Equality?

[steelish]

One of the things Obama wants to do is "spread the wealth", which, in my eyes, equates to equality of the economic classes.

Is such a thing possible? How can a nation of so many people, who are spread across such a large country and are so diverse (by diverse I mean in education, skill sets, etc.) ever be "equal"?

Your thoughts/opinions????

[oww-that-hurt]

We are all "equal" in regards to rights and how laws should apply to us. But, that is basically where it ends. Now, if we could only get all of these "bad" laws removed from the books.

My good old dictionary brings up things like being the same measure, quantity, value, quality, number, degree or status as another. That is where the discussion gets opened up wide for so many interpretations and applications that none of us are truly "equal" to one another in every sense of the word.

"Spreading the wealth" is a crock, too. You work for it, you get paid for it. If a person drives themselves to get an advance education, then applies that education in a GOOD way, that person should be expected to be compensated for that. If that person uses their education in a BAD way (tax fraud) they should be compensated with prison time.

[Thorne]

If anyone wants to spread some of their "wealth" in my direction, I'll be more than happy to take some of it off their hands. That's what charity is for, isn't it? Sharing the wealth?

If someone wants to spread some of MY wealth around, on the other hand, that's robbery! That's what prisons are for.

And you'll notice that those who are most eager to "share the wealth" are those who either don't have any to share or those who will, in all likelihood, exempt themselves from having to actually share anything.

No, equality does not mean that you can have everything that I've worked hard to acquire. It only means that you can have the same opportunity to work just as hard to acquire your own.

And I don't share.

[Lion]

Isn't public education a form of equality?

[oww-that-hurt]

Isn't public education a form of equality?

In the U.S. at this time, the sad answer is no. There isn't even any equality between the dozen school districts in my COUNTY. Take a location, such as Montana, that has local school districts being ran by local school boards with the local taxpayers voting on issues and if approved then the property owners pay taxes for those issues. The more affluent school districts have more educational and sports choices, by voter approval, than the less affluent. Some school districts have swim teams, some school districts don't even have a pool within 100 miles.

The environment for the public schools are very far from any equal footing, as well. Urban, suburban, rural and remote public schools are so unequal in many facets that they really can't be in the same conversation. That is one reason 'nickle-be' will never work; one formula for such a diverse group of circumstances is unreasonable, as noble as some people may feel it might be.

Many school districts are too small to reasonably be required to have a Chemistry teacher, for example. But many times those kids are too far from a school district that has a Chemistry teacher to be bused to. And, since the school district that has the Chemistry teacher isn't supported by taxes for those other school district kids to attend their school, if they decide to accept a limited (key word) number of out-of district kids, they charge tuition. They must. Their budgets aren't built around other school district's kids. I know I sure don't want MY property taxes to pay for school kids from another district. I didn't vote for that. Like Thorne said previously, and I feel the same way concerning this issue "And I don't share." Thanks, Thorne!

So, as it stands now, public education isn't a form of equality. Yeah, we all have the equal opportunity to attend, but that is the end of it.

Damn husbands (me) of long-time school teachers are opinionated!

[steelish]

Isn't public education a form of equality?

All Americans have the equal right to pursue an education and we have free public schools. Unfortunately, the Department of Education is so top heavy and has drained educational funding. Not only that but the federal government keeps cutting back on education, yet I don't see them cutting back on their own spending.

Obama speaks specifically of spreading the wealth economically. I have never seen evidence that it is possible for a country to contain people who are "equal" in terms of economic wealth. It is impossible to bring poverty level or "poor" people up to the middle class or upper/middle class level and have everyone at that level. In doing so you would have to also bring upper class and rich down to middle or upper/middle class level.

In doing this, what we will end up with is a nation of bitter, unhappy people looking to overthrow their government because in essence, what the government will be doing is "forcing" charity, which doesn't really make it charity. Charity comes from the heart and is given freely. I know many countries frown upon America and even hate us. We are one of the most charitable nations on earth so I find it quite ironic that we are being viewed as "hating the poor". In my opinion, the people from other countries who feel this way see sensationalized stories on mainstream media and think they know the "real" America.

[Ozme52]

It would never work... and the best way to quash the attempt is to enact it serially.

Determine what an "equal" share is... and start by reducing the income (and holdings) of the legislators, judges, and executives of our government to those levels.

Thorne sums it up... including the intent of the founding fathers (who were so bloody rich, they could foment and support a revolution.)


No, equality does not mean that you can have everything that I've worked hard to acquire. It only means that you can have the same opportunity to work just as hard to acquire your own.


btw... another aspect to consider. Removing wealth eliminates the potential to organize dissent. It's a totalitarian truism.

[VaAugusta]

And you'll notice that those who are most eager to "share the wealth" are those who either don't have any to share or those who will, in all likelihood, exempt themselves from having to actually share anything.

Actually, those who are in most need of wealth redistribution have little to no say in government affairs. I've been in the capitol building and I didn't see any homeless children speaking in front of Congress.

[Thorne]

Actually, those who are in most need of wealth redistribution have little to no say in government affairs. I've been in the capitol building and I didn't see any homeless children speaking in front of Congress.

That's primarily because Congress doesn't want to see homeless children. It might make them rethink those exorbitant salaries and perks they get. For about 5 seconds.

But if you actually talk to poor people, and listen to what they are saying, many of them parrot the talk of socialism and even communism. "Those people are too rich. They should share some of their money with the poor."

I worked with someone like that. A reliable worker, bright and able. Not well educated, and didn't want to do the work necessary to improve himself. Yet always complaining about how other people were making too much money. And when I tried to explain to him that those people went to school to learn what they needed, that those people kept learning after school, that those people constantly tried improving their skills, he would claim they were oppressing him. He wasn't interested in sharing what he made with those worse off than himself, but he was very interested in taking money and property away from those better off than himself.

I'm with Oz on this one. Any "sharing" has to come from our political leaders, first and foremost.

[TantricSoul]

One of the things Obama wants to do is "spread the wealth", which, in my eyes, equates to equality of the economic classes.

Is such a thing possible?

Yes I think it is possible. On a small scale, Ive seen the concept succeed in the form of co-ops and communes. However I do not think such a change is likely to "materialize" on a national level anytime soon. Ridding ourselves of the concept of social or economic classes would be a fantastic occurrence for our species. However the changes in thought process' required would be numerous, drastic, and highly contested, after all, many are not ready to give up on the logical fallacy that "he who dies with the most toys wins."

How can a nation of so many people, who are spread across such a large country and are so diverse (by diverse I mean in education, skill sets, etc.) ever be "equal"?

Equal in the same sense as 1 = 1? true equality?
I would say that only occurs two times in each of our lives. The moment of birth and the moment of death. Equality between those two moments is highly subjective.

Your thoughts/opinions????

It seems clear to me that there is no equality in the material sense between we humans. I disagree that we even all have equal opportunity, or are equaly protected and represented in our legal system.
It sounds nice. It looks good on paper, but is not what i witness happening.

Regarding sharing of material assets; I do hope the time comes where we can "share" what resources are available so that all humans have food, shelter and medical care. That we can fashion modalities so that as everyone benefits, so also does everyone contribute, similar to a co-op or commune, or tribal system.

The Human Tribe.

Because my brothers and sisters, on a far larger scale, we are not only equal, but connected, one and the same. Einstein, Buddha, Jesus and many, many others have said (using different words) that we are all interconnected, everything, everyone.

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." ~ Albert Einstein

Yes it will be a glorious time when we interact with ourselves compassionately instead of selfishly.


Respectfully,
TS


:)

[Thorne]

:)many are not ready to give up on the logical fallacy that "he who dies with the most toys wins."
That quote is wrong on so many levels. But basically it should read, "He who lives with the best toys wins!"

I have no qualms about buying trinkets and toys if I can afford them. I've worked my whole life to be able to afford them. And I don't believe that everyone has an equal right to own those same trinkets and toys unless they've earned them and can afford them as well.



Regarding sharing of material assets; I do hope the time comes where we can "share" what resources are available so that all humans have food, shelter and medical care. That we can fashion modalities so that as everyone benefits, so also does everyone contribute, similar to a co-op or commune, or tribal system.
And yet this concept has failed miserably all over the world. Oh, sure, on a small scale it can work: families, small groups, perhaps even tribes. But once a group reaches a certain density (and I have no idea how to determine what that density may be) you develop classes. Someone who is good at one thing trades his work for someone else's work. If you're good enough at what you do your work is in demand, and you can trade at more advantageous rates. Why, for example, should a spear-maker trade his spears to a lazy hunter who only brings him scavenged, half-rotten meat, when he can trade them to the good hunter who brings him fresh-killed, prime meat? And once he has that meat, assuming he doesn't waste it, why should he be forced to share it with the bum who doesn't bother to hunt or scavenge but only begs from others?

Similar rules apply to modern scenarios. Why should someone bother to do all the hard work, spend all that time in education and training, to become a doctor if, without lifting a finger, he will be supplied with the same compensation as everyone else? Without the stimulus of a better lifestyle, there is no reason to try to succeed.

Every truly socialist state in history (to my admittedly uncertain knowledge) has only been able to survive through fear and the utter degradation of the populace, while the hierarchy reaped all the benefits. And each of those states evolved either into self-destroying dictatorships (Soviet Union & North Korea) or more capitalist societies (China). Just ask the North Korean people if they enjoy being so "equal."

Basic food, basic shelter, basic medicine, yes these should be available to all citizens. Should everyone be supplied with a million dollar home just because some people can afford them? No! Should everyone be allowed to eat at the finest restaurants just because some people can? No again! Should everyone be provided the best quality medical care just because some can afford it? A third NO!

[Thorne]

:)
Because my brothers and sisters, on a far larger scale, we are not only equal, but connected, one and the same. Einstein, Buddha, Jesus and many, many others have said (using different words) that we are all interconnected, everything, everyone.
This is, if you'll pardon the expression, horseshit! It implies a supernatural/metaphysical/undefinable/magical thread linking us one to another, without providing any evidence for such a thread. We must take it on faith, just because someone says so? I think not!


"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." ~ Albert Einstein
While we may all be a part of the whole, it does not necessarily follow that we are all an equal or integral part. The universe has a way of tossing parts aside haphazardly, to the benefit of some and the detriment of most. Which side of the equation you end up on is mostly a matter of luck.


Yes it will be a glorious time when we interact with ourselves compassionately instead of selfishly.
I am always compassionate when interacting with myself. And selfish, too. It's a lot less messy than interacting with anyone else.

[SadisticNature]

One of the things Obama wants to do is "spread the wealth", which, in my eyes, equates to equality of the economic classes.

Is such a thing possible? How can a nation of so many people, who are spread across such a large country and are so diverse (by diverse I mean in education, skill sets, etc.) ever be "equal"?

Your thoughts/opinions????

I think there is a pretty big difference between having Tax brackets and spreading the wealth. At the levels proposed it is also pretty ridiculous to claim what is wanted is equality of economic classes, at best the goal is slightly reducing disparity.

As for the possibility, absolutely it is possible, taxes were around 70% on the top bracket from post-world war II up until Reagan, and those were pretty good years for USA.

As for outright equality in the communist sense, it is absolutely without a doubt impossible in the US. Despite some portrayals to the contrary, the vast majority of the left is vehemently opposed to communism.

I think the framing of the question is a big issue here you seem to be presenting it as we have two options:

(i) Enforce absolute equality (is this even possible)

(ii) Do nothing whatsoever to towards any form of egalitarianism.

And whenever someone attempts to oppose (ii), they get accused of supporting (i), even despite a long track record to the contrary.

[denuseri]

So let me get this straight...some people think it's a good thing that less than 1/10 of 1% of a population is allowed to control 95% of the wealth in it?

[Thorne]

So let me get this straight...some people think it's a good thing that less than 1/10 of 1% of a population is allowed to control 95% of the wealth in it?

That would depend on how they got it, don't you think? If they worked for it, or their parents worked for it, then yes. If they stole it, then no.

[SadisticNature]

That would depend on how they got it, don't you think? If they worked for it, or their parents worked for it, then yes. If they stole it, then no.

I think "allowed to control" is kind of awkward. It seems to suggest society should basically forcibly take away this money at the point of a gun.

I think from a societal perspective such a massive accumulation of wealth in the hands of so few is very bad. For instance, it has been shown to radically increase crime and cause other problems.

I think the question is more: How can one justify decreasing taxes on the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class when the income disparity is so extreme?

In my parents generation the major corporate CEO's earned 20 times what the average worker did. There are CEO's now that earn more in a minute than a minimum wage job holder earns in a year. And if that's what their skills justify than fine. But keep that in mind when you suggest cutting that guys taxes and paying for it by raising taxes on that minimum wage earner.

Also from the earned perspective, why does it make sense to slash inheritance taxes, it seems to me inheritance is by definition unearned wealth.

Lastly, why have we chosen to tax investment income at a lesser rate than income earned through labor. A long line of those who are claimed to be champions of conservative economics was strongly opposed to this, the likes of which include Adam Smith and Andrew Mellon. The liberal economists have always been against it. Warren Buffet ripped the US government because he paid a lower % on his income than his secretary did, despite earning way more, because investment income is taxed so lightly.

[denuseri]

Also from the earned perspective, why does it make sense to slash inheritance taxes, it seems to me inheritance is by definition unearned wealth.

Lastly, why have we chosen to tax investment income at a lesser rate than income earned through labor. A long line of those who are claimed to be champions of conservative economics was strongly opposed to this, the likes of which include Adam Smith and Andrew Mellon. The liberal economists have always been against it. Warren Buffet ripped the US government because he paid a lower % on his income than his secretary did, despite earning way more, because investment income is taxed so lightly.

Not so surprising when you realize that the vast majority of the lobbiests who woo the lawmakers do so at the bequest of the super rich super minority's beck and call.

How else do you think the super elite keep we in the mob in check, 300 million of us droning on along here in the USA represented by only two main parties in a this or that chant with our propaganda (news) supplied to us by 5 majior multi national super corperations who are all owned by that same oligarchy of the rich.

[DuncanONeil]

In a manner of speaking, yes it is. However it is not an equality of outcome but of opportunity.
That is the problem with "share the wealth" equality. It is equality of outcome.
We have, what some 16 football teams in the US, with a little over 22 on the roster, paid exhorbitent salaries in my estimation. This is also equality of opportunity, since those that want to play can try for the job. Equality of outcome would mean that these guys get to play only one season or game so everyone else can also be a "football hero".


Isn't public education a form of equality?

[DuncanONeil]

Some, repeat "some", of you examples are not germane. Yes it is an opinion but the high school I attended did not have a pool either, nor a football team. Baseball and track we had but they competed for the same athletes, I surmise that the best went to Baseball as Track only had one meet. Our Basketball team was best in conference, Track second best, baseball I never heard.
But having said all of that these are not necessary for education, and yes I was involved in sports. Even lettered.
Education is what goes on in the classroom. Of course the population of an area is going to have a direct result on how much is available for the schools and their spending. Something else that needs to be reformed!


In the U.S. at this time, the sad answer is no. There isn't even any equality between the dozen school districts in my COUNTY. Take a location, such as Montana, that has local school districts being ran by local school boards with the local taxpayers voting on issues and if approved then the property owners pay taxes for those issues. The more affluent school districts have more educational and sports choices, by voter approval, than the less affluent. Some school districts have swim teams, some school districts don't even have a pool within 100 miles.

The environment for the public schools are very far from any equal footing, as well. Urban, suburban, rural and remote public schools are so unequal in many facets that they really can't be in the same conversation. That is one reason 'nickle-be' will never work; one formula for such a diverse group of circumstances is unreasonable, as noble as some people may feel it might be.

Many school districts are too small to reasonably be required to have a Chemistry teacher, for example. But many times those kids are too far from a school district that has a Chemistry teacher to be bused to. And, since the school district that has the Chemistry teacher isn't supported by taxes for those other school district kids to attend their school, if they decide to accept a limited (key word) number of out-of district kids, they charge tuition. They must. Their budgets aren't built around other school district's kids. I know I sure don't want MY property taxes to pay for school kids from another district. I didn't vote for that. Like Thorne said previously, and I feel the same way concerning this issue "And I don't share." Thanks, Thorne!

