Medicare Reform Fights (new proposal)

[PLAYER57832]

Good, Medicare needs to be eradicated. For some reason, seniors still survived prior to 1965 (or whichever year it was passed). Maybe if families would actually take care of their elderly instead of pawning them off on the government, conditions will actually improve.

Unfortunately, changing Medicare is NOT eradicating it. Ryan's plan does the former, not the latter.

Newsflash... hardly any healthcare was available when Medicare was established. I mean, these people saw polio and small pox vaccines come about.

Just because he wants to do block grants instead of blank checks doesn't mean the entire system is being removed. In fact, that still sounds like spending tons of money that we don't have.

Shows you have not actually read the details of the bill you criticize... but what else is new. It IS a bill to eradicate medicare over time.

Those "block grants" are a back-handed way to ensure no more money is every put into the program, despite the fact that everyone knows true healthcare costs , not simply medicare costs, are increasing.

Telling people "sorry.. no care for you if you weren't born a millionare" is not my idea of "health care reform".

[PLAYER57832]

Yes. "Reform" really isn't a proper euphemism for "eliminating in any recognizable form." Unless Hamas wants to reform Israel, by that turn of phrase.

oh but it is when it comes to gov't taking over healthcare and eliminates the free market involvement. Oh but wait, I'm certain you don't see it that way.

Reform is change, no matter what your politics are. The truth is, if you support Medicare the way it is, you can kiss the United States of America goodbye. If one would risk the existence of their country in order to get a check, well then maybe the country is already sinking. Just understand there are still some people trying to save it.

Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid grow every year, and gobble up 50 cents of every single dollar the US gov't gets. doesnt leave a lot left over for roads and courts and police and schools....Now fast forward 10 years, these entitlements take up over 65% of the entire US budget. 20 years we are around 90%.

did you know, if nobody was willing to borrow to our govt anymore (not a stretch as China is already lowering the bonds they purchase from us to the point where we actually buy our own bonds...insanity) the gov't, after paying all the entitlements, would have about 2 dollars left for defense, trans, education, unemployment, and we wouldn't even be able to pay the interest. Overall point: currently, we borrow just to pay interest on past debt. (not good!)

This is not a healthy balance sheet. It's okay to look at cutting something that was only supposed to spend 120 billion dollars at this time but actually spends over 500 billion. obviously, there is a problem.

Yes, people do depend on entitlements.. they PAY FOR THEM, after all!

Teh right wing wants to turn this into a country where the wealthy get whatever they want and everyone else can shove off with whatever leavings the wealthy deem irrelevant.

The vast majority of people in this country are not and never have been folks who even wanted to be millionaires. They are people who are happy going to work for a steady wage. Some made more, some less depending on skill, but anybody willing to work HARD could get a decent job that paid for house, food, and... beginning in the 50's a small vacation and college for the kids if they kids were so enclined/able.

They all knew it was a bargain... we'll work for a base wage with the understanding we will be able to do OK, not great, but OK, up through old age. Those who did a bit better, worked harder or got more education or just plain were lucky might have a bit to even pass on to their kids. THAT is the REAL American dream!

And THAT is what is being torn away from all Americans. This idea of investing and going out to make millions -- be it from inventing something, buying stocks, finding gold or doing well in business are all illusions. They have always been there, but have never been ways that most people could succeed. By their very nature, they are things a ew can try and succeed with. MOST who try to start a business fail, most who dig for gold failed,too and most people who invest in the stock market don't make a killing.

BUT, if the right wing has its way that normal, traditional path of working for a living, not becoming rich, but never being poor (unless you are very unlucky or a true deadbeat), those options are ALL being taken away.

You talk about "freedom",but what you are truly asking for is little more than slavery for most of America. And no, I do NOT exaggerate. When you work a fulltime job and STILL cannot afford a decent house, food and clothing for your children and healthcare.. that is slavery.

When all those things are offered free for those who don't work.. it is skewed. BUT, we don't need to go back to the days where no one had any chance at much of anything, where people were willing to work 15 hours and more a day in unhealthy conditions, even kids. Yet, that is exactly what the right wing is slowly moving us toward.

Worse, they are even taking away any options to find out about other ways of living, of succeeding. It is no mistake that all these "freedom fighters" are simulaneously cutting education, cutting internet freedoms, cutting fre media outlets, and even libraries. Dumb people are much easier to control.

