seven years ago, French workers produced over a dollar more on average than their American counterparts. The country led the United States in hourly productivity from 1994 to 2003.


Norway, which is not an EU member, generates the most output per working hour, $37.99, a figure inflated by the country’s billions of dollars in oil exports and high prices for goods at home. The United States is second at $35.63, about a half dollar ahead of third-place France.

These worker productivity numbers seem to get inflated by exports and a high cost of living. Which would seem to make the US numbers even more impressive with us having a trade deficit every year and lower cost of living.

Expect there are as many theories on this as there are economists.

MDFINFAN
02-12-2010, 04:14 PM
socialism sucks

i guess it makes some people feel comfortable

You were under a socialist society before????

Ferretsquig
02-12-2010, 04:50 PM
Me neither...and after googling "worker productivity by county" US is at the top of France in 2006 by the UN and instead of the OECDs vice versa.

The difference is the ILO, which publishes the reports you are referencing, comes up with its own employment figures. They end up with similar amount of hours worked but different employment to population ratios. I'm not sure why their estimate of the number of employed is so much lower than the US dept of labor, unless they assume those guys are lying.

Eshlemon
02-12-2010, 09:23 PM
The difference is the ILO, which publishes the reports you are referencing, comes up with its own employment figures. They end up with similar amount of hours worked but different employment to population ratios. I'm not sure why their estimate of the number of employed is so much lower than the US dept of labor, unless they assume those guys are lying.

They think our government lies? Welcome to PoFo ILO!

Ferretsquig
02-13-2010, 02:34 AM
I'll have to figure out why they're different. ILO's explaination:


National data on labour force participation rates may not be comparable owing to differences in concepts and methodologies. The single most important contributor to data comparability is the nature of the data source. Labour force data obtained from population censuses are often based on a restricted number of questions on the economic characteristics of individuals, with little possibility of probing. The resulting data, therefore, are generally not consistent with corresponding labour force survey data and may vary considerably from one country to another, depending on the number and type of questions included in the census.

j-off-her-doll
02-13-2010, 07:14 PM
When you talk about quality of life in developed countries, the USA is a joke. This article is disgusting. It basically says that if you give slaves any rights, they'll become lazy. Why do people in the US work so much? There isn't a lot of choice. We operate under wage slavery. Corporations own 99.999% of the people in this country.

j-off-her-doll
02-13-2010, 07:17 PM
You do realize that government should be nothing more than a reflection of our interests, don't you? How can anyone say that our government represents our wants and needs? We'd be much better off on our own. Our gov is only good for protecting the rich from the poor - who would otherwise overthrow the rich. We'd be much better off without any government.

Dolphan7
02-14-2010, 12:58 AM
You do realize that government should be nothing more than a reflection of our interests, don't you? How can anyone say that our government represents our wants and needs? We'd be much better off on our own. Our gov is only good for protecting the rich from the poor - who would otherwise overthrow the rich. We'd be much better off without any government.Governments are in place to keep the world from chaos. Without them we would not have any sense of justice and fair play. People would do what they want without consequence...which would lead to anarchy in a heartbeat. Then power and control would be in the hands of the ones who have the money and the weapons....survival of the fittest.

poornate
02-14-2010, 10:19 AM
You do realize that government should be nothing more than a reflection of our interests, don't you? How can anyone say that our government represents our wants and needs? We'd be much better off on our own. Our gov is only good for protecting the rich from the poor - who would otherwise overthrow the rich. We'd be much better off without any government.

That's bold... and indefensible...

j-off-her-doll
02-14-2010, 03:50 PM
Governments are in place to keep the world from chaos. Without them we would not have any sense of justice and fair play. People would do what they want without consequence...which would lead to anarchy in a heartbeat. Then power and control would be in the hands of the ones who have the money and the weapons....survival of the fittest.

What we have now is power in control of those with money and weapons.

j-off-her-doll
02-14-2010, 04:02 PM
That's bold... and indefensible...

Is it? What exactly does our Government do? It enacts laws that continue to widen the gap between the rich and poor. It enacts laws that allow corporations to continue wage slavery. It enacts laws that favor non-producers and punish the producers. It promotes a currency that is bound to fail - as we're seeing - because it's not tied to actual value, rather borrowing against the future.

If we dissolved the government - that does not speak for the people - what would happen? The people would make decisions that reflect their interests - rather than the interests of some corporation squeezing their workers and consumers for everything they can. Our society would also center more around one and other. Corporations don't want you to work with your neighbors. Why? Cooperation saves money. There would be more accountability, a greater sense of community, etc.

I'm sure you have some counter points that I'd love to address, but it's foolish to say that anarchy is indefensible.

Ferretsquig
02-14-2010, 04:32 PM
People acting in their own interests only furthers the wealth divide. I don't think you'd enjoy living in Somalia, eastern Congo, southern Sudan, or any other place where there is no central authority.

j-off-her-doll
02-14-2010, 05:31 PM
People acting in their own interests only furthers the wealth divide. I don't think you'd enjoy living in Somalia, eastern Congo, southern Sudan, or any other place where there is no central authority.

Africa's problems can be attributed largely to European, Asian, and American government. It's actually laughable that you list Sudan. They operate under the guidance of China. Why doesn't anyone help the people of Sudan? They're afraid of China. Great example. Do you think the Janjaweed are without higher authority? Or, are they being funded and provided with weapons?