So, as it stands now, public education isn't a form of equality. Yeah, we all have the equal opportunity to attend, but that is the end of it.

Damn husbands (me) of long-time school teachers are opinionated!

[DuncanONeil]

I agree with your "hating the poor" comment.
Ever notice how there is never a concrete definition of what constitutes "poor"


All Americans have the equal right to pursue an education and we have free public schools. Unfortunately, the Department of Education is so top heavy and has drained educational funding. Not only that but the federal government keeps cutting back on education, yet I don't see them cutting back on their own spending.

Obama speaks specifically of spreading the wealth economically. I have never seen evidence that it is possible for a country to contain people who are "equal" in terms of economic wealth. It is impossible to bring poverty level or "poor" people up to the middle class or upper/middle class level and have everyone at that level. In doing so you would have to also bring upper class and rich down to middle or upper/middle class level.

In doing this, what we will end up with is a nation of bitter, unhappy people looking to overthrow their government because in essence, what the government will be doing is "forcing" charity, which doesn't really make it charity. Charity comes from the heart and is given freely. I know many countries frown upon America and even hate us. We are one of the most charitable nations on earth so I find it quite ironic that we are being viewed as "hating the poor". In my opinion, the people from other countries who feel this way see sensationalized stories on mainstream media and think they know the "real" America.

[DuncanONeil]

Okay! You put it out there. Just who is it that is "in most need of wealth redistribution".


Actually, those who are in most need of wealth redistribution have little to no say in government affairs. I've been in the capitol building and I didn't see any homeless children speaking in front of Congress.

[DuncanONeil]

Originally Posted by steelish View Post
One of the things Obama wants to do is "spread the wealth", which, in my eyes, equates to equality of the economic classes.

Is such a thing possible?

Yes I think it is possible. On a small scale, Ive seen the concept succeed in the form of co-ops and communes. However I do not think such a change is likely to "materialize" on a national level anytime soon. Ridding ourselves of the concept of social or economic classes would be a fantastic occurrence for our species. However the changes in thought process' required would be numerous, drastic, and highly contested, after all, many are not ready to give up on the logical fallacy that "he who dies with the most toys wins."

I don't think it truly an issue of "who dies with the most toys wins". I think what the vast majority wants is to do better than their parents. I make more money than they ever did, but I am not so convinced I am a lot better off.

As for the Co-ops and communes. Did not somebody try that already? How well did that work out?

How can a nation of so many people, who are spread across such a large country and are so diverse (by diverse I mean in education, skill sets, etc.) ever be "equal"?

Equal in the same sense as 1 = 1? true equality?
I would say that only occurs two times in each of our lives. The moment of birth and the moment of death. Equality between those two moments is highly subjective.

Your thoughts/opinions????

It seems clear to me that there is no equality in the material sense between we humans. I disagree that we even all have equal opportunity, or are equaly protected and represented in our legal system.
It sounds nice. It looks good on paper, but is not what i witness happening.
Does that not depend on the definition of opportunity? The fact of high school graduation rates may give the appearance of supporting the position you state. But did not every Freshman that entered high school have the same "opportunity" to graduate?

Regarding sharing of material assets; I do hope the time comes where we can "share" what resources are available so that all humans have food, shelter and medical care. That we can fashion modalities so that as everyone benefits, so also does everyone contribute, similar to a co-op or commune, or tribal system.
Like "Star Trek"?

The Human Tribe.

Because my brothers and sisters, on a far larger scale, we are not only equal, but connected, one and the same. Einstein, Buddha, Jesus and many, many others have said (using different words) that we are all interconnected, everything, everyone.

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." ~ Albert Einstein

Yes it will be a glorious time when we interact with ourselves compassionately instead of selfishly.


Respectfully,
TS

[DuncanONeil]

Getting as close as I can, 2007, I find the following.
1/10 of 1% of the population would be 330,000.
Tax data I can only get close with some 391,432. Okay?
These people have 20% of the income, about $1.25 billion.
They pay 36% of the taxes collected, about $416.6 million.
Which is about 33% of their income!

On the other side of that is it a good thing that nearly 50% pay no tax?


So let me get this straight...some people think it's a good thing that less than 1/10 of 1% of a population is allowed to control 95% of the wealth in it?

[DuncanONeil]

I think "allowed to control" is kind of awkward. It seems to suggest society should basically forcibly take away this money at the point of a gun.

I think from a societal perspective such a massive accumulation of wealth in the hands of so few is very bad. For instance, it has been shown to radically increase crime and cause other problems.


I think the question is more: How can one justify decreasing taxes on the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class when the income disparity is so extreme?


When taxes are decrease how is that you see this only as taxes decreased for the "rich" at the "expense" of the "poor & middle class"?


In my parents generation the major corporate CEO's earned 20 times what the average worker did. There are CEO's now that earn more in a minute than a minimum wage job holder earns in a year. And if that's what their skills justify than fine. But keep that in mind when you suggest cutting that guys taxes and paying for it by raising taxes on that minimum wage earner.

Show me a time when taxes were cut for the "rich" and raised on the minimum wage earner?


Also from the earned perspective, why does it make sense to slash inheritance taxes, it seems to me inheritance is by definition unearned wealth.

Inheritance comes from three sources; wages, investment, or prior inheritance. In all of these instances these funds have already been taxed. Why then should it be taxed again?? In many cases there is a family business involved that suddenly becomes the property of someone else!

Lastly, why have we chosen to tax investment income at a lesser rate than income earned through labor. A long line of those who are claimed to be champions of conservative economics was strongly opposed to this, the likes of which include Adam Smith and Andrew Mellon. The liberal economists have always been against it. Warren Buffet ripped the US government because he paid a lower % on his income than his secretary did, despite earning way more, because investment income is taxed so lightly.[/QUOTE]

[denuseri]

Lets not confuse income, wealth and power here ok.

I misquoted the "wealth" ratio it was 85% not 95, but still that is really high imho.

I highly reccomend giving the following eye opening work a read as well:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Actually read it too, don't just skim it looking for your sides talking points please.

[DuncanONeil]

I read about half way through.
I did expect a knock on my reference to income. But that was the IRS definition of income, which covers everything!

Looking over the numbers in the reference I see a remarkable consitancy across the years.


Lets not confuse income, wealth and power here ok.

I misquoted the "wealth" ratio it was 85% not 95, but still that is really high imho.

I highly reccomend giving the following eye opening work a read as well:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Actually read it too, don't just skim it looking for your sides talking points please.

[TantricSoul]

I have no qualms about buying trinkets and toys if I can afford them. I've worked my whole life to be able to afford them. And I don't believe that everyone has an equal right to own those same trinkets and toys unless they've earned them and can afford them as well.

If you want to work your whole life to acquire trinkets and toys then by all means you should get what you deserve. And I agree with you about others and their ability to collect trinkets and toys.

Where my heart grows heavy in this debate, is the obvious "MINE, MINE, MINE" mentality at work in our society. While others go without food, water, clothing, shelter, and medical care. This is the inequality that is sickening.



Basic food, basic shelter, basic medicine, yes these should be available to all citizens. Should everyone be supplied with a million dollar home just because some people can afford them? No! Should everyone be allowed to eat at the finest restaurants just because some people can? No again! Should everyone be provided the best quality medical care just because some can afford it? A third NO!

Ludicrous generalizations of million dollar homes and eating from the finest of restaurants for all, aside... no one is suggesting this after all.
I can agree with this paragraph right down to the last line. The quality or extent of medical care should not be limited to what you can afford. Unless we are talking elective procedures. Those that can afford plastic surgery (and other non necessary treatments) should be able to buy it from whomever they wish at whatever cost. Yes there should be freedom to choose your doctor or treatment, and yes there should be high quality care (especially preventative) for everyone.

Respectfully,
TS

[Thorne]

Where my heart grows heavy in this debate, is the obvious "MINE, MINE, MINE" mentality at work in our society. While others go without food, water, clothing, shelter, and medical care. This is the inequality that is sickening.
What sickens me is the willingness of some people to give away that which doesn't belong to them, simply because they think it is "fair" or "equitable." I have no problem if someone wants to give their own things away. I can guarantee that there will be plenty of people there to take it off your hands, and then ask for more, and more, and more. But forcing people to give away what they have, whether by legislation or by force of arms, is robbery, pure and simple.


I can agree with this paragraph right down to the last line. The quality or extent of medical care should not be limited to what you can afford. Unless we are talking elective procedures. Those that can afford plastic surgery (and other non necessary treatments) should be able to buy it from whomever they wish at whatever cost. Yes there should be freedom to choose your doctor or treatment, and yes there should be high quality care (especially preventative) for everyone.
And who should pay for that care? Should we imprison the doctors in their hospitals and force them to work for nothing? Should we randomly break into people's homes and strip them of their belongings so we can sell it to pay for that care? Where is the money to provide such excellent care supposed to come from?

I'm sure the answer, as usual, will involve some form of, "steal from (excuse me, tax) those who have, and throw it away (I mean, donate) to those who want."

[TantricSoul]

This is, if you'll pardon the expression, horseshit! It implies a supernatural/metaphysical/undefinable/magical thread linking us one to another, without providing any evidence for such a thread. We must take it on faith, just because someone says so? I think not!

Thorne, my friend, of course I will pardon the expression. After all, you saying my thoughts and opinions are horseshit is simply reaffirming what I've known for such a long time… that I have a fertile mind. :)



While we may all be a part of the whole, it does not necessarily follow that we are all an equal or integral part. The universe has a way of tossing parts aside haphazardly, to the benefit of some and the detriment of most. Which side of the equation you end up on is mostly a matter of luck.

So what I get from your post is that you agree we are all part of a whole, yet you see / feel no connection between us. An interesting viewpoint.

"Which side of the equation you end up on is mostly a matter of luck."

Yes i agree... the material inequalities between us human beings is rarely really about hard work, equal opportunities, or laziness. Far more influential upon our lives is luck. I would like to believe, that while life is not fair, that we as a race have enough humanness within us to seek and create that fairness.

Yet instead what I witness most prevalently is the ridiculous concept of self importance. As if, somehow, being luckier than someone else equates to being "better" or more deserving.

Respecfully,
TS

[TantricSoul]

Does that not depend on the definition of opportunity?

Well here is one definition: From online Merriam Webster Dictionary
Main Entry: op·por·tu·ni·ty
Pronunciation: \ˌä-pər-ˈtü-nə-tē, -ˈtyü-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural op·por·tu·ni·ties
Date: 14th century

1 : a favorable juncture of circumstances <the halt provided an opportunity for rest and refreshment>
2 : a good chance for advancement or progress

The fact of high school graduation rates may give the appearance of supporting the position you state. But did not every Freshman that entered high school have the same "opportunity" to graduate?
Based on the above definition, and what I was asserting prior, I would still have to say no, every freshman does not have the same opportunity to graduate.

Like "Star Trek"?

Well not exactly like "Star Trek," , on the other hand, maybe ... if the Klingons and Romulans were part of the "Federation" too...



Respectfully,
TS

[TantricSoul]

And who should pay for that care?
The same people that pay for any service, the consumers.
Should we imprison the doctors in their hospitals and force them to work for nothing?
No I am quite certain the doctors wouldn't like that, not even sure why you would suggest it.
Should we randomly break into people's homes and strip them of their belongings so we can sell it to pay for that care?
Again ... No

Where is the money to provide such excellent care supposed to come from?
A realignment of tax brackets & codes, along with a severe realignment in prioritizing how tax dollars are spent.


I'm sure the answer, as usual, will involve some form of, "steal from (excuse me, tax) those who have, and throw it away (I mean, donate) to those who want."
As I am sure you will see only what you are expecting to.


Respectfully,
TS

[SadisticNature]

I think from a societal perspective such a massive accumulation of wealth in the hands of so few is very bad. For instance, it has been shown to radically increase crime and cause other problems.




When taxes are decrease how is that you see this only as taxes decreased for the "rich" at the "expense" of the "poor & middle class"?



Show me a time when taxes were cut for the "rich" and raised on the minimum wage earner?



Inheritance comes from three sources; wages, investment, or prior inheritance. In all of these instances these funds have already been taxed. Why then should it be taxed again?? In many cases there is a family business involved that suddenly becomes the property of someone else!

Lastly, why have we chosen to tax investment income at a lesser rate than income earned through labor. A long line of those who are claimed to be champions of conservative economics was strongly opposed to this, the likes of which include Adam Smith and Andrew Mellon. The liberal economists have always been against it. Warren Buffet ripped the US government because he paid a lower % on his income than his secretary did, despite earning way more, because investment income is taxed so lightly.[/QUOTE]

Because historically what has been done with tax decreases for the top brackets is adjusting the lower brackets upwards to keep government revenues high. Thus those who have $0 in income that is in the top bracket but have income in lower brackets are taxed at higher rates than they were before.

Time when taxes were cut for the rich and raised for a minimum wage earner include 1988 When the taxes on the bottom bracket were raised from 11% to 15% to pay for a cut on the top bracket from 38.5% to 28%.

The net result was:

In 1971: Bottom bracket 14% Top Bracket: 70%
In 1990: Bottom Bracket 15% Top Bracket: 28%

I don't have easily available data on the 2nd and 3rd lowest brackets but suspect the trend is similar. The primary reason tax revenues equal out when the top bracket is lowered is that other brackets are raised.

My point about inheritance being unearned wealth, is that it is money that you get because you happen to be related to someone who did well, and is completely independent of your own abilities, successes or failures. If you want a meritocratic system taxing inheritances heavily seems to be a good start.

[SadisticNature]

That quote is wrong on so many levels. But basically it should read, "He who lives with the best toys wins!"

I have no qualms about buying trinkets and toys if I can afford them. I've worked my whole life to be able to afford them. And I don't believe that everyone has an equal right to own those same trinkets and toys unless they've earned them and can afford them as well.

And yet this concept has failed miserably all over the world. Oh, sure, on a small scale it can work: families, small groups, perhaps even tribes. But once a group reaches a certain density (and I have no idea how to determine what that density may be) you develop classes. Someone who is good at one thing trades his work for someone else's work. If you're good enough at what you do your work is in demand, and you can trade at more advantageous rates. Why, for example, should a spear-maker trade his spears to a lazy hunter who only brings him scavenged, half-rotten meat, when he can trade them to the good hunter who brings him fresh-killed, prime meat? And once he has that meat, assuming he doesn't waste it, why should he be forced to share it with the bum who doesn't bother to hunt or scavenge but only begs from others?

Similar rules apply to modern scenarios. Why should someone bother to do all the hard work, spend all that time in education and training, to become a doctor if, without lifting a finger, he will be supplied with the same compensation as everyone else? Without the stimulus of a better lifestyle, there is no reason to try to succeed.

Every truly socialist state in history (to my admittedly uncertain knowledge) has only been able to survive through fear and the utter degradation of the populace, while the hierarchy reaped all the benefits. And each of those states evolved either into self-destroying dictatorships (Soviet Union & North Korea) or more capitalist societies (China). Just ask the North Korean people if they enjoy being so "equal."

Basic food, basic shelter, basic medicine, yes these should be available to all citizens. Should everyone be supplied with a million dollar home just because some people can afford them? No! Should everyone be allowed to eat at the finest restaurants just because some people can? No again! Should everyone be provided the best quality medical care just because some can afford it? A third NO!

Some would argue that basic food and basic shelter are human rights because without this one would die. The next two are not complicated, the answer is obviously no. The third question is not like the previous two however, it is far more complicated, and touches on the question of dying.

How do we define/measure quality of care? Should a person have a right to be treated at the closest hospital when they are picked up by ambulance in time sensitive situations? Should insurance plans be able to force someone all the way across the city resulting in them dying before getting to the hospital? This has happened in the current American system.

It also seems like tilting at straw men to compare a health system that is less public than those of U.K., Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Italy and many other countries which are justifiably considered incredibly capitalist, and argue that the best comparison for this bill is to the Soviet Union, China or North Korea.

[Thorne]

Thorne, my friend, of course I will pardon the expression. After all, you saying my thoughts and opinions are horseshit is simply reaffirming what I've known for such a long time… that I have a fertile mind. :)
LOL! Yes, you do indeed. And it's not your mind that I'm denigrating, just the fungal ideas which are grown in it.