[Night Strike]

Sorry player, we all know you do everything you can to make sure the government provides everything their citizens want, but that's NOT how this country will succeed. We know you love living off government handouts, but the rest of us want to earn AND KEEP our own money. We'd rather use that money to help out our family and friends when they are in times of need. We do not want to write exorbitant checks to the federal government so they can write blank checks to buy votes. There is nothing less caring for other people then to say the government should provide for their needs. Life is not fair, and you can't force it to be so through redistribution of wealth. We know you want to live in a socialistic society, so please just move to one. Don't change the country that has thrived for 235 years based on freedom.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yes. "Reform" really isn't a proper euphemism for "eliminating in any recognizable form." Unless Hamas wants to reform Israel, by that turn of phrase.

oh but it is when it comes to gov't taking over healthcare and eliminates the free market involvement. Oh but wait, I'm certain you don't see it that way.

Reform is change, no matter what your politics are. The truth is, if you support Medicare the way it is, you can kiss the United States of America goodbye. If one would risk the existence of their country in order to get a check, well then maybe the country is already sinking. Just understand there are still some people trying to save it.

Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid grow every year, and gobble up 50 cents of every single dollar the US gov't gets. doesnt leave a lot left over for roads and courts and police and schools....Now fast forward 10 years, these entitlements take up over 65% of the entire US budget. 20 years we are around 90%.

did you know, if nobody was willing to borrow to our govt anymore (not a stretch as China is already lowering the bonds they purchase from us to the point where we actually buy our own bonds...insanity) the gov't, after paying all the entitlements, would have about 2 dollars left for defense, trans, education, unemployment, and we wouldn't even be able to pay the interest. Overall point: currently, we borrow just to pay interest on past debt. (not good!)

This is not a healthy balance sheet. It's okay to look at cutting something that was only supposed to spend 120 billion dollars at this time but actually spends over 500 billion. obviously, there is a problem.

Yes, people do depend on entitlements.. they PAY FOR THEM, after all!

Teh right wing wants to turn this into a country where the wealthy get whatever they want and everyone else can shove off with whatever leavings the wealthy deem irrelevant.

The vast majority of people in this country are not and never have been folks who even wanted to be millionaires. They are people who are happy going to work for a steady wage. Some made more, some less depending on skill, but anybody willing to work HARD could get a decent job that paid for house, food, and... beginning in the 50's a small vacation and college for the kids if they kids were so enclined/able.

They all knew it was a bargain... we'll work for a base wage with the understanding we will be able to do OK, not great, but OK, up through old age. Those who did a bit better, worked harder or got more education or just plain were lucky might have a bit to even pass on to their kids. THAT is the REAL American dream!

And THAT is what is being torn away from all Americans. This idea of investing and going out to make millions -- be it from inventing something, buying stocks, finding gold or doing well in business are all illusions. They have always been there, but have never been ways that most people could succeed. By their very nature, they are things a ew can try and succeed with. MOST who try to start a business fail, most who dig for gold failed,too and most people who invest in the stock market don't make a killing.

BUT, if the right wing has its way that normal, traditional path of working for a living, not becoming rich, but never being poor (unless you are very unlucky or a true deadbeat), those options are ALL being taken away.

You talk about "freedom",but what you are truly asking for is little more than slavery for most of America. And no, I do NOT exaggerate. When you work a fulltime job and STILL cannot afford a decent house, food and clothing for your children and healthcare.. that is slavery.

Slavery, huh?

Subsidizing poverty through heavy welfare programs is a form of slavery (keep people bound and chained to rely on government handouts to get by in the long-run).

When all those things are offered free for those who don't work.. it is skewed. BUT, we don't need to go back to the days where no one had any chance at much of anything, where people were willing to work 15 hours and more a day in unhealthy conditions, even kids. Yet, that is exactly what the right wing is slowly moving us toward.

"back to the days where no one had any chance at much of anything" = ????? (or whatever time Player wishes to change to)

Nevertheless, increases in labor productivity led to increases in one's real income. In turn, this reduced the need to work 15 hours a day. Technological improvements (partly in the field of labor productivity) showed the benefits and became cheap enough to use in order to improve working conditions, and it even reduced the need for child labor.

If anything, one would want to encourage growth in labor productivity and innovation and to discourage backwards incentives through long-term rewards for people who continue to choose not to produce any further income (since the welfare income they receive plus the <40 or <30 hours of work a week is sufficient to remain content enough).

Worse, they are even taking away any options to find out about other ways of living, of succeeding. It is no mistake that all these "freedom fighters" are simulaneously cutting education, cutting internet freedoms, cutting fre media outlets, and even libraries. Dumb people are much easier to control.

I wouldn't be cynical enough to claim that the government cuts education to foster a higher population of idiots to control for two reasons:

1) People, who are "dumb" and "educated" alike, are already dumb enough to be swayed by the same political tactics and rhetoric

2) The education budget is very easy to cut through political means because the immediate costs are very little and the long-term costs will be more significant at a later time where it becomes unclear which politicians were responsible for which unintended consequences, thus saving their political careers.

_________________________________________________

You say "right wing does this" and "right wing does that," but what really is the "right-wing"?

