Help thy neighbor…
Help thy neighbor… but only if they can already help themselves.
(Conservative protester)
Picture: dunno source, Caption: PunditKitteh, via Our LOL Builder.
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Gramma’s off her meds again | I’ve done more with one finger Next »
And so, the flame war begins with me.
TEH SOSHALISM IS TEH EEEBIL!!!
-Sighs and prepares the fire-
DT, that’s the equivalent of me yelling “PULL!”
Please to stoke the fire with the corpses of aborted feti, deformed undesirables and euthanized elderly, comrade.
Thank you.
You forgot illegal aliens in line for national health care.
*ducks for cover*
*fires up the flamethrower*
You can run but you can’t hide.
-storms in with Assault Marines-
Sigma: “WWWAAAAAAARRRRGGHHH!!!!”
Sergeant: “That’s not our battle cry, man.”
Sigma: “Yes but you will say it in a sec, bub, NOW SKEWER!!!”
Feti burn gooood…
the soshalism is the weebil?
Weebles wobble but they don’t fall down, the socialist fu(ks.
Which means they aren’t socialist, as they don’t have their neighbors propping them up all the time, now do they?
Weebles! The ultimate capitalist toy!
That was a stretch but it was worth it.
I don’t think PunditKitteh gets it.
Judging by the state of the economy, I would say capitalists do, in fact, fall down.
Which means those Weebles…could be…INDEPENDENTS!!!!!
*gasp*
Globalists wobble and the economy falls down.
Capitalists fall when loaded down with government requirements and regulations that make it impossible for them to make an honest dollar.
An honest dollar? Like all the banks and investment companies that made an “honest dollar” with all the deregulations this decade? Regulations are there to make sure it IS an honest dollar and not either a dollar that doesn’t exist or a dollar made at the expense of others.
No, no. There have been no honest dollars since before governments and laws and regulations were invented. Before that though, everything was good and honest in the capitalist businesses!
what is this dollar you are speaking of? i’ve been trading in goat skins for years.
Kind of like the doctor that specializes in circumsicions – he works for tips.
ha! that’s sick. and funny.
maybe worse – what do you think he does with the tips… do you think he makes them into a necklace, like those troops in veitnam did with the ears? would they wobble to and fro? could you toss them over your shoulder like a continental soldier?
They use them to make wallets- they grow larger when they see a good looking woman!
If you stroke the wallet: instant briefcase!
nope, they sew them all together and make a politician!
Yeah, I’ve been meaning to talk to you about that. You paid me in counterfeit goat skins. I want my iPod back.
Hmm.. I have a strict no-rebargaining policy after that incident with goat skin condoms. Don’t want to go through that again, but I think we can manage something. I must have been sent a bunk shipment for my exchange of otter teeth a few weeks back. I tell ya, damn Canadians area always trying to cheat me out of my otter teeth.
Well, I don’t want any raccoon pelts. I’ve got tons of those already and they’re not worth crap these days what with inflation and everything.
Inflating raccoons is evil!
Dude, I totally forgot. I have to reflect back to a simpler time when child labor was okay, there was no minimum wage, and monopolies were the rage. Unregulated capitalism is a marvelous thing.
KILL THE PRIME MINISTER OF MALAYSIA!
Hey SB…. relax, don’t do it.
They’re break-dance fighting!
Teenage suicide or when you wanna cum?
I FEEL LIKE I’M TAKING CRAZY PILLS!
*tosses orange i-mac down and watches it shatter*
Where are all the files?
what’s all this racket?
*sets down “Spots on the Wall” by Hu Flung Pu and grabs cane*
ye varmints! off my lawn!
Dude, I’m sure your righteous indignation about child labor has led you to many of the countries in the world who CURRENTLY have such practices, so that you can effect meaningful change. Or do you prefer to simply stay home and bash the USA for something in our past that has been eliminated.
Dude, you should read up on what many economists think is the detrimental effect the minimum wage has on our economy, and how it actually increases unemployment among low level wage earners.
Dude, the cure for monopolistic practices IS capitalism!
Read a little history, and see what unfettered capitalism creates: monopolies.
Not very educated, eh? #1 who is talking “unfettered”? That’s YOUR assumption. #2 get a new f*cking line. That one’s really old.
yes, and we should put the old things out to pasture..KILL THE OLD KILL THE OLD THINGS!
Who yanked on your chains, Annieee? I never said he was “not very educated”. Amuzikman is the one admonishing to “read up on” stuff . . . I did nothing more. I contradicted his Bizarro-world notion that “the cure for monopolistic practices IS capitalism” . . . which is the truth. I can’t help it that the truth isn’t to your warped Rand-land liking. Unfettered capitalism IS what your ilk loves, is it not? Usually when anyone is wanking on about Capitalism being the cure for all ills, they mean it’s best at its most free. My assumption, perhaps, but–I’d like to hear from the poster (Amuzikman)–am I wrong about whether he meant an unrestricted capitalism? I know I’m not wrong about the rise of monopolies.
And finally: I don’t have an old “f&cking line”. But you’re sure getting angreee.
There is a story of a little red hen living on a farm full of animals.
One day Little Red Hen decides she wants to make bread.
So she goes asking each animals if they will help her plant and water the seeds because she is going to make bread.
“No thanks!” said the cow
“No way!” said the pig
“Go away!” said the horse
“Not today” said the sheep
So Little Red Hen plants and waters the wheat until it grows tall and ready for harvest. She asks the farm animals if they want to help her harvest and gather the wheat because she is going to make bread.
The answers from each animal were the same as last time.
So she harvests the wheat and grinds it to flour. Again she asks if anyone wants to help her make the dough for the bread she wants to bake.
They have better things to do today again then to help Little Red Hen.
So Little Red Hen makes the dough and bakes the bread and it smells delicious and sweet. Everyone comes to Little Red Hen’s house.
They are ready for a bite of the moist sweet bread!
“Now wait a minute, I asked everyone if they wanted to help me make this bread, and no one wanted to help me! Now that it is done, you all want to eat it! Well I don’t think so!” said Little Red Hen.
All the animals looked down in shame and went back to what they were doing the days before, nothing.
Then Farmer Obama came out to the Little Red Hen and said that she needed to share. She asked why?
“Because, it is good for everyone.” Said the farmer.
The Little Red Hen no longer makes her bread, when asked about it today, she replies, “Let someone else make it”
Hrm?
Tyler needs a clarification, stat.
Never mind.
My brain is teh slow today.
The late arrival of actual summer will do that to a person!
Actually, help thy neighbor by not mooching off of them.
Win. Charity has to be VOLUNTARY to mean anything. State instituted charity is a violation of rights.
Darn right socialism is bad – darn Medicare mooches!
NOTE FOR THE SARCASM IMPAIRED:
I am all for the elderly having Medicare as a safety net. The concept of caring for the vulnerable members of our society is right, good and in keeping with the values that mark an civilized society.
Plus, (lifts bullhorn) THEY PAID INTO IT THEIR WHOLE LIVES!!!
IT’S NOT SOCIALISM!
THANK you for that! Why is that so hard for some people to get? Cripes.
Medicare is supposed to be a safety net, not a luxury 747.
And if we had universal health care we would ALL get the benefits of paying into it, and not just the elderly!
Hell, children get the benefit of universal education and they don’t pay a dime. Bunch of useless commie moochers.
No, we pay for edumacation to produce a productive generation to feed medicare when we’re old. Duh.
If public schooling was so great, why aren’t the Presidential Kids going?
I would imagine that would be a huge security risk.
The only type of school that isn’t a security risk for those kids is a homeschool. Everything can be managed.
But seriously, even before he was prez, those kids were in private schools (I believe). If public school was so great, why weren’t they in there with the rest of em?
Personal choice? Exercising the right to choose what you believe is best for your children.
I’m usually not like this, but I mean… Its not like Obama is trying to kill public schooling. He wants to help public schools catch up.
I think it’s perfectly fine for someone such as Barack, who has the life of “The American Dream” try to level the playing field for millions of people he’s never met.
He might know there’s a staggering difference in the quality of education, but it also looks to me like he wants to close the gap.
He came into a shitstorm, and he’s got an entire nation, like an evil monkey, on his back. I think for once it would be nice for everyone to just sit back and realize that to make things work between people with infinitesimal differences, everyone will have to sacrifice a little something.
I completely agree with the personal choice aspect of it. You should be allowed to send your kids wherever you want to send them.
Vouchers, anyone?
And I think that Obama’s biggest problem is that he’s trying to do too much at once, and he’s going about it the wrong way. He’s like a poorly aimed shotgun at this point, and it’s going to cost him a second term if he keeps it up.
I’m still marveling at the comparisons of government healthcare to the post office, because that’s what we all want in healthcare *shakes head sadly*
Vouchers won’t work in many areas of rural New England, where it is at least a 1/2 hour drive to the regional high school, and there aren’t any alternatives…nor are there enough kids to populate an alternative school. I imagine that may also be true for other rural parts of this country?
It is true for more rural parts of the country, but that doesn’t mean that the alternative shouldn’t be there. Nor should a kid be prevented from going to a better school based on where they live. My daughter is lucky, we managed to find a house in the number one school district (academically) in our city. A lot of kids aren’t that lucky, and are forced to go to schools that are sub-par.
I’m honestly of the opinion that the government can’t run anything right. I’m sure that’s a wildy skewed opinion based on things like public schooling, the post office, Medicare, Medicaid, the Veteran’s Admin, and many, many other things that just aren’t done right. I wish there was a way to wean off the government teat and privatize more of this stuff so that there would be a better chance. Or, if not privatize, at least allow states and cities to control some things as opposed to the federal government, which can’t even balance its own checkbook.
I just think the public school problem starts with the fact that you have one person, who on a daily basis, not only comes into contact with, but must also instruct and mentor close to 100+ students. And this is not a 9am to 3pm job. This job follows you home… and stays for about 5 to 6 more hours… every night.
Teachers weather bad attitudes, insurmountable stacks of paperwork, bureaucracy, bad students, bad parents, and relatively no free time, and on top of all that, if the students they teach don’t perform well, they get the axe.
It’s a ridiculous amount of pressure for a group of people who’s starting salary at the highest in most states is just at the $40,000 mark.
Considering the importance of their role in a society, that’s a terrible number. And hardly an incentive to put up with the deluge of personal self-investment that being a teacher entitles.
You forgot standardized testing, Max. The bane of all public school teachers’ existence. Teaching to a test… BAH!
I could go on for hours on education, Ive said in previous posts Ive come from a line of teachers over 150 years strong. I know the problems with education cause they followed my mother home every night. But I try to spare PK my Final Solution.
Round up all the stupid people and shoot them?
Froo! How elitist of you! Whoever’ll dig the ditches and dump the trash…
The slightly less stupid people who survived the purge, of course.
Well… no… froo how in world will that every help education? If only the smart ones are left there wouldn’t be a need for education… you HAVE however stumbled upon my plan for the elderly and this “Medicare” problem.
If there are only smart people left, and there is little to no need for education except on the higher levels, then teachers wouldnt’ be forced to teach to the lowest common denominator, thereby leaving their souls intact and not sucking them out through the straw in the brain that is Public Service.
And no fu(king standardized testing! Yay!
My experience has always been that it’s the parents who make a child’s school experience good or bad. In some places with “sub-par” schools, the parents aren’t involved in the school or with their child’s school life. This could be because a single mother is working three jobs and can’t sit at home with her kids to help them with work, or because school just isn’t a priority for some adults. So we fix it by shooting all the apathetic parents. And no more standardized testing.
Max, you’ve hit it on the head. That’s exactly why I’m a desk jockey now, after 10 years in the classroom. (Well that, and the fact that French is no longer the overwhelmingly popular language it was two- or three hundred years ago.)
The problem is not just apathetic parents, although there are too many of those lately. The problem is the seemingly attentive parents in affluent schools who believe that if their genius darling is failing it simply must be the horrible teacher’s fault and not that their little darling didn’t do his homework and has an attitude the size of the grand canyon.
Whoever’ll dig the ditches and dump the trash…
Oh, but for the love of Murphy… You make them dig their graves first, line ‘em up on the edge, then shoot.
I can’t believe how n00b some people are!
They have to be healthy to be productive.
Blame Jefferson for that. Another good idea IMO.
Too bad the education they get in this country isn’t worth a dime.
Um, no. They paid into SOCIAL SECURITY their whole working lives. Anyone who has worked for a decade, and is 65+ is entitled to Medicare. Unless they’re disabled or have certain conditions, then they can be younger. If they don’t meet those criteria they can still get Medicaid – another program that has no pay-in requirements ever.
The same agency administers both Medicare and Medicaid.
You’re joking, aren’t you? Or have you NEVER had a job but determined to dictate to those of us who do how to spend our money?
The comments I made concern easily verifiable *facts*. Sorry if they are inconvenient, but that makes them no less true. Go find and check out the relevant government agency’s website.
My own healthcare is courtesy the family’s 24 years in the military, with the additional premiums we pay in for being a retiree family.
People pay into medicare their whole lives. It’s called the “medicare tax.”
Easily verifiable fact.
You’re conveniently avoiding the fact that one need NOT pay into it (Medicare) “their whole lives” to receive it. Household employees don’t, for example, yet are still eligible at age 65 to receive it.
You may wish to do some research if you haven’t been exposed to this stuff before.
No, I’m not. Do unicorns fart rainbows in your world, too?
Someone in the household is paying taxes for the household. It’s not socialism when you pay into it. Period.
Even if your family is paying for you. Duh.
Chill, DT. From medicare.gov:
Here are some simple guidelines. You can get Part A at age 65 without having to pay premiums if:
* You already get retirement benefits from Social Security or the Railroad Retirement Board.
* You are eligible to get Social Security or Railroad benefits but haven’t yet filed for them.
* You or your spouse had Medicare-covered government employment.
If you are under 65, you can get Part A without having to pay premiums if you have:
* Received Social Security or Railroad Retirement Board disability benefits for 24 months.
* End-Stage Renal Disease and meet certain requirements.
So, yes, you don’t necessarily have to have paid in to get it.
I know that! Look at where others are paying in on your behalf… the railroad, social security, you OR your spouse… or you’re dying and have nothing else.
That’s my point. It’s NOT socialism. Jeezus.
I was just talking about Medicare eligibility. I don’t know what argument you think we’re having here, but I’m not interested.
Nice coalition building. No wonder conservatives are tanking.
Did you find mouse turds in your corn flakes or something? Sheesh…
Just being his usual Ahole self….
So I can have your Medicare benefits?
Quit being an asshole.
Pro tip: if you’re going to rant nonsensically, at least make it about the Twelve Galaxies.
Rant nonsensically? Do tell.
Dhoti,
The “premium” referenced in your cite is for part A, the hospitalization coverage only, and to be eligible for SSI the retiree or the retiree’s spouse must have worked and contributed into the fund for 40 quarters.
The premium for part B, the outpatient coverage, is an amount paid by the Medicare recipient while receiving Medicare coverage. The premium for Part b is usually deducted right out of the retiree’s SSI benefit check, so typically it doesn’t get much attention.
Both premiums are separate from the payroll tax contribution to medicare during one’s working life.
And of course, none of those have anything to do with any premiums paid for private medigap insurance to cover the 20% of costs not covered by medicare.
This doesn’t contradict your cite, just expands on it. But it does kinda bounce the not needing to pay in, by virtue of the SSI eligibility requirement.
BTW, these and other little fun facts are just a few of the fun things you have to learn when you start caring for your elderly parents.
OK, that came out wrong.
It’s what you have to learn when you start managing the care of your elderly parents.
Trollkiller, you’re making an ass of yourself.
If you REALLY kill trolls, and try to differentiate yourself from one, don’t act like one.
Randomly insulting someone while they’re trying to make a point= TROLL BEHAVIOR.
igor…you just trolled, and so did i, go eat a cookie
If you hate Medicare so much and are so worried about teh creepin’ socialism give your benefits to someone else, K sweetums?
Was this just a poor attempt at humor or did the poster completely miss the irony of their comment? Paying for someone else’s benefits (vs. working to support yourself) is exactly what socialism would involve.
I was going to say… Then were does that money I see coming out of my paycheck go then?
I dunno, but it might be cheaper to just get end-stage renal disease. Who knew affordable healthcare was just a renal failure away!
Renal failure is narsty. Cheaper to pay money, trust me!
And definatly not cheaper. That stuff sucks really bad. The reason they give medicare for it is because the meds alone for dealing with it are in the thousands of dollars daily.
it would work better if they kept the money in a personal account, instead of tossing it into the government’s general fund…
Medicare is a safety net and sustainable. It’s not something that was forced on us, and it does not encompass the whole of the medical system. Medicare would be fine, if we could fix it.
However, overhauling the entire system is NOT the solution. In any case, it is illegal for a hospital to turn someone away.
Medicare as currently managed is not sustainable, but it is not a safety net, it is bought and paid for health insurance in all but a few arcane situations. Medicaid is the safety net program, which is also not sustainable as currently managed.
Minor technical point, but important.
You’re correct though on not needing to overhaul the system to fix it.
It would work fine if only the goverment would stop spending the money on whatever they want… srsly, the government couldn’t pinch a penny to save their lives…
And that make it better how, that the hospitals have to soak up the cost of treating people they can’t turn away? Do you think they don’t just jack up the price for the people who can pay to make up the shortfall? You WILL be paying for other people’s medical care, one way or the other. We pay in other ways than financial, too, like waiting forever in emergency rooms while they treat people who should never have had to go there in the first place. But if they could get decent primary care instead of waiting until they are at death’s door, it would cost the hospitals – and you – and me – a hell of a lot less.
Totally.
Fortunately, taxes are not considered charity. Finally, you’ll be able to sleep nights.
State instituted education is not charity. State instituted roads are not charity. The VA hospitals are not charity.
Universal health care is a human right. It has nothing to do with charity. The Europeans have understood this for five decades now, and as a result they have a better mortality rate than Americans do, because no matter how many MRIs we have, they’re useless if you can’t afford ‘em.
Not to mention that the malpractice insurance rate for obstetricians (baby-delivering docs) would not be so astronomical if the parents could count on the government to provide decent medical and educational assistance for those birth defects which were caused by chance rather than negligence.
Physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, wheelchairs, leg braces and ramps all cost serious bucks. But they can result in a child having a decent life…and becoming a productive adult.
TORT REFORM. I’m not sure how many times people on my side can shout that
A lot of the costs associated with “needless testing” and other things are a direct relation to malpractice lawsuits. A doctor does as many tests as he can, because God forbid he doesn’t do one and that’s the one test that woudl have saved Granny’s life. Now he’s looking at a malpractice suit. Then his insurance goes up, forcing him to charge more to make the bottom line……and dammit if those $50,000 a pop leg amputations just dont’ happen every day 
(P.S. Someone needs to fact check the math on that. You’ll be shocked)
If we had “loser pays” in our tort law, and other safeguards against frivolous lawsuits involving vaccinations that haven’t, in fact, harmed your child, then we would see an immediate reduction in costs.
And doctors wouldn’t be scared into performing unecessary testing just to save their own butts. It would streamline the process, and people could get the care they need.
I’m OK with that IF (big if) it comes along with sufficient support for persons disabled. As in don’t allow folks to wither without the medical and social supports needed to function!!
I’m good with that provision. It needs to be included in the insurance part of it, where you pay for what you want and what you need as opposed to stuff the government (both state and federal) thinks you need.
We should be allowed to customize our own plans in the same way we customize auto insurance.
But see when you get into ‘frivolous’ you get into murky water. My surgeries from a doctor that kinda openly admitted that he didn’t know what he was doing after the fact have left me with blinding head aches almost every day, muscle spasms in my face that can last for weeks on end and trigger my insomnia, and not to mention have permanently scarred my face in a way that in this day and age was perfectly avoidable. Now, according to the state of Texas, just because it took ten years after the fact for my head aches to reach the critical level, that it’s frivolous and i can’t sue him to get the money to fix it.
I know it doesn’t completely apply to what you were talking about, but it does on some level. They ran so many tests on me when I was little to find out what it was and only took my tumor out when I was ELEVEN! I researched lymphangioma, it’s supposed to be removed when you’re younger. I was told by a bunch of doctors I’ll ‘out grow it’, when really every time I was sick it would swell and I couldn’t breath.
I dunno, it’s just one of those situations were you need to see not only in black and white but varying degrees of gray otherwise cases like mine will be overlooked.
I’m sympathetic, but I think you’ll find that most nations have a statute of limitations on how long after treatment you can raise a suit for errors in medical treatment (although there are normally procedures for having the SoL set aside in individual cases).
They can shout it ’til the cows come home, but I’m not sure unnecessary lawsuits are the sole cause of skyrocketing costs (link). There are already actually quite a few measures in place to restrict frivolous lawsuits from even reaching a court.
If reform was instituted, and malpractice insurers weren’t paying out as much, then we’d just have to wait for them to charge doctors less for malpractice insurance. And wait. And then wait some more. What incentive does a company have to lower premiums, when they’ve already been raising them for years with questionable cause?
Plus you have doctors or groups of doctors who go into business for themselves and form their own practices. Some of these practices are set up to be basically the opposite of the Mayo Clinic or Kaiser Permanente. Doctors aren’t scared into performing tests, they’ll simply do whatever tests they can think of that are most profitable because they know what insurance companies will pay out for. There’s a lot more to the health care problem than unnecessary lawsuits.
Ah..not to VG…There is nothing in the new proposed healthcare bill addressing the Tort reform that the system dearly needs.
*note*
Universal health care is actually NOT a right.