Nice try, though.

Ferretsquig
02-14-2010, 06:55 PM
South Sudan......the automatons region created after the conclusion of civil war. And how are its problems to be blamed on outside forces?

poornate
02-14-2010, 07:25 PM
Africa's problems can be attributed largely to European, Asian, and American government. It's actually laughable that you list Sudan. They operate under the guidance of China. Why doesn't anyone help the people of Sudan? They're afraid of China. Great example. Do you think the Janjaweed are without higher authority? Or, are they being funded and provided with weapons?

Nice try, though.

It has nothing to do with a fear of China... it has to do with international law... Sudan cannot be entered, as a sovereign nation, unless they request UN assistance... they won't because they are funding the Janjaweed to exterminate areas for economic interests concerning the Chinese... but it isn't fear, but law... (I say screw it in this case... we may not be doing it because of economic reasons... but what is China going to do? Punish us economically? Who else is going to buy all of their junk?)

shula_guy
02-14-2010, 07:37 PM
It has nothing to do with a fear of China... it has to do with international law... Sudan cannot be entered, as a sovereign nation, unless they request UN assistance... they won't because they are funding the Janjaweed to exterminate areas for economic interests concerning the Chinese... but it isn't fear, but law... (I say screw it in this case... we may not be doing it because of economic reasons... but what is China going to do? Punish us economically? Who else is going to buy all of their junk?)




How about if they call in our debt and bankrupt us

poornate
02-14-2010, 08:04 PM
How about if they call in our debt and bankrupt us

...that bankrupts them, too... they know we are solvent AND still a good bet... they are no threat militarily, and need us more than we need them... a huge chunk of their economy, a HUGE chunk, relies on nothing more than our luxury consumption... they aren't going to call that debt... at least not until a mighty fall from where we are now...

j-off-her-doll
02-14-2010, 09:10 PM
Watch THE DEVIL CAME ON HORSEBACK.

poornate
02-14-2010, 09:13 PM
Watch THE DEVIL CAME ON HORSEBACK.

Why?

j-off-her-doll
02-14-2010, 09:53 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_devil_came_on_horseback

poornate
02-14-2010, 09:58 PM
I've seen it... I am asking why you want me to watch it...

Dphins4me
02-14-2010, 11:25 PM
I prefer my socialism mild and simple... a little health care, some equal access to education, government programs, and transportation, and some labor equity and I think I'm good...




I find your opinions kind of dangerous... I don't mean that as an insult... we are just very different people... you favor government controls and powers that I just can't support...

:ponder:

poornate
02-14-2010, 11:28 PM
What?

Dphins4me
02-14-2010, 11:52 PM
What? You cannot support Gov control of what it type research it will fund, but yet you are all for Gov control for things such as health care, education, government programs, transportation, labor equity.

Just doesn't add up.

For myself, either you are for Gov control or you are not. No such thing as a dine in menu of Gov control. You open the door & they will come in & take & take. Its their goal.

poornate
02-15-2010, 12:04 AM
...well! I never said I wanted government control over government programs... that's lunacy!

Dphins4me
02-15-2010, 09:30 AM
...well! I never said I wanted government control over government programs... that's lunacy! Copy & paste.

Not going to address the hypocrisy or does your opinion sway with however a discussion is going?

Your comment just floors me now. "you favor government controls and powers that I just can't support"

I guess I can sum it up. You are not in favor of Gov control unless it means you're benefiting from it.

poornate
02-15-2010, 10:39 AM
Copy & paste.

Not going to address the hypocrisy or does your opinion sway with however a discussion is going?

Your comment just floors me now. "you favor government controls and powers that I just can't support"

I guess I can sum it up. You are not in favor of Gov control unless it means you're benefiting from it.

Why would you favor government controls that you don't benefit from? The government is an extension of us, as citizens... I see you are not really reading my comments, so I will clarify them for you...

If you look at my post I stated that I wanted equal ACCESS to health care, government programs, and transportation... that involves government, surely, but as an arbiter and guarantor, not as an overlord....

You claimed that you wanted a bureaucracy to pick and choose academice endeavors that involve government funding... that is a government CONTROL that you want, and one that I cannot support...

Dphins4me
02-15-2010, 12:24 PM
Why would you favor government controls that you don't benefit from? I don't favor Gov control at all other than what it was designed to do. I do not want HC, I do not want SS/Medicare. I do not want Income taxes.

This was the land of the free, but now its the the land of Gov will tuck you in at night & kiss you on the forehead telling you not to worry, because I'll take care of you. Just give me your freedom & money.



The government is an extension of us, as citizens...What are you smoking? The Gov has not paid attention to the citizens in so long most have given up. It took an special election win to stop or slow down something a high majority of the country does not want.




I see you are not really reading my comments, so I will clarify them for you... The put downs come out. Always happens.



If you look at my post I stated that I wanted equal ACCESS to health care, government programs, and transportation... that involves government, surely, but as an arbiter and guarantor, not as an overlord.... You have equal access to HC now. Its called earning your HC plan. You have chosen the path of your life, its that path that has lead you to your HC plan.
So don't go crying about equal access when you could have chosen a different path for yourself. Asking the Gov because you made a bad decision or decisions is asking someone else to pay for your HC plan.

I'm not sure what falls under Gov program for you, but I figure its paying for something with money someone else earned.