The right-wing is simply anyone that the left-wing opposes. Yet those of the right-wing are vastly different from one another: monarchists, neo-cons, conservatives, free market advocates, totalitarians, fascists, national socialists, non-socialist anarchists, etc.

All you're doing is arbitrarily drawing lines with which you demonize your opponents. It's a good strategy in verbal gymnastics, but it's still not at all a proper argument.

[PLAYER57832]

Sorry player, we all know you do everything you can to make sure the government provides everything their citizens want, but that's NOT how this country will succeed.

Nice try to paint me as a communist, but not even close.

We know you love living off government handouts

,
Only handout I get are my kids medical insurance. Only handout I EVER got before that was subsidized loans and pell grants. Not going to apologize for either. I paid more than enough taxes, insurance payments to cover both, myself.

Of course, our entire community gets handouts from us every time the fire whistle blows.

but the rest of us want to earn AND KEEP our own money.

Nope, you want to keep OUR money.. that is the problem. Paying someone too little to live upon is not "paying them a wage", it is asking them to subsidize your company. NOT cleaning up your mess IS both asking everyone else to either suffer the medical consequences of pollution AND forcing other to clean up your mess.
And no, contrary to what you seem to have been brainwashed into believing, most of those "restrictive" government rules do have to do with safety... oh yeah, or ensuring that big business gets to do most of what they want (while complaining about it.)

We'd rather use that money to help out our family and friends when they are in times of need.

Then don't vote with the Tea Party OR the Replublicans.. or even many Democrats. They are giving all our money to big corporations.

We do not want to write exorbitant checks to the federal government so they can write blank checks to buy votes. There is nothing less caring for other people then to say the government should provide for their needs. Life is not fair, and you can't force it to be so through redistribution of wealth. We know you want to live in a socialistic society, so please just move to one. Don't change the country that has thrived for 235 years based on freedom.

Keep pretending you are answering anything I actually say. This is not about kindergarten "fairness", this is about promises made to generations that they would get health care coverage and some bare minimum of retirement security when they get older.

This is about thinking about the future and not just the immediate gratification of big business.

The pure stupidity of what you claim is that for all this bit about how lowering taxes will increase business, the real truth is that you get far more by giving very meager amounts to lower income people. Lower income people SPEND money and thus do support the economy. Tax breaks cut our throats.. and allow big businesses to keep pretending they are "creating" something when in fact they are actually drawing far more than they contribute.

Waht made our country great was research, enterpreneurship, etc. NONE of that is supported by big business, despite all the bragging claims of the likes of Trump (yeah.. I know, he's a joker, not a great businessperson). The government is the primary financier of basic research in this country, not business.

[BigBallinStalin]

Waht made our country great was research, enterpreneurship, etc. NONE of that is supported by big business, despite all the bragging claims of the likes of Trump (yeah.. I know, he's a joker, not a great businessperson).

"Big business" (i.e. large corporations) invest heavily into R&D. R&D is the primary source of new products (be they tangible goods, intangible services, and also ideas a.k.a. like business-related methods). Therefore, many "big businesses" or large corporations invest heavily into R&D.

You're denying that the achievement of the assembly line employed by Henry Ford was not supported by big business

You're denying innovations like smartphones (namely the iPhone) were not supported by "big business."

You're denying that Systems Theory (proposed by Deming) is not supported by big business.

You're denying that big business uses the idea of intrapreneurship, which is entrepreneurship conducted within a company.

Your assumption is ridiculous.

The government is the primary financier of basic research in this country, not business.

No, you're completely wrong. See below:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/c0/c0s2.htm

Nearly everywhere, however, decisions affecting the bulk of R&D expenditures are made by industry, thus removing achievement of such a target from direct government control. In the United States, industry funds about 67% of all R&D.

And half of that 33% of government funding isn't necessarily invested in sectors which are most useful to citizens. According to Charles W. Wessner, Ph.D. (Director of the Technology and Innovation at the National Research Council), in 2005 52% of $132bn goes to the Department of Defense.

http://www.6cp.net/downloads/04brussels_wessner.ppt

______________________________

tl;dr

Stop assuming that your beliefs are automatically true simply because you believe them to be true.

[Phatscotty]

Newsflash... hardly any healthcare was available when Medicare was established. I mean, these people saw polio and small pox vaccines come about.

Omg, so America was a piss poor third world country before medicare that allowed all it's suffering people to die? At least we were free.

Freedom is freedom, no matter how hard you pull on people heart-strings.

Player, the perfect system exists for you, where the state takes care of everything. It's called prison. Why don't you just check yourself into a prison instead of trying to build a prison around everyone else?



I dont think your bleeding heart justifies bankrupting our nation. Soon your beloved entitlement are going to swallow defense, education, and transportation.