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) would not agree with you.
Article 25.
“(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”
Considering that’s the United Nations, let them pay for it then.
*snerk* HAH, I put my tea down!
They…do….
It’s illegal for a hospital to turn someone away. I’d say the rationing that occurs in Canada and Britain is a violation of these conventions.
The NHS does NOT ration. I have never ever been turned away from treatment.
I’d like a widespread cite of rationing in Canada and the U.K., if that doesn’t hurt you too much.
No anecdotal bullsh*t either.
I know a guy whose cousin had a friend whose mom was dating a guy whose boss said he knew someone who told him that you can’t go to the hospital for a broken leg for at least 15 months. *nods frothingly*
“State instituted education is not charity. State instituted roads are not charity. The VA hospitals are not charity.”
Those right there are the three biggest examples of why government shouldn’t manage health care.
Public education is crap, our investment in roads has been squandered and billions of dollars in collected user fees have been embezzled, and the VA hospital system is an insult to the brave military personnel who sacrificed for the country.
Taxpayers provide more than sufficient funding for these needs, and the federal government has consistently failed to deliver these services beyond a criminally minimal level.
Oh, OK, I think I see what you’re implying with:
“billions of dollars in collected user fees have been embezzled”, and,
“Taxpayers provide more than sufficient funding”, and,
“failed to deliver these services beyond a criminally minimal level”.
Corruption.
Solution? Root out the corruption. Fix the system.
Let’s not throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater, eh?
What’s the difference between a pile of dead babies and a Ferrari?
I don’t have a Ferrari in my garage.
What I’m trying to say is that the babies have to go!
My boss, BT, has been known to eat the babies, grilled with BBQ sauce. If you’ll light the grille, I think we can work something out.
“Corruption”
ding, ding, ding, we have a winner
other acceptable answers include incompetence, inefficiency, no incentive to control administrative costs, just to name a few.
You’re right, fix the system, . . . BEFORE we let them have a new one to screw up.
Let’s not leave the baby to be looked after by a motorcycle gang.
When you’re dealing with humans and their failings, Greed and Corruption, “fixing the system” is an ongoing, relentless process.
You can’t call a halt to everything while you do it, you know!
The problem is, the baby’s care is making us ALL go broke, so we’ve got to do something … would you rather have the baby be looked after by the ravenous baby-eating devil-worshippers? AKA, the Insurance Industry?
More than 85% of Americans are sufficiently satisfied with the insurance industry.
Compared to the gov’t biker gang, the insurance industry is Montessori day care.
The only fundamental problems with healthcare are finding a way to provide healthcare coverage to the 5% of Americans who don’t currently have access, and reducing costs.
Though frequently promised, gov’t has never succeeded in holding costs to the approved budget, say nothing of actually cutting costs.
So “more than 85% of Americans” like paying way the highest percentage of GDP for healthcare, and only getting the 37th best healthcare for it?
Oh and the figures I’ve seen say that para 3 should be “…the 20% of Americans who can’t afford access…”
i was just doing tha math and wondering where the other 700 million americans were hiding
They’re under the bed, with my boss, Bitter Troll.
85% of Americans are “sufficiently satisfied with the insurance industry”, eh?
I don’t believe it. Support for that statement, please?
I don’t believe you exist. Support your existence please.
I like you. Bake me a pie.
I support my existence; thanks for asking, though.
99.8% of my poll respondents think your statistics are a crock of $h!t.
Barracks solution isn’t the right one. His solution so far has included bigger and bigger and bigger FED Govt. Who is supposed to reign that guy in? The Dem’s who are in control of everything right now pander to that guy.
Did you know that no one paid taxes prior to ww1? Except at times of war. But after the war, they didn’t want to stop the taxes.
The state govt’s are supposed to run the local states. The Fed needs to but out!
Socialism is a great idea, if theres no corruption. Capitalism is a great idea, if theres no corruption. Too bad there IS corruption…
The govt workers should all make min wage! If Barrack is socialist and really looking out for us, i’d like to see him do that. Let’s also make it completely illegal for anyone in Govt to accept gifts or money from any person or private company.
Give GM back to the private sector!
our lower mortality rates also have a lot to do with the fact out governments recognise that there is no justification whatsoever for a civilian to own a gun… unles they are a bank robber or a nutcase. and even charlton heston recognised that thos people having guns was problematical.
on a broader note, is anyone else struck by the ferocity of this debate? with the christian fundamentalist right getting a hair up ther ass about the prospect that they end up paying for someone elses band-aid. Is that what being a christian is all about? did I miss a meeting or something?
Yes there is, as enshrined in the Second, which explicitly acknowledges the right to own hunting weapons. But auto-firing (aka self-loading) weapons and handguns are not hunting weapons.
I guess that really depends on what you’re hunting, now doesn’t it?
I carry a loaded .9 MM with me at all times when I’m deer hunting, and hubby carries his .45 loaded and ready to go. It’s much easier to draw and shoot at something stalking you (like the cougar stalking him last year *shudder*) than to try and swing up and aim a long gun at something coming at you. Also, a smaller handgun is much easier and better for things like killing snakes, humanely killing threats to livestock, and other times when having a long gun isn’t feasable or convenient.
“I use a handgun to deal with close-range (and inedible) threats” – I don’t really think that’s hunting within the spirit of the second. By that argument, anyone who goes hill-walking (true hill-walking, not just following established and marked trails) should carry a handgun. For the record, I use a gun-camera, not a projectile weapon, and have never encountered anything vicious enough to attack me or even that hunted back.
And I notice you can’t think of a hunting scenario when auto-fire is necessary either.
Ya know, I’m torn about that one. Even though I’m a raging liberal
, I do believe in gun rights. I can’t imagine full-auto weapons being hunting equipment. I used to rail against such things as completely “unnecessary”. However, my fiance used to be a gun dealer, and used to collect guns. He loved to take his guns to the shooting range, and just blow off steam. He had AKs, an M-60….all kinds of stuff. He had four 50-calibers at one time. He took them to a friend’s farm a couple of times, and shot the $hit out of cars (once, a Pontiac Fiero with incendiary rounds–I saw the video–THAT was funny). He was in a accident a few years before that, and nearly died. He was told he’d never walk again, he’d better sell his business, etc. He walked, he still owned and operated the business, but he had some health complications. The shooting range was really his only outlet. He wasn’t a danger to anyone. He wasn’t stockpiling food in an underground bunker.
So, though I believe extreme background checks should be in place to own such military-grade weaponry, who am I to say what’s “necessary”? I think lots of people still have that little kid in them that just likes to make things go “boom”.
I know military grade stuff is fun; if you have the cash and a suitably large live fire range firing off a quad 50-cal AA turret just for the noise puts a major smile on your face (and anyone else who can hear it too). I just don’t believe that it’s within the letter or spirit of the second.
Actually, about this “spirit of the 2nd”-thing: I think that the Founding Fathers wanted the people to have weapons in case of situations like the former British rule, so they wouldn’t be unable to resist, right?
Well, in those times (besides cannon), a musket was a musket. In these times, what’s a shotgun going to do against current military weaponry? I think in order to resist an oppressor, the weaponry would have to be more equal. So, maybe there is support in the 2nd for that type of ownership.
Covered in the part about owning weapons other than hunting pieces “as part of a State militia” (not exact wording). maybe?
Or since you have a socialised army, maybe that part just shouldn’t apply any more?
Perhaps you misunderstand the word ‘explicitly’.
‘to keep and bear arms’ does not explicitly state hunting weapons only… that’s just as close as the government interpreters could get to taking guns away completely.
the Right to bears arms to meant to empower citizens against a tyrannical government. The founding Fathers were dealing with a situation where the ruling monarchy didn’t listen to or care about the individuals. THey had no rights to rule themselves…they had no way to resist that rule.
SO, they set up a govt with checks and balances. Which is why Obama needs to knock it off with the supreme being complex.
They also wrote in the right to bear arms. Taking that away takes us one step closer to being under tyrannical rule.
First paragraph: Right.
2nd paragraph: Right. Obama has shown no signs of a “supreme being complex”. That’s some right-wing nutjob pundit B.S. you seem to be parroting.
3rd paragraph: Right. Who’s taking your guns away? Is there some new legislation I haven’t heard about? I thought our lawmakers were busy with this healthcare issue.
Just would like to point out that not all us Christians are crazed fundamentalist who spew hate and stupidity. The bigger issue here is that the government has a need to do all this “charity” where the church has failed. I find that to be the saddest thing. But just know some of us Christians took the directive to “take care of the poor, the sick and widowed” seriously. Not all, but there are those of us who still try.
” … crazed fundamentalistS”.
I don’t know of a way MANY Christians could be ONE single, crazed fundamentalist . . . . unless you all stood under one big, big coat.
[I saw that in a cartoon, once.]
I’d agree with you, at least to some extent. I do know Christians who do give to aid charities which actually are making a difference in the nations aided, but I’d have to say they’re a minority of self-professed Christians, never mind of all the people I know.
… what? health care is not a right… where’d you get that idea?
Amen
No no no. It’s “a man” and “many men.” Grammar fail!
‘course, there’s always the situation where the neighbor has fallen on his or her ass and needs help up. by not mooching them are you helping? i’d say he’d rather you just give him a hand up instead of stand there being greedy and claiming it’s for his own good.
jus sayin, the not mooching approach, albiet one i agree (i prefer to get what i earn), it isn’t appropriate in all situations.
Or how about this… Don’t force me to help my ‘neighbor’ if he WON’T get out and get a job after 6 years of sitting on his butt collecting unemployment and foodstamps. I am all for the temporary help when a person needs it, but enough of the taking from those who work hard for what they have and giving it to those who would rather just sit and collect.
In all seriousness, what would you have done with/for someone born so seriously disabled that they cannot live without being cared for in every aspect of their life? What about someone who becomes severely disabled due to accident or disease later on? (For example, a teen who contracts meningitis and becomes wheel chair bound and so mentally handicapped they end up at a 2 year old’s level mentally?)
That hypothetical person’s care/feeding is the responsibility of their family 1st. After that they are the responsibility of any charity organization the CHOOSES to care for them. If, as the libertarian party wishes, individuals got a dollar for dollar tax credit for charitable contributions there would be ample private help for them, they wouldn’t have to jump through gov’t hoops or fill out reams of paperwork. Not to mention that far less of the money would support bureaucrat leeches.
Sounds nice. Tell me more about this imaginary perfect world of which you speak?
you know, you’d think with all this patriotic banter from the right, they’d recognize one of the greatest things about this country (among it’s many great things, including grizzlies, i don’t care what you say, they’re awesome) has been the american’s tendency to look out for their own.
if someone is suffering, you don’t just let them suffer, you stop to help. if something is too much for a person to take on the responsibility for, then the gov’t steps in and acts where few couldn’t. pushing the disabled and handicapped to charitable organizations is great, but there’s never going to be enough nor will they cover all the contingencies. it’s a lovely thought and be great if i were proved wrong, but just isn’t going to happen in the state of the world as it is.
Grizzlies are GODLESS KILLING MACHINES.
No, no, no. That’s Planned Parenthood.
NO IT’S BEARS!!!!!!
BEETS. BEARS. BATTLESTAR GALACTICA!
Identity theft is not a joke, Jim! Thousands of families suffer every year!
Dammit, he put my stapler in Jello again!
Doomed to wander for evermore, no longer knowing who they are…
Really? Because as soon as we become anonymous we turn into assholes.
WallFly, I agree with the whole Americans try to look out for their own…
But the hope has been crushed out of me from far too many Americans posting things like “Panic attacks are just another reason to p*ssy out grow a pair” “OMFG ur a ttl RTARD!”
It goes on and on.
i see your point Igor (liking the new name btw and i’ve been meaning to ask what is the person in your image saying?) – anonymity has the tendency to bring out the ass in people. got me wondering if it’s just because all the frustration they get on a daily basis with bosses, traffic, idiot co-workers, etc. are easily vented in a forum where there’s essentially no reprocussions in the real world. then again, people get rather violent in video games too, so, maybe it’s just our nature.
i was mostly thinking back to the army, with the americans looking out for their own, it’s the greatest example of it but it happens in the day to day civilian live as well, just not with the same kind of dramatic flair a life or death situation can bring.
and yah, sometimes sympathy is just lacking for no other apparent reason for morons being morons (who are, incidentally, often the loudest).
It’s a picture of me that was taken in the dark. My friend edited the color into some bizarre form of sepia, then captioned it as “I f*cking GLOW.”
Sometimes they like to make jokes about me being the second coming.
It’s called Obama’s plan…duh
Plz tell me you’re not serious…
That is a completely different situation… There are charities (that people give to *freely*) to help people/families in that kind of situation. Why does the government feel the need to *take* my money and decide who gets it? It usually ends up going to the lazy bast… uh, jerk that just finds it easier to sit and collect rather than go and work.
USUALLY? Can you cite that for me? Nobody will deny that there are those that abuse the system, but there will always be people to abuse any system. That doesn’t mean we scrap the whole thing. I’d rather deal with people abusing the system as long as it still helps the right people.
That is not hard to cite. Just ride through HUD housing any given day. Watch the drug dealers working out of Grammy’s Appt, or Babby’s Momma’s. I have a few deliveries to such places, and get my eyes full every time. (I carry freight for several office supply/Janitorial/Paper/Lighting companies)
And this housing development reflects the entire country how?
Well, since you MUST be on public assistance to live there. Between deliveries to the offices of said neighborhoods, and former coworkers that were part of the system, I’ve seen the majority of it being abused.
When the Majority are milking the system, it’s time to fix it.
Again, assuming you are speaking with 100% accuracy about this project, how does it apply to the entire country?
Extrapolation, clearly. Go to xkcdDOTcom/605 for an example of what’s happening here….
“Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.”
The 2009 Poverty Guidelines for the
48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia Persons in family Poverty guideline
1 $10,830
2 14,570
3 18,310
4 22,050
5 25,790
6 29,530
7 33,270
8 37,010
For families with more than 8 persons, add $3,740 for each additional person.
Lets say that half of a decent-ish 2 bedroom apartment in Boston would run you about $500 a month (I’m low-balling it). That would cost $6,000 per year, leaving that single person at the poverty level $4,830 to pay for food, heat, clothing, and all of those other things which Semperfidd lists–good luck with that!
Why would a single person need a 2 bedroom? And if you are at the starting end of income, what happened to roomates? Or starting from home? Or low rent housing? 2 years ago, before I got married, my sons and I rented a rather nice appt for $428 Month. I have seen 1 bedroom furnished appts for $600 including utilities.
The poverty line is different depending on where you live, also. In my state, especially in my city, the cost of living is relatively low. I wouldn’t even break the poverty barrier in, say, Hollywood on my salary now.
I was assuming that the single person is sharing the 2-bedroom with a roommate. And I was also assuming low rent housing, but not government supplemented. $600 a month won’t even get you a skanky studio apartment in the greater Boston area. You would have to go at least 45 minutes (non-rush hour) outside to get a decent 1 bedroom at that cost.
Oh, having been divorced, fighting for and getting custody of my sons, and starting over again with NOTHING, Ramen Noodles are 10 for $1. Pinto Beans are $0.89 for 1lb bag. A bit of fat back for seasoning, collard greens for flavor. And on a good week, even have onions!
When I left, I went back to work 2 days later, only to find out my company was moving to Memphis Tenn, and it wasn’t taking me with it. And when you contract labor, you don’t get unemployment. Me and my diaper aged sons started over again in a Shortgun house that was $130/month. They had the bedroom, I slept on the couch. The Ex had my family convinced that I was Satan incarnate, so I got ZERO help from them. You can do it. But you have to understand the meaning of a Dollar Store, damaged goods and groceries, Goodwill clothing, and ect…. Heck, I still have the urge, 10 years later, to stock the cabinets till things fall out when you open them.
@VG Then why wasn’t the room mate paying half the rent?
In some areas it is more do-able than others. The cost of living is just brutal around my neck of the woods.
I lived on Ramen and short money in my graduate student days, and I wasn’t trying to feed two kids on top of it. I totally respect your experience.
And I wish a friend of mine could learn how to budget, rather than crying “poverty”–while going to multiple rock concerts per year. Grrr.
The roommate IS paying 1/2 the rent. A 2 bedroom runs 1200 per month.
@VG
“Lets say that half of a decent-ish 2 bedroom apartment in Boston would run you about $500 a month (I’m low-balling it). That would cost $6,000 per year, leaving that single person at the poverty level $4,830 to pay for food, heat, clothing, and all of those other things which Semperfidd lists–good luck with that!”
Uh, sorry, you didn’t include a room mate.
When I was just getting started, the best I could afford was renting a room in a private home for $150.00 per month (inflation adjusted), utilities included. Sure, I couldn’t have wild monkey-sex on the dining-room table, or party till dawn, but it was clean, safe, secure housing.
I took the bus across the county to get to and from work and saved up money till I could buy a car and pay for insurance.
While growing up, our family somehow got by ok, paying for health insurance, with an income at somewhere close to the poverty level.
Of course we didn’t have an Escalade with 22″ chrome spinners in the driveway, or a 60″ plasma screen, or yearly vacations to Disneyland.
It’s just a matter of priorities. What’s more important, hangin’ with your crew and lookin’ cool, or paying for the medical care for the children you’ve fathered?
Along with rights come responsibilities, and if you’re not willing or able to take responsibility for the care of your children, don’t reproduce like a brainless animal.
Few if any reasonable people are against helping out those in true need.
If the entitlement mentality wasn’t already wildly out of control in this country, you wouldn’t see nearly as much opposition to the wrong entity (federal gov’t), implementing the wrong plan (screwing 80% of people to fix minor problems with care for 5% of the people), at a pace too fast for anybody to adequately review or understand.
She did, hence, *half* of a decent-ish 2 bedroom…
In San Diego a terrible, tiny studio in a rotten neighborhood is $800 on up. You might be able to rent a room for less.
Justacarolinian:
“Oh, having been divorced, fighting for and getting custody of my sons, and starting over again with NOTHING, Ramen Noodles are 10 for $1. Pinto Beans are $0.89 for 1lb bag. A bit of fat back for seasoning, collard greens for flavor. And on a good week, even have onions!”
While I get what you’re saying and actually agree that people might be used to a very high living standard from home (at least here, they’re saying today’s kids will be the first ones in relatively modern times who will be generally worse off than their parents), I just have to say I’d probably be hospitalised if I lived on a diet like you describe. ;p (But liver is cheap. I could live on liver!)
Maybe he could get a job and make up the difference?
@SB $500 a month cut in half for 12 months isn’t $6000. That would be $3000.
Yeah, she’s saying that $500 per month represents half of the rent for a 2 bedroom at $1,000 per month, for a total of $6,000 per year.
“The best news is that remaining poverty can readily be reduced further, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don’t work much, and fathers are absent from the home.
In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year–the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year–nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.
Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty.”
“While work and marriage are steady ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, remaining poverty would drop quickly”
You are absolutely right. Back when my family was just getting started, my husband was laid off when I was about 7 1/2 months pregnant. We went to the welfare office for help and were told that if we divorced, they would be happy to give ME a check every month, but if we stayed together, we were out of luck.
“In general, however, welfare reform has been limited in both scope and intensity. Even in the TANF program, over half the adult beneficiaries are idle on the rolls and are not engaged in activities leading to self-sufficiency. Work requirements are virtually nonexistent in related programs such as food stamps and public housing.”
Assuming I’m speaking with 80% accuracy, that’s 80% out there scamming the system.
That’s 108% wild speculation.
Thats drug dealers flashing me the duces sign, holding up baggies and such.
Okay?
Yeah! Those big jerks are already living in luxury with their food stamps and their unemployment checks which both run out after two years!
And those lazy folk, (who constitute a whole what? does anyone actually know the percentage of those who are just super lazy and don’t want to work?) Think now they can get free medical care and not cost us MORE money when instead of getting preventative care, they have to go to the hospital for 5 days?
^ This.
Preventative care: stop smoking, lose weight, get exercise.
This isn’t funny. It’s preachy.
That’s why I only gave it the rating of one Lincoln face
Yeah, this is completely wrong. what would be more correct is “Help thy neighbor… but only if you choose to do so on your own free will because it is your property and you possess an unalienable right to keep it if you so wish, which not even the government can take away from you.” But whatever.
I don’t think the caption-maker lets you write that much…
Oh, you can. I don’t recommend it though.
besides, property isn’t an unalienable right. the government can take property away, and has, especially for the good of the community
Yup, they amended the saying to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Property got nixed. Poor Mr. Locke.
…
Does this mean the founding fathers were closet “socialists”? Hmm.
Pursuit of happiness could mean accumulating wealth for some people and passing it on to their heirs, what then?
And for some, pursuit of happiness might mean sitting on their asses watching judge shows all day. I know that sounds ridiculous. So does your argument. It doesn’t work.
No, my argument is fine, those people accumulating wealth don’t depend on the ones sitting on their arses. No, if they have already accumulated enough of their own wealth to do that, then more power to them.
Actually, I think fw might have had a better example than I had. But no, your argument still doesn’t hold water. Coming up with a million different definitions for “pursuit of happiness” just makes the discussion go in circles.
No, bitter clown’s argument makes sense. The one’s who are sitting on their butts are pursuing their idea of happiness. Clearly, to them, happiness doesn’t equal money. They have the right to not make money if they want.
well, the kicker is they don’t say the who’s pursuit of happiness.
besides, spock said, “the good of the whole outweighs the good of the individual” – which is kinda true usually, and yes, gov’t can take property, most common example i know of is reposession due to not paying taxes or even garnering one’s wages for the same reason.
ok, i really didn’t have anything usefull to contribute, i mostly just wanted to quote spock
Actually, you made my point. The pursuit of happiness argument can be applied by both sides to mean damn near anything, so it’s really useless to use it like bitter clown did.
it’s hard to argue with a Spock quote.