So what I get from your post is that you agree we are all part of a whole, yet you see / feel no connection between us. An interesting viewpoint.
Of course we are parts of a whole, each of us a part of the universe, just as a grain of sand is a part of the beach. That doesn't mean there is any kind of connection, though. Some grains are washed out to sea, some are washed in from the sea, some are blown away on the wind, yet the beach remains. And the grains of sand, even when touching one another, are still discrete entities, not connected at all.


Yet instead what I witness most prevalently is the ridiculous concept of self importance. As if, somehow, being luckier than someone else equates to being "better" or more deserving.
Maybe it does equate as such. I've known people who just seem to have all the bad luck, falling into every sad situation that comes along, always getting the short end of the stick. I've known others who could fall into a puddle and come up with a $100 bill clutched in their hands. It has nothing to do with personalities, as far as I can tell. Maybe it's a kind of evolution, winnowing out the unlucky ones in favor of the lucky.

But while I view myself as somewhat lucky, even though I can't win at any kind of gambling, I certainly don't perceive myself as better because of it. However, I have taken charge of my life, dealt with the good and the bad, and helped myself. This can also affect one's luck. And that is what makes me feel somewhat more deserving than someone who just sits back and bemoans his bad luck, blaming everyone and everything but himself for his problems.

[Thorne]

Some would argue that basic food and basic shelter are human rights because without this one would die. The next two are not complicated, the answer is obviously no. The third question is not like the previous two however, it is far more complicated, and touches on the question of dying.
All three questions are matters of life and death. I see no difference between them.


How do we define/measure quality of care? Should a person have a right to be treated at the closest hospital when they are picked up by ambulance in time sensitive situations? Should insurance plans be able to force someone all the way across the city resulting in them dying before getting to the hospital? This has happened in the current American system.

I agree these are complicated questions. Yes, a person should be treated for any life-threatening injuries at the nearest hospital. That does not mean he should be given a private room, or given every test known to man just for the sake of running them. Basic care, yes. Save their lives. Treat their broken bones. Help people, without question.

Have you ever been in an emergency room on a Friday or Saturday night? Count the number of people there with minor problems, such as colds or sore feet or just headaches. Count the numbers of real emergencies, and compare the two. You'll find the freeloaders generally far outweigh the critical patients, almost every time.

You don't run to the emergency room every time you get the sniffles, or bruise a finger. Yet we are building a culture in this country that does just that, and people will sue anyone who won't provide them with the best care someone else's money can buy.

[SadisticNature]

All three questions are matters of life and death. I see no difference between them.


I agree these are complicated questions. Yes, a person should be treated for any life-threatening injuries at the nearest hospital. That does not mean he should be given a private room, or given every test known to man just for the sake of running them. Basic care, yes. Save their lives. Treat their broken bones. Help people, without question.

Have you ever been in an emergency room on a Friday or Saturday night? Count the number of people there with minor problems, such as colds or sore feet or just headaches. Count the numbers of real emergencies, and compare the two. You'll find the freeloaders generally far outweigh the critical patients, almost every time.

You don't run to the emergency room every time you get the sniffles, or bruise a finger. Yet we are building a culture in this country that does just that, and people will sue anyone who won't provide them with the best care someone else's money can buy.

It is better that one hundred guilty men be set free than one innocent man go to jail. Such is the standard of proof and obligation of government to uphold its citizens rights.

Yet when it comes to the right to emergency care, you feel just because some people abuse the system it is acceptable to deny people basic rights.

Propose ways to crack down on abuses that fix this problem, the fact is the cure here is not worse than the disease. The system you have now actively denies people essential medical care.

As for the earlier questions, quality of medical care is quite different from the clear questions about luxuries you proposed earlier. If there are two procedures for curing a life threatening condition one with a 40% chance of survival that is cheap, and one with an 80% chance of survival that is expensive, does a human being have a right to the 80% chance of survival?

[Thorne]

It is better that one hundred guilty men be set free than one innocent man go to jail. Such is the standard of proof and obligation of government to uphold its citizens rights.
So are you proposing that all accused people should be provided the very best lawyer someone else's money can buy?


Yet when it comes to the right to emergency care, you feel just because some people abuse the system it is acceptable to deny people basic rights.
That's not what I said! I have stated clearly that we are all entitled to basic rights. The problem seems to be in defining just what is basic and what is extravagant.


Propose ways to crack down on abuses that fix this problem, the fact is the cure here is not worse than the disease. The system you have now actively denies people essential medical care.
The problem is that the ways to fix this problem could be viewed by some as denying those people their basic human rights. The system we have now requires publicly funded hospitals to treat the indigent and the poor. It is the privately owned hospitals which turn them away. That won't change regardless of what kind of health care reform gets passed.


As for the earlier questions, quality of medical care is quite different from the clear questions about luxuries you proposed earlier. If there are two procedures for curing a life threatening condition one with a 40% chance of survival that is cheap, and one with an 80% chance of survival that is expensive, does a human being have a right to the 80% chance of survival?
That depends on the person. There are some who don't deserve the 40% chance. Who decides? What you're proposing, along with our illustrious representatives in Congress, is to have political appointees decide for us! Want to guess who gets the 40% and who gets the 80%? I can picture the debate in Congress now!
"Gentlemen, the new procedure the doctors want us to pay for costs three times as much as the old procedure while only doubling the chances of survival. This is not cost effective. I propose that we only fund the old procedure, to keep our costs down. And now, since we've saved the people so much money, let's legislate raises for ourselves."

Just think of how much we are helping our poor, deprived Congress critters.

[steelish]

We are all fundamentally equal in terms of our inalienable rights. No matter whether you are an atheist, Christian, Taoist, Muslim, Jew, Mormon, Lutheran, etc. there's no doubt that at the moment of birth, we are all intrinsically equal. The equality we are born with is the equality that should be preserved in America, not equality of economics...not equality of "things accumulated"...but equality of the right to pursue happiness.

The government might try to "spread the wealth" but no matter how hard they try, it will never be equal. It's much like a pond. On the surface it appears even, yet everyone knows that ponds are not of an equal depth all the way across. Forcing equality on a large population of citizens will be like pointing at that pond and saying "look, there's an equal amount of water no matter where you step".

Show me a country that successfully "spread the wealth" and has complete equality with a majority of the citizens singing the praises of the government that "equalized" them and I might actually begin to see a glimmer of hope.

[denuseri]

Sparta did it for oh, around 400 years or so, give or take a decade.

Of course it wasnt a nation by todays standards per say, but still it worked for them.

They also managed to dominate all the other greek city states for the better part of their existeance with their system too, including Athens, until of course Phillip and Alexander the Great came along.

[steelish]

Sparta did it for oh, around 400 years or so, give or take a decade.

Of course it wasnt a nation by todays standards per say, but still it worked for them.

They also managed to dominate all the other greek city states for the better part of their existeance with their system too, including Athens, until of course Phillip and Alexander the Great came along.

Ah yes, in the 10th Century BC...Sparta was unique in ancient Greece for its social system and constitution, which completely focused on military training and excellence. Its inhabitants were classified as Spartiates (Spartan citizens, who enjoyed full rights), Mothakes (non-Spartan free men raised as Spartans), Perioikoi (freedmen), and Helots (state-owned serfs, enslaved non-Spartan local population). Spartiates underwent the rigorous agoge training and education regimen, and Spartan phalanxes were widely considered undefeatable in battle.

In Sparta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta) they also had two "kings" who ruled...and only the Spartiates were true citizens. Much of what I read on Sparta is exciting, to be sure, but not translatable in today's society.

[SadisticNature]

That depends on the person. There are some who don't deserve the 40% chance. Who decides? What you're proposing, along with our illustrious representatives in Congress, is to have political appointees decide for us! Want to guess who gets the 40% and who gets the 80%? I can picture the debate in Congress now!
"Gentlemen, the new procedure the doctors want us to pay for costs three times as much as the old procedure while only doubling the chances of survival. This is not cost effective. I propose that we only fund the old procedure, to keep our costs down. And now, since we've saved the people so much money, let's legislate raises for ourselves."

Just think of how much we are helping our poor, deprived Congress critters.

Sounds like the solution is not having government at all!

[Thorne]

Sounds like the solution is not having government at all!

No, the solution is to minimize the control the government has over our lives. Personally, I don't much care for the idea of the government keeping my medical records, deciding which doctor it's all right for me to see, deciding which treatment plan is best for me. I certainly don't like the idea of the government telling me what I must buy, for my "own good".

Yeah, I know someone mentioned car insurance, but that's different. At least here in SC, you are only required to carry liability insurance, so that innocents are not screwed over if you cause an accident. And yes, if you finance the car you have to maintain full coverage, to protect the finance company. Don't like paying insurance? Don't drive a car!

I concede that governments have their uses, especially when acting as a buffer between states, or between nations. But the US government has intruded too deeply into individual lives, to the point where almost every aspect of our lives is impacted in some way by the federal government. That's not how it was meant to be, and I don't think it's good to be that way now.

[steelish]

Yeah, I know someone mentioned car insurance, but that's different. At least here in SC, you are only required to carry liability insurance, so that innocents are not screwed over if you cause an accident. And yes, if you finance the car you have to maintain full coverage, to protect the finance company. Don't like paying insurance? Don't drive a car!

Exactly! You are not forced to buy car insurance because you are not legally required to drive. Car insurance is a necessity only if you CHOOSE to drive a vehicle. Not only that but you don't need car insurance to have a driver's license. Car insurance is required by the lien holder as insurance against losses incurred.

Florida is a no-fault state, and you can drive a car without insurance if the vehicle is title-owned by you. Personally, I prefer not to do that, I carry insurance on all of our title-owned cars, but not because someone TELLS me to.

[denuseri]

Ah yes, in the 10th Century BC...Sparta was unique in ancient Greece for its social system and constitution, which completely focused on military training and excellence. Its inhabitants were classified as Spartiates (Spartan citizens, who enjoyed full rights), Mothakes (non-Spartan free men raised as Spartans), Perioikoi (freedmen), and Helots (state-owned serfs, enslaved non-Spartan local population). Spartiates underwent the rigorous agoge training and education regimen, and Spartan phalanxes were widely considered undefeatable in battle.

In Sparta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta) they also had two "kings" who ruled...and only the Spartiates were true citizens. Much of what I read on Sparta is exciting, to be sure, but not translatable in today's society.

Hey you asked...lol. They are the only society that even approaches true equality in my book that I could think of that came to mind.

Also, when one studdies them one must remember: the Kings were more a matter of a traditional position as well as sitting on the Assembly with an equal vote to the other members of their Gerouseia and they were equally subject even when in the field with the army to the will of the Ephors who were a small council elected for one year terms that presided over the lot of them:

Spartans were also the first society we know of who also refered to each other men and women alike as "equals".

And yes it was only "equal" for the actual Spartans, the helots and others, who were not actual spartans like most non citizens in any greek city state (including athens where women were little better than chattel slaves) didnt live under the same conditions.

Whats most interesting and completely applicable to our modern discussion in examining their society in todays light, isnt any of the above however so much as what it took for them to develope a system of governemnet and an economy that worked to attempt to equalize things for them.

To do any of it, they had to be all on the same religious page (hence why Lycurgus recieved approval for his changes in their governemnt from the oracles) and they had to change whole way of life; especially their economic systems basis, (which is why they made ownership of so many things illegal and used iron bars at exorburant wieghts for wealth instead of gold).

They basically had to move their society as a whole away from one bound by the aquisition of material wealth to one that embraced, duty to the city over duty to the individual and personal honor and merit over arvice and comfort.

Something which unfortunately I see few if any people in the workld willing to even attempt anymore.

[SadisticNature]

No, the solution is to minimize the control the government has over our lives. Personally, I don't much care for the idea of the government keeping my medical records, deciding which doctor it's all right for me to see, deciding which treatment plan is best for me. I certainly don't like the idea of the government telling me what I must buy, for my "own good".

Yeah, I know someone mentioned car insurance, but that's different. At least here in SC, you are only required to carry liability insurance, so that innocents are not screwed over if you cause an accident. And yes, if you finance the car you have to maintain full coverage, to protect the finance company. Don't like paying insurance? Don't drive a car!

I concede that governments have their uses, especially when acting as a buffer between states, or between nations. But the US government has intruded too deeply into individual lives, to the point where almost every aspect of our lives is impacted in some way by the federal government. That's not how it was meant to be, and I don't think it's good to be that way now.

And where exactly does one draw the line of "laws should prevent the screwing over of innocents", which appears to be your justification for the liability insurance requirement in SC.

Is it screwing over of innocents to deny life saving care? And if people are legally obligated by the government to provide services, should they not be compensated by said organization for those services? If so, if the government is legally obligated to pay for your treatments in the event you have life threatening health problems, should they not be charging you for the insurance they provide in this situation?

[SadisticNature]

Exactly! You are not forced to buy car insurance because you are not legally required to drive. Car insurance is a necessity only if you CHOOSE to drive a vehicle. Not only that but you don't need car insurance to have a driver's license. Car insurance is required by the lien holder as insurance against losses incurred.

Florida is a no-fault state, and you can drive a car without insurance if the vehicle is title-owned by you. Personally, I prefer not to do that, I carry insurance on all of our title-owned cars, but not because someone TELLS me to.

If someone chooses to not buy insurance kills someone, is at fault and loses a massive lawsuit, can they be forced to sell their home that they own free and clear to pay damages?

[steelish]

If someone chooses to not buy insurance kills someone, is at fault and loses a massive lawsuit, can they be forced to sell their home that they own free and clear to pay damages?

Not in Florida. (http://accident-law.freeadvice.com/auto/fault-no-fault-car-accidents.htm)

[Thorne]

And where exactly does one draw the line of "laws should prevent the screwing over of innocents", which appears to be your justification for the liability insurance requirement in SC.
I'm not trying to justify it, just explain it. But isn't that what laws are intended to do? Protect the innocent from the guilty?


if the government is legally obligated to pay for your treatments in the event you have life threatening health problems, should they not be charging you for the insurance they provide in this situation?
But they aren't providing insurance, they're providing a service. Only those hospitals which are publicly funded are required to provide indigent care, since they have already received payment from our taxes. And those hospitals are within their legal rights to recover any expenditures from the patient. True, in many cases that's not possible, but if you have any assets and require emergency care, the hospital can sue to acquire those assets to pay for that care. That's what insurance is for, to cover the patients' costs, not to cover the hospitals and doctors. If I choose to go without insurance, I run the risk of losing everything I own in order to pay for any care I'm given.

With all the claims and counter-claims going on, with all the lying and stretching of the truth on both sides of this fight, it's hard to know exactly what will happen if this program gets passed. But one thing I know is that the taxpayers are going to take it in the end. Those who are in most need of health care, the poor and indigent, don't pay taxes, or don't pay much in taxes, and so aren't going to have to pay for the care they want. But those who do pay taxes can frequently get health care from their employers, yet they are going to have to pay more in taxes to cover those who can't, or won't, buy insurance. It's my opinion that, if the government wants to create a nanny state, let them do so by cutting funding for other, unnecessary programs and use those funds to pay for health care. Force politicians and government employees to be covered by the government run plan, and use the savings to pay for it. But whenever I see Congress trying to push a bill through for my "own good" but they exempt themselves and/or government workers, I get paranoid. If this health care package is good enough for me, then it's good enough for them, too. And when they put that kind of language into the bill, then maybe I can support it.

But I think hell will have to freeze over before that happens. By which time we're likely to have a lot of very chilly politicians.

[steelish]

Hey you asked...lol. They are the only society that even approaches true equality in my book that I could think of that came to mind.

lol, you're right, I did


Whats most interesting and completely applicable to our modern discussion in examining their society in todays light, isnt any of the above however so much as what it took for them to develope a system of governemnet and an economy that worked to attempt to equalize things for them.

To do any of it, they had to be all on the same religious page (hence why Lycurgus recieved approval for his changes in their governemnt from the oracles) and they had to change whole way of life; especially their economic systems basis, (which is why they made ownership of so many things illegal and used iron bars at exorburant wieghts for wealth instead of gold).

They basically had to move their society as a whole away from one bound by the aquisition of material wealth to one that embraced, duty to the city over duty to the individual and personal honor and merit over arvice and comfort.