You claimed that you wanted a bureaucracy to pick and choose academic endeavors that involve government funding... that is a government CONTROL that you want, and one that I cannot support... To clarify my understanding of your stance.

You are saying that you believe the Gov should hand over funding to anyone who comes to them saying they are going to do research. No questions ask, just be an open checkbook. Correct?

I'm saying they should determine if its viable research before handing over funding.

You have a problem with my stance?

Do you hand over money to anyone that ask you for it without asking what do you need it for?

Dolphin39
02-15-2010, 01:21 PM
Socialism is a cancer that should be KILLED!!!

Dphins4me
02-15-2010, 03:46 PM
Socialism is a cancer that should be KILLED!!! The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other peoples money.

Tetragrammaton
02-15-2010, 03:49 PM
The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other peoples money.

I have seen you say that many times, and I would like to know what exactly that is supposed to mean.

Dogbone34
02-15-2010, 04:24 PM
I have seen you say that many times, and I would like to know what exactly that is supposed to mean.

it's a quote from margaret thatcher. you know what it means.

Tetragrammaton
02-15-2010, 04:33 PM
it's a quote from margaret thatcher. you know what it means.

I truly don't. You can enlighten me if you'd like.

poornate
02-15-2010, 04:44 PM
You have equal access to HC now. Its called earning your HC plan. You have chosen the path of your life, its that path that has lead you to your HC plan.

I'm not worried about my access to health care... I'm worried about yours... and your neighbors... you live in Tennessee, right? head up into those mountains and see how much access people have to consistent and affordable health care... go ahead.. I've done it... it's like seeing a refugee camp in a 3rd world country more than it is a trip to check on the rural population of the world's richest nation... shocking and embarrassing.. I don't fight for progress and changes for me, but for others... and I am happy to pay for things our nation should have anyway, if so many weren't so scared of losing something... one of those things is universal health care for all of our citizens...

Dogbone34
02-15-2010, 04:44 PM
without rehashing definitions, you could say california is an example, you can't spend money you don't have. once public sector expenses overtakes private sector tax revenue, you are forced cut services, continue going broke or add more debt to your bottom line.

Dphins4me
02-15-2010, 05:43 PM
I have seen you say that many times, and I would like to know what exactly that is supposed to mean. If you understand socialism, then you understand the quote.

Dphins4me
02-15-2010, 05:44 PM
Please Address



You claimed that you wanted a bureaucracy to pick and choose academic endeavors that involve government funding... that is a government CONTROL that you want, and one that I cannot support... To clarify my understanding of your stance.

You are saying that you believe the Gov should hand over funding to anyone who comes to them saying they are going to do research. No questions ask, just be an open checkbook. Correct?

I'm saying they should determine if its viable research before handing over funding.

You have a problem with my stance?

Do you hand over money to anyone that ask you for it without asking what do you need it for?

Dphins4me
02-15-2010, 05:54 PM
I'm not worried about my access to health care... I'm worried about yours... and your neighbors... you live in Tennessee, right? head up into those mountains and see how much access people have to consistent and affordable health care... go ahead.. I've done it... it's like seeing a refugee camp in a 3rd world country more than it is a trip to check on the rural population of the world's richest nation... shocking and embarrassing.. I don't fight for progress and changes for me, but for others... and I am happy to pay for things our nation should have anyway, if so many weren't so scared of losing something... one of those things is universal health care for all of our citizens... Ok, since you are concern & I'm glad you are. Its great to know people out there still care. I care, but I do not care enough to give up my rights & freedom to bureaucrats

I'll provide you with a simple answer to help with all your concerns.

The answer is start a charity that helps people pay for their medical bills..

Then concerned citizens can choose at will to donate some of their hard earn income to your charity. Free will rules & people get HC coverage via your charity. The only people not happy are those who want more Gov control over our lives.

However, I get the feeling the people screaming the loudest will not be willing to donate, because as with most that scream for Gov to do something.. They come from the I didn't mean me crowd. You know the ones that want Gov to take his money, but not mine. I need mine.

Tetragrammaton
02-15-2010, 06:06 PM
If you understand socialism, then you understand the quote.

I have a pretty good grasp on socialism and don't understand the quote. I am simply asking for clarification, not the blueprints of the Manhattan Project.

Tetragrammaton
02-15-2010, 06:07 PM
without rehashing definitions, you could say california is an example, you can't spend money you don't have. once public sector expenses overtakes private sector tax revenue, you are forced cut services, continue going broke or add more debt to your bottom line.

So California is socialist?

I don't see how you come to this conclusion. With more industries under control of the public sector, you can cut out profit margin, saving customers money and allowing them to spend more elsewhere. The socialist countries of the world do not use Monopoly money.

Dogbone34
02-15-2010, 07:58 PM
So California is socialist?

I don't see how you come to this conclusion. With more industries under control of the public sector, you can cut out profit margin, saving customers money and allowing them to spend more elsewhere. The socialist countries of the world do not use Monopoly money.

determining which industries and who profits is a can of worms. public or private, you still require financial solvency.

some would argue that removing profits and incentives can stall ingenuity and motivation to push the envelope for progress.

poornate
02-15-2010, 08:39 PM
Ok, since you are concern & I'm glad you are. Its great to know people out there still care. I care, but I do not care enough to give up my rights & freedom to bureaucrats

I'll provide you with a simple answer to help with all your concerns.

The answer is start a charity that helps people pay for their medical bills..