I love Spock, but still I’m right. Pursuit of happiness is completely subjective, so as long as you aren’t physically hurting yourself or anyone else anyone’s interpretation should be respected. *pokes with stick, runs away*
get the stick poker!
i have 3 otter’s teeth and a pile of counterfeit raccoon skins to whoever brings me his femur! (it’s for a client in china).
Ok, now there is tea on my monitor. Shame on you TAR. *judge shows*
Out of curiosity, are you bitter troll’s cousin?
True, and for others it could mean ensuring that every member of the community has access to medical care, a roof over their heads and butter for their bread. What then?
No, I aspire to the level of bitterness of the great troll.
There are many many private charities that do just that, quite efficiently. The government doesn’t need to do it, we can all take care of ourselves and each other.
No, we can’t. We really can’t. Or won’t. Charities are great, but it’s not enough.
Then what did we do before the government got so socialized? Duh- Charities!
Dam*…I hate when I have to agree with Eric, but I do on this point. Government does need to be there for some assistance to those that truly need it; however, the big argument is defining who needs it and how much they need.
We just need built in safeguards and reform like (ouch, this is going to HURT) Clinton tried to do. He did a (OUCH) good thing reforming welfare, and we need to continue it. Welfare to Work is one of the best ideas out there, but obviously, there are some down falls, what with the economy being what it is. BUT, having said that, you shouldn’t be allowed to languish on welfare for an indefinite amount of time, just drawing a check for sitting on your ass.
Anecdotal story here: A young woman got a job here and three days into it got her first paycheck. She was PISSED. Said that she didn’t know how much money we would be paying her (even though she had been told during the first interview, during the second interview, during orientation, and at the beginning of her first day), and that it wasn’t enough. That she could get paid $7-800 every two weeks on unemployment, which is what she was making before (and is about a third more than what she was making during her probationary period). She ended up quitting another week into it, telling us that she was just going back to get on unemployment and welfare, since she could make more money that way.
The only good part of that story is that she lost her previous unemployment by accepting a job with us, and didn’t work for us long enough to get it from us, so she screwed herself over.
Unemployment runs out. Every state has limitations on how long you can stay on unemployment. So she would have screwed herself over eventually, even if she had not taken the job with your firm.
Unemployment runs out, but here you can apparently stay on it until it does, all while sitting on your ass and not looking for a job. And as long as you get a job somewhere for a while (I think the time limit is a month), you can get the unemployment again when y ou quit. Or get fired for not coming to work *sigh*
I think it’s sad how frustrated conservatives get over contributing to health and social services when the vast majority of American tax dollars go to the military.
According to nationalpriorities.org, the median income family in California paid $3,640 in
federal income taxes in 2007. Here is how that money
was spent:
Military $1,535
Health $804
Interest on Non-military Debt $373
Anti-Poverty Programs $315
Education, Training & Social Services $159
Government & Law Enforcement $142
Housing & Community Development $122
Environment, Energy & Science $96
Transportation, Commerce & Agriculture $56
International Affairs $38
Seems like conservatives are worried about the wrong things.
I don’t know how they came up with that figure SB when the total spent out of the $2,902,000,000 in the 2008 budget was $626,000,000 for defense.
Apparently they took it from the federal budget, here’s the link: {http://www.nationalpriorities.org/charts}
Cite for your numbers? Perhaps they’ve sliced up defense spending in a different way.
SB..I got my information from Wikipedia. I did a search for 2008 national budget pie chart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_federal_budget
On the Wiki pie chart, the amount of the budget going to unemployment/welfare/other discretionary spending is 1.8%, which speaks to my point that all the conservative angst over who’s getting social services and whether or not they deserve them is out of proportion to the problem.
Like, Danbala said above, the problem is that we don’t. I grew up in an area of the US that has one of the highest child malnutrition rates in the country. Soup kitchens, private and charitable organizations like Food Link are not cutting it. There are still hungry children. What can help solve it? Better in-school programs, better summer lunch programs, all of which come out of our taxes. Better accountability for food stamps and WIC, so we can make sure that the money is going to food (which is happening with the debit like cards some states are using).
Do you give to charity? A lot of people talk about how charity is the key to making sure the indigent and under privileged are fed and clothed, but at the last charity drive I went to for extending food into the community, out of a town of 120k only fifty people were there.
Yes, I do, and you should too.
(Just mentioned that I did.
)
Why should people give to charity?
OMG, you have to be kidding, right? Because they do so much good for so many people. Even if you don’t like to help people there are charities that help animals and the environment. That was a really strange question Danbala, don’t you have charities in Sweden?
Yes, we do. I just trust them less than I trust the government. ;p I’d rather pay more tax than give to charities. I find the “and you should too” probably about as strange as you find my “why”.
Hard to give to charity when the government is taking a huge chunk of your paycheck and now is limiting deductions on your taxes for giving. And the last time I volunteered at the Food pantry, the vast majority of the people coming in there were illegal aliens (who had suspiciously fat kids).
Poor nutrition is less expensive, especially in the cities. (Ever tried to find a regular foodstore in the downtown part of a major city?) But the kids’ bodies know that they aren’t getting what they need, so the brain causes the kid to still be hungry–they eat more, trying to get those missing nutrients.
“Government surveys provide little evidence of widespread undernutrition among poor children; in fact, they show that the average nutriment consumption among the poor closely resembles that of the upper middle class. For example, children in families with incomes below the poverty level actually consume more meat than do children in families with incomes at 350 percent of the poverty level or higher (roughly $65,000 for a family of four in today’s dollars”
How about vegetables? Henry the eight proved that you can be a gourmand and still be malnourished!
And since that “meat” comes in the form of hot dogs and bologna, it certainly doesn’t mean they’re receiving more nutrients than children from homes with higher incomes. As for fresh fruits and veggies, frequently the convenience stores these kids have access to don’t stock them, so they get Cheetos and other fatty foods instead. (Plus, if this is what their parents are eating, they have no reason to believe it’s NOT good for them.)
So, what is the solution? The good food is available and it’s not all that more expensive than a bag a cheetos or junk food. How do we get people to make the right choices? That’s seems to be more the question than hand them money so they will buy more junk.
If we were all invested in a nationalized health care system, making healthy choices would benefit everyone physically and financially. If the government were involved in administering such a program, educating and encouraging the public towards healthy lifestyles could conceiveably be a higher priority, as well as enacting legislation with the intention of keeping the population healthy, such as banning the use of toxins in high tech products and eliminating pesticides which are known carcinogens, etc.
Whether we like it or not, we’re all in this together. The sooner individuals stop the partisanship and the self-interested, “screw everyone else” attitudes and realize that by helping others we *are* helping ourselves, the sooner our policies and communities will improve.
Cite please. The information I posted was from the government that half the country has put so much faith in.
SB is right. Shut down all the McDonalds, Burger Kings, Pizza Huts….Get rid of all the junk food. The people that are supported by jobs at these places and industries can get jobs in the the green industry. They can apply for all those jobs Obama created with his stimulus plan.
Just my opinion.
“The information I posted was from the government” isn’t a cite.
Not sure how you took what I wrote and read “shut down all the McDonald’s” ?
The cost of vegetables has actually gone up a lot, due to fuel prices and drought, whereas the cost of junk food (grain-based) has gone down. (link to an article from a newspaper: High Plains Midwest Journal).
Also, inner-city neighborhoods tend to have a lack of foodstores, and an excess of convenience stores, as has been shown in multiple studies.
“If the government were involved in administering such a program, educating and encouraging the public towards healthy lifestyles could conceiveably be a higher priority, as well as enacting legislation with the intention of keeping the population healthy, such as banning the use of toxins in high tech products and eliminating pesticides which are known carcinogens, etc.”
But the government can do all this without a national health plan. Couldn’t they? And why don’t they do the same for illegal drug use? They should be major involved with educational programs and public service programs. Not health insurance.
“Also, inner-city neighborhoods tend to have a lack of foodstores, and an excess of convenience stores, as has been shown in multiple studies.”
This is probably due to demand. If there was more demand for healthy food items, again with the help of government education for inner city populations, then they would be there.
Yes, the government absolutely *could* do those things without a nationalized health care plan, but such a plan would provide the economic motivation to do so.
A few years ago, the United Kingdom banned certain toxins from being used in the manufacture of high tech equipment such as laptops, etc. They did this not because they are tree-huggers, but because they deterimned that the costs of treating the illnesses in the population associated with exposure to the toxins exceeded the cost of re-vamping the high tech industry to exclude these chemicals. I wish I could find the article, it was very interesting. Anyway that’s what I’m talking about.
SB..I was asking Bronwyn to cite her statement about
“And since that “meat” comes in the form of hot dogs and bologna, it certainly doesn’t mean they’re receiving more nutrients than children from homes with higher incomes.”
The statement that I posted, based on the government data, says that she is not right.
As for the closing down of the McDonalds etc.
“If we were all invested in a nationalized health care system, making healthy choices would benefit everyone physically and financially. If the government were involved in administering such a program, educating and encouraging the public towards healthy lifestyles could conceiveably be a higher priority, as well as enacting legislation with the intention of keeping the population healthy, such as banning the use of toxins in high tech products and eliminating pesticides which are known carcinogens, etc.”
Who is going to decide what is health and allowed? Certainly we can all agree that most fast food is not healthy; therefore, I don’t see if being much more of a leap that the government could ban unhealthly food or increase premiums etc for people that eat like that. Basically what it appears you are championing here is government intervention into how people live their lives, healthy or not.
That’s not what I’m championing, at all. I am conscious about my diet and most of the time I eat healthily, exercise, etc., but on Monday I had a #2 combo from McDonald’s.
What I was suggesting was that if people (not the government) were invested in a nationalized healthcare system they might better understand how their day to day choices affect their cost of living (and the cost of living of others).
With the way health insurance “works” today, people have the idea that because they’re paying premium “on themselves” that they’re essentially buying the right to shit down their own throats. Actually, health insurance carriers pool risk, so your health and the health of everyone in your pool determine your premiums, but people don’t see it that way.
I don’t have any interest in being controlled by my government, and I think that’s an extreme conclusion to jump to. On the other hand, I don’t have the tiniest bit of problem with the government banning things like trans fats in restaurants.
“Basically what it appears you are championing here is government intervention into how people live their lives, healthy or not.”
Actually, though I’ve been wanting universal healthcare for Americans for many, many years, that’s the ugly other side of the coin, the unpalatable possibility that we already NOSY Americans are going to start chopping at our liberties in the name of “health” or “cost-cutting”.
I hope it doesn’t ever come to that, but I’m still afraid.
Evidence? Let me walk you down my slippery slope.
1) Seatbelt laws, helmet laws, child safety-seat laws. No one wants to be unsafe, but how much more strict will things be if society as a whole is responsible for paying for your a$$ if you get hurt?
2) We just plain like poking about in others’ lives. Look at the reality shows, and follow the discussions about them. They are full of judgement, and what the audience thinks the participants *should* do.
3) We already judge others all the time, often without knowing any facts. We judge people about being fat, assuming we know how they got that way . . . when overweight and obesity have many and various causes. People make lots of assumptions about overweight people, assuming they don’t exercise (many do), assuming they eat lots of junk food (I used to be very overweight, and I ate no candy, and rarely ever ate desserts) . . . I can foresee sweeping one-size-fits-all ::ahem:: programs to “correct” this “health problem” . . . which, BTW, doesn’t always result in the big scary things that all media are telling you–daily–it does: high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol. One can be active, eat a good diet, be overweight, and have great cholesterol and blood pressure numbers. Those are extremely likely for the morbidly obese, however. For the obese, it can go either way.
I hope we end up with something that makes our lives (ALL of us) better, and IMO, that includes freedom from our neighbors reporting us for having cookie “contraband”.
Naoyusimi, there’s no evidence that your fears have come to fruition in the countries which have nationalized health care (every developed country except the US).
The government can’t even stop people from using illegal drugs, imagine how hard it would be to ban cookies. Not to mention completely bat shit crazy.
^ This.
I’ll reiterate to everyone – lack of insurance does not equate to lack of care! No one is turned away from a hospital. It’s ILLEGAL. Except in Oregon.
In an emergency. That’s about where it ends.
No, sorry, E. Emergent care is patient-defined, and if someone shows up at emergency, docs are compelled to treat regardless of severity (at least when I was still in the field). People consistently use ERs for non-emergent health proglems for that very reason.
Heh. Problems.
If you have the sniffles, you are, however, triaged behind the gunshot wound. But you are still seen.
This does tend to clog up the emergency rooms. I remember recently trying to get my mom in for severe back pain (later we found out she had broken vertebrae). We waited for hours in a waiting room full of sick people, a pregnant woman throwing up next to us, it was awful. and we finally just went home. Many of them were illegals with sick children (I live near the border).
I remember that whole scenario with hospital waiting rooms…
Saw a kid with diarrhea come in after and get in before me, when I snapped my forearm in two… 4.5 hours waiting… Plus, they refused to look at the arm and say “Hey! It’s broken!”, believing, instead, that since I wasn’t crying, I couldn’t be in pain. Little do they know that your tolerance for pain is too damn high and that you aren’t aware you need to cry to be treated for limbs damn near snapped in half.
I think the reasoning is if you aren’t crying, bleeding all over or look contagious, you can wait… I was in a small hospital emergency room while on vacation a few years ago with bad cramping pain in my side, passing a kidney stone I am told. I finally did start crying and bingo! morphine, mmmmm
Today, travelling to my riding class, I saw a wonderful new ad for primary health care in the city. The slogan, as best I can translate it was “Take care of yourself, or we will.” I laughed. I don’t know why this particular sub-thread made me think of that, but it did. ;p
In Iowa (perhaps all other states–IDK), they have to stabilize you if you’re critical–and that’s it.
Oh, wait–Situation #2: If you’re giving birth, they have to allow that and assist it.
After, in either situation, you can be shown the door.
Lots of hospitals turn people away. Even the non-profit ones. I used to work for one of them.
Never happens, they are afraid of legal action.
We’re running into hospital shortages here in the northeast–turning away ambulances where the hospital beds are full. With the result that some folks are being delayed ER care, with the possibility of dying. (multiple Boston Globe articles). I would personally like to strangle those who think ‘oh that hospital isn’t profitable, let’s close it!’ Hello–does the name CHARITY hospital means something to you? As in, this hospital was founded and run with charitable donations for the greater good?!?
Can’t wait to see what happens when we get a real epidemic on our hands… Grr.
/rant
You’ll get treated, and then billed.
My ex was charged $4,000 for 9 hours in a Las Vegas hospital. They didn’t even diagnose him correctly. It was the same hospital where Tupac died. Now I know why.
My fiance was just in the hospital for 3 days = $19,000+
Not to go all semantic on ya, but I think ya’ all are focusing too much on the happiness and not enough on the pursuit.
The intent wasn’t “do whatever the hell makes you happy and we’ll pay for what you’d rather not pay for,” in an equality of outcome focused statement, but rather, an equality of opportunity focused statement posing everyone’s right to pursue whatever it is that makes them happy.
So hey, if you can find a way to make enough money watching judge shows on TV to pay for your food, lodging, cable bill, healthcare coverage, and your share of the cost of government, then hey, go for it, we won’t begrudge your strange method of achieving happiness, because the Constitution guarantees your right to pursue it.
^^ that ^^
How about, help your neighbor because you want to. Not because the government makes you.
I take it you haven’t run into incredibly selfish folk, who for example park in & therefor block handicapped spaces when they don’t qualify?
Go go gadget irrelevant argument!
I’m guffawing. He’s gotcha there, VG!
Was just trying to show how some folks don’t give a bullcrap about their neighbors. Ah well, I think I’ll go to the beach!
DO IT!!!
Done. Tan and water, here I come!!
Do vikings tan well?
*offers lotion rubbin’ skills*
I’m not sure they do, but the redness might make them look more ferocious.
This viking picked up a nice tan today…with a tan-through suit, no less!
*basks in warm glow of mind’s eye*
Hooray!
WIN
I understood the argument completely, Viking Gal.
Selfishness abounds.
Good people fall through the cracks in the not-so-glossy world of the “I’ll help only if I *want* to”’s.
[God only knows how to pluralize that, and I'm usually the Grammar Queen....gimme a break--I'm tired.]
[And most Vikings I know, tan beautifully. Damn them.]
Good people?
What is gewd peeple?
I don’t think I’ve met one of *those* before.
My problem actually lies in that people like to think they would do the right thing when it really matters, but when it actually *would* matter, how would they even understand what the right thing was if they’d waited to that moment to decide what it was?
To me, it seems like this- if you’re going to try and say you’re a good person, and that you do the “right thing”, you need to help people anywhere you can, even the little day to day things where you aren’t necessarily asked. If you only do the right thing because someone asks, not because you want to help someone, then you’re not a “good person”- you’re someone who has managed to convince themselves of that, but really just doesn’t give a crap until your conscience shows up to bother you or peer pressure makes you give in.
Also- It’s Tyler from Graphjam. Hi!
Understanding of a simile FAIL.
It was an example of people who don’t give a flying f*ck about anybody else.
I hate those kind of people. I’m with you on that one VG
People won’t help their neighbour unless they are small and cute, and even then they can’t be too…tan.
Or too white.
That’ll never fly — the average PKer thinks that people should be forcibly compelled to behave according to their standards. (But not themselves, of course. And no one else’s standards, of course.)
- said the average PKer.
Nah, he’s talking about me.
For a sock, you have an awfully high opinion of yourself…
I’m a sock? I always considered myself more of a pair of boxers. I’m not even sure what that means, but I’m gonna wait for DT to make fun of me for it.
i’m thinking that he hasn’t realized that you changed your name for a reason…
Realized, yes. Cares, no.
I just wanted to disabuse whatever-he-calls-himself-today of the notion that I was talking about him specifically.
You’ve said it about me before. You just can’t get enough Rando, can ya? C’mon, you know you love me. Just say it, man. Let it out. Nobody will judge you.
You know me so well — I get all weak in the knees for you condescending, know-it all statists.
At least you’ve stopped saying “the gloves are off, bitch”, so that’s an improvement, I guess.
I love you too. Now come give me a hug! Hey, hey, no cupping!
Oh, and if you knew I had changed my name for a reason, why did you call me a sock? It’s pretty obvious that I’m not a sock.
Now this here, this is a sock.
Something had to happen to all those socks that got lost in the laundry. Are you sure we aren’t all socks living in an alternate dryer sheet universe?
*hands Rando/Eric/AKA a lint DNA test kit*
Huh. Turns out I’m argyle. Never saw that coming.
I ythought the sock was the larval form of the coathanger. It certainly explains the observable facts
Or possibly a relation of the “lost pen”; that would explain a lot too.
And what happens when (not if…when) that isn’t enough to help people? Do we just say screw the rest?
we eat them. it’ll help feed the homeless. then we’ll eat them, too when they’re good ‘n plump.
Although I know we’ve already had the discussion of how this protester missed the point re: medicare…I have to comment on the caption. My position is “Help your neighbor if they’re at least making some effort…if they aren’t, eff ‘em.”
I think you should go say that to the guy next door in the iron lung. Shout it in his face.
*lights scarecrow*
Let’s all do the irrelevant dance around the ad hominum, shall we??
I don’t see the scarecrow resemblance.
It’s extreme, but I think it’s perfectly relevant, seeing as how *numerous* posters have insisted upon this same thing (recipients of “charity” showing they’re “trying”), yet no conditions are given for those who are absolutely incapable of their own care and support. What IS their solution for those people? It’s a reasonable question!
Is it euthanasia for them, then? And they say liberals are the heartless bastards out to kill Grannie . . .
OMG!!!111 Dissi want’s iron lungers to DIE! TO DIE AND GO TO HELL!
Oh, well if you put it that way …. of course EWAdams’ post was irrelevant! I see it now.
:-/
I think it was more along the lines of responding to a cold, blunt statement (“Help your neighbor if they’re at least making some effort…if they aren’t, eff ‘em.”) with a blunt statement of one’s own, to dramatic effect, probably to make the original poster stop and think a little about the black-vs.-white starkness of his or her position.
I’m *sure* you’ve *never* done that.
Now now. There’s no need to shout. He can hear fine, he just can’t breathe!
Iron lungs disappeared 50 years ago. Let’s go Back to the Future!!!!
That’s heavy.
Joan Headley of Post-Polio Health International stated to CNN that there are approximately 30 patients in the USA still using an iron lung. That figure may be low; Houston alone had 19 Iron Lung patients living at home in 2008. Martha Mason of Lattimore, NC died on May 4, 2009, after spending 60 of her 71 years in an iron lung.
Biphasic Cuirass Ventilation is a modern development of the iron lung, consisting of a wearable rigid upper-body shell (a cuirass) which functions as a negative pressure respirator.
{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_lung}
more like “Be Willing to help your neighbor because its the Right thing to do…Not be forced to because the Govt makes you do it.”
Pfft. That’ll be the day.
Link
If people
1) could agree on what The Right Thing is
2) were inclined to do The Right Thing
we’d need neither government nor politics.
Damn, she’s good.
Seconded.
We could start by educating children that it’s up to us to care for ourselves and each other. I think we could all agree on that.
How would you ensure that that is done?