What good will medicare be when there is no money for the roads to get you to the hospital?
What good will medicare be when there is no money for the schools to educate people to become doctors and nurses?

[GreecePwns]

What is freedom, Scotty? Is the freedom to infringe upon another's freedom freedom?

[Phatscotty]

What is freedom, Scotty? Is the freedom to infringe upon another's freedom freedom?

I know what freedom isn't. You can't be free if you are enslaved to everyone else.

[GreecePwns]

What is freedom, Scotty? Is the freedom to infringe upon another's freedom freedom?

I know what freedom isn't. You can't be free if you are enslaved to everyone else.

If a government permits a certain action, and one, through doing the action, directl or indirectly limits another person's ability to do such an action, is it considered freedom?

[Phatscotty]

What is freedom, Scotty? Is the freedom to infringe upon another's freedom freedom?

I know what freedom isn't. You can't be free if you are enslaved to everyone else.

If a government permits a certain action, and one, through doing the action, directl or indirectly limits another person's ability to do such an action, is it considered freedom?

It's really not complicated. Although you are trying to make it so. Plus I can already see where you are going with this and building the questions in a socialist framework.

1.
the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2.
exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.
the power to determine action without restraint.

[GreecePwns]

No, I'm not framing it in a socialist framework. And don't throw that label around like nothing, because you're just belittling yourself and your arguments by showing you don't know the meaning of the word.

Freedom in the political and philosophical sense is more complex than that. If we're going to go with the definition you have bolded, you're saying freedom in the political sense is anarcho-capitalism. Am I right to say that?

[Phatscotty]

No, I'm not framing it in a socialist framework. And don't throw that label around like nothing, because you're just belittling yourself and your arguments by showing you don't know the meaning of the word.

Freedom in the political and philosophical sense is more complex than that. If we're going to go with the definition you have bolded, you're saying freedom in the political sense is anarcho-capitalism. Am I right to say that?

in an ultimate form, you are close. I prefer a few notches above anarchy. If man were less corruptible, I could bear a few more notches, but that is not the reality.

[Snorri1234]

Her question was "how does privatizing encourage competition" "how does a profit make medicare more efficeint" I am not trying to answer this question, simply because it's the juiciest softball question I have seen in a while and would only answer it to someone I disliked because they might be crying when I'm through, crying over the truth.

I am far more interested in the answer to her question as to how a 78 year old woman with obesity is going to get insurance.

[Snorri1234]

What is freedom, Scotty? Is the freedom to infringe upon another's freedom freedom?

I know what freedom isn't. You can't be free if you are enslaved to everyone else.

Obviously not. Good to see you still have somewhat of an understanding of what words mean.

[BigBallinStalin]

Her question was "how does privatizing encourage competition" "how does a profit make medicare more efficeint" I am not trying to answer this question, simply because it's the juiciest softball question I have seen in a while and would only answer it to someone I disliked because they might be crying when I'm through, crying over the truth.

I am far more interested in the answer to her question as to how a 78 year old woman with obesity is going to get insurance.

lose weight?

If not, then pay for the costs of one's own self-imposed obesity (which is what happens in almost all cases).

[GreecePwns]

Snorri, obesity is a bad example.

[Phatscotty]

Her question was "how does privatizing encourage competition" "how does a profit make medicare more efficeint" I am not trying to answer this question, simply because it's the juiciest softball question I have seen in a while and would only answer it to someone I disliked because they might be crying when I'm through, crying over the truth.

I am far more interested in the answer to her question as to how a 78 year old woman with obesity is going to get insurance.

The free market brings prices down. The insurance will be more affordable.

Taking the gov't out of the redistribution chain is like eliminating the middle man, and skipping over the 35% gov't wastes of every dollar.

That alone will bring prices down, simply by allowing the 35% the gov't wastes to go where it was originally needed, along with the 65%. We can add the reality that the government also only pays the doctors/hospitlals about 60 cents on the dollar for all charges submitted, making the true amount that the recipients finally receive less than 50%. It's no wonder the doctors/hospitals have to raise prices to account for the Medicare loss. This is what happens when gov't tries to steer market based on fairness. In the end the only fairness is that 95% of us get the same and equal crappy healthcare, while the top 5% of the richest get the best healthcare.

[PLAYER57832]

Her question was "how does privatizing encourage competition" "how does a profit make medicare more efficeint" I am not trying to answer this question, simply because it's the juiciest softball question I have seen in a while and would only answer it to someone I disliked because they might be crying when I'm through, crying over the truth.

I am far more interested in the answer to her question as to how a 78 year old woman with obesity is going to get insurance.

The free market brings prices down. The insurance will be more affordable.

So that is why other countries pay so much less than we do? OOPS FAIL.. OTHER COUNTRIES PAY LESS!!!!!