Something which unfortunately I see few if any people in the workld willing to even attempt anymore.

Well, for one thing - America embraces various religious beliefs, so everyone being on the same religious page won't work. At one time, duty to country and the well-being of the next generation were the overriding important things in America. Personal honor and merit also played a role in American life. Somewhere along the line people began to lose sight of these things. Believe it or not, there are groups of people in America trying to restore these things. Honor, merit, hope, humility, sincerity, hard work, courage, gratitude, faith (whatever your personal faith might be), personal responsibility...everything that originally made America strong. Unfortunately, in order to get the majority of Americans on this same page, it will take weeding out the politicians who do not possess these values.

[DuncanONeil]

If you want to work your whole life to acquire trinkets and toys then by all means you should get what you deserve. And I agree with you about others and their ability to collect trinkets and toys.

Where my heart grows heavy in this debate, is the obvious "MINE, MINE, MINE" mentality at work in our society. While others go without food, water, clothing, shelter, and medical care. This is the inequality that is sickening.

And yet the greatest contribution to charity comes from those that have accumulated the most!

[DuncanONeil]

Hear! Hear!


What sickens me is the willingness of some people to give away that which doesn't belong to them, simply because they think it is "fair" or "equitable." I have no problem if someone wants to give their own things away. I can guarantee that there will be plenty of people there to take it off your hands, and then ask for more, and more, and more. But forcing people to give away what they have, whether by legislation or by force of arms, is robbery, pure and simple.


And who should pay for that care? Should we imprison the doctors in their hospitals and force them to work for nothing? Should we randomly break into people's homes and strip them of their belongings so we can sell it to pay for that care? Where is the money to provide such excellent care supposed to come from?

I'm sure the answer, as usual, will involve some form of, "steal from (excuse me, tax) those who have, and throw it away (I mean, donate) to those who want."

[DuncanONeil]

View Post

Does that not depend on the definition of opportunity?

Well here is one definition: From online Merriam Webster Dictionary
Main Entry: op·por·tu·ni·ty
Pronunciation: \ˌä-pər-ˈtü-nə-tē, -ˈtyü-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural op·por·tu·ni·ties
Date: 14th century

1 : a favorable juncture of circumstances <the halt provided an opportunity for rest and refreshment>
2 : a good chance for advancement or progress

The fact of high school graduation rates may give the appearance of supporting the position you state. But did not every Freshman that entered high school have the same "opportunity" to graduate?
Based on the above definition, and what I was asserting prior, I would still have to say no, every freshman does not have the same opportunity to graduate.

Like "Star Trek"?

Well not exactly like "Star Trek," , on the other hand, maybe ... if the Klingons and Romulans were part of the "Federation" too...Respectfully,
TS


Explain to me how every freshman does not have an equal opportunity to graduate?
Neither the Klingons, well they did change their mind, nor the Romulans desired to be in the Federation. I never saw any Klingon put money up for anything. And we did not spend much time in their society either.
The only "greedy" people I saw in the Star trek universe were the Ferengi. They also did not support universal suffrage!

[DuncanONeil]

Where is the money to provide such excellent care supposed to come from?
A realignment of tax brackets & codes, along with a severe realignment in prioritizing how tax dollars are spent. Respectfully,
TS
The FairTax woul;d be better than what we have now!!!!

[DuncanONeil]

In '71 there were 25 different rates.
In '90 three. In '71 74.6 million returns $903.5 billion in income - AGI of $742.8 billion. In '90 113.7 million returns $4878.6 billion in income - AGI of $3798.4 billion. With the top one percent being over the top rate entry point at a total of 1.3 million there is no way those at the bottom could make up the difference based on rates.
Also between '71 and '90 there were there reductions in both the top and bottom rate!
Appears population growth had more to do with income than tax rates. I still say that for tax policy we should dispose of the IRS and institute the FairTax!




Because historically what has been done with tax decreases for the top brackets is adjusting the lower brackets upwards to keep government revenues high. Thus those who have $0 in income that is in the top bracket but have income in lower brackets are taxed at higher rates than they were before.

Time when taxes were cut for the rich and raised for a minimum wage earner include 1988 When the taxes on the bottom bracket were raised from 11% to 15% to pay for a cut on the top bracket from 38.5% to 28%.

The net result was:

In 1971: Bottom bracket 14% Top Bracket: 70%
In 1990: Bottom Bracket 15% Top Bracket: 28%

I don't have easily available data on the 2nd and 3rd lowest brackets but suspect the trend is similar. The primary reason tax revenues equal out when the top bracket is lowered is that other brackets are raised.

My point about inheritance being unearned wealth, is that it is money that you get because you happen to be related to someone who did well, and is completely independent of your own abilities, successes or failures. If you want a meritocratic system taxing inheritances heavily seems to be a good start.[/QUOTE]

[DuncanONeil]

Health care is not a basic right. Life is! That is why US hospitals are not permitted to turn people in need of life sustaining care away. No one in the US is denied ESSENTIAL medical care.
The larger issue of treatment is not always of cost, or efficacy, but youth. Don't want to pay for a treatment that is new on the scene. Have to prove it works first!
Aside from that hospitals deny care all the time based on triage.


It is better that one hundred guilty men be set free than one innocent man go to jail. Such is the standard of proof and obligation of government to uphold its citizens rights.

Yet when it comes to the right to emergency care, you feel just because some people abuse the system it is acceptable to deny people basic rights.

Propose ways to crack down on abuses that fix this problem, the fact is the cure here is not worse than the disease. The system you have now actively denies people essential medical care.

As for the earlier questions, quality of medical care is quite different from the clear questions about luxuries you proposed earlier. If there are two procedures for curing a life threatening condition one with a 40% chance of survival that is cheap, and one with an 80% chance of survival that is expensive, does a human being have a right to the 80% chance of survival?

[DuncanONeil]

I am inclined to comment in relation to the reference of "the right to pursue happiness." For some people that is jumping out of perfectly good airplanes, some free climbing a cliff. Yet these are inherently risky behaviours. Does anyone foresee the Government deciding that any injury is a result of reckless actions and the responsibility of the individual person?


We are all fundamentally equal in terms of our inalienable rights. No matter whether you are an atheist, Christian, Taoist, Muslim, Jew, Mormon, Lutheran, etc. there's no doubt that at the moment of birth, we are all intrinsically equal. The equality we are born with is the equality that should be preserved in America, not equality of economics...not equality of "things accumulated"...but equality of the right to pursue happiness.

The government might try to "spread the wealth" but no matter how hard they try, it will never be equal. It's much like a pond. On the surface it appears even, yet everyone knows that ponds are not of an equal depth all the way across. Forcing equality on a large population of citizens will be like pointing at that pond and saying "look, there's an equal amount of water no matter where you step".

Show me a country that successfully "spread the wealth" and has complete equality with a majority of the citizens singing the praises of the government that "equalized" them and I might actually begin to see a glimmer of hope.

[DuncanONeil]

I live in a state that requires car insurance, which recently raised the levels of coverage, yet four out of the last five times my car was hit the other driver did not have insurance!
So that is a very bad analogy!


Exactly! You are not forced to buy car insurance because you are not legally required to drive. Car insurance is a necessity only if you CHOOSE to drive a vehicle. Not only that but you don't need car insurance to have a driver's license. Car insurance is required by the lien holder as insurance against losses incurred.

Florida is a no-fault state, and you can drive a car without insurance if the vehicle is title-owned by you. Personally, I prefer not to do that, I carry insurance on all of our title-owned cars, but not because someone TELLS me to.

[Lion]

And yet the greatest contribution to charity comes from those that have accumulated the most!

Not to stray too far of topic, but I beg to differ. It is no secret that there are people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet who donate massive amounts of money to help others. And I'm greatful for their work.

But I don't think anyone can easily justify your statement. If you're talking in dollars and cents, I doubt anyone could disprove your statement, but if you're talking about how many lives have been affected, then it's an entirely different matter.

Ghandi and Mother Teresa lived through humble means. Mother Teresa helped the poorest of the poor, and became world renowned for her work. Her selfless deeds inspired so many around her and around the world to follow suit. How many lives did Ghandi save through his message of peace. That war was not a way to independence. Countless of British and Indian lives I'd imagine if one were to take the events of the 1850s into consideration.


A man by the name of Ehdi, started and still runs today Karachi's largest charities. This man comes from a modest background, lives under spartan conditions, donating all his time and energy to helping others around him with even the most basic tasks. Stuff that the government takes care of, but no one in the west even considers. Things like hospitals, morgues, women's homes, child adoption agencies, ambulances. It is his organization that handles all of these. His ambulance service is the only one in Karachi, a city of over 10 million. To list all his contributions to humanity would take a while so I'll stop here.


Greg Mortenson spent years of his life fulfilling a promise he gave to a remote village in Pakistan. A mountain climber who was so poor that he at times lived in his car, had promised the residents of a poor village that he'd build a school for them. In order to build the school, he had to build a bridge first. His profession is a nurse practisioner. Yet he managed to do both for $20 000. With that money, he was able to staff the school with a full time teacher, provide materials like books, tables and chairs.

Here's the kicker, this village was in the remote regions of Pakistan where the Taliban love to hide. Word of his achievement spread, and village elders from around invited him to build schools, so that their children, notably daughters could get an education. This man was kidnapped, shot at, faced fatwas against his life, and today, he has been successful in building over 100 schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Areas where even the military won't touch because it's too dangerous. And he does it with the full participation of the community.


Like I said in the beginning of this post, the rich have contributed a lot. It is increadibly noble of them, and I hope that trend only continues to grow. But the statement that the greatest charity comes from the rich, in my humble opinion wrong. You can sign a check at any time, but unless there are people willing to risk their lives in the face of danger, sacrifice their personal interests so that they have more time to take care of others, those checks mean nothing.

Dare I say it, even the rich look to these utterly selfless people as inspiration to do good.



Yikes...this went on longer then I thought. My apologies for straying a lot of topic

[steelish]

I live in a state that requires car insurance, which recently raised the levels of coverage, yet four out of the last five times my car was hit the other driver did not have insurance!
So that is a very bad analogy!

Sorry, it was not meant as an analogy, merely a statement of fact. That's the way things are in Florida. Each state is different...

[steelish]

I am inclined to comment in relation to the reference of "the right to pursue happiness." For some people that is jumping out of perfectly good airplanes, some free climbing a cliff. Yet these are inherently risky behaviours. Does anyone foresee the Government deciding that any injury is a result of reckless actions and the responsibility of the individual person?

I absolutely see the government interfering in individual pursuits. For some, it would be a way to relieve stress and "rejuvenate". Who is the government to say it's wrong???

As I've stated before...rights do not come from government, laws do. The right to pursue happiness comes from God/nature (whatever you believe) but it remains that we are born with these rights. It is not something that is "handed" to us from another person. That in itself is the definition...rights come from a higher power, not an individual. Can your neighbor instill you with rights? No. Can your city council member instill you with rights? If not, then why can Congress??

[Thorne]

As I've stated before...rights do not come from government, laws do. The right to pursue happiness comes from God/nature (whatever you believe) but it remains that we are born with these rights. It is not something that is "handed" to us from another person. That in itself is the definition...rights come from a higher power, not an individual. Can your neighbor instill you with rights? No. Can your city council member instill you with rights? If not, then why can Congress??
I'm not sure this is accurate. Throughout history people have only had those "rights" which the ruling classes allowed, and they could be taken away at the whim of any member of that ruling class. It's only in modern times that we've begun thinking in terms of "human rights", thanks in large part to the advances of more democratic governments. I think that, ultimately, we can only have those rights which the most powerful people are willing to allow us to have. They have the power to rescind them by simply sending in the military/police forces. Once bullets and bombs start flying, the only right you have is the right to duck!

[denuseri]

And yet is it not also true that even the tyrant doth not rule alone, that were it not for the submission of others and those willing to support it, no one would rule for long at all?

[steelish]

I'm not sure this is accurate. Throughout history people have only had those "rights" which the ruling classes allowed, and they could be taken away at the whim of any member of that ruling class. It's only in modern times that we've begun thinking in terms of "human rights", thanks in large part to the advances of more democratic governments. I think that, ultimately, we can only have those rights which the most powerful people are willing to allow us to have. They have the power to rescind them by simply sending in the military/police forces. Once bullets and bombs start flying, the only right you have is the right to duck!

I spoke of "inalienable" rights, as outlined by our Declaration of Independence. I guess my view is considered modern then, because I don't see what you've described as a "right" but more as a "privilege" bestowed by the ruling class. Just because they called them rights, doesn't make them so.

[Thorne]

I spoke of "inalienable" rights, as outlined by our Declaration of Independence. I guess my view is considered modern then, because I don't see what you've described as a "right" but more as a "privilege" bestowed by the ruling class. Just because they called them rights, doesn't make them so.

That's my point, though. Just because we call them "inalienable" doesn't make them so, either. It's a relatively modern concept. We claim the right to Life: yet at any time the universe can throw you a curve and take you right out. Your "rights" won't make a damn bit of difference. We claim the right of Liberty: but at any time the government can whisk you away, call you a terrorist and lock you up without even a trial. So much for Liberty. We claim a right to the Pursuit of Happiness: as long as Happiness doesn't involve marrying someone of the same sex as yourself.

All of these rights, and all of those outlined in the Bill of Rights, were given to us by the founders and leaders of this country. We consider them to be inalienable, or God-given, or natural. But in actuality they are as tenuous as a wisp of smoke.

[Thorne]

And yet is it not also true that even the tyrant doth not rule alone, that were it not for the submission of others and those willing to support it, no one would rule for long at all?

Yes, that's true. But someone will replace that tyrant. And he might be worse than the devil you know!

Of course, you could make sure that no one replaces him. In which case everyone becomes a tyrant, taking what they want, killing anyone they please, until someone strong enough takes control, and you have another tyrant.

[denuseri]

Ahhh democracy...voluntary submission to elected tyranny....sighs so romantic.

[Thorne]

Ahhh democracy...voluntary submission to elected tyranny....sighs so romantic.

LOL! It's only romantic if you enjoy voluntary submission! ;) It's much more enjoyable being the tyrant, though. Romance is overrated anyway.

[SadisticNature]

Not in Florida. (http://accident-law.freeadvice.com/auto/fault-no-fault-car-accidents.htm)

It seems strange to me that one can choose to not buy insurance, cause damages and then not have one's assets seized to play those damages, particular if the other person is denied quality care because they can't afford to pay medical bills due to that settlement not being made.

To me it seems here the law is unfairly protecting someone's home from being forfeit as the consequence of their actions.

[Thorne]

It seems strange to me that one can choose to not buy insurance, cause damages and then not have one's assets seized to play those damages, particular if the other person is denied quality care because they can't afford to pay medical bills due to that settlement not being made.

To me it seems here the law is unfairly protecting someone's home from being forfeit as the consequence of their actions.
It seems that way, but homes generally contain families, not just individuals. Do you throw a man's family out of the home for his mistake? The wife didn't do anything wrong. Why punish her as well?

[SadisticNature]

It seems that way, but homes generally contain families, not just individuals. Do you throw a man's family out of the home for his mistake? The wife didn't do anything wrong. Why punish her as well?

Because marriage is a financial contract. It doesn't seem reasonable to use the argument that you can't punish people financially because innocents are involved in the consequences, as that fails in other venues. If a company is involved in an environmental violation most of the stock holders are oblivious but we fine the company, not the executives.

I just find its complicated that someone can be denied a treatment they need because they can't afford to pay for it even though they are owed the money to cover it, because someone was legally allowed to operate a motor vehicle without insurance and did so in a manner causing serious harm.

[SadisticNature]

The FairTax woul;d be better than what we have now!!!!

Fair Tax is a system that is even easier to defraud than the current IRS. How many contractors do you think are going to under report or fail to report work under this system? If they do now they risk having their client claim any deductible work on their taxes and if the IRS tracks it they can show the unclaimed income. The IRS isn't great at it, but it does provide some disincentive. FairTax actually encourages people to be dishonest because from the perspective of the above board guy whose prices are 30% higher, how many sales do you think you get against the guy who cuts corners and claims a much lower bid, adds on the 30% sales tax and doesn't report it.