How do we ensure anything is taught in public schools?
But that goes against everything the Dems believe in!!!~
With tests and grades. I expressed myself badly. I meant to say – how could you ensure that children learn it?
By the way, I must ask for clarification. The “it’s up to us to care for ourselves and each other” seems self evident. Do you mean “us and not a government”? Because then I can not agree on that.
Yes, I mean us and not a government.
Oh, then I don’t agree with “I think we could all agree on that.”
I would rather children learned that the government and taxes is one very good way to help us care for ourselves and each other. After all, the goverment is ours, it belongs to the people and it is the people – not some strange monster that’d like to choke us to death in our sleep.
The government helps us give after ability, receive after needs. It just does a better job at maintaining a wider view of what abilities and needs are than you could as a person.
Omigod, Danbala!
*cries*
FROO GODDAMMIT HUG MEEEE!!
*can’t look away*
*eyes begin to bleed*
*hugs DT* There there, DT, it’s ok. Not everyone has a government that wants to choke them to death in their sleep……*pats DT on the head gently* There’s actually decent government out there, I just know it!
Buh buh buh… government knows better than us??? Whut?
*begins cellular level die off*
Say it ain’t so. Can’t… handle… love… Danbala….
*splodies*
I was slightly hesitant as to whether I’d actually dare write that. Sorry.
I honestly am happy and proud to pay my taxes.
Please stand by. the DT Network is experiencing technical difficulties. We’ll get right back to you soon
*cheesy muzak plays*
Had I known it would have these effects, I’d have written it far earlier! This is mucho exiting!
*please continue to stand by*
-
-
Hey Rando! Here’s some naive for ya.
Says you. Danbala can speak for me pretty much any day.
Sooo… you agree that government is a better judge of need than you are? Just curious.
…cuz’ I gotta say the thought of the government as judge of a person’s potential/ability/need and assigning said person’s lot in life as such based on an arbitrary, politician-defined system *almost* literally simultaneously turns my bowels to water and scares me crapless.
I did not say that the government is a better judge of one person’s needs than that person.
It just does a better job at maintaining a wider view of what abilities and needs are than you could as a person.
Then would you please kindly explain this sentence, then?
I did manage to make that sentence rather illegible. I meant the wider view – as in seeing where tax money is most needed – the overall needs of the society machine to work as best it could.
I have to say that I would trust the Swedish government more than my own so…
But would you trust it more than YOURSELF, Jane. That is the question.
Thanks for the clarification Danbala. I’m thinking over your response, and how I should phrase mine.
I don’t consider myself a great judge of how the details of government should work being that I’ve never been in government. Armchair governing doesn’t work any better than armchair quarterbacking. Do I trust the government? HELL NO. Do I think it’s doing a better job than I would do? Most likely, yes.
But E, do you, or will you, ever trust the government to judge of a person’s potential/ability/need and assigning said person’s lot in life as such based on an arbitrary, politician-defined system as I asked earlier?
Doesn’t the government already do this in many ways?
I didn’t ask if they DO it, I ask if you TRUST it.
Seriously.
I knew that was coming too. It’s always so cute.
Sounds good in theory, but that assumes that all people are good and generous to begin with, and that most certainly isn’t the case.
It just drives me crazy that it’s assumed public education is the ONLY form of education children receive. Parents are much more influential on life’s lesson, like “it’s up to us to care for ourselves and each other.”
I was thinking that “education” here mainly meant what parents teach their kids, and what society as a whole (culture, media etc.) teach the kids too. But bitter clown referred in his response to “public schools”, so I am not certain.
DING DING DING DING We have a winner. But the sad part is when govt does it, it always abuses it, and ends up being favoritism.
Could you explain more clearly what you mean by that, because I honestly don’t understand.
What I think Justa may be alluding to is politics and political favoritism… But that’s just what sprung to mind.
(The second sentence, I mean, of course. The “DING DING”-one was rather clear ;p)
It means I agreed with you. And pointed out that Govt always messes it up. A necessary evil, as I think Benjamin Franklin said.
Have thy government tax the crap out of thy neighbor, so they cannot help thee.
The sad truth is, we pay an average 24% in the US in various income taxes, the Brits also pay an average 24%, yet they get more services for their taxes than we do.
I don’t believe that. Maybe the Socialist British government let you *keep* 24% of what you earn. Maybe one of the taxes is 24%, but that certainly doesn’t include *all* the taxes the blighted British have to pay.
Heck, they pay annual fees for owning televisions and radios! How many TVs and radios and MP3 players do you own? Do you pay an annual tax to the FCC for the privilege to have TVs and radios in your possession? No, you don’t.
Just because the British people choose to be oppressed by their Socialist government, doesn’t mean that we have to be oppressed by our Socialist government.
You have got a sick idea of socialism, bud. You sound like your idea of freedom is to be free to have your stuff and say fvck everybody else.
I wonder how much “stuff” you actually have yourself? I wonder how many people who are yelling about how you should be forced to give actually give themselves to any charity or church, even if it’s only 10 or 20 dollars a month? IMO you shouldn’t have a say in how much you have to give to the government unless you yourself are a consistent giver. If everyone in this country gave consistently to a private charity of your own choice I wonder if we would even need many government programs, but that would put the government out of business and they would be pretty unhappy about that.
how would you ensure that people gave a fair amount?
There are lots of ways to do that, pledge drives, advertising, etc. It’s not up to us to make sure what is a fair amount for each person as long as the charities do have enough to care for each case. Some will give more and some won’t give at all, but no one should be forced by gunpoint to give.
That doesn’t sound particularly reliable. Sounds kinda naive as well as far as thinking everyone is gonna give to charity.
What happens when the charities do not have enough to care? If, say, people suddenly go into a “I’ll save my money instead”-mode due to a recession, or something?
Like, say, now.
Government tax revenues go down too, they have to make cuts all the time… You can’t get blood from a stone.
Bad analogy to make when you’re arguing to not help out the needy under the reasons of “personal choice”
Not really, we all have to cut back in bad times and that INCLUDES the government. But, they don’t want to it seems. If there is no money, there is no money.
Since when has that stopped the government? Deficit spending is certainly not something Obama invented.
The problem with that is that money losses it’s worth and we get inflation, it’s a downward spiral. Keeping our economy strong should be a top priority.
If they do, let them. Be responsible for yourself, and choose to be the good person. You can’t force goodness on someone.
No, but we can force people to help out whether they’re a greedy bastard or not.
Then how are you different from religions that force greedy people to do said things? One uses the force of a gun, one uses guilt. And that is interchangeable.
Because it’s not right to let people live in poverty. Period. I don’t know if that makes it different from people of religions using guilt or whatever you were saying, but it’s not right to let people live in poverty. Period.
Then you are foolish in your thinking. One, the power that takes will eventually be corrupt. And you become an enabler, creating a weakened society. Like feeding birds too much, they become dependent and starve when you run out of food. Two, there will always be someone needy. Poverty in America is a JOKE. One flat screen TV and basic cable. Oh the misery. Go visit some other nations to see poverty.
Add to the fact that you would be pissed if your money was being used to proselytize for some church, even if it was feeding starving people. Proselytizing a paid constituency is the same thing.
I would have less troubles with Govt assistance if it required work and/or educating the recipient to get it. Use the unemployed to take lunch to above man in the lung machine. Drive a bus to pick up the unemployed for their assistance jobs. Litter pick up, ect…… Drive people to college courses, adult Ed…… Babysit the children of the others on Govt assistance who are out on said bus looking for a job…… Find some use of your skills while being educated or looking for a real job. It’s not right PERIOD for people to suck off the teat of Govt instead of earning a living.
1) The first proselytize sounds too political, maybe your looking for ’spiritual guidence.’
2) True religions don’t use guns to get their point out (or guilt, where ever that came from).
Proselytize/convert, whatever you want to call it. And throughout history, many religions have forced people at the point of weapons. So do governments. Both also use guilt to try and force their ideas on others.
Keep in mind I throughly believe in God, but even the Bible points out people who are just religious. Cain, Essau, Judas, Jannes and Jambres, Ballam, ect…..
I guess you never heard of the forced conversions of the Dark Ages? The Spanish Inquisition? Or the rise of Islam? Guns/Swords, either way, convert or die.
And your first statement just doesn’t make sense. I meant using Govt funds to entice and manipulate converts. And guilt? Ever hear of Jim Baker?
Actually I have heard of all of them. Yes, everyone is human and are capable of doing awful things, but I can’t allow those things to be used as a reason to stereotype certain peoples, such as religious people like you.
Ok, make some sense so we can have a conversation. Both Govt and organized religion have been forced on people, just now certain people want their idea of Govt forced on people, and I asked them to think of it as religion being forced. Is that too stereotypical for you?
No it’s not too stereotypicol, and I stand with you on that point of forced ideals.
JAC, how is forcing “American Democracy” on people who want a Communist or Theocratic government any different?
@ Paws.. Nothing is stopping them from leaving the good Ole USA.
@JaC:
No. Read Paws’ sentence again. You missed his meaning by so many miles, that . . . I don’t think you were in this solar system.
Founding ideals = democratic republic.
Not founding ideals = communist or theocratic.
Don’t want to live under founding ideals? Leave it, or convince enough peeps to change it. Either way, good luck with that.
Once again, God has missed the mark.
{Naoyusim}
Someone managed to understand that I wasn’t referring to living in the USA, but to US foreign policy!
Oh horse shit. If that’s what you think poverty is like in this country then you are a severely jaded individual. There is no reason anyone in this country should have to go without the basics necessities of life just because some people are afraid of corruption. I can deal with some corruption as long as the right people get what they need too.
The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
•Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
•Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
•Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
•The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
•Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
•Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
•Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
•Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Horse Chit you say?
What site are these stats coming from Semper?
I DON’T HAVE AIR CONDITIONING!!11!!1ZOMG!!11
I DON’T HAVE AN AUTOMATIC DISHWASHER!!ZOMG!!11
What do I win?
*covets a horse chit. or a mule chit with 40 acres*
“Welfare” has been changed (more than 10 years ago, IIRC) to include most of the things you mention, including time limits, work, or education for eventual work.
I like the idea of some of the simple tasks, though, like driving others to work or school, or litter pick-up. Unsure about child care … too important for just *anyone* to do . . . need qualifications, background checks for that.
That was before the big “Stimulus” change to welfare this year.
Elements of the $789 billion spending bill President Barack Obama plans to sign today essentially reverse the 1996 law that dramatically reduced U.S. welfare dependency
But a provision in Mr. Obama’s spending plan goes back to funding states’ welfare expenditures according to caseload size, paying them 80 percent of the cost of new recipients. The pre-1996 system had a matching rate of only about 50 percent.
Citation, please? Not disbelieving, necessarily. Like to see it, though.
What is your definition of poverty? Owning your own house, car, color TV, cable, internet?
Here’s poverty in America.
Only having 20″ DUBS instead of 26″?
Fu(king priorities, anyway!
You buy the BEEG rubber, I’ll pay for the STD on my dime! :lol!
Taking money from a private citizen when they don’t want to give it up by force at gunpoint is stealing. period.
Then every single penny taken for taxes is stealing.
Yes, essentially it is IMO. But, most people don’t mind giving to government for some amount of services, the amount and type of services seems to be the problem.
So people should be able to judge how much they want to give in taxes? That sounds interesting.
YES! We are the government, they don’t dictate to us, we dictate to them. You’re starting to see it, aren’t you?
Yeah, I see it. And I don’t buy it.
You don’t buy that the electorate is the ultimate arbiter regarding the actions of the government? Don’t you believe in democracy at all?
Perhaps he believes in a representative republic, because that’s what we have.
We may have “government of the people, by the people, for the people”, but we don’t have a true democracy.
We don’t get to decide *everything*. We get to elect representatives.
Pretty much. This isn’t a pure democracy, and if it was, we’d be in biiiig trouble.
True they are our representatives, but they answer to us, we don’t answer to them. We also can vote their rear ends out, which is why they are all stalling on the health reform right now, and it’s a good thing. They know the majority of us are not happy and it could be the end of their careers because of it.
And who will pay to build the sewers?
I say, if someone votes Democrat, we tax them at a 90% rate to pay for the socialism. If they vote Republican, lets tax them a flat 10% rate and they get no socialist programs to use. What do you think will happen overnight?
“the problem with Socialism is that you soon run out of other people’s money to spend.”
Wow. You’re brilliant. I suggest you run for office on exactly that platform.
No “socialist” programs like national defense, which represents significantly more than 10% of your income tax?
Or like the USPS, where even an “alien” can just rock up, buy a stamp, and send a letter to the far side of the nation for a flat fee?
According to the Public Finances Databank the total percentage of Tax based on income is 39%. This includes VAT and other sneaky basts like the Inheritance tax. The tax rate in the US? 28.2% of income. Hardly the 76% you suggest though I’d give the US the high ground if it wasn’t for the fact the US government spends one third of all tax income on “defense”.
Yeah we have to pay for the BBC channels, the equivalent of a daily paper, but it’s the BBC. The most widely respected and largely unbiased media outlet in the world and comprising the world service, regional and international stations, the BBC website and all without sponsorships or advertisement.
Also MP3 and radio tax? What the heck are you on about.
Yeah, not to mention I pay a shitload more than that every month for cable TV. I’m already paying for TV, for crying out loud!
“I don’t believe that. Maybe the Socialist British government let you *keep* 24% of what you earn.”
Bullshit, inaccruate and not true. I’m British and I keep 72% of what I earn. Stop plucking figures out of the air.
“Maybe one of the taxes is 24%,”
That’s approximately the income tax for people who earn under £ 40,000 a year, although how much tax you actually pay depends on your individual circumstances, income, family size, etc.
“they pay annual fees for owning televisions and radios!”
Not true. You can own as many radios as you want without a licence. We pay for a TV licence. The TV licence isn’t a tax. It’s a licence fee – if you don’t own a TV, you don’t pay it, therefore it is not a tax. Everyone who works pays tax, there fore they pay tax.
“Just because the British people choose to be oppressed by their Socialist government,”
I’d rather be British and “oppressed” (which we’re not, btw) than governed by some screaming, right-wing ChristoFundie insane idiot government like the one the US just got rid of. Or don’t you believe in the power of democracy unless it’s *your* kind of democracy, i.e. fu(k you, I’m alright Jack democracy?
“doesn’t mean that we have to be oppressed by our Socialist government.”
Obama? Socialist?? WTF??? He’s nowhere near Socialist! He’s very slightly left of centre! Take a look at the Socialist governments across Europe – then you’ll see the sort of socialism you *think* you have for a government. Obama only has his toe in the slightly-left-of-centre socialist pool.
I’d suggest you pull your head out of your arse but I suspect your head is so frakkin’ big it’s well and truly stuck.
And while I’m here: it’s “neighbour”, not “neighbor”, “organisation”, not “organization”, “zed”, not “zee” and you drive on the wrong side of the fu(king road as well. And that clause about bearing arms in your constition quite clearly applies only to members of militias, which you’re 99.99% likely *not* to be a member of, so hand in your guns for deactivating to the nearest Constable.
Go fu(k yourself, Mikey Blue Eyes. You haven’t a fu(king clue what you’re talking about.
This ravenous, frothy Brit is my new BFF.
Thats Best MATES forever… BMF.
Let me guess, Spica — every night, you pop open a warm beer, sit in front of your picture of the Queen, and shed a tear reflecting on the glorious memories of Empire.
Dhoti: I don’t drink; I have a picture of the Greatest Brit Eva in my living room – Oliver Cromwell. The demise of the empire was a good thing.
Can I point out that half the mess we’re cleaning up in Iraq is thanks to you, after you and the French drew some random lines on a map? And Obama sucks right now, just look at how things just got worse. Also, Japan cringed at the idea of invading the U.S. in WWII due to the fact that there were so many fricken’ guns.
Yes, we must all horde weapons so that our enemies will cringe at us…. Then bomb the hell out of harbors anyways.
Stupid imperialists.
I’d rather drink a warm beer that was brewed to be drunk warm than the fizzy yellow water that Americans call beer ice cold!
It’s “rent” not “let” and it’s “apartment” not “flat” and go ahead and try driving on the wrong side of the road over here and we’ll run over you with our hummers. When you get sharia law forced on you, let us know what that’s like.
FTW!!!!!
I just came back from Britain….uh…Muslim Central!
Muslims make up only a very small % of the UK population. But I agree there are pockets in the cities where, if you visit those cities, you will be surrounded by Muslims. That doesn’t make the UK “muslim central”. It just means you visited one of those pockets.
@bitter down: There is a sign in my street outside a house: it says “To Let”. Letting is the act of getting someone to move into the house. “Rent” is the money that the tenant pays to the owner or landlords. Apartment flat; flat apartment – two different things here. Sharia law? Nah. Won’t happen. When *you* get socialism forced on you, let us know what it’s like
Mmm, probably won’t happen here, we still have our guns.
^^^ He’s with my Space Marine Chapter. ^_^
She. That sounds like fun!
It clearly states that we should be able to form militias, therefore the government should not be able to come and remove arms from a household, as they did with some people during british rule over the colonies. If the government removes the arms of the citizens, how would they create a militia?
I’m from a country with an ‘oppressive Socialist government’ as you called it. Please don’t take this the wrong way, I’m not trying to be sarcastic. But I have been puzzled by the American health care debate in particular for awhile, so I want to add my two cents.
This is how universal health insurance works where I live: When I go see a doctor because I am sick I pay absolutely nothing for that visit. Not while I’m there and not afterwards. My health insurance does. Everyone here has to have health insurance by law. It costs 7% of your income with your employer paying the same amount to the health insurance for you as well. If you are unemployed the government pays for your health insurance out of tax money until you have found a new job. Children up to 18 or until they finish college are automatically covered by their parents’s insurance without any extra costs.
So everyone can take their children to go see a doctor when they are sick without having to worry about money. You go to a doctor, show your insurance I.D. and that’s it, he takes care of you. If you need medication, the health insurance pays most of the costs for that as well.
Our system isn’t perfect, but it makes sure no one has to sit at home trying to cure pneumonia or something on their own because they can’t afford a doctor.
I honestly don’t understand why this sounds so bad to some people in the U.S. I mean, what is a government for if not to make sure it’s people are well?
Some of my countrymen are buttheads. I can’t explain them, sorry!
If you really do live out of the states, it’s easy to advocate something that will not affect you. I’m glad you are happy with your system. Like the great majority of Americans, I am happy with mine.
What is good in one place isn’t always great in another place. One of the issue is, many of the specialist doctors in the states don’t even bother with insurance anymore. The system is so convoluted that making it more so would drive practitioners further away. Socialized health care would do nothing for you if you needed to see a specialist that operates outside of healthcare. The doctor could be government paid (anyone that works for the government knows how great that is) or they could operate on their own, the choice is simple.
More importantly, debt. Socialized healthcare sounds great but it takes money. People are always quick to say that the government can cut spending somewhere else but the reality is that health care would require major cuts and currently, we, as a nation, are in debt. I don’t understand how people always miss this fact, there is no money.
Oh dear lord. We pay a fee to fund the BBC, which in turn gives us a neutral advert free television/radio stations. It is NOT a tax on owning a tv.
As for being oppressed, what a load. I’d prefer my system to yours any day of the week. In fact I feel a lot of sypathy for those in the US who have been practically backrupt through receiving medical treatment.
Lets get some myths about the NHS sorted out. The system is free at point of service, we all pay into it through taxes. Every person in the country is entitled to free health care, the only exception is a charge for eye, dental care and for prescriptions in England and I believe Scotland. Wales gets theirs for free and children get everything for free. There is no rationing, no cut off point for treatment. If we need it done then it’s done. Yes there may be waiting lists but in my experience the lists have been relatively short. There is a figure being bandied about by certain muppets in the US on the ‘cost of life’ in the NHS. If this figure has any relation to the NHS then I take this more as a budgeting figure than anything else as some need more care than others per year.
Did you know that when the NHS was first founded a great many American women came over to give birth so as to take advantage of the free health care? Also if you are a visitor to this country and need emergency treatment you will get it for nothing, nada, zip. Any other kinds of treament is charged for, and so it should.
And that’s just the income taxes. That does not include embedded taxes.
accept dental
Okay, the point of socialism is to help everyone, so yeah, you’d be paying super high taxes, but it would be made up for by the fact that you wouldn’t have to pay for stuff like your own healthcare anymore. See how it balances out?
The ones paying the most would be the most productive in our society, and of course they would soon stop being productive and the experiment would fail, like in Russia.
Funny that. From where I look, it seems as if Russia has rather severe problems due to their rampant capitalism during the ’90s.
If you refer to the Soviet Union, I have certainly not got the impression that it collapsed because of their income tax distribution.
lies! it was taxation that destroyed Rome, too
That’s because there are so many people who still want socialism, its seems they kinda ruined the sauce.
“Rampant capitalism” lol. Tool.
What experiment? There was never socialism in Russia. There was the revolution, followed by the civil war, folowed by a dictatorship. Noone in russia was ever socialist, so how could the experiment fail when it never started?
You know, I was just thinking that myself, VNV.
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics fail.
Cold War propaganda win!
Uh, they came up with the name for themselves.
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), occasionally called the United Soviet Socialist Republic,[1] was a constitutionally socialist state that existed in Eurasia from 1922 to 1991. The name is a translation of the Russian: Ru-CCCP.ogg Союз Советских Социалистических Республик (help·info), tr. Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik, abbreviated СССР, SSSR. The common short name is Soviet Union,[2] from Советский Союз, Sovetskiy Soyuz. A soviet is a council, the theoretical basis for the socialist society of the USSR.