Taking the gov't out of the redistribution chain is like eliminating the middle man, and skipping over the 35% gov't wastes of every dollar.

LOL

in truth, phattscotty, even 10 years ago most doctors office had a doctor or two who shared a receptionist, maybe a nurse. Now it takes 8 people just to fill out the many insurance forms!

The insurance industry is not about helping people, it is about making money. In most cases, profit is fine. BUT, when making a profit means my neighbor is denied care she needs, when my husband cannot get insurance because of a pre-existing condition, when, if the healthcare bill is erased even my kids won't be eligible for private insurance due to pre-existing conditions, that is not a legitimate profit!

That alone will bring prices down, simply by allowing the 35% the gov't wastes to go where it was originally needed, along with the 65%.

Medical care is not a free market. You need to study that term before being so smug in your response. It is not a free market because when your child is facing an appendix attack or you are bleeding heavily, even experiencing heart pains, you don't get to go out and choose where you go. You go to the nearest facility that is open, with a few exceptions mostly in big cities that have more than one available hospital.

It is not a free market because unlike plumbing, which most people understand even if they don't have the skill to do it, medicine takes years to even begin to truly understand.

It is not a free market because unlike a refridgerator, which you can return if it fails, you cannot "return" an appendectomy or stitches or medicine.

It is not a free market because the ones using insurance are not the ones buying it. Employers, not individuals are the drivers behind insurance purchases. In fact, individual payors pay MORE, not less... IF they are lucky enough to even qualify for insurance.

We can add the reality that the government also only pays the doctors/hospitlals about 60 cents on the dollar for all charges submitted, making the true amount that the recipients finally receive less than 50%.

I see.. first you complain that Medicare is costing too much, now you claim they are paying too little? Classic far right rhetoric! And, you ignore the private payments besides.

Blue Cross, other insurance companies flat out denies a large portion of charges submitted --and I do NOT mean for any real reason, it is a pure delaying tactic. They also have contracted to pay the barest minimum of payment, BUT this means that BOTH the government and private payors pay more! Talk to a doctor lately?

the doctors/hospitals have to raise prices to account for the Medicare loss.

LOL.. try looking at what insurance companies do! The ONLY people who pay the "true cost" are the unisured... and maybe foreigners (? manyt of them who come here for medical care have insurance)

This is what happens when gov't tries to steer market based on fairness. In the end the only fairness is that 95% of us get the same and equal crappy healthcare, while the top 5% of the richest get the best healthcare.

Now you try to bring up FAIRNESS??????

Seems like the scenario you describe above is exactly the "doomsday" you predicted from socialized medicine... problem is, we don't have socialized medicine and those countries that do, don't have the problems you note above.

But go on... when did you ever worry about truth on this issue? You want to keep believing the baloney you have been hand-fed by the far right. (note, I did not say conservatives!)

EDIT -- OOPS, made one small goof. The scenario you described was that no one, not even the wealthy would get decent health care. Once again, your true intentions become clear... only the very wealthy matter. Everyone else is just a "lazy bum" who should not expect more than what the wealthy are willing to throw out.

[PLAYER57832]

What is freedom, Scotty? Is the freedom to infringe upon another's freedom freedom?

I know what freedom isn't. You can't be free if you are enslaved to everyone else.

According to you, its OK to be enslaved to the big corporations.. in fact, seems like you already are. You don't seem to be able to think anything other than what you have been fed.

[PLAYER57832]

Newsflash... hardly any healthcare was available when Medicare was established. I mean, these people saw polio and small pox vaccines come about.

Omg, so America was a piss poor third world country before medicare that allowed all it's suffering people to die? At least we were free.

Freedom is freedom, no matter how hard you pull on people heart-strings.

Freedom requires access to money and someone to protect the weak. You want to deny most people both of those. That's not freedom, that is slavery.

Player, the perfect system exists for you, where the state takes care of everything. It's called prison. Why don't you just check yourself into a prison instead of trying to build a prison around everyone else?



I dont think your bleeding heart justifies bankrupting our nation. Soon your beloved entitlement are going to swallow defense, education, and transportation
What good will medicare be when there is no money for the roads to get you to the hospital?

LOL... seen our roads lately? Obviously not. Simply bringing our roads and bridges up to safe standards will cost several trillion dollars. That's because our brilliant legislators have refused to fund repair and maintenance.

What good will medicare be when there is no money for the schools to educate people to become doctors and nurses?

So, your answer is to get rid of Medicare?
MY answer is to tax the wealthy... and to require more responsibility from corporations. Not sure where you get "bleeding heart" from that...

[PLAYER57832]

Slavery, huh?

Subsidizing poverty through heavy welfare programs is a form of slavery (keep people bound and chained to rely on government handouts to get by in the long-run).