Also the switch from a largely income tax based approach to a largely sales tax based approach is double taxation on anyone who has already taxed income in investments, this can be a huge issue for retired individuals and will probably result in increased social security expenditures as more individuals become vulnerable in retirement.

Some industries are entirely killed by a high sales tax as well. For instance professional poker would move almost entirely outside the US if there was a X% tax for all entry fees with X around 30%. In this environment there are no poker pros, the edge of the best players in the world at the game is around 25% so they couldn't pay the rake + the tax and still make a living.

Lastly while the tax deduction rules are complicated and need simplification, removing the ability to make deductions entirely would eliminate the governments ability to encourage certain actions. Lack of deductions for charity would result in fewer donations, hurting many charities. Inability to provide financial incentives for marriage and children would result in lower birth rates and the need for more immigration to keep a population level that supports economic growth and funds existing programs. The inability to provide tax deductions for making choices with fewer external costs would result in a lot of individuals externalizing costs to the detriment of society.

High sales taxes would force increased welfare payments and drive up the minimum wage as well. When you shift more of the tax burden onto the poor, the programs that they need to get by will need more money.

[steelish]

Fair Tax is a system that is even easier to defraud than the current IRS. How many contractors do you think are going to under report or fail to report work under this system? If they do now they risk having their client claim any deductible work on their taxes and if the IRS tracks it they can show the unclaimed income. The IRS isn't great at it, but it does provide some disincentive. FairTax actually encourages people to be dishonest because from the perspective of the above board guy whose prices are 30% higher, how many sales do you think you get against the guy who cuts corners and claims a much lower bid, adds on the 30% sales tax and doesn't report it.

The free market has a lot to do with who succeeds and who doesn't. Regardless of prices, offer a substandard product and word gets around. Also, America currently has a 38% Corporate tax - the highest in the world. Doing away with the corporate tax and adding a higher tax at the point of purchase would result in corporations lowering product costs. If they can't sell their product, they can't make money...supply and demand.


Also the switch from a largely income tax based approach to a largely sales tax based approach is double taxation on anyone who has already taxed income in investments, this can be a huge issue for retired individuals and will probably result in increased social security expenditures as more individuals become vulnerable in retirement.

We're already double-taxed. We have our income tax and we have our sales tax (which differs state to state).

[SadisticNature]

Two types of taxes is not necessarily doubling the taxation. Taxing the entirety of an income tax on said money, then turning around and raising the sales tax massively is true double taxation.

Getting taxed X% sales tax for small X and Y% income tax for a larger Y is not double taxation compared to paying 30+% sales tax. For anyone who has Y around 30%, the sales tax is actually comparable.

When Ontario introduced the PST, they replaced an internal manufacturing tax, with an external sales tax. The tax was larger, but none of the savings from scrapping the manufacturing tax got passed on to the consumer.

As for free market success rates, my point is consider the following for two contractors with:

-Similar Quality of Work
-Similar Track Record

Offer 1:

$100,000 + 30% sales tax $30,000 =$130,000

Offer 2:
$77,000 + 30% sales tax $23,100 = $101,000

The only difference being in Offer 2 the sales tax never actually gets paid to the government. Offer 2 is not substandard quality, its a huge savings due to cheating on taxes.


The free market has a lot to do with who succeeds and who doesn't. Regardless of prices, offer a substandard product and word gets around. Also, America currently has a 38% Corporate tax - the highest in the world. Doing away with the corporate tax and adding a higher tax at the point of purchase would result in corporations lowering product costs. If they can't sell their product, they can't make money...supply and demand.



We're already double-taxed. We have our income tax and we have our sales tax (which differs state to state).

[DuncanONeil]

Seems it a two edged sword. There are some studies but they seem to focus on income as the greatest indicator of giving. Results, in graph terms, create a "U" shape. But even that is "adjusted".
With the rich giving a lot, and the "poor" giving a large percentage. But the folks in the middle create the bottom of the "U".
These are old but seem to give the clearest picture. Personally I favor the second, because of the author, but it is consistent with the first.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/charitable_giving_liberals_vs_conservatives/
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1


Not to stray too far of topic, but I beg to differ. It is no secret that there are people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet who donate massive amounts of money to help others. And I'm greatful for their work.

But I don't think anyone can easily justify your statement. If you're talking in dollars and cents, I doubt anyone could disprove your statement, but if you're talking about how many lives have been affected, then it's an entirely different matter.

Ghandi and Mother Teresa lived through humble means. Mother Teresa helped the poorest of the poor, and became world renowned for her work. Her selfless deeds inspired so many around her and around the world to follow suit. How many lives did Ghandi save through his message of peace. That war was not a way to independence. Countless of British and Indian lives I'd imagine if one were to take the events of the 1850s into consideration.


A man by the name of Ehdi, started and still runs today Karachi's largest charities. This man comes from a modest background, lives under spartan conditions, donating all his time and energy to helping others around him with even the most basic tasks. Stuff that the government takes care of, but no one in the west even considers. Things like hospitals, morgues, women's homes, child adoption agencies, ambulances. It is his organization that handles all of these. His ambulance service is the only one in Karachi, a city of over 10 million. To list all his contributions to humanity would take a while so I'll stop here.


Greg Mortenson spent years of his life fulfilling a promise he gave to a remote village in Pakistan. A mountain climber who was so poor that he at times lived in his car, had promised the residents of a poor village that he'd build a school for them. In order to build the school, he had to build a bridge first. His profession is a nurse practisioner. Yet he managed to do both for $20 000. With that money, he was able to staff the school with a full time teacher, provide materials like books, tables and chairs.

Here's the kicker, this village was in the remote regions of Pakistan where the Taliban love to hide. Word of his achievement spread, and village elders from around invited him to build schools, so that their children, notably daughters could get an education. This man was kidnapped, shot at, faced fatwas against his life, and today, he has been successful in building over 100 schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Areas where even the military won't touch because it's too dangerous. And he does it with the full participation of the community.


Like I said in the beginning of this post, the rich have contributed a lot. It is increadibly noble of them, and I hope that trend only continues to grow. But the statement that the greatest charity comes from the rich, in my humble opinion wrong. You can sign a check at any time, but unless there are people willing to risk their lives in the face of danger, sacrifice their personal interests so that they have more time to take care of others, those checks mean nothing.

Dare I say it, even the rich look to these utterly selfless people as inspiration to do good.



Yikes...this went on longer then I thought. My apologies for straying a lot of topic

[DuncanONeil]

Sorry, it was not meant as an analogy, merely a statement of fact. That's the way things are in Florida. Each state is different...

Yeah! I know. Suppose it qualifies as a peeve.

[DuncanONeil]

Seems that if the "right" can be taken away it is a "privilege" rather than a "right".
(a moral, or ethical principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.)


I'm not sure this is accurate. Throughout history people have only had those "rights" which the ruling classes allowed, and they could be taken away at the whim of any member of that ruling class. It's only in modern times that we've begun thinking in terms of "human rights", thanks in large part to the advances of more democratic governments. I think that, ultimately, we can only have those rights which the most powerful people are willing to allow us to have. They have the power to rescind them by simply sending in the military/police forces. Once bullets and bombs start flying, the only right you have is the right to duck!

[DuncanONeil]

That's my point, though. Just because we call them "inalienable" doesn't make them so, either. It's a relatively modern concept. We claim the right to Life: yet at any time the universe can throw you a curve and take you right out. Your "rights" won't make a damn bit of difference. We claim the right of Liberty: but at any time the government can whisk you away, call you a terrorist and lock you up without even a trial. So much for Liberty. We claim a right to the Pursuit of Happiness: as long as Happiness doesn't involve marrying someone of the same sex as yourself.

With the "universe" having granted the right to life, than the "universe" taking that life back is consistent.
Admittedly it sounds counter intuitive but Liberty has limits. You are free to do as you will, but that does not extend to indiscriminate taking of life, for example. Happiness is not a right, the pursuit of said happiness is the right. By definition said pursuit can be unsuccessful!


All of these rights, and all of those outlined in the Bill of Rights, were given to us by the founders and leaders of this country. We consider them to be inalienable, or God-given, or natural. But in actuality they are as tenuous as a wisp of smoke.

Because of the intent expressed in the Declaration, on this we are going to have to disagree. We both know the reason for that disagreement, therefore discussion of the disagreement would likely go far afield and be unproductive.

[DuncanONeil]

In the case of one of my accidents we had the plate and description of the car. Police located the car and the owner. Owner said he was not driving.
That was all it took for the cost to be on my insurance. Too many of those and my cost goes up!


It seems strange to me that one can choose to not buy insurance, cause damages and then not have one's assets seized to play those damages, particular if the other person is denied quality care because they can't afford to pay medical bills due to that settlement not being made.

To me it seems here the law is unfairly protecting someone's home from being forfeit as the consequence of their actions.

[DuncanONeil]

Because marriage is a financial contract. It doesn't seem reasonable to use the argument that you can't punish people financially because innocents are involved in the consequences, as that fails in other venues. If a company is involved in an environmental violation most of the stock holders are oblivious but we fine the company, not the executives.

I just find its complicated that someone can be denied a treatment they need because they can't afford to pay for it even though they are owed the money to cover it, because someone was legally allowed to operate a motor vehicle without insurance and did so in a manner causing serious harm.

Hospitals have three obligations under EMTALA:

1. Individuals requesting emergency care, or those for whom a representative has made a request if the patient is unable, must receive a medical screening examination to determine whether an emergency medical condition (EMC) exists. Examination and treatment cannot be delayed to inquire about methods of payment or insurance coverage, or a patient's citizenship or legal status. The hospital may only start the process of payment inquiry and billing once the patient has been stabilized to a degree that the process will not interfere with or otherwise compromise patient care.
2. The emergency room (or other better equipped units within the hospital) must treat an individual with an EMC until the condition is resolved or stabilized and the patient is able to provide self-care following discharge, or if unable, can receive needed continual care. Inpatient care provided must be at an equal level for all patients, regardless of ability to pay. Hospitals may not discharge a patient prior to stabilization if the patient's insurance is canceled or otherwise discontinues payment during course of stay.
3. If the hospital does not have the capability to treat the condition, the hospital must make an "appropriate" transfer of the patient to another hospital with such capability. This includes a long-term care or rehabilitation facilities for patients unable to provide self-care. Hospitals with specialized capabilities must accept such transfers and may not discharge a patient until the condition is resolved and the patient is able to provide self-care or is transferred to another facility.

[DuncanONeil]

[B]"Defraud"
It is easier to defraud under the current system. It only takes on actor to accomplish such an action. Under the FairTax such would require collusion among actors. The seller and buyer at least.
Of course the seller can charge what they see fit. Even if it is a smaller amount. Tax is still due. But if they report they charged less than was paid somebody else knows. You write me a receipt for $1,000 and charge me $1,200 I know what you are doing. I have no incentive to help you.
Say a job costs $1,900 and your scammer comes in and charges $1,900 minus tax of $437, i.e. $1,463 adding 30% for a fee of $1,902. He still sends 23% to the Feds. Where is the scammers gain?

"Double tax on investment"
The FairTax repeals the income tax imposed on investment income and pension benefits or IRA withdrawals. No form of savings or investment is taxed. The beneficiaries and owners of pension funds, IRAs, and 401(k) plans

"Poker"
One thing I think you may have misunderstood. The FairTax is replacement, not reform. It replaces federal income taxes including personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes.
Those that set up the tournaments are providing a service for which they take a fee, half of the entry. 23% of that fee is due to the Feds there is no increased cost to the entrant.

"Government encourage"
That is the whole point. Where did Government get the power to decide what companies or industries should succeed? They have no right to be picking the winners in losers in commerce.
You mentioned charity. You must agree that a significant factor in charitable contribution is disposable income. The Fair Tax improves that. Charitable contributions depend on one factor more than any other: The health of the economy (not tax benefits). As a wide range of economists agree on the economic expansion the FairTax delivers, charitable contributions benefit also. With the penalty for working harder and producing more removed, Americans are free to keep every dollar they earn, and a new era of economic growth and job creation is unleashed. Hidden taxes are history, Americans are able to save more, and businesses invest more. Capital formation, the real source of job creation and innovation, is facilitated. Gross domestic product (GDP) increases by an estimated 10.5 percent in the first year alone.

As U.S. companies and individuals repatriate, on a tax-free basis, income generated overseas, huge amounts of new capital flood into the United States. With such a huge capital supply, real interest rates remain low. Additionally, other international investors will seek to invest here to avoid taxes on income in their own countries, thereby further spurring the growth of our own economy.

Real wages are 10.3 percent, 9.5 percent, and 9.2 percent higher in years 1, 10, and 25, respectively than would otherwise be the case.
(Tuerck, David G., Jonathan Haughton, Keshab Bhattarai, Phuong Viet Ngo, and Alfonso Sanchez-Penalver, “The Economic Effects of the FairTax: Results from the Beacon Hill Institute CGE Model,” The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University, February 2007. )

Disposable personal income is higher than if the current tax system remains in place: 1.7 percent in year 1, 8.7 percent in year 5, and 11.8 percent in year 10.
The economy as measured by GDP is 2.4 percent higher in the first year and 11.3 percent higher by the 10th year than it would otherwise be.
(Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics, “A Macroeconomic Analysis of the FairTax Proposal,” July 2006. )

[DuncanONeil]

The free market has a lot to do with who succeeds and who doesn't. Regardless of prices, offer a substandard product and word gets around. Also, America currently has a 38% Corporate tax - the highest in the world. Doing away with the corporate tax and adding a higher tax at the point of purchase would result in corporations lowering product costs. If they can't sell their product, they can't make money...supply and demand.



We're already double-taxed. We have our income tax and we have our sales tax (which differs state to state).


The FairTax is replacement, not reform. It replaces federal income taxes including personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes.

[DuncanONeil]

You did get it wrong!
" Taxing the entirety of an income tax on said money, then turning around and raising the sales tax massively is true double taxation. "
Does not occur! The FairTax terminates income tax. It is not an additional tax!!!


Two types of taxes is not necessarily doubling the taxation. Taxing the entirety of an income tax on said money, then turning around and raising the sales tax massively is true double taxation.

Getting taxed X% sales tax for small X and Y% income tax for a larger Y is not double taxation compared to paying 30+% sales tax. For anyone who has Y around 30%, the sales tax is actually comparable.

When Ontario introduced the PST, they replaced an internal manufacturing tax, with an external sales tax. The tax was larger, but none of the savings from scrapping the manufacturing tax got passed on to the consumer.

As for free market success rates, my point is consider the following for two contractors with:

-Similar Quality of Work
-Similar Track Record

Offer 1:

$100,000 + 30% sales tax $30,000 =$130,000

Offer 2:
$77,000 + 30% sales tax $23,100 = $101,000

The only difference being in Offer 2 the sales tax never actually gets paid to the government. Offer 2 is not substandard quality, its a huge savings due to cheating on taxes.

[DuncanONeil]

How does example two not get paid to the Government?

This is a basic misunderstanding of the FairTax as well.


Two types of taxes is not necessarily doubling the taxation. Taxing the entirety of an income tax on said money, then turning around and raising the sales tax massively is true double taxation.

Getting taxed X% sales tax for small X and Y% income tax for a larger Y is not double taxation compared to paying 30+% sales tax. For anyone who has Y around 30%, the sales tax is actually comparable.

When Ontario introduced the PST, they replaced an internal manufacturing tax, with an external sales tax. The tax was larger, but none of the savings from scrapping the manufacturing tax got passed on to the consumer.

As for free market success rates, my point is consider the following for two contractors with:

-Similar Quality of Work
-Similar Track Record

Offer 1:

$100,000 + 30% sales tax $30,000 =$130,000

Offer 2:
$77,000 + 30% sales tax $23,100 = $101,000

The only difference being in Offer 2 the sales tax never actually gets paid to the government. Offer 2 is not substandard quality, its a huge savings due to cheating on taxes.

[SadisticNature]

For the basis of clarification.

Income tax occurs currently. If I have money I have saved from now, that is post-tax money, and I have paid income tax on it. If fair tax were to be implemented and I go out and spend that money, I am being double taxed on it, no ifs and ands about it.