Yeah but when you get down into what sociologists call socialism, and what happened in the former USSR, you’ll find out they’re two very separate things.
But they always start out ******HOW?******* Oh yeah, with Socialism. I love how the pro socialist crowd always claims that the previous socialist governments weren’t socialist. Just like the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei were not socialists. (Nazi’s in case you don’t read German)
Fascism was socialism with a capitalistic facade to fool the ignorant. That didn’t work out too well either.
So… you’re saying that you combine socialism with… another form of government… and you have…. Socialism still?
Cocaine doesn’t stay cocaine when you cut it with baking soda…
Mmmmm crack….
So cocaine is the starter drug. Are you so dense that you can’t read that they all started with Socialism? Just like crack starts with cocaine. They were socialists, and generally the first socialist nation. Certainly the largest.
If you are a crackhead, you are still a drug addict, that is what I am saying. Not put down the pipe, wipe your nose and pay attention.
Again with the personal insults… I think you’d get a long a lot better if you learned how to communicate with people like you have an ounce of respect for them.
And yes, I got what you were saying, but it should also be noted that all the other socialist nations in the country haven’t moved to communism. They did in Russia and it failed, but the other countries, namely most of the continent of Europe is socialist, and they claim to be happier, and are known to be healthier. My point before you got all frothy was that just because a system moves to socialism doesn’t mean communism is inevitable.
I would tend to agree.. I did LOTS of coke but never moved to crack.
The Socialist countries in Europe don’t seem to be evil, so it can’t really be said that Socialism is an evil. Socialism isn’t even an evil, it’s all in the hands of the implementors, and in the keepers of the polity. Just because a thing CAN turn out bad/evil, doesn’t mean it WILL.
Max, you have been frothy since you came in here, and not just with me. I get along fine thank you. I don’t respect you hate baiting people. A differing opinion is one thing, but you are just being the troll of the night.
Most of Europe is taking a HARD look at getting away from the failed mistake of Socialism.
And not every one who tries drugs gets addicted, but very few.
For the record, I don’t mind a lot of the socialist wants, but not on the scale of a national government. It’s when it get an entire nation, an entire army behind it that it gets dangerous. I am also not a super mega global corp cheerleader. I personally believe that the founding fathers wanted the States to stay separate but equal, with minimum federal government.
I will leave with this……. In history, all the big socialist/communist nations have all started out with the “equalization of wealth for the people” platform.
I bend over backward to help people all the time, money, food, transportation, whatever I can do. I was a transmission mechanic before getting laid off, and still fix them, often at a loss to me, to help people. No one has to force me, and I am free to choose when I see people who are just trying to scam me.
By the way, if anyone here, like me or not, has transmission issues, ASK ME. I can’t fix it from here, but I can often keep you from getting ripped off by some redneck that thinks brake fluid will seal the leaks.
I call foul on Justa, rather.
I’d say ”
But they always start out ******HOW?******* Oh yeah, with Socialism. I love how the pro socialist crowd always claims that the previous socialist governments weren’t socialist. Just like the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei were not socialists. (Nazi’s in case you don’t read German)
Fascism was socialism with a capitalistic facade to fool the ignorant. That didn’t work out too well either.”
Treating Maxwell like a 4 year old here, man- that’s pretty frothy to me. Maxwell’s “Yeah but when you get down into what sociologists call socialism, and what happened in the former USSR, you’ll find out they’re two very separate things.”
Was, in fact, pretty reasonable.
Igor, it has to do with other comments on here were he was frothing like politician over a mistress. This thread actually happened after.
The thing is the European countries that today are referred to as “socialist” in fact have mixed economies. Just like the US. We have the same form of base, the scale on how much is “socialistic” is all that’s different, and also that often a party in power will have “socialist” this or that in their name.
And definitely not all countries that have national health care are socialist. I know no one here said that, but reading the thread you get the feeling that despite having public just-about-any-other-important-function, it’s universal health care that’d make America go from “heaven on earth” to “absolute communist unbearable hell-hole”.
It’s mindboggling.
Justacarolinian:
“Most of Europe is taking a HARD look at getting away from the failed mistake of Socialism.”
Could you elaborate on this? Do you mean the former east european countries who were in one form or other under the thumb of the USSR?
Further to Denbala’s last, IAC is your grasp of political theory really so weak that you can’t tell the difference between Socialism, Communism (which is what you think the former Warsaw Pact nations had, and where everything is owned in equal shares by all the people), and State Capitalism (where everything is owned by the state, and which is what WARPAC actually had)?
Uhh, legally, it is still called crack cocaine.
Crack cocaine is the pure, or “freebase” form of cocaine. The more commonly used “cocaine” is actually cocaine hydrochloride – the chemical structures differ due to the salt in the intranasal consumption variety. Chemically they are two different compounds.
FWIW no point bothering with Maxwell except to point out the obvious and move along – he’s an ideologue/moron.
Ah Anniee, I know I’ve said something right when you get all frothy and insulting.
Hey Froth Boy, wipe your mouth.
Hey Justa, you’re wrong.
He’s not the one who started the froth here. Nor has he produced it with amounts even comparable to what you’ve shown here.
Again, Igor, Max has the nasty habbit of going off on anyone who doesn’t shout “Obama” when they orgasam. No one is allowed to disagree with him.
OTOH Anniee is a Conservatroll.
I think maybe you should provide some cites for Max’s alleged frothiness.
Apparently trying to hold a conversation and asking for explanations of skewed logic is frothy..
Max, only when you start out condescension.
#1 Not true
#2 Try asking an economist you absolute and utter ignoramus ass.
Dear Anniee, please stop being so crude.
I’m sorry, but I have to request that you stop hurling out the insults like they’re candy at Maxwell. I think you’re going a bit far at the moment. Besides, I like it much better when your insults are subtle and refined, and I have to re-read to check for the thinly veiled ones.
Those always make me giggle.
Your daily dose of Awesome is in the mail,
Iggler.
Why don’t you take your own advise? Then maybe when you tell others to do the same thing they will pay attention.
Thank you for saying that.
Oh. Em. Gee.
JaC is stuck on NAMES, again.
Didn’t we go ’round and ’round about this one before?
(Should I say it out loud? You know … The National Socialists, remember?)
You know, history? Oh, yeah, you seem to be willingly forgetting that they started out that way, then went to hell in a handbasket. Calling a stop sign a yield will still get you a ticket when you run it.
At least I can tell the difference between what a group CALLS itself and what it DOES. You keep pretending that groups or countries are socialist just because they have the word somewhere in their name . . .
And, I’d wager, you’re amongst the group that’s calling Obama a socialist . . . why, how can THAT be, when he’s the president of a representative republic, and his party is CALLED the Democratic Party? It’s impossible, according to your view.
You pop in, say things, and never answer me.
Yeah, because if I make $100,000 a year, and the government takes half of it, I’m gonna stop making $100,000 a year just to spite everyone else. If I make $100,000 a year and the government takes half, I’m still living just fine on $50,000 a year. If anything, I think it would cause successful people to try to be more successful to keep their take-home pay at its current level. As for me, I’m already paying over a third of my paycheck to my health care benefits, so it wouldn’t be that much of a difference.
Never read “Atlas Shrugged”, have you?
Nope. What’s your point?
i think he’s implying that by not having read it, you’re proving you have good sense in what you read.
big pile of garbage, if you ask me
you should.
Rand can kiss my @S$.
So can anyone else who thinks she’s “special”.
Rondo, I think I’d be pissed if ANYONE, much less the government, was taking half my money out of my pocket and forcing me to live on less than what I’m actually making. I think that’s the sneaky thing about taxes. If people actually took home what they made and wrote a check every week to the government for FICA and other taxes, there would be a massive uprising and the government would be overthrown. But since we never see that money and don’t miss it, all is good.
It’d also be interesting to see everything that’s run on taxes today being charged for as more normal expenses instead.
Who’s Rondo?
A third?!?! Either you’re on very low wages or your insurance carrier is stiffing you. Now granted, it’s been a couple of years since I had to pay for health care (about 5 years now), but even then I wasn’t paying a third, and that was for myself and three kids.
No, the insurance industry over here is out of control. My boss told me today that 70% of individual insurance applications are being flat-out denied, and the remainder are being rated-up by incredible margins – I’m trying to help a guy right now, 46, single, healthy, never goes to the doc but is on two brand-name prescriptions for cholesterol and blood pressure, and the plan that was supposed to cost him approx $350 per month was rated up to $550 after he was underwritten. It’s not the greatest plan either.
You know what? I made the assumption that the insurance was through a group plan. When I worked for Lockheed that’s how we had our coverage, so naturally it was going to be less. I wasn’t thinking about the person who goes out and buys health care on their own, and I can see why it would cost a third of one’s salary.
-
My apologies if my assumption was incorrect.
Your assumption was correct. My insurance was through work. Sad, isn’t it?
Just for reference, I’m self employed with similar stats to SB’s guy, and I pay $428/month for a mid-level BCBS plan with Rx coverage.
Of course one Rx I’m on at the moment costs me $30 and the insurance $720/month, so it’s tough to complain about paying $428/month.
Insurance isn’t that far out of control, but costs ($30/pill) are, thanks mostly to gov’t distortions in the marketplace.
Actually Eddie, if it weren’t for my insurance, my pay wouldn’t be that much of an issue. After insurance is taken out, I’m below minimum wage.
So you’re not getting cover through work? I’ll admit I have been out of the loop there for a few years and don’t know what the current situation is in regards to employers offering health insurance.
I get coverage through work, but they don’t pay very much of the plan themselves. I don’t know exactly how much they do pay, but it can’t be too terribly much. Plus, I’ve suddenly had to find a new doctor because the one I was using for years is quite suddenly out of network. I’m not a happy camper.
Seriously, you need to move near me and get a job with my company. I’m paying less than $300 a month for full family coverage with dental and Rx, a discount vision plan, and a deductable in place of a co-pay.
On a side note, just think if that were transferable from state to state? Think of how much more the cost would go down if, say, Idaho had to compete with Mississippi. Can we write a letter to our stupid-ass congresspeople dealing with that, too?
Partially-funded government insurance for (estranged) spouse and three kids (two of whom aren’t actually “mine”) with dental and Rx, a discount vision plan, and a deductable in place of a co-pay and awesome catastrophic:
$73 per paycheck.
My company sucks balls. *headdesk repeatedly*
Sounds like an interesting perk.
My salary is pretty paltry compared to others of my level in private industry, however. I work for the insurance and the rural living, my friends!
Where do we sign up?
No, Danbala. Who do you think gets stuck sucking the balls for the company?
Oh.
:/
..think of all the private schools that could be profiting hand over fist if we stop funding public schools.
Man, teachers would be so rich…
Yeah right. You mean that the principals and superintendents would be rich. The teachers would still be stuck paying for classroom supplies out of their own pockets.
Agreed, VG/ Every single private school teacher I know or have met makes less than public school teachers. The private school teachers say the biggest difference is they can actually hug their kids. Teachers will never be rich. We don’t do it for the money, which is why counties/districts get away with paying us so little.
There has got to be some way to fix this, for public and private. Teachers should be paid more or at least not have to buy supplies.
Finally, something we agree on.
A friend of mine, kindergarten teacher, was allotted $200 to set up her classroom with supplies for the whole year. For I think 20 kids. She was only provided with furniture, carpeting and photocopying. That $200 was for crayons, books, construction and drawing paper, paint, gluesticks… Fortunately she had built up a collection of books, educational toys and such from hitting yard sales, etc over the previous 5 years of teaching. But she still spent over $1000 of her own money for basic supplies. My cousin does the same (2nd grade, Virginia). My aunt had to do the same when she taught (4-6th grade art, New Jersey).
Yeah, this country values education. Not.
Actually, we don’t want people to help themselves…. to our stuff. Our stuff is ours. We don’t want no Socialist government to use their police powers to help looters to take our stuff.
Using our stuff to help our neighbor is a good thing, but we should expect the help to be temporary. A helping hand, not a handout. A helping hand so they can pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
What Socialists is Britain, Canada, and Washington DC want is to eliminate helping hands and replace them with handouts. The more people they can make utterly dependent on Socialist government, the more control the government will have over the people.
Helping people to be independent and self-sufficient would mean they don’t need government. Independence is anathema to Socialists. Independence would put Socialists out of their cushy government jobs.
As Andrew Jackson said, the power over a man’s sustenance is a power over his will.
As Jefferson/Gerald Ford/et al, have reportedly said, a government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything you have.
Stand up for yourselves! You own you! The government doesn’t own you! Don’t let the government own you! Don’t let the government control you! Tell the government NO! You will not control me! You will not take my stuff and give it to looters!
*steals Mickey’s tv while he’s on his soapbox*
THIS looks like a job for…!
“Why is my ’stuff’ ’stuff’ but other people’s ’stuff’ ‘ is sh!t’? Hey…move your sh!t so I can have some room for my stuff.” – George Carlin
You make your dream home sound like a underground bunker wrapped in barbed wire.
…. because someone who doesn’t want his property confiscated must live in a bunker.
Oh hey … could you post your street address and work schedule, Bha?
No, but Mickey sounds like a conspiracy theorist who would be so scared of teh ebil guverment coming for his stuff that he would keep it in a bunker so he could sit there and scream “mine…mine…mine!!!” at nobody all day.
No, no, no. It’s “Prrrreeeeeeeccccciiiioooooouuuusssss!!!!!!”
Thank you, Sigma. You and Eric have YET AGAIN cost me a scoop of iced cream!
[Mortal Kombat victory pose]
FINISH HIM!
FRIENDSHIP! FRIENDSHIP?!
Stupidest. Finishing Move. Ever.
I dunno… Babalities were pretty retarded… I mean… they didn’t even eat the baby afterward! Talk about a waste.
The government doesn’t own you until you join the military. Then you become government property.
Or are convicted of a crime.
Andrew Jackson mas murdered LOTS of Native Americans.
Gerald Pardoned Nixon.
And Jefferson.. Well, he was cool. But he also didn’t like slavery, which made him wanting change during the time he was alive.
He was also coming from a time where they were still in fear of a government that told you what religion you had to be.
NHS isn’t a hand-out, it’s about basic human rights. The right to NOT die in the streets because you happen to get so sick, you can’t afford to keep yourself alive or in shelter.
The government already wire taps you and monitors your e-mails.
WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT!?!?!? ARGAHRGHAGHRGAJLLYYLYL!
Was there a train of thought here? I mean seriously, next time stick to one subject instead of spreading your ideas all over the map.
hmm. Jefferson owned slave, y’know.
Been rumored to have sexual relations with the ones he owned too.
I think that rumor has since been proven with genetic testing… And it’s kind of hard to prove the sexual relations were consensual, given that the lady was a slave at the time.
Sorry, I forgot to indicate that was sarcasm.
Well, since the government *is* the people, then *you* are the government, therefore *you* control *you*.
See how that works?
That was hilarious, thanks!
Wasn’t it? Just frothingly paranoid delusion. I hope that guy comes back!
Yeah…I miss him!
Yeah, down with socialism!
We don’t need no stinking roads, armies, cheap education, anti-inflation measures, bank security, sewers, stimulation of innovation, environmental care, flood protection, FBI, hydrological maintenance, gps, extra jobs, police, firemen, social support, coastguard, border patrols, bridges, public education campaigns, judges, jails etc. etc.
Yeah! Down with socialism! All those government employees don’t need jobs anyway!
You have no idea what you are talking about. Govt is needed. Socialism is not. Socialism does not promote taking risks, does not promote Reward… What it does promote is the idea that if you are successful you have to help those who are less successful….for whatever reason it may be. If I’m going to not be successful but still get good Benefits, why even Try? Yes there are ppl who can’t help themselves but a Socialist view not only helps those but also helps those who do not want to help themselves. Why would I want that? Why would I want to work my ass off just to give half of it to people who want the govt to hand them everything?
and you have no idea what sarcasm looks like. holy crap… rando made it about as obvious as he possibly could.
you have no idea that sarcasm has to be based on something real to work.
I have no idea what the hell that means.
mores the pity
Lost on that one too.
Just like stereotypes. That douchebag looks great on you, by the way.
If everyone was in it together, it wouldn’t be a problem. If you’re successful, you can still reap your rewards. It just means everyone actually has a fair chance. How the hell are the poor gonna work up to success if they can’t even get a fair chance? Poverty perpetuates poverty. There’s no reason anyone should be on the street starving or trying to decide if they’re gonna eat every day or have electricity this month. How many people work 40 hours a week or more at jobs that don’t pay them enough to survive? How is that even right? Just because you want to justify people drooling over having more money and stuff than everyone else? Screw that. Capitalism is just a big fvck you to people who don’t have the connections to be successful.
Excellent point. Rando
And to glricker…”What it does promote is the idea that if you are successful you have to help those who are less successful….for whatever reason it may be.” You mean socialism promotes you being a good person? Count me in!
Oh, but you shouldn’t be FORCED to be a good person. Because everyone knows that all rich people give generously to the poor to make sure everyone has all their bases covered. Oh wait, no they don’t.
Of course not! Capitalism=moral! As long as you make a quick buck, who cares who gets hurt? But only if you’re big business. Little business can’t get away with that. Only the haves can have more. The trying-to-haves must follow the book until they are haves, then they can fvck over whomever they please. The have-nots? Well, it’s been a solid 10 minutes since they’ve been screwed over by the haves, so it’s about time to bend over again.
“as long as you make a quick buck”? Do you mean, “as long as you have the talent, skills, and hard work ethic to make a good living for yourself?”
Why in the world would you try to make people feel guilty for making money by pointing at people who “need” more money and saying, “Yeah, that money you earned? We’re giving it to these guys?” What people earn is their own. THEY are the ones who should choose where that money will go.
You mean they manage in some way to be absolutely detached from the society they manage to make their money in?
What you seem to be saying is that you have no concept that one can be a member of asociety without being completely subservient to it.
Really? Can you explain how you read that from what I wrote, in the context, so I can clarify something?
not understanding the relevance of “detachment.” Clarification?
The “What people earn is their own. THEY are the ones who should choose where that money will go.” sounded to me like you mean they have no obligation whatsoever to pay back anything to the society they are in – that they are an isolated island wherever they are.
(won’t let me reply to you anymore, this is directed to Danbala)
I will say there is not obligation. What people chose to do with their lives and their money is their own choice. But that doesn’t make anyone an isolated island. Because people aren’t isolated, they should be able to see the problems around them and WANT to help.
There’s no obligation, but that doesn’t mean there is detachment: they’re not related.
The point is, what should be and what is are two totally different things, you know?
I will say there is not obligation. What people chose to do with their lives and their money is their own choice
Aha. I disagree on the obligation part, then. I agree that people should have the freedom to do what they can and want to with their life (within necessary boundaries, of course), but I don’t see the obsession with the money. Everything around us costs money, I don’t mind paying for it. And, making sure that those who cannot afford the necessities can afford them, is to me a part of having a functional society around me, so it is in my selfinterest, as well.
Because people aren’t isolated, they should be able to see the problems around them and WANT to help.
Well, yeah, should.
And if they choose not to share it with the needy, what becomes of said needy? Hmm? Do we just say screw them because they didn’t catch the right breaks?
The right breaks? You don’t need luck to get a job. Luck normally plays a factor in getting an awesome job, but a job to merely earn money to not be needy just requires skill and hard work ethic.
For those who physically cannot work, I will agree that they need to be helped in some way. As to how, I haven’t developed an opinion on it.
And frankly, if someone doesn’t want to spend their money on the “needy,” that’s their perogative. I would wish that they would, but it’s their money that they made.
So, sorry to be cliché, but we don’t say “screw them,” we say, “earn your own money.” Don’t you remember the joy of earning your first paycheck? Shouldn’t everyone feel like that?
“The right breaks? You don’t need luck to get a job. Luck normally plays a factor in getting an awesome job, but a job to merely earn money to not be needy just requires skill and hard work ethic.”
And so all the fast food workers, or janitors, or retail employees, or people working in other very low paying industries just aren’t working hard enough?
And call me idealistic, but I think if someone HAS the money to give to the needy and they don’t, then I’m sickened, not celebrating their prerogative.
And saying “earn your own money” is saying “screw them” because you’re washing your hands of them and saying if they don’t make it, too bad.
Rando- then move to a Socialist country where bunnies poop rainbows and food stamps and the wonderfully benificent government takes away from the mean old hard working people and gives it to the suffering poor- who are everyone but the rich. Just don’t take anything away from a rich socialist!!!! Curious how the members of “Why so Socialist” Obama’s cabinet have a hard time pating their taxes?
(won’t let me reply anymore, but this is directed to The Amazing Rando)
Everyone has the ability to make their own job decisions. If people are not happy with their current job, they actually do have choices. People who make a career of retail employment CAN move up, if they want to. Everyone starts out at the bottom and moves up. And I’m not saying everyone can be a CEO. Not everyone can be. That’s why they make so much. But if someone is not making enough money, they do have options.
I believe people should give to those less fortunate, also. I try to whenever possible (which isn’t often, as I am one of those cliché poor college students), and when I can’t, I try to volunteer my time. However, I don’t think it is right to tell people that they MUST give money. No one is entitled to someone else’s money that someone else earned!
Yes, it does sound harsh to say “earn your own money.” But it’s not the same as not caring. I care about the poverty in this country, it’s a serious problem, but it will not be cured by just tossing some money their way, and taking more and more out of people who are working for their money!