I agree, but note that I am talking about WORKING PEOPLE. That is the stupid irony of today..the wealthy get tax breaks, the poor get subsidized. Its mostly the middle class bearing the burdens.. and getting the least.

And, meanwhile we are told that removing all regulations is the answer.

BP gets to destroy the income, lives of MILLIONS of people, all but destroy not one, but several ecosystems ( and they are STILL very much underplaying the full damage!). The banks get to offer loans to people who obviously cannot afford them, then turn around and foreclose on homes they don't even own ..and yet deregulation is supposed to make things better!

When all those things are offered free for those who don't work.. it is skewed. BUT, we don't need to go back to the days where no one had any chance at much of anything, where people were willing to work 15 hours and more a day in unhealthy conditions, even kids. Yet, that is exactly what the right wing is slowly moving us toward.

"back to the days where no one had any chance at much of anything" = ????? (or whatever time Player wishes to change to)

Scratch that.. there was a chance. If you could manage to get a piece of land, then you could farm, you could do for yourself. Problem is.. those lands are now taken away, too. Either owned by huge agribusiness that operate barely healthy or outright unhealthy operations, that pollute as bad as any factory (sometimes worse) and that are managed by people who live far away.

Water used to be available for most people in rural areas. Now, more often it is poisoned or there are rules preventing access. (note, not talking sensible rules to protect habitat, I mean that legislation is turning the greatest truly public resource we have had into something private)

Nevertheless, increases in labor productivity led to increases in one's real income. In turn, this reduced the need to work 15 hours a day. Technological improvements (partly in the field of labor productivity) showed the benefits and became cheap enough to use in order to improve working conditions, and it even reduced the need for child labor.

Ever read the rat race?
Anyway, I am not a luddite. However, you cannot simply say "more productivity is always good" or more technology is always good. More often now, its not more productivity, its "efficiency". "Efficiency" that means fewer people working.. fewer people buying things. Maybe efficient for the company, but not the nation. Worse, its not even efficiency increases we see most often, its going overseas to cut costs... So, the big companies get tax breaks on the theory of creating jobs, but instead the jobs they create are all overseas. Then they cut wages here, under (again) the theory of preserving profits, but in fact wind up cutting the purchasing power of Americans through those lower wages (with the exception of the very wealthy, of course), so the economy gets driven even more into the tank.

If anything, one would want to encourage growth in labor productivity and innovation and to discourage backwards incentives through long-term rewards for people who continue to choose not to produce any further income (since the welfare income they receive plus the <40 or <30 hours of work a week is sufficient to remain content enough).

WAIT A MINUTE... you are talking about people who are working 30 and 40 hours a week who are on welfare?????

NO..that is the problem! Anyone who is working fulltime should be paid enough to not need welfare.. if they are getting so little that they still earn subsidies ,t hen the company is stealing from taxpayers.. pretending to pay wages, when, in fact, they are pushing people off onto taxpayers to support so they can take more profits!

Second, the almight "god" of growth cannot continue. We need sustainability, not growth. Growth requires new resources, generally exploitation of another area. I realize that a lot of big business folks are happy making the US their newest colony, but the American people are not.. well, should not be, except they keep believing the pablum they are fed.

Worse, they are even taking away any options to find out about other ways of living, of succeeding. It is no mistake that all these "freedom fighters" are simulaneously cutting education, cutting internet freedoms, cutting fre media outlets, and even libraries. Dumb people are much easier to control.

I wouldn't be cynical enough to claim that the government cuts education to foster a higher population of idiots to control for two reasons:

1) People, who are "dumb" and "educated" alike, are already dumb enough to be swayed by the same political tactics and rhetoric

No, highly educated people still tend to be liberal.. not always, but very often. However, you have to be educated in something other than big business to see that impact. That is, after all why we have the myth of the "liberal elite".

2) The education budget is very easy to cut through political means because the immediate costs are very little and the long-term costs will be more significant at a later time where it becomes unclear which politicians were responsible for which unintended consequences, thus saving their political careers.

consequences are intended.

You say "right wing does this" and "right wing does that," but what really is the "right-wing"?

The right-wing is simply anyone that the left-wing opposes.

No, and particularly not the far right.

The right wing are the ones that want to hand control over to private entities... both big business and then ultimately dictators. Gvoernment is the entity that can control the big guys and protect the masses, when the masses have a say in the government.

Big businesses find ways to have their say in dictators.. until they get too dictatorial and then they do kill business, but those dictatorships tend not to last.

Yet those of the right-wing are vastly different from one another: monarchists, neo-cons, conservatives, free market advocates, totalitarians, fascists, national socialists, non-socialist anarchists, etc.

No, ocnservatives are not in the far right, nor are many of those others, until they get into extremes. When they get into extremes, they all pretty much look like one another.