So while UnfairTax terminates income tax it doesn't do so retroactively and hence doesn't solve this double taxation problem.



You did get it wrong!
" Taxing the entirety of an income tax on said money, then turning around and raising the sales tax massively is true double taxation. "
Does not occur! The FairTax terminates income tax. It is not an additional tax!!!

[SadisticNature]

The person in example 2 defrauds the government and keeps the tax money for themselves. In an income tax model you are taxed on profits, so choosing to cheat on taxes is a matter of reducing profits.

In a sales tax model you are taxed on revenue, so the cheaters can easily drive the honest people out of business by offering far lower prices.



How does example two not get paid to the Government?

This is a basic misunderstanding of the FairTax as well.

[SadisticNature]

Lets make the math less messy on the example.

Person A charges you:

$1000 + $300 in sales tax for $1300 total and reports the sale properly and sends the amount on to the government.

Person B charges you:

$770 + $230 in sales tax for $1000 total and doesn't report the sale properly, and doesn't send the amount on to the government. On your bill it appears as sales tax, but it doesn't get reported to the government that way, they just pocket it. It also appears to you as if the government got paid and you have no easy way of knowing they haven't.

So by going with person B for better price for the same quality customers are driving person A out of business. Why? Because he was being honest on his taxes.

As for poker tournaments, the typical entry for big live events is $10,000 + $100. The entry fee is 1% of the prizes + television and spectator revenues. If they were to take 50% of the entry as fees the industry would die, because no pros could make a profit on that. Paying 23% of an entry fee out of the 1% taken is a rather difficult thing to do! I also dispute that 23% is the actual correct number. It's far more likely to be 30%+, unless you want to increase the deficit dramatically.

For every economist claiming that this tax does better I can give you nine who disagree. The problem is the analysis assumes a fraud free model. If there is no fraud in either model then the UnfairTax drives the economy more aggressively, by forcing unprofitable and less profitable companies to pay a larger tax burden, which includes making marginally profitable companies unprofitable, and resulting in companies that are struggling slightly, going outright under. If you assume the government isn't going to bail out any of these companies (pretty big if given the track record), then the ones that succeed can drive the economy. However in any model where companies are allowed to defraud the taxation, the economy is driven almost entirely by fraudsters bankrupting honest taxpayers. This leads to needing to raise taxation as revenues decrease and further hurts the country.



[B]"Defraud"
It is easier to defraud under the current system. It only takes on actor to accomplish such an action. Under the FairTax such would require collusion among actors. The seller and buyer at least.
Of course the seller can charge what they see fit. Even if it is a smaller amount. Tax is still due. But if they report they charged less than was paid somebody else knows. You write me a receipt for $1,000 and charge me $1,200 I know what you are doing. I have no incentive to help you.
Say a job costs $1,900 and your scammer comes in and charges $1,900 minus tax of $437, i.e. $1,463 adding 30% for a fee of $1,902. He still sends 23% to the Feds. Where is the scammers gain?

"Double tax on investment"
The FairTax repeals the income tax imposed on investment income and pension benefits or IRA withdrawals. No form of savings or investment is taxed. The beneficiaries and owners of pension funds, IRAs, and 401(k) plans

"Poker"
One thing I think you may have misunderstood. The FairTax is replacement, not reform. It replaces federal income taxes including personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes.
Those that set up the tournaments are providing a service for which they take a fee, half of the entry. 23% of that fee is due to the Feds there is no increased cost to the entrant.

"Government encourage"
That is the whole point. Where did Government get the power to decide what companies or industries should succeed? They have no right to be picking the winners in losers in commerce.
You mentioned charity. You must agree that a significant factor in charitable contribution is disposable income. The Fair Tax improves that. Charitable contributions depend on one factor more than any other: The health of the economy (not tax benefits). As a wide range of economists agree on the economic expansion the FairTax delivers, charitable contributions benefit also. With the penalty for working harder and producing more removed, Americans are free to keep every dollar they earn, and a new era of economic growth and job creation is unleashed. Hidden taxes are history, Americans are able to save more, and businesses invest more. Capital formation, the real source of job creation and innovation, is facilitated. Gross domestic product (GDP) increases by an estimated 10.5 percent in the first year alone.

As U.S. companies and individuals repatriate, on a tax-free basis, income generated overseas, huge amounts of new capital flood into the United States. With such a huge capital supply, real interest rates remain low. Additionally, other international investors will seek to invest here to avoid taxes on income in their own countries, thereby further spurring the growth of our own economy.

Real wages are 10.3 percent, 9.5 percent, and 9.2 percent higher in years 1, 10, and 25, respectively than would otherwise be the case.
(Tuerck, David G., Jonathan Haughton, Keshab Bhattarai, Phuong Viet Ngo, and Alfonso Sanchez-Penalver, “The Economic Effects of the FairTax: Results from the Beacon Hill Institute CGE Model,” The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University, February 2007. )

Disposable personal income is higher than if the current tax system remains in place: 1.7 percent in year 1, 8.7 percent in year 5, and 11.8 percent in year 10.
The economy as measured by GDP is 2.4 percent higher in the first year and 11.3 percent higher by the 10th year than it would otherwise be.
(Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics, “A Macroeconomic Analysis of the FairTax Proposal,” July 2006. )

[SadisticNature]

Hospitals have three obligations under EMTALA:

1. Individuals requesting emergency care, or those for whom a representative has made a request if the patient is unable, must receive a medical screening examination to determine whether an emergency medical condition (EMC) exists. Examination and treatment cannot be delayed to inquire about methods of payment or insurance coverage, or a patient's citizenship or legal status. The hospital may only start the process of payment inquiry and billing once the patient has been stabilized to a degree that the process will not interfere with or otherwise compromise patient care.
2. The emergency room (or other better equipped units within the hospital) must treat an individual with an EMC until the condition is resolved or stabilized and the patient is able to provide self-care following discharge, or if unable, can receive needed continual care. Inpatient care provided must be at an equal level for all patients, regardless of ability to pay. Hospitals may not discharge a patient prior to stabilization if the patient's insurance is canceled or otherwise discontinues payment during course of stay.
3. If the hospital does not have the capability to treat the condition, the hospital must make an "appropriate" transfer of the patient to another hospital with such capability. This includes a long-term care or rehabilitation facilities for patients unable to provide self-care. Hospitals with specialized capabilities must accept such transfers and may not discharge a patient until the condition is resolved and the patient is able to provide self-care or is transferred to another facility.


I've covered several times why Emergency Care doesn't meet the standard of care, and you have responded to it in the past.

Here we go again.

Emergency care just covers life-threatening care. It doesn't cover what most of us would want. If I have a choice between an expensive surgery to save a limb or a less expensive amputation as a result of you hitting me, should I be forced into an amputation because you don't have the ability to pay damages, even if you have protective assets that would cover those costs?

[SadisticNature]

I'm not trying to justify it, just explain it. But isn't that what laws are intended to do? Protect the innocent from the guilty?


But they aren't providing insurance, they're providing a service. Only those hospitals which are publicly funded are required to provide indigent care, since they have already received payment from our taxes. And those hospitals are within their legal rights to recover any expenditures from the patient. True, in many cases that's not possible, but if you have any assets and require emergency care, the hospital can sue to acquire those assets to pay for that care. That's what insurance is for, to cover the patients' costs, not to cover the hospitals and doctors. If I choose to go without insurance, I run the risk of losing everything I own in order to pay for any care I'm given.

With all the claims and counter-claims going on, with all the lying and stretching of the truth on both sides of this fight, it's hard to know exactly what will happen if this program gets passed. But one thing I know is that the taxpayers are going to take it in the end. Those who are in most need of health care, the poor and indigent, don't pay taxes, or don't pay much in taxes, and so aren't going to have to pay for the care they want. But those who do pay taxes can frequently get health care from their employers, yet they are going to have to pay more in taxes to cover those who can't, or won't, buy insurance. It's my opinion that, if the government wants to create a nanny state, let them do so by cutting funding for other, unnecessary programs and use those funds to pay for health care. Force politicians and government employees to be covered by the government run plan, and use the savings to pay for it. But whenever I see Congress trying to push a bill through for my "own good" but they exempt themselves and/or government workers, I get paranoid. If this health care package is good enough for me, then it's good enough for them, too. And when they put that kind of language into the bill, then maybe I can support it.

But I think hell will have to freeze over before that happens. By which time we're likely to have a lot of very chilly politicians.

You can't lose your car unless you have used it as colateral on a loan.

You can't lose a house unless it is involved in a loan.

So by anything you have you actually mean 'Assets not protected under the law'. And those assets are generally rather limited.

As for the other stuff, its the usual politics. The fact is the country is largely divided between those who support small government and those who don't. You happen to support small government, but you are presenting an argument that basically says all government bills should have that nature. FDR supported a larger government, so did many of the best leaders of the United States of America.

People not buying insurance are being FINED and those fines are covering the cost of those who WONT. So taxes are being used to cover those who CANT.

As to the legitimacy of that argument, if you think anything violating small government is bad you'll never be convinced. I will point out the countries with the smallest governments and no income taxes are among the worst off in the world. I'd suggest that a country that is among the best would do well to not emulate the failed policies of those at the bottom.

But who cares about the country or the debt or the future as long as AMERICANS get a tax break. It's worked well since the 80's after all there isn't this authoritarian regime called China threatening to overtake the US as a superpower in the next 20 years.

[SadisticNature]

It seems than just about every right you claim you have from any legal document in the United States is a privilege that has been taken away by the supreme court whenever convenient.

For speech consider the jailing of peaceful war protesters, upheld by the US supreme court.

For guns consider weapons bans upheld as constitutional.

And the list goes on and on.

So basically you have a piece of paper that says you have rights, and the way they are upheld would suggest they are privileges.

So how about we stop pretending the US is any different just because it claims to be.


Seems that if the "right" can be taken away it is a "privilege" rather than a "right".
(a moral, or ethical principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.)

[Thorne]

As for the other stuff, its the usual politics. The fact is the country is largely divided between those who support small government and those who don't. You happen to support small government, but you are presenting an argument that basically says all government bills should have that nature. FDR supported a larger government, so did many of the best leaders of the United States of America.
I don't support either, to be honest. What I want is responsible government. As I stated, we should not permit Congress to pass a law and then make themselves exempt from that law. If it's good enough for me, it's good enough for them. How many businesses have struggled and gone under because of OSHA violations, either deliberate or accidental? Yet Congress is exempt from OSHA oversight. You complain about people not having health care, yet Congress has the best health care available.


People not buying insurance are being FINED and those fines are covering the cost of those who WONT. So taxes are being used to cover those who CANT.
People are being forced to buy something they don't want, just because Congress, and the President, thinks they should have it. What's next? Will we have to pay a fine if we don't buy a GM car made by the government? What if we don't even drive a car? Do we still pay the fine? And this fine, if I remember, will be something to the tune of $350 per MONTH! Which means that the cost of the mandatory health care will be higher, no doubt. Can everyone here afford that extra $350+ per month? I know I can't!


I'd suggest that a country that is among the best would do well to not emulate the failed policies of those at the bottom.
So why do we want to institute socialist policies which have already failed around the world?


But who cares about the country or the debt or the future as long as AMERICANS get a tax break.
I, for one, would love to get a tax break, but that's not what I'm advocating. I want to see my current taxes being used responsibly by those who have been elected to do so! I want to see those representatives held to the same standards of law and taxation as they inflict upon the rest of us. I want to see those representatives forced out of office after a certain number of years so they can live among real people for a change. Stop paying them CEO-type salaries, with golden parachutes and elite health care. Let them survive on the same wages, IRA's and medical care the rest of us have to live with. Equality, it's called.

[Lion]

Seems it a two edged sword. There are some studies but they seem to focus on income as the greatest indicator of giving. Results, in graph terms, create a "U" shape. But even that is "adjusted".
With the rich giving a lot, and the "poor" giving a large percentage. But the folks in the middle create the bottom of the "U".
These are old but seem to give the clearest picture. Personally I favor the second, because of the author, but it is consistent with the first.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/charitable_giving_liberals_vs_conservatives/
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1


I'm a little confused with your response.

I had initially responded to your assertion of:

And yet the greatest contribution to charity comes from those that have accumulated the most!

With the fact that many, non-rich people are helping out as well, in their own manner.

So what do you mean by the double edge sword in this regard?

[SadisticNature]

So why do we want to institute socialist policies which have already failed around the world?


You are talking about a far more free market system than that of Britain, Canada, Australia, France or Germany yet you continuously try and compare it to the USSR. Doesn't that seem slightly disingenuous?

[steelish]

It seems strange to me that one can choose to not buy insurance, cause damages and then not have one's assets seized to play those damages, particular if the other person is denied quality care because they can't afford to pay medical bills due to that settlement not being made.

To me it seems here the law is unfairly protecting someone's home from being forfeit as the consequence of their actions.

You're also not understanding the beauty of the United States. If you choose to live in Florida which is a "No Fault" state and feel as you do; that a person should pay restitution if they don't have car insurance - then you can simply pack up and move to a state that is NOT a no fault state. There are plenty of them.

[steelish]

I don't support either, to be honest. What I want is responsible government. As I stated, we should not permit Congress to pass a law and then make themselves exempt from that law. If it's good enough for me, it's good enough for them. How many businesses have struggled and gone under because of OSHA violations, either deliberate or accidental? Yet Congress is exempt from OSHA oversight. You complain about people not having health care, yet Congress has the best health care available.

I, for one, would love to get a tax break, but that's not what I'm advocating. I want to see my current taxes being used responsibly by those who have been elected to do so! I want to see those representatives held to the same standards of law and taxation as they inflict upon the rest of us. I want to see those representatives forced out of office after a certain number of years so they can live among real people for a change. Stop paying them CEO-type salaries, with golden parachutes and elite health care. Let them survive on the same wages, IRA's and medical care the rest of us have to live with. Equality, it's called.

applause

I SO agree!

We are being tricked into believing that redistribution of wealth is charitable...one cannot be charitable with another's money.

[DuncanONeil]

For the life of me I can not understand how you can harbor such a basic misunderstanding of what we are talking about. Especially when in the very message you respond to it clearly states the FairTax terminate income tax. Yet your claim of double taxation is based on paying income tax and the FairTax.
In addition to the income tax the FairTax eliminates:
Social Security Tax
Corporate Taxes
All other payroll taxes

estate
gift
capital gains
alternative minimum
Medicare, and
self-employment,


Again THERE IS NO DOUBLE TAXATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!


For the basis of clarification.

Income tax occurs currently. If I have money I have saved from now, that is post-tax money, and I have paid income tax on it. If fair tax were to be implemented and I go out and spend that money, I am being double taxed on it, no ifs and ands about it.

So while UnfairTax terminates income tax it doesn't do so retroactively and hence doesn't solve this double taxation problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil View Post
You did get it wrong!
" Taxing the entirety of an income tax on said money, then turning around and raising the sales tax massively is true double taxation. "
Does not occur! The FairTax terminates income tax. It is not an additional tax!!!

[DuncanONeil]

So the provider of the goods or services is defrauding the Government by charging a lower price for his product?
Um if he charges a lower pirce for hias product the tax is less and still gets paid.
That is in fact on of the goals of the FairTax, lower prices and bigger paychecks!


The person in example 2 defrauds the government and keeps the tax money for themselves. In an income tax model you are taxed on profits, so choosing to cheat on taxes is a matter of reducing profits.

In a sales tax model you are taxed on revenue, so the cheaters can easily drive the honest people out of business by offering far lower prices.

[DuncanONeil]

So you are taking the position that all business that currently charge a lower price are defrauding the States of their sales tax revenue?


Lets make the math less messy on the example.

Person A charges you:

$1000 + $300 in sales tax for $1300 total and reports the sale properly and sends the amount on to the government.

Person B charges you:

$770 + $230 in sales tax for $1000 total and doesn't report the sale properly, and doesn't send the amount on to the government. On your bill it appears as sales tax, but it doesn't get reported to the government that way, they just pocket it. It also appears to you as if the government got paid and you have no easy way of knowing they haven't.

So by going with person B for better price for the same quality customers are driving person A out of business. Why? Because he was being honest on his taxes.