Then concerned citizens can choose at will to donate some of their hard earn income to your charity. Free will rules & people get HC coverage via your charity. The only people not happy are those who want more Gov control over our lives.

However, I get the feeling the people screaming the loudest will not be willing to donate, because as with most that scream for Gov to do something.. They come from the I didn't mean me crowd. You know the ones that want Gov to take his money, but not mine. I need mine.

What, again, are you giving up? (please try to make it something that you may honestly be risking)

Dphins4me
02-15-2010, 11:37 PM
Stop being a coward & Please Address



You claimed that you wanted a bureaucracy to pick and choose academic endeavors that involve government funding... that is a government CONTROL that you want, and one that I cannot support... To clarify my understanding of your stance.

You are saying that you believe the Gov should hand over funding to anyone who comes to them saying they are going to do research. No questions ask, just be an open checkbook. Correct?

I'm saying they should determine if its viable research before handing over funding.

You have a problem with my stance?

Do you hand over money to anyone that ask you for it without asking what do you need it for?

Dphins4me
02-15-2010, 11:56 PM
What, again, are you giving up? (please try to make it something that you may honestly be risking)
:bobdole: This is what you choose to use as a reply? Sorry, for telling you how you could actually help people. Guess Gov control is more up your alley, except for some stupid research then that is a whole different game.

Dphins4me
02-15-2010, 11:59 PM
I have a pretty good grasp on socialism and don't understand the quote. I am simply asking for clarification, not the blueprints of the Manhattan Project.
Sorry, but I just do not have time to educate you on Socialism. However, I get the feeling you understand the quote for more than you are leading on.

Tetragrammaton
02-16-2010, 12:04 AM
Sorry, but I just do not have time to educate you on Socialism. However, I get the feeling you understand the quote for more than you are leading on.

Again, no need to educate me, I have been a socialist for some time. I don't quite understand the reluctance to explain the quote, however.

Rafiki
02-16-2010, 12:24 AM
And how is the more socialist Europe coping with this recession?

Take Ireland. It has imposed a 4bn-euro (£3.5bn) austerity package. Pay in the public sector has been slashed. Welfare benefits have been cut. Pensions for state workers have been reduced. Such a package in the UK would be politically unimaginable.


In Spain, they are considering a 50bn-euro cut in public spending over four years, even though its national debt as a proportion of GDP (at 66%) is below the average in the EU. Their remedies, so far, are not as harsh as the Irish treatment, but last week a document raised the possibility of lowering Spanish retirement pensions. The unions leapt from their seats and the idea was shelved, but it is an indication of the way the wind is blowing. Calling time on a culture of generous provision is so sensitive that the King has spoken up, calling for unity.


Portugal, too, is looking to cut back on infrastructure projects. Austerity programmes are being drawn up.


In France, President Sarkozy faces tough talks with unions and bosses to push through a reform of French pensions. Retirement at 60 is no longer being taken for granted.


And of course Greece is freezing public sector pay, raising the retirement age and is under pressure to prune its generous pension system


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt/2010/02/a_european_way_of_life.html

The comments are even better than the article. It's interesting to me that a lot of Europeans are sure that socialism has to be reduced, while others in the United States are sure it should be expanded.

Tetragrammaton
02-16-2010, 12:29 AM
And how is the more socialist Europe coping with this recession?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt/2010/02/a_european_way_of_life.html

The comments are even better than the article. It's interesting to me that a lot of Europeans are sure that socialism has to be reduced, while others in the United States are sure it should be expanded.

It would be just as easy for me to point to the recession in this country and declare capitalism an ill. Actually, since the global crisis is a direct result of the United States, one could say that capitalism is to blame for the problems in a more moderate Europe.

Also, while that article led me to think otherwise for a few seconds, it should be noted that Greece is perhaps the most capitalist country in the European Union.

Rafiki
02-16-2010, 12:37 AM
It would be just as easy for me to point to the recession in this country and declare capitalism an ill. Actually, since the global crisis is a direct result of the United States, one could say that capitalism is to blame for the problems in a more moderate Europe.
The article doesn't necessarily place blame. But it does reemphasize that Europe is having some buyers remorse on their spending and debt, and that they are almost uniformily shrinking their social spending.

Capitalism is a system. It can be abused. But the flaw isn't in the system but in the human beings that use (and misuse) it, which is why we have regulations. As a commentator on that article put it: like democracy, capitalism is the best bad system there is.

Tetragrammaton
02-16-2010, 12:42 AM
The article doesn't necessarily place blame. But it does reemphasize that Europe is having some buyers remorse on their spending and debt, and that they are almost uniformily shrinking their social spending.

Capitalism is a system. It can be abused. But the flaw isn't in the system but in the human beings that use (and misuse) it, which is why we have regulations. As a commentator on that article put it: like democracy, capitalism is the best bad system there is.

It depends on the country. The Western countries move very different than the old Soviet bloc, for obvious reasons. About a year back the Economist had an article detailing how France under Sarkozy, after shifting right as the American media said he would, began to shift back as the recession began. Same went for Germany, to a lesser extent. The United Kingdom, however, is waning as a global power and is probably the most capitalist of the Big Three in the European Union.

Recessions are going to make bad situations worse, obviously. The ruling party takes the blame, whether it is a rise in ultra-capitalism in Europe or a shift to Keynesian economics in the United States.