Frankly, if I was flat broke, couldn’t find a job, I wouldn’t expect people to give me money. I don’t believe that is anyone’s obligation but my own! And if someone I knew let me have money to get by, I would plan on paying it back.
I hate to say this, but you’re a poor college student, and thus woefully equipped to understand what it’s like past college. I’m speaking from experience here. Sorry, dude. Nothing personal.
I’ve got to agree with Rando here, as much as it pains my black little Capitalistic heart. Moving up in a company is as much a function of luck as it is skill or anything else. You have to be seen by the right people, there has to be a position open, you have to be able to commit to that position, there has to be a need for it…….
Working in HR I see a lot of really crappy people come through here, but my days as a line supervisor showed me that there are so many good people out there who just can’t get a break because the timing was wrong. I had at least four people working for me who would have made DAMN good leads, but we only had one position open. Another girl wasn’t able to take a promotion because the hours would conflict with when she could get babysitting care.
It would be nice if the most qualified, or the most deserving actually got to move up, but it doesn’t always happen that way. It’s the downside to the system we have now.
Froo! Stoppit!
*cries in beer*
Sounds rather familiar, froo. When I was hired at Sears, I was hired to fill a position that a lead was leaving. Unfortunately, Sears changed a lot of stuff, combined various teams, and a different lead had to take that job or else end up out of a job. Then when she quit, a different lead position was eliminated so he was given that job. I can’t seem to catch a break.
Spoken like someone who has never been poor.
yes, go ahead and presume everything you want about my life.
Rando, marry me?
[I'll boot the fiance, I promise--if you'll just say, "Yes!"]
“The trying-to-haves must follow the book until they are haves, then they can fvck over whomever they please. The have-nots? Well, it’s been a solid 10 minutes since they’ve been screwed over by the haves, so it’s about time to bend over again.”
Rando/Eric is married.
Sorry to break the news to you. Regardless of how he actually may look, Rando is teh awesome in my mind. As it goes with anyone on this site.
Awwww!
::scuffs toe in the dirt::
::perks::
How ’bout plural marriage?
The only grown woman I know who reminds me of a little girl.
Well, other than a certain 26 year old, but that’s mostly because she’s immature. Anyway, you get points. Big points! Many point! Speek Engrish?
Do you mean full plural or just polygamous?
::squints::
Hey! You callin’ me immature?
Wait–”big points”? How . . . many points?
What’s the difference? You’re not using “polygamous” in place of “polygynous”, are you?
I don’t think it was large numbers Igor meant, just 2 large points!
Anyway, are you more interested in a full plural marriage or just a polygamous one?
After some searching to find what Polygny is…
It’s the same thing as polygamy – one man having more than one wife.
By contrast a true full plural marriage would involve at least 2 men and 2 women living together as “husbands and wives”, sharing all the duties, incomes, responsiblities etc of all partners, including “mixing and matching” who sleeps with who according to hetero and bi-sexual tastes.
Polygamous would be cool, polygynous–not so much.
Why so interested? You’re not me true lurrve . . .
::hearts, flowers, birdtweets & whistles float up & away::
Sorry, paws, but you need to check your def. of “polygamy”–it does not need to be 1 man w/multiple wives. Polygamy can include polygyny and polyandry.
It took me 4 refs to find polygny; 3 of them the closest I came was polygamy as 1 man with more than one wife, and polyandry (1 wife with more than one husband). I’ve actually learnt something!
“Regardless of how he actually may look…”
Thanks, Igor. That’s great. Hey, can you do me a favor? I need to adjust my water heater temperature. Can you fish around to find the thermostat with this screwdriver for me?
“The trying-to-haves must follow the book until they are haves, then they can fvck over whomever they please. The have-nots? Well, it’s been a solid 10 minutes since they’ve been screwed over by the haves, so it’s about time to bend over again.”
1. It’s not a zero sum game. That the have-nots have not, is not a function of the fact that the haves have. We all come into this world bare-assed, and with the exception of folks like the Kennedy’s, anything we earn while in this world is a function of how hard we work and how much value we create.
2. It may come as a surprise, but if one actually looks into why the haves have, one will find that during their early adult lives, most of the haves didn’t spend multiple hours a day chatting on the web, but rather, spent that time reading business books and learning new skills to become more valuable in the workplace.
(1) Not true, unless you think you can show me how a realtor or stocks/futures trader actually creates value.
(2) Also not true, unless you can show me managers who actually add value to the products of their companies.
Well, let’s see, referring back to what they used to teach in highschool economics class:
The value of a broker in any transaction, real estate/stocks/etc, is the ability to bring a wider range of customers to a seller, and/or to bring a wider range of sellers to a buyer. Of course there is also a wide variety of ancillary services typically offered by the broker, but those vary by what is being sold.
As for managers, in what fantasy world do entry level workers get trained, efficiently assigned to tasks, provided with materials when needed, have their time accounted for, etc, absent management supervision?
Just because you don’t understand basic economics doesn’t make the concepts “not true.” I don’t understand particle physics, does that mean it doesn’t exist?
Ok then, so why does the cost of equally efficient (same time to sell, same achieved price per unit for identical units) brokerage services vary 4 or 5 times from lowest to highest? Unless I’m selling multiple units that typically are bought singly or in very small numbers, having lots of buyers is of no value to me unless an auction then develops.
Your so-called management functions are mostly the functions of line supervisors, or have specialist business functions assigned to them.
Just because you were taught economic theory doesn’t mean that you were ever taught anything about practical management, or about business organisation.
To your first fallacy, you’ve assumed that the hypothetical equally efficient brokers all offer/deliver their services in an identical manner. Rarely is that the case in the real world.
To the second, you’re assuming all buyers are offering the same price and terms. Again, rarely the case in the real world.
Third, in what sense are “line supervisors” not the managers of those they supervise? If you meant to bash a certain level of higher management in your cutesy “not true” comment, maybe you shouldn’t have used the generic “manager.”
And finally, I don’t know where practical management and business organization are taught using the ideology you’ve expressed, but somehow I learned enough about both of those topics to have managed multiple companies employing dozens of employees.
Nice try, thanks for playing.
So people don’t get lucky breaks or get jobs because of knowing the right people or being born into the right family? Hell, we just had a PRESIDENT who happened to be born into the right family. The idea that people get ahead solely by hard work is absolute naive bull.
What was somebody saying about generalizations?
The fact that in bizzaro-world a few people get breaks by virtue of their heritage or because they fit the image that a certain political machine is selling, does not negate the fact that in the real world in which most of us have to exist, virtually everybody who has gotten ahead has done so though hard work, whether in physical effort, or expending the mental effort to learn more valuable skills.
Nobody here has suggested that people have never gotten ahead through luck or connections, so your effort to impart exclusivity is strawman-ish.
If I may borrow your phrase, the idea that people CAN”T get ahead solely by hard work is absolute naive bull.
I didn’t have a rich daddy, and the only thing I’ve ever won was a three day trip to Atlanta, so I think we can rule out luck, and with only a year in community college, I don’t have connection through a prestigious frat, so this hard work thing isn’t something I got out of a fortune cookie. I know it’s possible to get ahead through hard work because I’ve done it.
What I don’t understand is how you miss the meaning.
No one is suggesting that hard work WON’T get one ahead of the pack. What we might be suggesting is that you are ignoring a very simple, glaringly obvious fact that huge numbers of people work very hard, every day, and vast millions of them just eke out subsistence living. So, your oh-so-simple explanation just doesn’t cut it.
But I understand. People LOVE simple explanations. Fat people are lazy gluttons. Poor people are lazy and/or criminals. Life as Morality Play. Hard work = success. Success = happiness. So, successful people are good people.
Simple makes the world nice and tidy. Wake up. It’s not nice, and it’s not tidy.
Just because *your* hard work may have equaled success, others may not have had the same result. You assume that it’s because they didn’t work hard enough? How arrogant. How insulting you are to so many.
I’ve often said that those with such uncharitable attitudes must be without minds creative enough–open enough–to imagine other possible outcomes. Ever hear, “There, but for the grace of God, go I”?
Nao
“No one is suggesting that hard work WON’T get one ahead of the pack.”
I’m guessing that you missed this from TAR, just a few comments up:
“The idea that people get ahead solely by hard work is absolute naive bull. ”
What people really love is a simple excuse. They say they can’t get ahead because the system is “unfair.” They pull an arbitrary definition of working “very hard” out of thin air, and use it as an excuse for not working hard enough to get ahead. Their backassward self-imposed priorities become a prison preventing them from doing what those who succeeded have done.
In my life, I’ve met too many people from the poorest, most undeveloped parts of the world, who have come to North America with barely a pot to piss in, who managed to do ENOUGH to have a comfortable life, for me to accept the utter nonsense that the have-nots in a developed society have been universally prevented from getting ahead by the haves.
As for the strawman attempt to conflate those who live in agrarian societies into a discussion about career opportunities in market-based societies, sorry, but I’m not playing your game.
I will note, however, that when visiting those outside of North America who actually are in a subsistence living situation, I’ve never witnessed any expectation of a hand-out, or complaint that the system was somehow keeping them down. They don’t think they are anywhere near as bad-off as the pseudo-intellectuals in perpetual academia believe they are.
Some people live a minimalist existence and are just fine with it, others live that way and bitch that they’ve been cheated and deserve a handout, while still others start from that same point and they work hard enough with the right priorities to get ahead. But to suggest, as TAR’s comment did, that people can’t get ahead by hard work is to deny reality.
What is simple, arrogant and insulting is your attempt to analyze a situation in which you appear to have no experience outside of academic navel-gazing.
I don’t think that was a strawman–gods, but some of you hostiles on here sure do love to accuse people of having ulterior motives!! OK, forgive my “ATTEMPT” at a strawman (utter BS accusation) and leave that out of the equation. My point remains the same as Rando’s, *I believe* (if I’m wrong in this, Rando, please correct me): HARD WORK ALONE *MAY* GET YOU THERE, BUT IF THAT *ALONE* WAS ALWAYS 100% OF THE SOLUTION TO SUCCESS, WHY AREN’T LARGE NUMBERS OF HUMAN BEINGS (this is where my thought process supposedly went off track–for YOU) OVERSTUFFED WITH CASH?
It goes like this:
Hard work can make one successful. [Always true.]
One will be successful if one works hard. [Not always true.]
No, but it brings up interesting side-discussions about culture and the perception of happiness. Do you know why many in so-called Third World countries don’t consider themselves “bad-off”? They see the majority of their countrymen living at about the same standard as they do. They could have nothing but rocks and dirt, but if that’s what everyone else has, humans can be content. It’s the perception of disparity that creates discontent. We are such pack animals. [Did I ever suggest that those people expected or wanted a handout? I don't think so.]
I basically said the sort of attitude I was describing was arrogant and insulting, not that you were. You appear to have taken it personally, and want to get back at me with this. So be it. What I find interesting are a couple of wild, stab-in-the-dark assumptions that I:
a) I have no experience in this “situation” (you mean, life?);
b) That I am an academic, a “navel-gazer” (while I’m educated, I certainly am no academic).
But namecalling and lumping me in with a group you can disparage is guaranteed to get the anti-intellectuals on “your side”. Rah-rah.
:blush:
Well, usually they don’t arrest you.. per se.. They just throw you in the loony bin if you don’t pass the psych eval. I can’t, for the LIFE of me, figure out why the hell suicide is illegal.
Pssst, because a certain book says its a sin.
Oh, more reading would we? Pfffff. Books.
Actually because you could freak out and kill others.
Homicidal and suicidal are two completely different things. People who go postal and shoot everyone and then themselves had far more going on with their psyche than simply suicide.
They will tell you to your face that you are being detained so you cannot hurt yourself or others, and no you have no choice in the matter. I have been there when that happens.
That doesn’t change the fact that suicidal and homicidal are two different things. Suicidals who hurt other people generally have many other issues bouncing around inside their head. Regardless of how the DoC treats them for safety reasons, when you’re committed for suicide they treat you the same as a paranoid schizophrenic, whether you’re interested in hurting other people, or just yourself.
Yeah, that makes no sense at all.
Q: What’s the punishment for suicide?
A: Life imprisonment.
Q: What’s the punishment for attempted suicide?
A: Hanging.
The way the government currently handles welfare etc perpetuates poverty. Why go out and get a job and earn money if the goverment is giving it to you anyway?
Uhm, lets see, why would you want to earn a lot of money instead of a little money when you can get good medical help and proper roads anyway?
Oh, right, because you’ll have a lot of money.
You see, nobody is promoting this strawman of a government you’re talking about. Instead, we’re suggesting a little socialism, to secure basic human rights. Nobody is suggesting the government takes all your money and spreads it evenly amongst all the people.
And I don’t honestly believe our government will become completely socialist. Ever. I’m arguing more for the ideology of it than the practical application of it. I know full socialism would never be practical in this country and switching to it would cause mass chaos and disarray. But wouldn’t it be nice if we could?
It wouldn’t be cost-effective for the big businesses who use us anyways to be socialist.
You mean the government? You’re right, if they nationalized everything their tax revenue would certainly go down.
Socialism isn’t for helping the needy, it’s for taking care of everyone. Everyone gives their resources to the government, the government takes its cut, and then gives the rest back to the people based on their ability to convince the government they should have it. Many times people who really need it are able to convince the government, but often people use political power to get resources they shouldn’t get. If you’re anti-socialism, you think the latter group and the government’s cut are currently too great and are bankrupting the country… it’s not necessary to hate the needy to be against socialism.
Thank you kindly, sir.
The worst part is the fact that you have to hand in your children, pets and spouse once a year for redistribution in the name of fairness.
It’s terrible!
They can take a couple of my cats. I just want to keep the old, fat one. Oh wait, he’ll be euthanized by the death panels! Oh noes!!!!!
Well said, let me tweak just a bit:
“Socialism isn’t for helping the needy, it’s for taking care of the government.”
They do after all take their “cut” first…
Oh and it’s a big cut, how many jets did the Congress recently order for their use? I seemed to have just heard that somewhere…
They canceled the order, after it got published in the newspapers. Yay for that librul media stuff!
Wasn’t Fox the first to break that story? Or Drudge?
Could be. I’m not sure. But I’m all for the media, in multiple forms! (It just often is accused of being liberal if it isn’t obviously right-slanted).
And is just as often accused of being right slanted if it isn’t obviously liberal, LOL.
I love how the media is portrayed.
So long as we have lots of well-trained journalists out there investigating, I’m a happy citizen!
Medicare and medicaid are socialism for health insurers.
Noone would put up with the present system if it had to cover the whole of life.
Hmm…. “help thy neighbor, but only if the government forces you to” is more accurate.
I happen to think socialism is awesome. I also happen to believe in the withering away of the state and the potential of communism.
Unfortunately, most of our pop culture bred society has not mentally evolved or socially evolved to the point where they understand that the accumulation of wealth doesn’t make you better or more worthy than anyone else.
And frankly, if I was born into and grew up in poverty because my country allowed me and generations before me to suffer needlessly, I wouldn’t be all that excited about going to work for the very corporations that paid for that poverty to exist to begin with. I don’t call them lazy, I call them justified.
And another thing to all you “they’re takin’ mah monies” people…. none of you are rich. None of you. Ain’t no Bill Gates, Micheal Vicks, Donald Trumps, or Sam Walton descendants posting on this wall. Why? Because they are out enjoying the millions of billions of dollars they “earned” by advertising to you so much that you and those around you have a subconcious need to collect “stuff”. Its -those- people who have more than they need and should be making sure that all thier corporate excesses goes back to the people who produced them. Franky, everytime someone makes a healthy profit, it means they took advantage of and cheated someone else.
I don’t know about that last sentence, but I will say that so many massively profiting companies did it on the back of people not paid enough to live a decent life. Even if they did it honestly, somebody is almost always not getting paid enough to keep it running.
Seriously? Your last paragraph? True story, I’m not rich, probably won’t ever be, seeing as my career is one in archaeology. That doesn’t mean I’m mad at the people who are richer than me. I would never want money being squeezed from any of the people you listed. They all EARNED their money. As much as I don’t like Donald Trump (no “s”, it’s just Donald Trump), he made his money by being intelligent, business savvy, and working hard.
And Bill Gates? Really? That’s your example of a terrible corporate titan? The guy who is extraordinarily famous for his philanthropy and his massive charity foundation? Nice example. He is giving back to the community.
Oh and a “healthy profit” is indeed that. “Healthy.” Do you think businesses exist to pander to your every need? no, they’re out to make a profit. Where did you get this sense of entitlement that businesses must serve you and give you money?
haha, you should read Atlas Shrugged. Your brain would explode.
What we’re talking about is giving everyone a fair chance. We’re not even suggesting to make everyone totally even financially. Just give everyone a shot. And no, not everybody has a shot, no matter what your rose-colored view of America is. The boot-strap theory is very often a crock. They’ve earned it. Good for them. Those that are impoverished still deserve to be able to live, don’t they?
Who doesn’t have a fair chance? That’s not rhetorical, I want to know in what way some people don’t have a fair shot. The only examples I can think of are poor education and discrimination – in which case I would say that giving people money would only be treating a symptom of a bigger problem, (inferior education and discrimination).
And my point of view is essentially that your last three sentences should not be logically connected. I believe in helping out your fellow man, but I don’t believe in an inherent obligation to do so. Of course the impoverished still deserve to live. No one is saying they don’t. They are allowed to get a job to support themselves.
And what jobs do you think are really available to the impoverished? How many jobs paying a living wage are really out there to the impoverished? Poverty breeds poverty. The only way to stop it is to eliminate the poverty.
I worked at a lot of odd jobs while I went through college on student loans and grants. No one helped me, I did it myself. If someone is not cut out for college there are other ways to make a living wage. There are trades and many of self made millionaires never even went to college they just had good ideas. This is the greatest country in the world as far as opportunity goes.
This is just naive to me.
No- feeding poverty breeds poverty- if they are not required to try. This is one of the few countries in the world that actually pays people to have as many children as they want while they are on welfare.
I can see how it might come off as naive, but it is true. There are boundless opportunities if you’re willing to try. I attend a public college and most of the people I know, including myself, chose it because it was the cheaper choice and balance classes with at least 1 job, normally more than one, plus a regular summer job. All to put ourselves through college so that when we graduate, we can have steady, good paying jobs.
Honestly, with all of the grants and loans and federal aid programs, there are very few people who can’t go to college if they want, even a community college.
If not college, there are vocational schools that focus on teaching a trade.
There is no benefit to anyone by handing money to people who are not willing to try. I would be more likely to give my money to a service that gives the impoverished career and job-finding help, rather than hand money to them for not trying to find a better job.
Boundless opportunities, huh? Tell that to my bachelor’s degree once you get the dust off of it. Geez. Boundless opportunities are what they tell you when you’re still in college. Reality isn’t always so kind.
Naive? That is just how I did it, how is that naive? It actually happened that way.
For you, maybe. But don’t pretend to know everyone else’s situation and that you know what kind of opportunities they might have.
You have the exact same opportunities that I have, it’s just that you might not want to do the same thing. What is it you want to do?
Who said I was talking about me? Anyway, IN THEORY yeah, we all have the same opportunities. IN REALITY, that’s extremely naive.
Ok, give me one example where someone does not have the same basic opportunity that I have/had in this country?
You? Eh. How about me and my wife? Sounds good.
I grew up in a town with really nice public schools. I got pretty good grades, but was only ranked, say, in the 50’s in a class of 250-ish. By some stroke of luck I was awarded a full private scholarship to my future college.
My wife went to a city school, albeit one of the nicer magnet schools in the area. She had a higher GPA, just barely missing 4.0, and was ranked in the top 10 in her class. They don’t normally go around the city schools looking for scholarship recipients. So she ended up having to get a bunch of loans just to go to school.
E, bad analogy. Really bad.
A question, and I mean this honestly, no sarcasm. Have you ever visited any of the poor nations of the world?
I know you weren’t addressing me, but I lived in Mexico for 6 months. It was a horrifying, and humbling, experience.
Oh and it was in Hermosillo, not somewhere rich and white like Cabo or Puerto Vallarta.
Makes cheap burritos look in a totally different light, doesn’t it? People in other parts of the world will kill over what we throw in the trash. And I mean what people living below the American poverty line throw in the trash.
Yes, I had many things stolen from me while I was in Mexico.. Many times by the people I was staying with as a “guest”.
But them horse meat tacos were pretty tasty!
All joking aside, it was filthy, they live too many people to a home, have lower standards of “cleanliness” than we do, eat weird, cheap foods, and are an all around vivacious and prideful people. Who take care of their elders. They are wonderful people (as much as they can be) but their country is for the most part in the sh!tter. Don’t even get me started on their prisons..
Every time I pass the 50lb bag of rice at Sam’s club, I think about people in some of those other countries.
I’ve never left this country, no. I think I see where you’re going with this, but go ahead anyway.
I’m just saying that I have been out of this country, and most people here don’t appreciate what they have.
That’s a fair point.
i say, start with education – make college-level educations more affordable and with more assitance to people who need it. that’d be one way to at least stem the tide of poverty.
It’s free here. ;p
No, it’s not. It’s just subsidized earlier that it is here. You pay, amiga.
Well, of course. I have a suspicion you know what I meant. :p
Yeppers
yar, lived in germany for a bit when i was younger and from what i saw the way their education system was arranged, it seemed to make alot of sense, kind of pushed for more people to attend some sort of school be it vocational or a standard college after high school.
i mean, ultimately, you have a country with a higher percentage of educated people which seems like it’d be desireable for a country (though they tend to be notoriously snarky, especially the lit majors… then the psych majors gotta go over and diagnose them for no damn reason, then the engineers get all giddy about some gadet that just got invented by some geek at mit, and then, all of a sudden, the beers gone and d&d gets started 3 hours later than scheduled… goddamn roomates)
Good point. The skyrocketing prices of even state schools is insane (no thanks to moronic governors. Sigh.). On the upside, college enrollment is steadily increasing.