A monarchist wants to cede control to a monarchy, a totalitarian to a dictator, and fascists to the most powerful (under the guise of something else)... the result is all the same. A few people get to control what everyone else gets to do. That even works for a while, like Machiavelli predicts. As long as the masses are appeased "just enough", things stay relatively calm. Of course, what he failed to mention was the business class. They are the "new nobles", essentially, they have to be greatly appeased if the power wants to stay in power.

But anyway.. no, you speak of distinctions without a difference.

All you're doing is arbitrarily drawing lines with which you demonize your opponents. It's a good strategy in verbal gymnastics, but it's still not at all a proper argument.

No, I am speaking of specific very, very bad ideas and plans. I address each and every point, sometimes referring to the far right or conservatives (this is NOT conservativism, though!) at the end.

[SirSebstar]

If i read the OP's first post correctly more then 50% of the fed's budget goes to pay for some kind of subsedie. subsedies to individuals or states.
the rest, 45% goes to the military and the state itself..
Is that about correct?
So the state for the people and by the people spends just about half on the people?

Hell, a kind of insurance for the sick should be obtainable by all but those who comit fraud with ti. As should shelter, food, clothing and education.
Anybody who says that this is all a communist plot should realy look back once you reach the time when you need someone else to help. I hope you get the help you need, but in a world where you simply trample on the weak, you are the weak...eventually.

it is not about communism. it is about takeing care of the basic needs of everybody. If thats done, then its okay for a state not to go further. I concur that a state should be for the people and by the people and not for the state. I see the state grow in power every day, and doing things it claims are for my own good where i know it will end up being used against me. This is bad.

there are some very simple changes that can end this quite easely. Make politicians responsiable for a deficit. make directors of compagny's personable responsiable when theydeny a legitimate claim, or when the compagny destroys something (like nature), and do away with all the protective laws that prevent such accountability.

Oh and although I am a fan on damages, I think a german system where the damages go to a state controlled fund is a much better solution then setting people up with ambulance chasers...

[BigBallinStalin]

Slavery, huh?

Subsidizing poverty through heavy welfare programs is a form of slavery (keep people bound and chained to rely on government handouts to get by in the long-run).

I agree, but note that I am talking about WORKING PEOPLE. That is the stupid irony of today..the wealthy get tax breaks, the poor get subsidized. Its mostly the middle class bearing the burdens.. and getting the least.

And, meanwhile we are told that removing all regulations is the answer.

BP gets to destroy the income, lives of MILLIONS of people, all but destroy not one, but several ecosystems ( and they are STILL very much underplaying the full damage!). The banks get to offer loans to people who obviously cannot afford them, then turn around and foreclose on homes they don't even own ..and yet deregulation is supposed to make things better!
[/color]

When all those things are offered free for those who don't work.. it is skewed. BUT, we don't need to go back to the days where no one had any chance at much of anything, where people were willing to work 15 hours and more a day in unhealthy conditions, even kids. Yet, that is exactly what the right wing is slowly moving us toward.

"back to the days where no one had any chance at much of anything" = ????? (or whatever time Player wishes to change to)

Scratch that.. there was a chance. If you could manage to get a piece of land, then you could farm, you could do for yourself. Problem is.. those lands are now taken away, too. Either owned by huge agribusiness that operate barely healthy or outright unhealthy operations, that pollute as bad as any factory (sometimes worse) and that are managed by people who live far away.

Water used to be available for most people in rural areas. Now, more often it is poisoned or there are rules preventing access. (note, not talking sensible rules to protect habitat, I mean that legislation is turning the greatest truly public resource we have had into something private)

Nevertheless, increases in labor productivity led to increases in one's real income. In turn, this reduced the need to work 15 hours a day. Technological improvements (partly in the field of labor productivity) showed the benefits and became cheap enough to use in order to improve working conditions, and it even reduced the need for child labor.

Ever read the rat race?
Anyway, I am not a luddite. However, you cannot simply say "more productivity is always good" or more technology is always good. More often now, its not more productivity, its "efficiency". "Efficiency" that means fewer people working.. fewer people buying things. Maybe efficient for the company, but not the nation. Worse, its not even efficiency increases we see most often, its going overseas to cut costs... So, the big companies get tax breaks on the theory of creating jobs, but instead the jobs they create are all overseas. Then they cut wages here, under (again) the theory of preserving profits, but in fact wind up cutting the purchasing power of Americans through those lower wages (with the exception of the very wealthy, of course), so the economy gets driven even more into the tank.

If anything, one would want to encourage growth in labor productivity and innovation and to discourage backwards incentives through long-term rewards for people who continue to choose not to produce any further income (since the welfare income they receive plus the <40 or <30 hours of work a week is sufficient to remain content enough).

WAIT A MINUTE... you are talking about people who are working 30 and 40 hours a week who are on welfare?????