Ferretsquig
02-16-2010, 01:20 AM
The article doesn't necessarily place blame. But it does reemphasize that Europe is having some buyers remorse on their spending and debt, and that they are almost uniformily shrinking their social spending.

The push to limit social spending has been going on for most of this decade in old Europe.....it started much earlier in England. But the response to the banking crisis has been pretty much the same there as here. Those that can borrow do, and the rest suffer. If Greece and Ireland could issue bonds they would.

Dphins4me
02-16-2010, 09:06 AM
Again, no need to educate me, I have been a socialist for some time. I don't quite understand the reluctance to explain the quote, however. Stop being obstinate. You understand the quote very well. I know that.

Dphins4me
02-16-2010, 09:09 AM
It would be just as easy for me to point to the recession in this country and declare capitalism an ill. Actually, since the global crisis is a direct result of the United States, one could say that capitalism is to blame for the problems in a more moderate Europe.. The recession was not created by capitalism, but by Fed. Gov legislation.

Tetragrammaton
02-16-2010, 09:42 AM
Stop being obstinate. You understand the quote very well. I know that.

If you say so, chief.

poornate
02-16-2010, 10:43 AM
The recession was not created by capitalism, but by Fed. Gov legislation.

You mean by pure greed, unchecked by federal oversight?

Dphins4me
02-16-2010, 12:34 PM
You mean by pure greed, unchecked by federal oversight?
Honestly, there is really no need for myself to reply since you do not have the backbone to address my question from our last two discussions.

However, one of the things I'm referring to is the Community Re-investment act & the changes to it over the years.

Also, it was not check by Fed oversight or it was checked & ignored. Can't recall who at the moment, but the Fed. Gov was warned that Fannie & Freddie were in trouble. That warning was ignored.

Just as the SEC ignored Madoff warnings.

However, these are the people you want running our HC system.

How is that reply going on my question to research? Still playing ostrich I see

poornate
02-16-2010, 12:39 PM
Honestly, there is really no need for myself to reply since you do not have the backbone to address my question from our last two discussions.

However, one of the things I'm referring to is the Community Re-investment act & the changes to it over the years.

Also, it was not check by Fed oversight or it was checked & ignored. Can't recall who at the moment, but the Fed. Gov was warned that Fannie & Freddie were in trouble. That warning was ignored.

Just as the SEC ignored Madoff warnings.

..it isn't a matter of backbone... I thought the point you were driving at was silly and not worth a response... you are the same person who complained about words being put in your mouth, and look at this ridiculous post you keep trying to get me to address...

Dphins4me
02-16-2010, 12:43 PM
If you say so, chief.
I do say so. I posted it.

Do have a question since you declared yourself a socialist. Why do you want to change our country instead of moving to a socialist nation? There are some out there. Is it because it would take some effort to move?

Anyone who supports Socialism are just people who do not have the guts to walk into a store & rob someone. They prefer to do it via the Gov.

When you take away the desire to innovate then the nation is in trouble. Our nation is in trouble because our elected leader do not understand the word "Budget"

poornate
02-16-2010, 12:51 PM
Stop being a coward & Please Address

To clarify my understanding of your stance.

You are saying that you believe the Gov should hand over funding to anyone who comes to them saying they are going to do research. No questions ask, just be an open checkbook. Correct?

I'm saying they should determine if its viable research before handing over funding.

You have a problem with my stance?

Do you hand over money to anyone that ask you for it without asking what do you need it for?

A coward? You should save your insults for something more worthy...

I am saying that universities should be funded according to their merit... a meritocracy... and that funding allocation should be determined by learned people in the fields of the requestee, not by government bureaucrats. It doesn't matter to me where these people work... the university or a grant panel... but it does matter that our academics don't become controlled by the state. I do not believe that perfunctories should control what we study and learn, nor do I want to see a new bureaucracy created. Now... whether we agree or disagree will be up to you to determine... I often have a hard time discerning what you are trying to say.

Tetragrammaton
02-16-2010, 12:52 PM
I do say so. I posted it.

Do have a question since you declared yourself a socialist. Why do you want to change our country instead of moving to a socialist nation? There are some out there. Is it because it would take some effort to move?

Anyone who supports Socialism are just people who do not have the guts to walk into a store & rob someone. They prefer to do it via the Gov.

When you take away the desire to innovate then the nation is in trouble. Our nation is in trouble because our elected leader do not understand the word "Budget"

Answer my question and I will gladly respond. I don't understand your reluctance toward civility.

Dphins4me
02-16-2010, 12:56 PM
..it isn't a matter of backbone... I thought the point you were driving at was silly and not worth a response...
:lol: Oh its a matter of backbone or the matter of you know you cannot form a reply that would make sense.

So asking what the money is for is just silly? Damn. Just damn. :lol:




you are the same person who complained about words being put in your mouth, and look at this ridiculous post you keep trying to get me to address... I think others addressed that you were doing that. I think I just said you formed your question as a statement.

I'm asking you for your answer. Provide it or let it be known that you are just to cowardice to address it.

Why is you getting off your backside & helping people ridiculous? Others have done such, why can't you? Your concerned, but not that concerned. Its a typical Lib mentality as long as someone else is doing it & paying for it then I'm all for it, but ask me to actually do something & it ridiculous.

And if you were so concerned with others, then be concerned about their rights as Americans as well. Its their rights to pick the path of their life & reap or pay the consequence of their decisions.