And the downside, the more people get undergraduate degrees, the more common they become, which means that eventually will be a near requirement to have an undergraduate degree.
very true, it’s a possibility that down the road a bachelor’s degree will be the norm for just about everyone (if not that, then a vocational program, certificate or whatever) – hopefully that’ll be right around when we got robots runnin all the menial labor stuff and people only really have to work for money to pay for the extra crap like vacations and such.
erm, the sorts of jobs I’ve worked. You start at minimum wage and work up.
Certainly, at this time, with this economy, jobs are not numerous enough. But it’s more important to find a job, then to earn money by not contributing to society.
Start at minimum wage and work up? So the mom and dad trying to feed their kids on minimum wage just have to suffer until they hopefully work their way up? That’s lovely.
You shouldn’t be a mom or dad if you are making minimum wage. Though I know it can’t always be helped, you shouldn’t start your working life with more dependents than you can afford.
Thanks, now be a dear and tell everyone else that, would you? It seems to me not everyone got the memo…
Did you guys hear about the guy recently who is 21 and had (I think) 21 kids by like 11 different women? The courts were seriously trying to figure out how to divide up his $400 a week check 21 ways so that each kid got some type of child support……but they couldn’t legally take more than 45% of his check. What is that, like $11 a person? This is the type of guy who brings out my fascist side and makes me wish for forced sterilization of the species until you can prove your worthiness to be a parent.
He sounds like the guy who doesn’t wear condoms because they “cut out all the sensitivity”. And as Robin Williams said these are the same guys whose idea of foreplay is “Yo!”
*facepalmheaddesk* I’m SO glad I chose cats over kids. *strokes her pussy*
Hee hee.
BAHAHAHA!!!! Totally didn’t see that cumming.
They can’t read it, they went to public schools.
BWAHAHAHAHA … Heeeeyyy… I went to public schools…
So did I, but I don’t remember seeing you there. Are you sure?
Well, they were mermaid public schools.
PS. I know what it’s like to start over at a not quite but not far from minimum wage job.
But like Conte de fees said, in this economy though, its not uncommon for mothers and fathers to lose their jobs and be forced to take minimum wage positions. No one’s life goes on a steady upwards scale, especially not a capitalist society. Its a roller coaster.
An economic system like capitalism will only do one thing, lead to socialism. The socialist idealists said that when capitalism fails, socialism comes to the rescue, and they’re right. In the past 10 years, they’ve slowly been proven right, and none of the capitalist presidents did a thing to slow or stop this “decline to socialism”.
I guess my point is don’t blame the solution for a problem that was created by something different.
But then what comes after socialism? Because that eventually (and usually sooner rather than later) dies out. Then you’ve got abject poverty, especially if the government didn’t know how to handle itself to begin with.
I dunno… we’ll see how Europe handles it when it dies out, modify their solution and make it better
Can we at least wait until it dies its horrible painful death first to see what not to do? We’re getting in while it’s still gasping for breath, and there is still hope for life……..I’m waiting on the corpse so we can do an autopsy!
Would it be bad for me to mention that most of those nations who “fell under socialism” were because they tried to stray away from the system?
So, in your World, no-one should ever have sechs until they’re making over minimum wage and in a job for life? Don’t mention contraception; the only 100% effective method is total abstenance, including never being forced against your will.
Who is mad at people being richer? Certianly not me. You see, the problem isn’t “who is richer”. The problem is “who is poorer”. The rich have no problems with food, clothing, shelter, medication, transportation, education and so on. The poor do not. And I am not even talking about the poor in the US. I mean the poor all over.
And when i added the S to Donal Trump i wasn’t talking about just him, but all those like him, hence the “s”. And by those like him, I mean those making millions of dollars a year. And yes, that includes Bill Gates. The people I was talking about are your corporate execs, movie stars, sports athletes, or anyone else who is raking in that kind of cash.
The problem is no amount of “working hard” “earns” someone millions of dollars a year. If that was the case, every ditch digger or construction worker that makes the roads to that the Trumps of the world can get to thier “business savy” jobs would be making more than the Trumps themselves. So then, its not about hard work.
The “hard workers” are often the lowest paid, lowest respected, hardest workers in the country. That where the problem lies in. The electricians, the plumbers, the farmers, the teachers, the soldiers are the “hard workers” Not the CEO’s and actors.
And speaking of places like Wal-Mart. Wal-mart orders stuff in such bulk that there is no company that can beat the price. They come to town and put out indy stores. Those displaced workers now have less income, and like those “lazy, ignorant” people this board is so fond of they -have- to have those low prices to survive off the income they earn at Wal-mart. And walmart is supplied by mostly third world labor in other countries so the prices are even lower. So low pricesare nice, and thats great, but with the profits that Wal-Mart posts, don’t the shareholders have a responsibility to thier workers? Wal-Mart employs more people on the planet that everyone short of the US military. All those billions of dollars in profit should at least be returned to the workers in the forms of benefits, solid hours and better pay. But its not. Its met with part time work with very shifty hours and no benefits.
My point here is that Wal-Mart and almost every other major name brand in America has us trapped. The economy they created makes it so we -must- consume thier products even as they are horrible unfair to the workers. In essance, most of the money that they claim as theirs is actually the peoples. Hence, thier profit comes at the advantage of others around the world.
As far as who they serve, it seems that its only logical that the business should serve its customers, not its shareholders.
And i doubt my brain would explode. Chances are, it wouldn’t even tell me something new or surprising.
I love this post. Except that plumbers and electricians get paid pretty well for the most part. Not CEO pay, but pretty well.
And really, what do CEOs do that makes them worth millions per year? Somebody answer me that.
What do sports or hollywood stars do?
Good question. Certainly nothing worth the millions they get paid either, but that’s just me.
Well, apearently they’re doing something worth those millions, because someone is paying them. If they weren’t worth it, they wouldn’t be making so much money.
Now, it’s not exactly hard work, but I can’t argue with the fact that people are willing to pay them that much.
Sadly, I don’t think that’s how it works. Even if we assume athletes really are worth millions and millions of dollars to throw a baseball, football, or basketball around, many of them are way overpaid anyway. Don’t get me started on the economics of sports. It’s way too f’ed up to go into here.
And why are most of the rich Hollywood elite Liberal Democrats?
Because they all have tax shelters in the Caymans and aren’t worried about losing their money.
A Hollywood elite’s job and their political affiliation are mutually exclusive. Being a Liberal Democrat has nothing to do with being a successful actor and vice-versa. Plus, you do not have any evidence of such a fact, you are just assuming that Hollywood elites are Liberal Democrats for whatever reason you are thinking of. I can imagine some of them considering how they carry themselves, but I am still not so confident on my suppositions.
Ok, how many rich Hollywood elits can you name who claim Republican? And I’m not talking about anyone who appeared in “An American Carol”. I’ll even give you retired actors who did well in their day. Now take that list, and compare it to how many you can name who claim Dem or Liberal? How many times have you seen the likes of Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Aric Bardwren, or (I can’t help myself) Matt Damon open their mouths about political matters over which they have no control? I mean, hell, even Lindsay Lohan had a blog about why we should vote for Obama, and she’s a stellar example of who you should listen to
You mean I can’t live the dream of becoming a crackhead lesbian?
This is America. You can be anything you want to be if you have enough money and get the required surgery.
I’m already living that dream.
Just because those elites are more vocal about their opinions, doesn’t mean they represent all of the elites. I’m pretty sure there HAS to be some Conservative Republican celebrities…they just aren’t as vocal as their Liberal counterparts, possibly because they are apprehensive of speaking out.
Oooooh, ooooh, {raises hand} I know! I know!
Pay themselves ginormous bonuses while simultaneously running their companies into the ground and forcing tax payers to bail them out or risk collapsing the entire world economy?
I meant more like, explode in frustration, as Ayn Rand was such a passionate capitalist.
It is true, hard work, on it’s own, will not likely earn you millions of dollars. Hard work plus skill, wise decisions, and intelligence will. My point is, those people who make money deserve it. I know I work hard at my job, but I am not making millions. But I chose my career with the understanding that I would rather have a job I love than the potential to make millions at a job I hate. (not saying I WOULD make millions, it’s just that it’s more likely in some other field)
And frankly, I don’t see anything wrong with corporate executives, movie stars, or sports athletes. I personally feel that movie stars and sports athletes seem to be overpaid, but the fact is that they are not. They are paid what they are worth, because they are paid according to supply and demand; there is only one of them in supply, and the demand for them is high because they have a unique talent. And while movie stars and athletes lead a sweet life in terms of money, they perform services that really very few can. And both groups put a lot of work into their careers.
As for Wal-Mart… well, I agree with you. Wal-Mart sucks. But it doesn’t have me trapped. Whenever I can, I go out and shop at local stores. I still have choices available to me because Wal-Mart does NOT have a monopoloy… on anything. They have ridiculously cheap prices, but that doens’t mean consumers don’t have a choice.
When shopping at other stores in the area are outside your budget, then you don’t really have much choice.
“those people who make money deserve it”
Most naive thing I have seen in this thread. My boss earns triple digits. Owns a nice big home, a boat, has a wife who stays at home and takes care of the house and the kids. I watch him lie through his teeth every single day. Think about that for a second.
And you know, I’d have to say out of all the big earners I have ever met, 80% of them are what I would call bad people. They get to big big earners because they put profit and self-interest above everything else. They either lie, screw over other people, or they outsource work to countries that pay just enough to keep their workers alive, but malnourished.
If you can’t see that… if you can’t see the greed and evil going on in the world around you, you have some serious blinkers on there, pal.
“Wal-Mart does NOT have a monopoloy (sic)… on anything. They have ridiculously cheap prices, but that doens’t (sic) mean consumers don’t have a choice.”
A monopoly, perhaps not. Maybe where you live there’s a pretty large population, probably not the poorest of areas, and you have plenty of indie shops.
Either way, the point is clearly that big businesses like Wal-Mart put smaller businesses OUT of business. It’s an undeniable fact. Not every small business, but far from none at all.
So what are the people who were employed by the small business to do? Go get a job at Wal-Mart, get paid less, get no benefits. Now they’re finding it hard to feed their family. They can’t make ends meet. They’re working 2 jobs to try and get by. Have you ever worked a full-time job and a part-time job at once?
Some of the most intelligent, hard-working people I have ever known have struggled for years to make ends meet. As far as I can see, the people who are against helping are the people who haven’t ever needed real help themselves.
And yet, someone thinks your boss is worth it, seeing how he is still being payed his salary. You might not think he deserves it, but apearently, he makes the company more money than he costs, or they’d fire his ass. On those criteria, he does deserve it. Ethics often pay a secondary role in business.
As for wall-mart, what do you suggest we do about it? Forbid companies from being to succesfull? Force them to abandon their business model, make less profit and fire employees? I’d love to hear your solution.
Well my boss is a CEO, and his own boss. But anyway…
So you recognize that ethics often pay a secondary role in business, but don’t see it as a problem?
“As for wall-mart, what do you suggest we do about it? Forbid companies from being to succesfull (double sic
)?”
I’d suggest that the workers get paid more. I’d suggest that the guys at the top get paid less. A day’s work is a day’s work.
“But I mean in terms of those people worked for that money, thus they deserve.”
Well, okay. I just feel, and have noticed from my personal life experiences, that people who work hard don’t always get rewarded. There have got to be a lot of high-paid people who don’t work anywhere near as hard as your average gardener, waitress or store-clerk. And if it’s the people who aren’t working you’re talking about, then it’s hard to get into… you can’t honestly think the unemployed are all just lazy?
If you’re born into poverty it’s a lot harder to get to the top. If your parents both die when you’re a kid and you go through a series of bad foster homes it’s a lot harder to focus on school. If your partner is seriously ill and in hospital and you have to take care of your two kids, it’s a feat to bring in some income. If your spouse up and left and evades paying any child support it’s a lot harder to pay the bills, much less get a degree and climb the corporate ladder.
Circumstance makes things harder for a lot of people, and it isn’t their fault.
If you don’t give ‘handouts’, a lot of good people will suffer for it. If you do, some who don’t deserve it will benefit. I think it’s a lesser evil to have some of the undeserving profit than to let many deserving go without help.
I understand your point of view. A lot of people get thrown in to terrible situations.
I don’t want to argue in circles, which I think we would end up doing, so I’m just going to boil my argument down to this:
There are definitely people who need help because of terrible situations and so on. I would like to help them, because I do care about other people. But I believe that my decision to help people is MY decision, not the government who decides just how “needy” someone is. I don’t think the government has the right to decide the level of neediness a person has and then demand that other people pay for them.
Fair enough.
haha, I like your (sic) notations. Clearly I need to look over my posts more.
I do agree that Wal-Mart is a problem. It’s a problem that I don’t really know how anyone can solve. I am saying that technically you have options when buying. Probably not from indie shops, but maybe from the local supermarket which will probably carry a lot of the same things at about the same price. At least, that’s what I do. And I use a lot of coupons.
Sorry to jump to the beginning of your post, I’m all out of order here. But, I think you and I understand my use of “deserve” differently. In terms of “good people,” maybe those people aren’t. But I mean in terms of those people worked for that money, thus they deserve.
And your last sentence is so not true. The most avid anti-socialists I know are those who have been constantly working since high school and work hard. They’re the ones who recognize their money as their own, and their OWN decision whether to help people, and HOW to help people. I will say I have never been worried about eating, though I have been frequently worried about my bank account. But I don’t think anyone should be taking money from anyone else because they “need” it. My grandfather came over to the US when he was a teenager, and soon found himself without money, without a home, without any contacts. He was allowed a place to a live and a job by a kind family who decided ON THEIR OWN to take him in. When he started his own family, he worked for more hours than I’m sure was legal, just to make money for his family. And he believes that the money he makes should be his. At it’s certainly because of him that I think there is more value in skill and talent and hard work than forced charity. If I need help, I would want it to be a loan, because that would money I didn’t deserve to have.
Well, I threw my response to you in with my response above. So, you know, look up.
Food for thought. Wal-Mart is not the cheapest place. A lot of the lower end retailers build next to Wal-Mart to get the traffic flow.
Good point, I remember when Target was considered cheap, not anymore. Seems like in the life cycle of these places they come to a point where they have to up prices. I can find some things cheaper at some drug stores than at Walmart.
I think your definition of rich and the governments definition of rich are quite different.
obamas such a socialist
wants to ruin america -_-
Yeah, he got elected just so he could destroy the country. That’s a pretty sound political career ideal right there. STFU.
i heard he’s going to be selling America to Russia, starting with Louisana.
Then, he’s converting us all to Muslim, then he’s going to denouce Hawai’i’s statehood making himself an Alien, just prior to starting World War III, while wearing a Blue turban and riding the four horses of the apocalypse to Wal-Mart just to piss off the courtesy greeter people. That’s how messed up he is. Jerk. I bet he doesn’t even wipe his shoes when he goes in Wal-Mart either.
Well, what do you expect of a muslim-socialist-communist-alien-anti-american destroyer or worlds…
(*of not or)
“STFU”? You Libs really hate that First Amendment thing, don’t you?
The First Ammendment refers to speaking against the government. I can pretty much tell you to STFU every day of the week and twice on Sundays and you pretty much can’t do a damn thing about it.
Yea, the thing about TrollKiller is he has a condition called “foot-in-mouth disease”. It’s pretty much terminal.
Bull- I’m responding to the “not so Amazing Rando”. So STFU!
Aw, you’re so cute when you’re frothy! Toddle along now, don’t hurt yourself!
sarcasm recognition fail!!
Bullshitter recognition win though… like BIG Win.
Hey kettle, pot called telling you to not call him black.
Aw, that’s sweet. You have a nickname for me. Now STFU. Anal maggot.
We LOVE the First Amendment. It lets me tell you to STFU.
ZOMFGWTFBBQ!! How did you figure out Obama’s evil supreme Kenyan plan?!
He read the Audacity of Hope.
I’m embarrassed to say I never finished Audacity of Hope. I’m not a big reader to be honest. I started it. Good read I might add. Never got around to finishing it. I might do that one of these days.
You can get it on MP3. And he must have used a teleprompter, because there are not 14,329 hours of him saying “Uh, ……..ahhhh,……”
*snerk*
*wipes Dr Pepper from monitor*
*hands froo a shamwow*
Did you happen to catch the show where Rush played a completely unlooped, two-minute clip of nothing but “Uh”s and “Ah”s and “Er”s from a speech right after the election? I think the speech was around 10 minutes total, with two minutes of it being nothing but “Uhs”.
I got back in my truck and heard part of that. Correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t this happened a lot recently? I don’t listen to Rush much, and several others have made a note of this too. I’m thinking one of the local Charlotte hosts made a list. I do like Mark Levine, the undocumented host! I am usually busy that time of day, so I don’t catch too much. Jason Lewis used to be here in Charlotte, but I didn’t like him when he was here. He does a better job filling in.
Wait, someone actually read that?
I found the hope to be too audacious personally.
I think it was too audacious to hope that *I* read it. I like to be entertained when I read for pleasure, not bored to tears.
The choice is ultimately yours about health care solutions or the severe illegal immigration problem, by calling Washington politicians at 202-224-3121. ICE must be ruthlessly in going after the parasitic businesses who pay nothing for their illegal workers in health care benefits. THAT’S BEEN LEFT TO TAXPAYERS FOR DECADES. The American people must decide their health care options? Because of the massive divide of angry citizens and legal residents, it is essential that free choice must be on the table of any new legislation. Taxpayers must realize that special interest groups have a monopoly over radio and television networks, because they have extraordinary amounts of money to spend on engineering the truth.
We should have a passionate commitment to our homeless veterans, citizens, such as our own poverty-stricken people. Those who have health care now care nothing for those without, but the shock will come with escalating costs when premiums to rise and can no longer afford it for their own family. ALSO REMEMBER THAT MANY POLITICIANS HAVE FINANCIAL INTERESTS IN THE STATUS QUO AS THEY ARE STOCKHOLDERS IN THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY. They have acclimatized a large portion of Americans that insurance companies are the best deal, but this is not true? Most European countries perform very well with the private and the public option? Erosion began in the European health care system, when an indoctrinated Europe allowed poor nations access to their hospitals and doctors without every paying into the government system.
This was the main cause of medical care sinking below par, not indifferent to illegal cheap labor entering our nation. Until the 1980’s there was–NO–extreme rationing or problems in the British national health care, until England became overwhelmed by Northern Europeans. I know because I was there in Britain and in Australia. Nobody can be turned away from Doctors or hospitals, which is the–ABSOLUTELY SAME–position as America. THINK! How can America sustain health care costs, when US taxpayers are forced by federal law to support poor sick and maimed 20 million plus illegal aliens? No nation can sustain its living standards as in the near past, after the mass immigration of illegal immigrants and their extended families.
Our only option is to terminate illegal cheap labor with every enforcement opportunity we can muster. Without restrictions millions more will keep coming, specifically of Amnesty raising its ugly head again. We must keep up the pressure on Washington, with mandated E-Verify, the Save Act, state police authorization of 287 G, no match social security, an originally planned two-tier fence and ICE raids. Learn more at the Heritage Foundation site or NUMBERSUSA.
“Until the 1980’s there was–NO–extreme rationing or problems in the British national health care, until England became overwhelmed by Northern Europeans.”
Northern Europeans? Do you have any more info on this – sources of some kind for further reading?
You should probably dig up the expense curves for the various european countries…. they are ALL trending up steeply year after year, just like the USA’s does.
This is in response to my question, how?
well, you see. Vikings are the cause of most health problems, as we all well know, which is what I assume he means by “Northern Europeans.” Dhydar was simply expounding on this by using the inverse tangent of Qualm’s law, which states that “As Vikings Go So Goes Britian” and since it’s been noted in Viking News Daily that Vikings have increased their spending year after year much like USA (which by the way makes no mention of decreased dollar value or equivalent value of 2009 currency to 1980 currency, that’s Viking journalism for you though) then therefore the answer to your question is, “maybe.”
It is germane to what the two of you are discussing – the meltdown of Brit healthcare. (Note : in english “you” can be 2nd person plural).
I am not discussing British healthcare, I was simply asking for more information about a particular statement.
“Until the 1980’s there was–NO–extreme rationing or problems in the British national health care, until England became overwhelmed by Northern Europeans”
WTF??? There has *always* been rationing in the NHS since its inception in 1948!! In the 1980s, the *Conservative*, pro-capitalist government slashed NHS budgets in the name of capitalism and the “internal market”, causing widespread job cuts, a huge drop in the standard of care in the NHS and a massive increase in ill-health amongst the population arising from unemployment!
And who are these “North Europeans”? The *East* Europeans started to trickle over to the UK in the mid-1990s for work, but I certainly don’t remember hoards of Danes, Swedes, Finns, Icelanders, Norwegians and Suomi descending upon the NHS!!
Should Read only help your Neighbor If they are trying to help themselves. No free loaders. “Cough” Octamom “Cough”
Nyquil?
Dis iz in da wrong spot. Belongz in failblogz.
Oh for the love of god. You belong on Failblog you moron.
But Charro… I haven’t loved god in a while…
*sighs and takes a bit of ice cream*
He never calls anymore….