NO..that is the problem! Anyone who is working fulltime should be paid enough to not need welfare.. if they are getting so little that they still earn subsidies ,t hen the company is stealing from taxpayers.. pretending to pay wages, when, in fact, they are pushing people off onto taxpayers to support so they can take more profits!

Second, the almight "god" of growth cannot continue. We need sustainability, not growth. Growth requires new resources, generally exploitation of another area. I realize that a lot of big business folks are happy making the US their newest colony, but the American people are not.. well, should not be, except they keep believing the pablum they are fed.

Worse, they are even taking away any options to find out about other ways of living, of succeeding. It is no mistake that all these "freedom fighters" are simulaneously cutting education, cutting internet freedoms, cutting fre media outlets, and even libraries. Dumb people are much easier to control.

I wouldn't be cynical enough to claim that the government cuts education to foster a higher population of idiots to control for two reasons:

1) People, who are "dumb" and "educated" alike, are already dumb enough to be swayed by the same political tactics and rhetoric

No, highly educated people still tend to be liberal.. not always, but very often. However, you have to be educated in something other than big business to see that impact. That is, after all why we have the myth of the "liberal elite".

2) The education budget is very easy to cut through political means because the immediate costs are very little and the long-term costs will be more significant at a later time where it becomes unclear which politicians were responsible for which unintended consequences, thus saving their political careers.

consequences are intended.

You say "right wing does this" and "right wing does that," but what really is the "right-wing"?

The right-wing is simply anyone that the left-wing opposes.

No, and particularly not the far right.

The right wing are the ones that want to hand control over to private entities... both big business and then ultimately dictators. Gvoernment is the entity that can control the big guys and protect the masses, when the masses have a say in the government.

Big businesses find ways to have their say in dictators.. until they get too dictatorial and then they do kill business, but those dictatorships tend not to last.

Yet those of the right-wing are vastly different from one another: monarchists, neo-cons, conservatives, free market advocates, totalitarians, fascists, national socialists, non-socialist anarchists, etc.

No, ocnservatives are not in the far right, nor are many of those others, until they get into extremes. When they get into extremes, they all pretty much look like one another.

A monarchist wants to cede control to a monarchy, a totalitarian to a dictator, and fascists to the most powerful (under the guise of something else)... the result is all the same. A few people get to control what everyone else gets to do. That even works for a while, like Machiavelli predicts. As long as the masses are appeased "just enough", things stay relatively calm. Of course, what he failed to mention was the business class. They are the "new nobles", essentially, they have to be greatly appeased if the power wants to stay in power.

But anyway.. no, you speak of distinctions without a difference.

All you're doing is arbitrarily drawing lines with which you demonize your opponents. It's a good strategy in verbal gymnastics, but it's still not at all a proper argument.

No, I am speaking of specific very, very bad ideas and plans. I address each and every point, sometimes referring to thefar right or conservatives (this is NOT conservativism, though!) at the end.

Here's your line of reasoning summarized:

1) Give generalized "fact" without questioning its validity, its soundness, or even bothering with learning contradictory empirical evidence

2) Strawman fallacy

3) Ignore other significant factors

4) Reading miscomprehension

[BigBallinStalin]

Waht made our country great was research, enterpreneurship, etc. NONE of that is supported by big business, despite all the bragging claims of the likes of Trump (yeah.. I know, he's a joker, not a great businessperson).

"Big business" (i.e. large corporations) invest heavily into R&D. R&D is the primary source of new products (be they tangible goods, intangible services, and also ideas a.k.a. like business-related methods). Therefore, many "big businesses" or large corporations invest heavily into R&D.

You're denying that the achievement of the assembly line employed by Henry Ford was not supported by big business

You're denying innovations like smartphones (namely the iPhone) were not supported by "big business."

You're denying that Systems Theory (proposed by Deming) is not supported by big business.

You're denying that big business uses the idea of intrapreneurship, which is entrepreneurship conducted within a company.

Your assumption is ridiculous.

The government is the primary financier of basic research in this country, not business.

No, you're completely wrong. See below:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/c0/c0s2.htm

Nearly everywhere, however, decisions affecting the bulk of R&D expenditures are made by industry, thus removing achievement of such a target from direct government control. In the United States, industry funds about 67% of all R&D.

And half of that 33% of government funding isn't necessarily invested in sectors which are most useful to citizens. According to Charles W. Wessner, Ph.D. (Director of the Technology and Innovation at the National Research Council), in 2005 52% of $132bn goes to the Department of Defense.

http://www.6cp.net/downloads/04brussels_wessner.ppt

______________________________

tl;dr

Stop assuming that your beliefs are automatically true simply because you believe them to be true.

Would you like to dispute the above facts or for once actually concede and maybe learn something that contradicts your beliefs?