Gov is not our daddy.

poornate
02-16-2010, 12:56 PM
Answer my question and I will gladly respond. I don't understand your reluctance toward civility.

Yes you do... did you chuckle when you typed this?

Tetragrammaton
02-16-2010, 12:58 PM
Yes you do... did you chuckle when you typed this?

I truly don't. I am completely thrown for a loop on this one.

poornate
02-16-2010, 01:00 PM
:lol: Oh its a matter of backbone or the matter of you know you cannot form a reply that would make sense.

So asking what the money is for is just silly? Damn. Just damn. :lol:


I think others addressed that you were doing that. I think I just said you formed your question as a statement.

I'm asking you for your answer. Provide it or let it be known that you are just to cowardice to address it.

Why is you getting off your backside & helping people ridiculous? Others have done such, why can't you? Your concerned, but not that concerned. Its a typical Lib mentality as long as someone else is doing it & paying for it then I'm all for it, but ask me to actually do something & it ridiculous.

And if you were so concerned with others, then be concerned about their rights as Americans as well. Its their rights to pick the path of their life & reap or pay the consequence of their decisions.


Gov is not our daddy.

I amswered you while you were composing this tome... I see nothing wrong with a charity... I also see nothingg wrong with doing the right thing and modernizing our health care system... if people like you didn't display such cowardice (see! Now I'm TAKING words out of your mouth...nice!) when it came to doing the right thing... but no... you are so scared that others getting something means that you may lose something... so terrified that it may cost you something that you are crippled morally... I could care less, Scrooge... pile your ducats up and swim in them... when people finally decide that doing the right thing matters in this country I'll pay your part, too...

poornate
02-16-2010, 01:01 PM
I truly don't. I am completely thrown for a loop on this one.

Have you not observed this guys hostility in other conversations? You, sir, are an "other"... and are meant to be treated as such!

Rafiki
02-16-2010, 02:19 PM
It depends on the country. The Western countries move very different than the old Soviet bloc, for obvious reasons. About a year back the Economist had an article detailing how France under Sarkozy, after shifting right as the American media said he would, began to shift back as the recession began. Same went for Germany, to a lesser extent. The United Kingdom, however, is waning as a global power and is probably the most capitalist of the Big Three in the European Union.

Recessions are going to make bad situations worse, obviously. The ruling party takes the blame, whether it is a rise in ultra-capitalism in Europe or a shift to Keynesian economics in the United States.

It's interesting because many believe in either ultra-capitalism or Keynesian economics as the true solution, yet when recession hits the minority has ammunition to try and get the opposite put in place.

I doubt that a system that relies on either as a pure economic engine will ultimately succeed. There is some truth to Keynesian economics, in that the government is always the biggest consumer. But I believe that their effect on the overall economy is overstated, and that spending during recession is sometimes putting good money after bad, prolonging the recession instead of addressing fundamental problems.

Then again, a pure trickle down economics doesn't work either, simply because human nature tends towards self-interest over altruism. It tends to lead towards disparity in income and a shrinking middle class. If we lived in a perfect world, it would work wonderfully; then again, so would communism.

Dphins4me
02-16-2010, 11:51 PM
Answer my question and I will gladly respond. I don't understand your reluctance toward civility. If you will settle for a nut shell version then here it is.

Gov does not create wealth or produce anything. So they can only take it. The people earning the money & supporting the system are dwarfed by the ones receiving. So eventually you run out of others peoples money.

If you believe people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care, then what about food & shelter do they not have the same intrinsic ethical right to those also? Is Gov going to provide a hot cooked meal every night & a nice home for everyone? If so, are we taxing everyone that works at 95% to provide these things? Why would I go to work if I was only going to earn 5% of my income?

My reluctance towards civility? I've been civilized. I've been civilized to you. I've pointed out one poster lacked a backbone, because they entered into a discussion by their own free will, then once cornered ran & hide, but still showed up to address different things even quoting myself & ignoring the part I ask them to address.

Dphins4me
02-16-2010, 11:57 PM
Have you not observed this guys hostility in other conversations? You, sir, are an "other"... and are meant to be treated as such!
Hey Mr. Soundbite. Provide support of your comment.

Dphins4me
02-17-2010, 12:01 AM
I am saying that universities should be funded according to their merit... a meritocracy... and that funding allocation should be determined by learned people in the fields of the requestee, not by government bureaucrats. It doesn't matter to me where these people work... the university or a grant panel... but it does matter that our academics don't become controlled by the state. I do not believe that perfunctories should control what we study and learn, nor do I want to see a new bureaucracy created. Now... whether we agree or disagree will be up to you to determine... I often have a hard time discerning what you are trying to say.
Now was that hard?

If the money is coming from the Gov, the Gov has final say if they want to provide taxpayer money for it. Public backlash is something to be concerned with. Just the way it is. The panel can recommend or not, but final say will always be left to bureaucrats & why I do not advocate Gov run HC.

Final say will be from bureaucrats.

Dphins4me
02-17-2010, 12:28 AM
I see nothing wrong with a charity...Do you know that there is a Christian Org out there that is providing HC to people. You have to be a Christian to join it though. Pastor has to sign off on you.

Nut shelling it & I do not recall the dollar amounts. You handle any bill under $300 yourself. You pay $200 a month in premiums. If you have a bill you submit it & other people in the org send you their $200 premium payment to cover it. The next month if you do not have a bill. You will get a letter with the address to send your $200 premium too.