Well you know, long distance rates being what they are, and God probably doesn’t have a cell phone….
He uses the excuse he’s “always roaming” Omnipresent my ass!
That’s what happens when you let the Little Head take over, and you listen to Catherine Zeta Jones when she tells you that you need T-Mobile!
I dunno… Catherine Alpha Jones is pretty and all… like gorgeous…
But she doesn’t do it for me.
I have T-Mobile. Catherine Zeta Jones can kiss my ass.
*waves AT&T contract at Rando* Come to the Dark Side, Rando! We have iPhones!
The words “early termination fee” strike fear in my heart.
Then allow us to help by setting up an appointment with our Early termination pa-, I mean, our contract dismissal guidance panels… they’re completely option of course *hard stare* Just… sit… right… there….. and we’ll take care of the rest.
I dunno. My grandma did that when she wanted to switch carriers and was never heard from again.
I said just sit right there….. so sit….. dooown.
So what happens next?
*crickets*
I dunno… actually we normally have to tazer you while you try to escape down the hallway…. hmm
*grabs the black bag* I guess I just put this over your head and… take you to the chamber.
*sighs*
Can we at least ACT like you resisted? Just to taze you a little?
*zip ties*
Ve have vays uv making you talk.
Outside your calling plan
I’m not stupid. I’m a really slow runner. That wouldn’t be in my best interests. Besides, I wouldn’t make it down the hallway without having to stop and take a breather.
My apps are free, for the most part. I will gladly take my G1 over the Iphone any day. Real keyboard, open source, and getting better all the time.
I have Sprint – have for 10 years – and I hate them. They’ve been getting better though, I’m still with them because last time my contract was up I negotiated into a good deal. I plan to negotiate a better deal this time around.
I hate them because they are mean sonsofbitches.
I think you can take out Sprint and insert just about any corporations name on that one Charro. From my experiences with corporations they seem to act like we all owe THEM something.
I know, right? I hate it. I hate being in customer service. I hate people. Grrrr.
My wife says that when I go back to school to find something I actually WANT to do, she insists that I find a career where I don’t have to deal with people. I think she’s on to something there. LOL
I hope to live in a lab and play with chemicals.
I like my G1, thank you.
Oh man, I wish I could get one of those, but it’s just too much even with a full upgrade available and the data plan is just too much too.
A necessity in my line of work. GPS, maps, and Internet search. For the Bozo, errrrr, customer who moves and doesn’t change the address when they order online. And never updates the phone numbers either.
My wife and I combined plans, and share minutes. With the fave 5 and free Tmobile to Tmobile, we never go over. That’s how we afford it. And you can get one with a new 2 year for $149 right now. My old Suncom phone died, and I had to get mine while they were still $179. Grrrr, just 2 weeks. We have the $10 unlimited home phone too.
I agree that they have been improving, but I wasn’t unhappy with Suncom. I hated AT&T, and before used Cricket.
Dude, I’m paying about that for three phones on the same plan with unlimited mobile-to-mobile and rollover minutes. I also have unlimited data plans on the two iPhones on the plan, and it’s got all of those features you mentioned. Including the Apple store where you can get pretty much any type of App you want for free.
I used to hate AT&T, but for some reason, in the last year or so, they have shaped up and treated me right. I guess because I’ve been a customer of theirs since I was 20, went to Cingular, and got roped back in when they merged. I really like them. And they have better coverage in rural areas, which is where my parents live.
Too bad I cant seem to get a phone that works where I have signal… But I don’t think that’s AT&T’s fault…
We have one option here in teh rural. “Inland Cellular.”
Verizon just bought ‘em out, which means a new phone for me. I just hope for something resembling coverage.
*has the jealous*
My favorite thing about AT&T is how I seem to have connection issues when speaking to my friends on other networks… I’m not a cellular technology guru, but I’d like to think is corporate warfare!
It is. And they use swords, too.
I have the same connection issues when I am in roaming areas and see AT&T on my phone. Just seems like they give non AT&T customers a crappy line.
Froo, I have a physical keyboard, and a touch screen one. I’m not saying the Iphone is bad, but just not my fancy. I don’t like that it chains you to AT&T and Apple, more than anything. I got rolled over into Tmobile from Suncom, and at first didn’t like it, but they seem to be listening to me.
I like the way the Android operating system works over the Iphone, and I can add memory cards, replace my battery when it goes bad. The one thing you have is multi point touch, because it’s patented. There are some jail break apps that will give it, but I won’t break my phone.
I’d like to be able to use my cell phone in my own freaking house. But that might just be the crappy Samsung phone I’ve been using. My wife just got a new Sony Ericsson that she loves and gave me her old Motorola. In a couple weeks I’ll be looking to upgrade and for a change I want to get a decent phone. Not paying out the butt for something like a G1, but something with a good signal.
You have ice cream?
I always have ice cream. Fortresses of Doom usually do have a stocked kitchen and pantry.
Can I come visit?
You can check in any time you’d like….. But you can neve- Oh hell… you know the rest.
Yeah, please bring me my wine, kthxbai.
I haven’t had that spirit here since….
Woohoo! *swims off for the Fortress* I sure hope Jane is in. I would like her to help me with my hair.
She might be on the Hollywood floor Harassing Keanu Reeves.
Neat. Well can you help me with my hair?
I do a french braid… its a lot like french toast really….
I like French Toast as well.
That’s it, you’ve got me wanting French toast now… To the kitchen! FRENCH TOAST FOR EVERYONE!
French toast sounds amazing. With butter, syrup, and bacon.
Now I’m picturing charro’s hair with butter, powdered sugar, and possibly whipped cream in it.
Which probably means bitter troll stayed over last night again.
Wooo! French toast!! *wipes whipped cream and other toppings from hair*
I sure hope bitter and I didn’t use all the accoutrements last night.
Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither’ –
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, — if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other. – Benjamin Franklin
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -James Bovard
Government help for poverty is akin to Tobacco to calm the nerves. It starts well, but you end up a stinking addict. -Justacarolinian
Volunteering to help your neighbor = good.
Being forced to help every person who comes by because the government forces you to = bad.
Can’t you say that about public education too? People are being “forced” to pay taxes for educating children that don’t belong to them, but that isn’t a horrible thing, is it?
To be honest, the private school system is possibly the worst thing for education as a whole. Even though it is expensive to attend to, it appeals to more teachers that could actually teach kids because of the pay, as opposed to the disheartened public school teachers who can give a flying rats ass due to their measly salaries.
Furthermore, the inner-city public schools suffer even more than their upper-middle class suburban counterparts, because the money collected by school taxes is a substantially higher amount due to the incomes of their latter students’ parents, in contrast to those in the inner-city, who have lower wages. Those who pay rent don’t necessarily have to pay school taxes, causing the public schools to be unable to get a decent budget.
If socialism were to have any positive effect on any part of society, I think primary education would be ideal. But that is just me, I am open to be corrected or opposing statements to convince me otherwise.
You’re educating the children to be wage earners to pay for you when you’re on social security and medicare. Duh!
What part of the cyclical nature of this societal system do people not get?
The trouble is that for the last four decades, the municipal/academic complex has taught children more about taking from the system than about contributing to the system.
Well, yeah. How else can we expect our children to grow up into good little capitalists?
No no no, you’ve got it all wrong.
It’s “Help thy neighbor, but only if they CAN’T help themselves.”
True dat.
Idiots. You’re all like children saying that you don’t want to do a chore to help someone but your parents are making you. And then you claim that will eventually do it anyway. What is so wrong with making people spend money to help those who have less of it?! Some of you have way too much money anyway. You all certainly seemed to be much quieter when Bush was taking your money to kill innocent Iraquis and Americans in a useless war, but now when Obama is making the taxes much greater so they can be used for their actual PURPOSE, helping people, you all complain! You don’t care where your money goes – all that matters is that you don’t lose it. And that others who don’t have enough money don’t get any, because, um…they were always that way, of their own fault. (What? It’s the republican philosopy.)
Don’t any of you understand that the PURPOSE of taxes is to help the lower class?!! It’s just not put there all the time.
No- the purpose of taxes is to pay for basic needs in the community- like armies, fire departments, etc… No where in the Constitution does it say taxes are to help the “Poor”! How’s that Affirmative Action thing working out? It got you a useless president, didn’t it?
You better slow down on the douching, you’re gonna get a terrible yeast infection.
Ooo! A Troll!! (aims cannon)
Takes one to know one
I now pronounce you Troll and Wife. You may slime the Bride.
SB is hardly a troll. People don’t like trolls. We like SB.
I SAID wife.
I like bitter troll…
Um from my non-consensual experience I’d have to say you more than “like” him, dear.
*stands in front of naked baby troids playing in shallows*
Nuh-uh! I saw nothing!
Pfffff. Don’t give me that “non consensual” malarkey. You loved it.
Yeah after I lost consciousness!
Hee hee. And you don’t know what went on after you lost consciousness..
I think I’ve been had… multiple times…
You sure have.
No, no, no — it was white guilt, not affirmative action.
No no no, it was policies clearly laid out in front of the people and not trying to smear his opponent into the ground.
That’s nonsense! There’s no way a black man could be elected president based solely on his merit! It has to be either white guilt or affirmative action, it just has to be!
*shakes his magical 8-ball*
“You… damn… skippy” Weird, never landed on THAT side of the tetrahedron before…
What merit? Community organizer or Most liberal voting senator?
LOL! Are you just being a wingnut, or do you think Obama and his Chicago machine *actually* ran a clean campaign?
On second thought, maybe they did, technically, if they sat back and let loyal apparatchiks like you and Rando make the low-brow racial accusations for them.
-Sighs and falls asleep yet again to people accusing people of being racist and those people accusing the first people of being racist for accusing them of being racist and the first people accusing the second people of being racist for accusing them of being racist for accusing them of being racist-
No, I didn’t space out and double type.
It’s just a vicious circle, this argument.
Shut up, you dirty racist.
To be fair, I wasn’t accusing Max of being racist, just of being a apparatchik who loyally plays the race card on demand. So no, not a racist, just a moron.
Everyone from Chicago is a dirty crook. That’s right. I’m gonna go call my family up there and tell them to stop being part of the machine.
*hides goods guiltily crooked from other people*
What are you talking about, Rando?
The Constitution is a living document, for one thing, and it isn’t the “end all, be all” of things. I think the point Andrew is trying to make is that it seems heartless to ignore the plight of the less fortunate, like those who can’t afford health care. Sure, it may seem bothersome to you, but if you were in their situation, you would wish for health care if you couldn’t buy it with your salary. The majority low-income families are trying hard to make ends meet, and aren’t lazy bums as their richer counterparts stereotype them as. They probably cannot comprehend their situation because they never had to worry about being poor due to their parents being well off.
Secondly, affirmative action has nothing to do with Obama being elected. He ran in an election and won, fair and square. I’m still surprised people are still being sore losers after 8 months. And as for his plans, give it some time. Rome wasn’t built in a day, you know.
Furthermore, I doubt you even know how affirmative action even works. Seriously, if you were disabled, a woman, or a minority who’s race was discriminated for hundreds of years and was turned down for a job or college over an able white man, even though you had equal or better qualifications, you’d be pissed off too. If you had lower qualifications, then you wouldn’t get the job, too bad, that is fair enough. And there have been cases that successfully righted improper usage of affirmative action (i.e. Hopwood v. Texas, [see link]).
But I digress; in conclusion, your idea of “basic needs” may not include universal health care, but some think it should include it. It may help the poor, but the intent is it is to help everyone, as denoted by the adjective “universal”.
Acorn is fair?
Acorn?
Who throws a shoe? Honestly!
Acorns are completely bipartisan.
Except in Illinois.
Exprain prease?
Nobrain lease?
Or.. you could ignore me questioning your very weak talking point, and try to insult me… Nice.
Or you could ignore the humor. Not so nice.
You’re still dodging.
No, I’m not. I’m not going to give you a soap box for your talking points. Don’t act stupid, it doesn’t become you.
My… talking points? I asked you to explain yours.
And as a matter of fact, never mind, I didn’t attack you or poke fun, I asked for an explanation, and all I got back was this defensive mess. If you said something that in hindsight wasn’t funny or unclear, fess up or explain. Don’t do this silly little dance of dodging and projecting onto me.
Good day sir.
“Exprain prease?” “questioning your very weak talking point”
Yeah, you didn’t attack or poke me. Do you actually believe that A.C.O.R.N has a Sarah Palin 2012 campaign going? That they have an autographed painting of Ronald Regan in them main office?
It was just humor. And you were getting ready to launch a flame out that would make a troll jealous.
Mmmm no, I was asking for what you just gave me, it’s sad that you had to get all frothy about that.
Thank you for finally, albeit crudely, giving me what I asked for.
And no, I don’t believe ACORN has any kind of campaign going for anyone. As far as I know, ACORN is there just to get voters registered.
And I hate to be the one to tell you that your comment “Except in Illinois” was the floogate for the flame war. I merely tried to oust it using humor, which you responded with a personal attack.
I hate having to go over what just happened a few posts up. I don’t want to have to do it again.
Keep dreaming. It was everyone having a little fun till you brought your soap box. I guess the soap is in your eyes if you think ACORN does anything to get Republicans elected. Just off the top of my head, didn’t some ACORN workers go to jail for cutting the tires on Vans that were getting out the vote, albeit a Republican one?
Fess up, you just got caught.
Bratwurst anyone?
As I recall, ACORN turned in republican registered voters as well as democrat registered voters.
Ive already laid out the event of this conversation in my previous post. You opened a floodgate, a threw a humor dam down. You tried to be clever in a personal attack, I called you out. I’m not going to help you follow these events anymore.
And I will fess up: I called you out on a dig you made, you got mad, starting flinging insults and instead of backing down and just admitting that you’re flustered and angry that your joke wasn’t funny, you’ve done this.
Once again, ACORN collects voter registrations, that’s all they do. If it WAS ACORN employees who slashed those tires they did so of their own volition. Trying to paint ACORN as some kind of evil partisan organization doesn’t work anymore than you trying to act like you took some king of high ground here with me.
You didn’t, you lose. Good day sir.
Blah blah blah, froth froth froth.
A person made a comment with a political point of view, and you went out for it like a troll after a dead lizard.
Do you realize how stupid you appear when you say that ACORN turned in Republican voters? That’s kinda like the token black guy in the movie.
Froth Boy……You started the insults. And you keep trying to dismiss them by …..Good night……
Not working. It was just a rhyme. And others got it, and made jokes too. But you have been busy being a frothy troll all night to everyone that doesn’t shout “Obama” when they orgasm. This time, go to bed.
*proffers key to 1408*
Do everything I wouldn’t do, you cute little scaliwags!
*sighs* I really don’t even know what to say to you. My purpose throughout this whole… whatever we’ve had together was to get you to speak to another adult, like an adult. I have not insulted you once, while you, on the other hand have felt no shame in just attacking someone who only asked you to explain a joke. One that was obviously obscure for anyone who doesn’t have the same perception of ACORN that you do. I’m sorry that people with different opinions and views make you angry and make you insult people, but that’s an issue of yours I’m not dealing with it anymore, I’ll stick with the other PK regs who can answer a simple question with respect and poise.
Max, you started out with an insult. You started. I repeat, you started.
I made a rhyme off of the purposely misspelled words you posted. Then you fired off with the “oh you insult me and ignore me to get out your talking point.”
And you don’t have talking points…. or thoughts…….
You were digging, and I didn’t play along, so you insulted.
And you still can’t admit it. It’s 1am here. Whine all you want.
Anyone want some s’mores?
I still think 1408 would be the perfect room in this instance…
Justacarolinian I have to agree with Maxwell here. ACORN does not descriminate who they register as voters. Heck..they even register dead people and cartoon characters.
I read in the paper the other day that ACORN opposes my wife’s employer’s industry, so I’m not particularly thrilled with them at the moment either.
Well, Illinois in general does suck ass. You can’t really blame the acorns for that though.
How much does Missouri suck? We wish we were in Illinois.
Missouri blows.
Hang on hang on hang ON! Did you just say that you’re surprised that people are still being sore losers afer 8 months??????????
*dies a little*
You’re going to force me to post a clip of Hillary Clinton comparing election fraud in Africa to what happened in 2000 in Florida, aren’t you? I mean, hell, the woman is clearly still mad about something that happened 9 years ago, and you’re surprised about 8 fricking months?????????
Please don’t make me post that clip! The fondling! It disturbs me in such deep ways!!!!
Well, I didn’t say it wasn’t atypical to see people be sore losers, its just that the level of sore-loser-dom is pretty high this time. Everyone has their individual grudges, for sure, but this is a whinefest I am talking about…don’t get ME started on the guys still trying to prove Obama isn’t a U.S. citizen, and a Muslim. But I digress, immaturity is quite clearly a trait seen in many humans.
Once again, are you freaking kidding me????? There are people STILL claiming Bush wasn’t the legitimate president, and he’s not even in office anymore! Hell, you’ve got a former vice president stomping his feet and screaming like a toddler who didn’t get his way, and he STILL does it. A Secretary of State doing it. Various and sundry pundits on radio and TV doing it…..people protesting outside of Camp David, Crawford, the White House….anywhere that Bush went, butthurt followed him. We were subjected to 8 years of him being called Chimpy McShrub, pictures of Bush as Alfred E. Newman, “art” of Bush with a gun to his head…….
And you’re worried about 8 months?
Damn, people have short memories…….
Okay, okay, you made your point, its annoying that people are still being sore losers about the 2000 election. And I agree with you that it’s even worse than the example I provided. I’m not trying to be provocative here, I just wanted to make a statement in rebuttal to a response earlier. I just didn’t think it was even remotely fair for Trollkiller to call Obama a “useless” president after 8 months of being president. Aside from the election, I don’t remember people complaining about how Bush ran the country for his first 8 months…it was only after 9/11 and his declaration of war on Iraq that the shit really began to fly. But this is basing it on my rather crappy memory…I actually forgot about the Bush election until you brought it up.
Like I said, I am not trying to push your buttons, which I may have done inadvertently, it was just a simple comment.
I was just a little flabbergasted, LOL. You didn’t push my buttons.
I don’t think that Obama has been ineffective in the last 8 months, but like I said earlier, I think he’s like a poorly aimed shotgun. He’s trying to do too much at one time, overhaul things that are WAY too big to overhaul at once, and he’s going to cost himself big in the long run. You can’t just take something that’s been in place as long as healthcare insurance (or whatever the buzz word is today……last week it was healthcare reform with no mention of the insurance companies) and just swing it around as though you’re steering a fishing boat. You have to start small, do it in pieces, and make sure that what you’re doing works first before you commit.
Anyway, I’m a homocidal maniac this week, so I’m allowed to go off a little
I think the problem here froo is that there was too much circumstance around florida and the election.
With Barack… he won… plain and simple. There was no recounting controversy, so silly floridians getting in the way and that Bastard chad stayed the hell away from this election.
Barack won, without a shred of a doubt.
THAT, I think, is the reason why this whine-fest just comes off as juvenile.
I can agree with it phrased like that, but it completely discounts the fact that he won by a greater margin with no irregularity in 2004. So the butthurt about the election previous comes off as stupid to me, especially after this much time has passed.
And that bastard Chad needs to stay away from everything.
HAY GAIZ! WHUT”S GOEN ON HEER!?
ACK!! *runs away screaming*
(as a side note, my last BF was named Chad, and he was a douchebag of such proportions that he made other douchebags ashamed to be douchebags.)
RUN AWAY!! RUN AWAY!!!!!!!!!!
Hi, Chad. I heard in Florida you were very often pregnant, so you and froo have something in common. Play nice, now, or she’ll turn you into a hanging Chad.
Can we make that “hanged Chad”? It would make me feel better….
Jesus Christ! He’s here and he wants to be responsible for a numerical value!! RUN!
I do agree, Bush won and somehow coaxed in a second term.
Which by the powers invested in my by the laws of partisan debating I do hereby decree: “That Means Obama might coax the good people into a second term! After all… Bush = Dumb and Obama = Messiah!”
Just make a note for Axelrod to keep the guy on the TOTUS, for pete’s sake!
If I didn’t know better I’d almost accuse you of making a political Doctor Who reference.
*is too young for Doctor Who*
The new continuation on BBC is hardly for the elder viewers.
Some of them might even object… “Daleks Vs. Cybermen!? WHAT!?”
*hugs Froo* you’re never too young for Dr. Who!
*sneaks over to inconspicous book shelf, pulls down a random book and it opens to reveal a full sized TARDIS with all the Dr. Who. episodes on DVD on one wall next to an empty stand…*
oh shit, who let Dalek out?
It’s not like they made a Joker pic of Bush, or a movie about assassinating him. Oh. Sorry.
view.aspx?ciid=4888042
Please add the cheesburger thing before that, as any time I try to post it, PK eats the post.
“And as for his plans, give it some time. Rome wasn’t built in a day, you know”
No but the Roman empire did fall. Are we next?
if i remember right the roman empire’s downfall had alot to do with infighting, senators and such putting their personal gain above the needs of the country.
if we were to fall, i would think it would be because of the growing schism between the right and left leaning portions of the populace… not healthcare, nor tax reforms nor anything else i’ve seen the obama administration doing during this first year (well, i guess with the obvious exception being that the far right won’t like what obama does even if it falls right in with what they otherwise would want, simply because it’s being done by a democrat).
ultimately, as history repeats itself, the america as we know it more than likely will fall eventually, whether that means it’ll collapse under corruption, split from civil war, become overthrown by an external force or join other countries in a larger, grander nation, or even somethign else, that’s something to consider.