As for poker tournaments, the typical entry for big live events is $10,000 + $100. The entry fee is 1% of the prizes + television and spectator revenues. If they were to take 50% of the entry as fees the industry would die, because no pros could make a profit on that. Paying 23% of an entry fee out of the 1% taken is a rather difficult thing to do! I also dispute that 23% is the actual correct number. It's far more likely to be 30%+, unless you want to increase the deficit dramatically.

For every economist claiming that this tax does better I can give you nine who disagree. The problem is the analysis assumes a fraud free model. If there is no fraud in either model then the UnfairTax drives the economy more aggressively, by forcing unprofitable and less profitable companies to pay a larger tax burden, which includes making marginally profitable companies unprofitable, and resulting in companies that are struggling slightly, going outright under. If you assume the government isn't going to bail out any of these companies (pretty big if given the track record), then the ones that succeed can drive the economy. However in any model where companies are allowed to defraud the taxation, the economy is driven almost entirely by fraudsters bankrupting honest taxpayers. This leads to needing to raise taxation as revenues decrease and further hurts the country.

[DuncanONeil]

That will likely be no choice in the future if this stands!
You will receive the amputation, no choice!



I've covered several times why Emergency Care doesn't meet the standard of care, and you have responded to it in the past.

Here we go again.

Emergency care just covers life-threatening care. It doesn't cover what most of us would want. If I have a choice between an expensive surgery to save a limb or a less expensive amputation as a result of you hitting me, should I be forced into an amputation because you don't have the ability to pay damages, even if you have protective assets that would cover those costs?

[DuncanONeil]

Your "citations" are without foundation!


It seems than just about every right you claim you have from any legal document in the United States is a privilege that has been taken away by the supreme court whenever convenient.

For speech consider the jailing of peaceful war protesters, upheld by the US supreme court.

For guns consider weapons bans upheld as constitutional.

And the list goes on and on.

So basically you have a piece of paper that says you have rights, and the way they are upheld would suggest they are privileges.

So how about we stop pretending the US is any different just because it claims to be.

[DuncanONeil]

My response to you is being curtailed as I do not think it will pass muster. Everything you needed is in the message.


I'm a little confused with your response.

I had initially responded to your assertion of:


With the fact that many, non-rich people are helping out as well, in their own manner.

So what do you mean by the double edge sword in this regard?

[SadisticNature]

For the life of me I can not understand how you can harbor such a basic misunderstanding of what we are talking about. Especially when in the very message you respond to it clearly states the FairTax terminate income tax. Yet your claim of double taxation is based on paying income tax and the FairTax.
In addition to the income tax the FairTax eliminates:
Social Security Tax
Corporate Taxes
All other payroll taxes

estate
gift
capital gains
alternative minimum
Medicare, and
self-employment,


Again THERE IS NO DOUBLE TAXATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil View Post
You did get it wrong!
" Taxing the entirety of an income tax on said money, then turning around and raising the sales tax massively is true double taxation. "
Does not occur! The FairTax terminates income tax. It is not an additional tax!!!

Income taxes exist now. FairTax doesn't retroactively eliminate previous income taxes.

If I have money in the bank which I have earned and paid income tax on in 2009, and still have that money in the bank that is money that has already been taxed. If we switch to FairTax in 2011 and I spend that money then, I'm now paying 30% sales tax on money I've already paid income taxes on. Despite the fact that because of the switch there is no income tax in 2011.

[SadisticNature]

Your "citations" are without foundation!

If they were you'd be willing to discuss what's wrong with them, but as usual when you can't you just cry foul, and pretend everything is fine.

I was responding to a post where the original poster describe rights as inalienable things that can't be taken away, and defined privileges as similar things that could. And my point was that under these definitions the US can't really claim superiority, because the courts have routinely taken away the rights guaranteed by the constitution and various amendments.

[SadisticNature]

That will likely be no choice in the future if this stands!
You will receive the amputation, no choice!

As you would say,

Your "citations" are without foundation.

[steelish]

It seems than just about every right you claim you have from any legal document in the United States is a privilege that has been taken away by the supreme court whenever convenient.

For speech consider the jailing of peaceful war protesters, upheld by the US supreme court.

For guns consider weapons bans upheld as constitutional.

And the list goes on and on.

So basically you have a piece of paper that says you have rights, and the way they are upheld would suggest they are privileges.

So how about we stop pretending the US is any different just because it claims to be.


The instances you mention were not done by the federal government against the citizens.

War protesters were jailed for "disturbing the peace" by getting too loud or disruptive, even though they might not have been violent. It is a state's right, or even a community's right to do that if their laws prohibit loud or disruptive behavior.

The same thing occurs with gun bans. The federal government cannot ban citizens from owning guns, but a community, municipality, state or county can do so. If the citizens don't like it, they can move to a community that allows guns.

The "piece of paper" you refer to prevents the federal government from dictating what citizens can and cannot do within the confines of what the "piece of paper" outlines.

This is why America can have such a diverse population that gets along reasonably well. Those that hate guns can live in communities that ban them...those that are very conservative and believe in the constitution can live in communities that have those same beliefs. It's ironic that it's the constitution itself that allows the people who are against it to speak out and fight it.

[DuncanONeil]

Well the reasoning is sound. But that is a poor reason to object to an improvement in the tax system.
I mean the very thing you complain about in reference to the FairTax exists now. Everyday! In spite of what Harry Reid says the FairTax is a true voluntary tax! If Mr Nature did not desire to pay any tax, he need not!


Income taxes exist now. FairTax doesn't retroactively eliminate previous income taxes.

If I have money in the bank which I have earned and paid income tax on in 2009, and still have that money in the bank that is money that has already been taxed. If we switch to FairTax in 2011 and I spend that money then, I'm now paying 30% sales tax on money I've already paid income taxes on. Despite the fact that because of the switch there is no income tax in 2011.

[DuncanONeil]

And my point is that without specifics it is impossible to discuss the instances.
However, just because a court so rules does not mean the ruling is correct!


If they were you'd be willing to discuss what's wrong with them, but as usual when you can't you just cry foul, and pretend everything is fine.

I was responding to a post where the original poster describe rights as inalienable things that can't be taken away, and defined privileges as similar things that could. And my point was that under these definitions the US can't really claim superiority, because the courts have routinely taken away the rights guaranteed by the constitution and various amendments.

[DuncanONeil]

The legislation is engineered in such a fashion as to increase the cost of insurance to a point that business can not afford to carry the burden. As has been demonstrated by the massive increases to business already reported.
Then there is the fact that the Government is to decide what MUST be covered and what the CHARGE for that coverage will be. As is the case with Medicare the Government decides what it will pay irrespective of the charges on the bill. When they have all private providers out of business that will extend to all. As Medicare has shown in spite of total control of the money paid in claims the costs of the program have done nothing but increase.


As you would say,

Your "citations" are without foundation.

[Canyon]

Would it not be interesting to be able to experiment with the redistribution idea though. I think I can predict the outcome. All wealth is redistributed equally. Some buy new cars, some party, some save some, and a few invest, take risks, gain or lose. In the end two things happen. the investing risk takers employ many, have control of a large amount of the wealth, and strengthen the ecomomy, and those who did not take those chances, demand redistribution.

I think that is why I would prefer the fair tax

[Canyon]

How do you get the nice colorful lettering?

[Canyon]

Guess I figured it out.

[Canyon]

War protesters were jailed for "disturbing the peace" by getting too loud or disruptive, even though they might not have been violent. It is a state's right, or even a community's right to do that if their laws prohibit loud or disruptive behavior.

The same thing occurs with gun bans. The federal government cannot ban citizens from owning guns, but a community, municipality, state or county can do so. If the citizens don't like it, they can move to a community that allows guns.

The "piece of paper" you refer to prevents the federal government from dictating what citizens can and cannot do within the confines of what the "piece of paper" outlines.
The constitution does two things, It enumerates rights, and restricts government, and therefore is the most abused document in our land. I cannot imagine that in courts, presedent takes place over the constitution but it seems too. The only doucment a Supreme Court Judge should read is the constitution, but they seem to read it the least. It is so simple. The "Right of the People to peaceable assemble and petition the government for redress." I agree that the requirement for it to be peaceable is often misused in our system, but certainly a quiet presence and respectful manner cannot be disputed. Here it is plain that the right of the people means all citizens of this nation, at least, if not all people living in it.

"The right of the people,to keep and bear arms,shall not be infringed." Here we have a right the founders equally saw as a right of all Aericans, therefore no municipality or state should restrict it, these are rights given to all Americans. I would rather see the people who cannot be trusted with this right imprisoned, isolated, or even executed, prior to punishing the lawful citizen. If any regulations need to be placed on this right, the federal government should be the only one, and the restrictions, should be minimal, or equally placed on all of the rights of the people. Lose one you lose them all.

In the first amendment we have an intresting restriction, "Congress shall not..." Here is a restriction on government which has been so misinterperted. Its obvious from a simple reading the only one restricted is Congress. Not the states, or municipalities. Several States had state sponsored churches while the founders lived. The most basic thing would be that any restricton concerning the first amendment should apply to all ot its provisions, speech, religion, press, and assembly to petiton equally.

Sadly with courts on power trips, and our representatives more concerned for their adjenda's than the people they represent, I wonder if we will ever see that type of system. Constitutionally we should have a strong central government, but extremely restricted and limited. The true dynamics in American life should be provided at the state level.

[Canyon]

The main reason I like the fair tax as a replacement for ALL other taxes is that it is taken at the lowest level of government, counties and cities. Then the State gets its cut, and lastly the Federal government, which only has a very few things constitutionally it is allowed to pay for, like national defence. I keep watching these comercials about the census, so communities can get their fair share. Reminds me of a prayer I heard once. "my name is Jimmy, now gimmy, gimmy, gimmy!" Under the fair tax the money would never have left the area to begin with. Cities would have the money they need to maintain their infrastructure, as well as the States. If you would then either use private companies, not municipal workers, to maintain these things the free market could control costs, and ultimately save money. If you are determined to use public employee's keep costs down by competition. For instance, if the Arizona Department of Transportation could repair roads in California cheaper than CalTrans, they should get the job, not caltrans.

By keeping the money locally, and passing lesser amounts up the 'chain' you empower the local municipalities, and then States, and lastly the Federal Government. As I said, the Federal Government should be strong but very limited to only those areas given it in the constitution. I'm not necessarily against the idea of universal health care, as my wife was a transplant patient, and we could have never paid for that surgery without SSI, I just think it should not be a legislative act, or the achievement of a president. Something that vast takes powers the constitution never grants the Federal Government. The only way it should be done is by Constitutional Amendment, a complicated, drawn out and intentionally very difficult thing to do, in order to protect the citizens from the rampages of power hungry controlling government.

Remember in some "free" western countries, you have to have permission from the police to move to a new neighborhood. Out of control Government is a continuous, unsatable monster, rampaging on liberty.

[steelish]

The only issue I have with the Fair Tax is that it still allows for Progression. "Tax this, but not this...this service should be taxed more than this one...etc." A Flat Tax doesn't allow for that. No matter where you fall on the economic scale, you pay X amount per dollar on your income...period. No chance for adjustments for this service, or that service.

[denuseri]

The only issues I have with flat tax, is the institution of a coorperation with limited liability will be the sole prime benefactors, while all the rest of us who are not super rich will have our taxes nearly trippled to fill the void. So long as faceless corperations are being treated with all of the perks of "personhood" with none of the responsabilities, any such endeavor will do far more harm than good.

If each company was owned by individuals who are fully liable then and only then would I support a fair tax em all you want position. Though I am sure that has its own drawbacks.

As for a full on redistribution of wealth...smh..we havent ever even got close to that in the United States. In fact no one anywhere really has short of a few handfuls of hippie communes and the Hutterites.

Additionally I seriously doubt "global" corpperations of american origin or otherwise will ever allow the politicians that they own lock stock and barrel in several countires to take away their sacred profit margins.

Nor do I believe will the extremely wealthy individuals that are out there support any such endeavor, for they gain nothing by it.

Even the full blown "communist" countries failed to fully redistribute the wealth nor control its redistribution in any kind of productive manner in anything more than "theory" and that was the basis for their very rise to power on the ignorant massess proverbial backs.

Sadely...it is greed..imho...that ultimately rules the day when all is said and done.

[Canyon]

Good point steelish, however that could be addressed. A fair tax is the only way to completely tax everything. The flat tax completely misses the underground ecomony, but with a fair tax, if a drug dealer, for instance, wants to eat, he pays the tax. Admittidly we would probably need some type of export tariff to get any tax value from exported items, but, if every comercial transaction is taxed, everyone pays for what they buy.

denuseri, corporations don't pay taxes anyway, that is just a myth. they raise the price of their goods and we, the comnsumers pay the tax they are charged. A fair tax is more honest, especially if you don't allow the tax to be hidden in the price of the goods. The income tax withholding was genius on the part of the government, as, even though you see numbers on your pay stub, it is not real to you, as you never actually have the money. In a fair tax, you could buy 40 dollars worth of goods, and be charged 56 dollars, which would make the tax very real. If it is that real, you have a stake in how it is spent, and by limiting your purchases, you could effectively limit a government that spends unwisely.

It should be set so that at an average year, the government breaks even. This would motivate government to save for a rainy day in good years, or have to make cuts in bad years.

Let me add one last thing to this. The theory that everything the government requires, the government should pay for, (vehicle registration, jury duty, etc...). this would remove the hidden taxes they sneak in on you.

[denuseri]

lol Like I said corperations are not equals to us under the law.

So long as they exist...there will be no semblance of economic equality available to anyone.

[Canyon]

On the other hand, who would provide essencial services, Government? Remember "Cash for clunkers." Government could not even manage that.


Look at California. Giant employee unions, who's demands have literally bankrupted the state, demanding more and more, while doing less and less.

Corporations are neither good nor evil, but competative. With a little amount of monitoring they would do much better than government.

[steelish]

btw Canyon, I have to say...I love your signature lines.

[steelish]

Look at California. Giant employee unions, who's demands have literally bankrupted the state, demanding more and more, while doing less and less.

Corporations are neither good nor evil, but competative. With a little amount of monitoring they would do much better than government.

It's much the same in the Postal Service. The unions are the biggest reason why it's bankrupt.

Case in point:
I work there part time. If I work even a single minute over 40 hours, the union dictates that the Post Office must pay the career employees (full time folks) overtime pay for every minute of overtime that I work.

That's not the half of it. Say we have two employees...A and B. If employee B helps out employee A, even if A asked for the help, a "grievance" can be filed and ANYONE who is trained to do the same job that the employee A is trained to do will get paid the amount of hours that the employee B worked while helping employee A. (Also, employee A who asked for help can also file a "grievance" so that he/she is paid for employee B's "helping" hours as well)

The irony abounds in the Postal Service. It's sad that the employees there do not see how it's dragging the system down, yet every day I hear them moan and bitch about how USPS is laying people off and there's a hiring freeze on.

[denuseri]

Essential services?

Like Social Security and Medicare?

Like the Military and Police Departments?

Like the Fire department and in some countries all health care?

I think these can all be done quite nicely without having "corporate involvement".

(and btw I include Labor Unions in the same catagory as their corperate counterparts becuase , well historically speaking, one is a sympton of the other)

Just like they were done (and done quite well I might add) prior to the advent of the modern corporation or it's involvement in politics or its rise to hegemony over the world.

Greed need not be the sole motivating factor used to drive incentive...and one day I hope that mankind will find it a necessity to rise above it's strangle hold before we end up in another dark age or worse as we scramble to "acquire" control over the worlds dwindling resources.

[Kendal]

I am coming into this late so forgive me if I am repeating any point already made.


I'm not sure this is accurate. Throughout history people have only had those "rights" which the ruling classes allowed, and they could be taken away at the whim of any member of that ruling class.

I don't think you are accurate. The ruling classes have rarely given rights, the ruled have fought to win those rights. King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta, we cut of a Kings head because he refused to grant rights and the American Bill of Rights did not come without a fight did it.

As regards equality, nobody is seeking equal wealth not even communistis. People seek equal opportunites, to raise the standard of the poor to eradicate poverty and to make the difference in wealth fairer.