Simplistic in it design, but from the report I read it was working rather well.



I also see nothingg wrong with doing the right thing and modernizing our health care system..I ask this a post or two ago. What about food & shelter? If HC is a right, then isn't food & shelter? I mean what good is it to get free HC, if you cannot eat or get out of the cold?

So should we also provide food & a home for everyone?

or are you fine with people starving & living in run down homes as long as they can get HC?


if people like you didn't display such cowardice when it came to doing the right thing..Who says that is the right thing?

What is cowardice is stealing by majority vote. Getting something for nothing is stealing. Just because the Gov is providing it, does not change the fundamental part of stealing. If you know people are being force to provide for you then its stealing.



but no... you are so scared that others getting something means that you may lose something... so terrified that it may cost you something that you are crippled morally... Its about my free will. I want to decide what I do with my income. Not some bureaucrat ( There is that word you hate ) Which is what you are advocating.



I could care less, Scrooge... Bullcrap. You want in my bank account & a majority of other people.



pile your ducats up and swim in them... I wish I had some to swim in.

I live in hills of East Tenn. You know the ones you said you visited. I live there, everyday, so spare me to detail of how bad it is here when you visited. I grew up in SW Virginia. How rich do you think I could be?

I still oppose giving up my rights & my children rights to a bureaucrat.( There is that word you hate )

As I stated before. Also be concerned that some people want to be free & not on the teet of the Gov. I do not want a rich man giving me money. I earn my way.



when people finally decide that doing the right thing matters in this country I'll pay your part, too...
Doing the right thing has nothing to do with giving up my rights to a bureaucrat ( There is that word you hate )

Its so funny how you are so concerned with bureaucrats deciding funding for research, but couldn't care less when it comes to a HC decision.

Why are you all for a bureaucrat making our HC decisions?

poornate
02-17-2010, 12:44 AM
If you will settle for a nut shell version then here it is.

Gov does not create wealth or produce anything. So they can only take it. The people earning the money & supporting the system are dwarfed by the ones receiving. So eventually you run out of others peoples money.

If you believe people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care, then what about food & shelter do they not have the same intrinsic ethical right to those also? Is Gov going to provide a hot cooked meal every night & a nice home for everyone? If so, are we taxing everyone that works at 95% to provide these things? Why would I go to work if I was only going to earn 5% of my income?

My reluctance towards civility? I've been civilized. I've been civilized to you. I've pointed out one poster lacked a backbone, because they entered into a discussion by their own free will, then once cornered ran & hide, but still showed up to address different things even quoting myself & ignoring the part I ask them to address.

You must think we work for you, or something...

poornate
02-17-2010, 12:47 AM
I live in hills of East Tenn. You know the ones you said you visited. I live there, everyday, so spare me to detail of how bad it is here when you visited. I grew up in SW Virginia. How rich do you think I could be?



I said you should visit them... I lived in Tennessee as well... and SW Virginia... please try to read what i write before you indignantly pound out responses... by the way... why do you think I dislike bureaucracy? We need bureaucrats... when did I ever say otherwise, Mr. Civility?

Dphins4me
02-17-2010, 12:48 AM
You must think we work for you, or something...
Well someone needs to work in this country if we do what you want.

Dphins4me
02-17-2010, 12:58 AM
I said you should visit them... I lived in Tennessee as well... and SW Virginia... please try to read what i write before you indignantly pound out responses... Be happy that I recalled you saying you even drove through the place.

You lived. I live. Thanks for telling me how bad things are here, from Nrth Va. What's next for you? Telling someone who works in Africa feeding the hungry that there are starving people there?

As I stated. How rich do you think I could be living here & I still oppose giving up my rights.




by the way... why do you think I dislike bureaucracy? We need bureaucrats... when did I ever say otherwise,
Implied. If you believe a bureaucrat is smart enough to decide the nations HC decisions, then they should be smart enough to decide if a research request is viable.

poornate
02-17-2010, 01:08 AM
Be happy that I recalled you saying you even drove through the place.

You lived. I live. Thanks for telling me how bad things are here, from Nrth Va. What's next for you? Telling someone who works in Africa feeding the hungry that there are starving people there?

As I stated. How rich do you think I could be living here & I still oppose giving up my rights.

Again with all of the sweet talk...

I don't know how rich you would have to be... it seems like everyone who opposes modernizing health care is in the lowest tier of the middle class or is rich... I would guess you are in one of those two groups... I don't recall requesting that you give up your rights...

As for your previous connection between health care, food, and shelter... yes, I believe that those things are among the basic human rights that we need to see provided for people in this country if they are without...

Dphins4me
02-17-2010, 01:29 AM
Again with all of the sweet talk... Nothing but.



I don't know how rich you would have to be... it seems like everyone who opposes modernizing health care is in the lowest tier of the middle class or is rich... I would guess you are in one of those two groups... I don't recall requesting that you give up your rights... Well, I'm not rich. I would place myself in the upper part of lower middle class.



I don't recall requesting that you give up your rights... You are if you support a Fed Gov HC plan.

With all the talk from Obama that you can keep what you have. Then recently Obama came out & said. Opps. That was not true that you could not have kept your current HC.

Plus it was set up to where just about everyone in a matter of time would be on it, because it would have been a good business decision.




As for your previous connection between health care, food, and shelter... yes, I believe that those things are among the basic human rights that we need to see provided for people in this country if they are without...
Those are not rights. Those are needs. Don't get them confused.

I'm all for "Helping" someone out, so they can survive until they get back on their feet. I'm not for providing it for their life.

Just like one of the guys I work with. He complains about the cost of a drug he has to purchase for his daughter which cost $130 a month, but has no problem paying a monthly $175 dollar cell phone bill.

People have no problem paying for things they want, but expect the things they need to be cheap.

JamesBW43
02-17-2010, 05:24 AM
Ok, since you are concern & I'm glad you are. Its great to know people out there still care. I care, but I do not care enough to give up my rights & freedom to bureaucrats

I'll provide you with a simple answer to help with all your concerns.

The answer is start a charity that helps people pay for their medical bills..

Then concerned citizens can choose at will to donate some of their hard earn income to your charity. Free will rules & people get HC coverage via your charity. The only people not happy are those who want more Gov control over our lives.

However, I get the feeling the people screaming the loudest will not be willing to donate, because as with most that scream for Gov to do something.. They come from the I didn't mean me crowd. You know the ones that want Gov to take his money, but not mine. I need mine.

Hardly a simple solution considering the amount of greed in this world.




For myself, either you are for Gov control or you are not. No such thing as a dine in menu of Gov control. You open the door & they will come in & take & take. Its their goal.

Sure there is. We have that now.



Anyone who supports Socialism are just people who do not have the guts to walk into a store & rob someone. They prefer to do it via the Gov.



People who support socialism want equality for all, not more for one's self.

Dolphan7
02-17-2010, 01:58 PM
Too bad..this was a good thread...but thanks to a couple of playground antics...it's now in the Depths.

Dphins4me
02-17-2010, 05:02 PM
Hardly a simple solution considering the amount of greed in this world. Might want to do some research. The more money in people's pocket the more money they give to charities. The more money the Gov takes the less money people feel they have to give.

Maybe if we can get our liberal friends to give to charities & stop pushing for a larger Fed Gov, then things might be different. Just goes to show how one group feels people should be allowed to determine where their income goes & another group feels Gov should. As with liberals. Gov should help people out, but just not with my money. Use his.



This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.

Nicholas D. Kristof
On the Ground

Nicholas Kristof addresses reader feedback and posts short takes from his travels.

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Bleeding Heart Tightwads (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=3)




Sure there is. We have that now. Not as bad as it will be.




People who support socialism want equality for all, not more for one's self. People who support socialism want special treatment for the ones that have made bad decisions or been lazy.

Do not believe or not believe that Americans should succeed or fail based on their efforts?

Dphins4me
02-17-2010, 05:06 PM
Too bad..this was a good thread...but thanks to a couple of playground antics...it's now in the Depths.
If saying someone was being a coward was the reason then that is pathetic.

finataxia24
02-18-2010, 01:31 AM
If socialism is destroying Europe, then why is the Euro destroying the dollar?

Dphins4me
02-18-2010, 02:15 AM
If socialism is destroying Europe, then why is the Euro destroying the dollar?
Capitalism has nothing to do with Gov spending. Reduce it & the dollar will rebound.

JamesBW43
02-18-2010, 04:17 AM
Might want to do some research. The more money in people's pocket the more money they give to charities. The more money the Gov takes the less money people feel they have to give.


That's quite the self-evident statement. Hardly requires research. However, I do know what you're trying to say, and I'd like to point out that since we've been drastically lowering income taxes over the past 30 years, wealth inequality in this country has reached a record level.



People who support socialism want special treatment for the ones that have made bad decisions or been lazy.

Do not believe or not believe that Americans should succeed or fail based on their efforts?

Actually they want equal treatment of those who have made bad decisions or been lazy.

I'm not arguing the merits of socialism, just setting the record straight.

Dphins4me
02-18-2010, 12:00 PM
I'd like to point out that since we've been drastically lowering income taxes over the past 30 years, wealth inequality in this country has reached a record level. Reply is not directed towards you, but the thought process of some. So I'm not getting smartarse with you.

Wealth inequality? Someone earning as much money as they can? What a horrible concept. We must stop those evil people who create businesses & provide others with jobs. Evil, evil people.

How dare someone invest their money & time into a business & expect profits from it. They are so evil.

The thing is. I want those evil people fat & rich. Why? Because what do fat rich people do? They try to get fatter & richer, by investing in new ideas, new factories, new everything, which provide people like myself a job to earn my income. I have no problem with someone being a million times richer than me. Its not the life I care to lead.

I do not envy others or what they have & there in lies the problem with some.



Actually they want equal treatment of those who have made bad decisions or been lazy.. How much more equal can it be? You make a bad decision, you suffer the ramifications of it. You make a good decision you reap the benefits from it. Very simple theory.

What Socialism wants to do is punish the people who have made good decisions with their money & life. Reward the ones that have made bad decisions.

If I invest 1K in a stock & it goes up then I should reap the rewards from risking my money. If I lose money then I pay for risking my money.

Life is about risk & reward. Some just want to punish those who take risk.

Bill Gates at one time risk his life with Windows. Where would his life be had he spent those years creating it & no one used it? Then he would have made a bad choice. However, it went great for him. Personally I do not envy him & the life he has to lead now with being a target for every get rich thug that might want to kidnap him, his wife or kid(s) ( if he had kids )