The rich always moan but if you look at most super rich they have made their obscene fortunes through some form or criminality or trickery. Joe Kennedy makes a fortune bootlegging and puts his son in the White House and nobody cares where the money came from. Before any of the super-rich moan we should take a serious look at how they got their wealth. Denuseri is spot on in that the wealth buys Presidents, politicians and lawyers to give the wealthy an unequal and unfair advantage over the common man.

But the loadest complaints about wealth spreading comes from the middle and upper middle classes. Yes they work for their money but they moan about how they "work hard" as if other workers dont. I don't know about you but I would rather have hard work in the air conditioned office with executive lunches than the easy life working down the mines or at MacDonalds.

The capitalist would have no tax and you pay your way. This means the rich man sends his kid to a good school and college and the poor man cannot. The rich man's kid is now educated and gets the better well paid job while the poor man's kid follow in his fathers footstep down the mine. This is not equal opportunity.

I do not know how it works with education in America and in England it has now changed. But when I went to university it was free and paid for from taxes. But its not really free because the graduate gets a better job and moves up the salary ladder. As he moves up the ladder he pays more taxes. Those extra taxes he pays is the cost of the education he received which allowed him to earn that higher salary. Now that seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me and is an example of how equal opportunity can achieved through taxation. But he will moan of course because lets be honest nobody likes paying taxes not even the rock stars who earn zillions from bashing out some crap song.

In my view the principle of taxation and wealth distribution is valid and noble. The problem is the inept politicans make a balls of it and are so inefficient such that people pay too much tax for the services received. If governments worked like companies they wouild all be bankrupt and the leaders in jail.

[steelish]

But the loadest complaints about wealth spreading comes from the middle and upper middle classes. Yes they work for their money but they moan about how they "work hard" as if other workers dont. I don't know about you but I would rather have hard work in the air conditioned office with executive lunches than the easy life working down the mines or at MacDonalds.

The capitalist would have no tax and you pay your way. This means the rich man sends his kid to a good school and college and the poor man cannot. The rich man's kid is now educated and gets the better well paid job while the poor man's kid follow in his fathers footstep down the mine. This is not equal opportunity.

I do not know how it works with education in America and in England it has now changed. But when I went to university it was free and paid for from taxes. But its not really free because the graduate gets a better job and moves up the salary ladder. As he moves up the ladder he pays more taxes. Those extra taxes he pays is the cost of the education he received which allowed him to earn that higher salary. Now that seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me and is an example of how equal opportunity can achieved through taxation. But he will moan of course because lets be honest nobody likes paying taxes not even the rock stars who earn zillions from bashing out some crap song.

In my view the principle of taxation and wealth distribution is valid and noble. The problem is the inept politicans make a balls of it and are so inefficient such that people pay too much tax for the services received. If governments worked like companies they wouild all be bankrupt and the leaders in jail.

How interesting that you feel that way. I consider myself "middle class" and work very hard pushing 500 lb cages full of mail and parcels inside a Post Office the length and width of a football field. My husband works full time shoeing horses outside in the Florida heat. He works part time as a Police Officer. We do not complain about the rich, we see it as a goal to strive for rather than something to be vilified.

As to the uber-rich being snakes who care nothing for the "little man", how about Jon Huntsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Huntsman,_Sr.), who has donated billions to the poverty stricken and to cancer research? How about this (http://www.businessweek.com/pdfs/2004/0448_philan.pdf) list of the uber-rich philanthropists?

Yes, there are some rich folks who got there by slight of hand and ill gotten means, but to condemn them all is akin to saying all people who are poor are that way because they refuse to raise a finger to work. Some do, some don't. Some have disabilities, some don't. Some have addictions, some don't.

General education (K-12) is free and available to ALL Americans. There are hundreds of scholarships available as well. Each state has literally hundreds of financial aid scholarships to apply for...unfortunately, with the passing of the Health Care bill, the government has taken over that. I highly doubt it will make things "more equal" or better.

[Thorne]

I don't think you are accurate. The ruling classes have rarely given rights, the ruled have fought to win those rights. King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta, we cut of a Kings head because he refused to grant rights and the American Bill of Rights did not come without a fight did it.
Ah, but who actually forced King John to sign? It wasn't the common man. They were the ones who did all the fighting, yes, but it was the barons, with the support of the wealthy merchants. So any 'rights' accruing to the common man were more or less a 'gift' from those wealthy barons. And unless I'm mistaken, the American Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, were also developed by the wealthy merchants and politicians, the ruling classes, and primarily concerned the rights of landowners. This is probably simplified, but you get the idea.


As regards equality, nobody is seeking equal wealth not even communistis. People seek equal opportunites, to raise the standard of the poor to eradicate poverty and to make the difference in wealth fairer.
Sorry, but there have been several people here who have stated quite bluntly that they would like to see money taken from the rich and given to the poor. Not by increasing their education levels, or through better work environments, but by giving them entitlements, trying to raise them up to a level to equal the wealthy.


But the loadest complaints about wealth spreading comes from the middle and upper middle classes. Yes they work for their money but they moan about how they "work hard" as if other workers dont. I don't know about you but I would rather have hard work in the air conditioned office with executive lunches than the easy life working down the mines or at MacDonalds.
That's probably because we in the middle class know that, regardless of how the money is distributed, we're unlikely to see any of it. Look into how many government programs the middle class can't qualify for because we own our own homes, or we have a little money saved. Yet supposedly 'poor' people who have spent all of their money on luxuries, such as expensive clothing, expensive jewelry, expensive entertainment systems, will qualify for those programs just because they are frivolous with their money. That's not 'leveling the road', that's catering to stupidity. I have worked with people, who made as much or more than I, who complained bitterly about not being able to get by, yet they were living in a high-rent apartment, driving higher-end vehicles and spending obscene amounts of their paychecks in bars and nightclubs every week. Why should the wealthy, or I, have to pay to support their wasteful lifestyles?


The problem is the inept politicans make a balls of it and are so inefficient such that people pay too much tax for the services received. If governments worked like companies they wouild all be bankrupt and the leaders in jail.
This is about the most intelligent comment I've seen here, and it's been said many times by many of us. Relying on career politicians who haven't even tried to make a go of it in the real world is what's brought us to this point. What makes anyone think that relying on them to fix it will make anything better?

[brwneydgirl]

Relying on career politicians who haven't even tried to make a go of it in the real world is what's brought us to this point. What makes anyone think that relying on them to fix it will make anything better?


This quote is perfection. Term limits are not enough.

[Canyon]

If career politicians are a problem, how to fix it?

One Idea, make the house an amateur part of government, and the senate professional. The house of representatives, would have a two term lifetime limitation on it, and the Senators would have to be elected from past house members. Would allow continuous turnover of one part of legislature, and yet have a career base in the other, with the advantage that everyone who ran for the senate, would have a track record the voters could view.

No campaign financing by unions, corporations, or involuntary organizations. All campaign financing should be individual donations, (unlimited, as I find it disturbing to tell others what they can use their money for) , and donations from voluntary organizations like the American Cival Liberties Union, or the National Rifle Association, (unlimited, for the same reason).

Have a part time legislature. 90 days every two years sounds good to me, with only special sessions for budget emergencies, acts of war, or to issue letters of Marquie and Reprisal (Congress' way to initiate mililtary action should a commander in chief refuse to when it is necessary.) In the day of the internet they could do all their debates online, creating a permanant record of all their communications, and acts, both debating a bill and in their caucuses. The legislature could only go to Washington for the State of the Union, and to deal with confidential National Security issues only. Make them work out of offices in the geographic center of areas they represent, whether this is a large city or very small town. THen, if you did not like what your legislature is doing, go tell him/her. Talk about being in touch with their districts.

PS if they only worked 90 days it would save money, as they would have to have JOBS. Another good way for them to keep in touch with their electorate:

I know, probably not workable, but fun to think about. :icon277:

[denuseri]

Or put a life time two term limit on all public offices period.

With no campaign financing or advertising allowed by private individuals or unions , corperations etc. whatsoever, and an elections commission would set up appropriate blocks of air time on the media in equal porportions to the cantidates who passed the political entrance exam in your local area with x number of debates as well as a recorded section on campaig promises and canidates official positions on the issues of note at the time, records and promises for which they could be held accountable later if not met etc by being disbarred from further elections period by popular vote.

I love the idea of part time legislature too, in fact lets only pay each of them 100 dollars for each day in session, and lets cut the hell out of the number of office positions they are allowed as well as eliminate allmost all the amenities that exceed those of a mid-rank officer in the national guard/reserve, why should they get more benifits and make more money than the brave boys and girls who are in the armed services anyway huh?

Or we could take a page from the earliest democracies and select cualified people to office by lot.

[Canyon]

I like those Ideas.

How about a third house, Drafted, (farm laborors, mechanics, professors, housewives, solders, etc..., the only rejection criteria is any law education) just like the military in wartime, without any staff etc, just the person from each district, two from each state, and one from the nation. give them exactally the same amount of time that the legislature had between the final draft and vote on the bill to study it. give them an extensive comprehension test of the entire bill, 85% required to pass, then have those who pass vote on it. if you could not sell the bill to 2/3rd of all of them, not just the ones that passed, its vetoed. I know very Heinleinesq, but anything that slows things down is good. Our country usually has done well with slow thoughtful debate, and poorly with fast stuff rammed down our throats.

[steelish]

If career politicians are a problem, how to fix it?

One Idea, make the house an amateur part of government, and the senate professional. The house of representatives, would have a two term lifetime limitation on it, and the Senators would have to be elected from past house members. Would allow continuous turnover of one part of legislature, and yet have a career base in the other, with the advantage that everyone who ran for the senate, would have a track record the voters could view.

No campaign financing by unions, corporations, or involuntary organizations. All campaign financing should be individual donations, (unlimited, as I find it disturbing to tell others what they can use their money for) , and donations from voluntary organizations like the American Cival Liberties Union, or the National Rifle Association, (unlimited, for the same reason).

Have a part time legislature. 90 days every two years sounds good to me, with only special sessions for budget emergencies, acts of war, or to issue letters of Marquie and Reprisal (Congress' way to initiate mililtary action should a commander in chief refuse to when it is necessary.) In the day of the internet they could do all their debates online, creating a permanant record of all their communications, and acts, both debating a bill and in their caucuses. The legislature could only go to Washington for the State of the Union, and to deal with confidential National Security issues only. Make them work out of offices in the geographic center of areas they represent, whether this is a large city or very small town. THen, if you did not like what your legislature is doing, go tell him/her. Talk about being in touch with their districts.

PS if they only worked 90 days it would save money, as they would have to have JOBS. Another good way for them to keep in touch with their electorate:

I know, probably not workable, but fun to think about. :icon277:

Originally, Congressional sessions were scheduled as they are because Congress was largely populated by farmers and such...they had to return to their fields and harvest or they would lose money. There were term limits, the laws they passed applied to ALL citizens, including those in Congress.

What is truly scary is that the Federal Government is attempting to legalize thousands of illegal aliens and give them voting power. This will further the agenda of Socialism (which I truly believe to be the ultimate goal and no one will convince me otherwise). By granting full citizenship to illegal aliens and granting voting rights, which policies do you think they will vote for? The policies that give them handouts? The policies that retain their liberties yet demand that they work for a living?

Socialization of our country?

Maxine Waters (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ)
President Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk&feature=related)
This is just WRONG! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU9iCANi02o&feature=related)

[Lion]

My response to you is being curtailed as I do not think it will pass muster. Everything you needed is in the message.

Still don't get what you mean :icon277:


Anyhow, onto term limits and such. I was reading the transcript from an interview Colin Powell had with Face the Nation, at the end, the interviewer had this to say about elections:



Finally, when the amateurs ask me -- and by amateurs I mean the good citizens outside the circle of professional politics, when they ask me why Washington doesn't seem to listen, when every poll shows that people hate partisanship and want compromise, I tell them the professional politicians always listen. They listen to the people who gave them the money to get to Washington.

American politics used to be an amateur sport. But somewhere along the way we handed over to professionals all the things people used to do for free. So an enormous cottage industry sprang up. Consultants, gurus, strategists, pollsters who discovered it was easier to win elections by driving wedges between people than bringing them together.

Politics got nastier and worse. It came with a price. did it ever. The Center for Responsive Politics says the 2008 campaigns cost $5.3 billion. Good money if you can get it. And full disclosure, TV got a lot of it. It cost an average $8.5 million to win a seat in the Senate. In Minnesota, Norm Coleman spent $20 million and lost.

On average, a Senate candidate had to raise $3,881 a day for every day of a six-year term. Only those willing to do that won anymore. So to raise that kind of money, candidates must promise so much to so many before they get to Washington that once here, they can't compromise on anything. Their positions are set in stone.

So they're listening, all right, but like the loyal country girl, they're just listening to them that brung 'em.


http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/21/colin-powell-interviews-on-cbs-face-the-nation/

Made a lot of sense to me. One thing that I love about DC is all the glitz and glamour that can be found. There are so many high priced hotels and restaurants that survive on patronage of so many lobbyists.

But a friend of mine, who is an aide to a senator told me that there are no set rules in terms of what is really acceptable. A lobbyist can pay for a $80 Kobe steak, and with the recent Supreme Court ruling that corporations can also donate to campaigns, politicians really need the support of the rich.

A two term limit, in my mind doesn't really fix a lot of problems. With the expense of a campaign, corporations often donate to both sides. Lobbyists with their fat wallets need to simply write a campaign donation check to ensure a favourable vote.

I was shocked when I read the number that is spent on campaigns each year. How is it possible that it can go in the billions?!? I mean you could enact a law limiting the amount spent on a campaign, but then what about private groups that want to support a particular candidate (Swift boat, moveon.org)?

Anyhow, before anyone starts misquoting what I said, my point of this post is that with billions spent on campaigns each year, I think the problem has more to do with backroom deals with large donors. You could say that a person who doesn't have to worry about re-election for the third term can shake of any external pressure. But seeing how deep party loyalties seem to exist, I doubt that outgoing politicians would want to hurt their party's incoming stream of donations by ignoring the rich lobbyists. Nor would they want to hurt their chances in the professional field by harming their reputation.

In Canada, elections are called at a whim. There is no set date (elections have to be at least every 5 years). Often, successful campaigns for parlimentary seats are won with a budget of $10k. Not saying Americans should follow Canada, and that Canadian politicians are immune from greed, but if an election can only be won with 100s of thousands, or millions of dollars, then there is a problem, and a term limit might not be a full solution.

[Lion]

This is just WRONG! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU9iCANi02o&feature=related)


Much ado about nothing?

[Thorne]

With the expense of a campaign, corporations often donate to both sides. Lobbyists with their fat wallets need to simply write a campaign donation check to ensure a favourable vote.

I was shocked when I read the number that is spent on campaigns each year. How is it possible that it can go in the billions?!? I mean you could enact a law limiting the amount spent on a campaign, but then what about private groups that want to support a particular candidate (Swift boat, moveon.org)?

I think the problem has more to do with backroom deals with large donors.

I wonder if we couldn't require that ALL donations to political organizations be pooled into a common fund, with each candidate dipping from the same pool. You eliminate the lobbyists and you minimize the corporate influences on politicians. The potential for bribery goes up, but it would obviously be illegal, with both the receiver and briber being liable for criminal penalties. As things are now, corporations give their candidates boatloads of money for reelection, but it isn't considered a bribe, even though that is in fact what it amounts to.

[denuseri]

Why not eliminate campaign donations all together?

[steelish]

Much ado about nothing?

Pardon? The President of the United States, who is sworn in to uphold the Constitution and defend the Country cannot even pay respects to the flag???

[Thorne]

I'm with Lion on this one. I see no reason why anyone should feel it necessary to display their patriotism openly. It shows no disrespect for the flag. It certainly was far less disrespectful than that rendition of the Star Spangled Banner! That person should have been shot!

For the record, I don't place my hand over my heart for the Anthem either, though I do remove my hat. Does that make me a bad person?

[steelish]

Sorry, but I believe in showing patriotic respect...especially at a ceremony. And of all people, I believe the President should DEFINITELY show respect. If "Joe Blow" standing nearby in a stadium crowd simply removed his hat yet didn't cover his heart, I wouldn't think much of it...but when the President (who, btw, wears a flag lapel pin which I now feel is simply done out of a sense of obligation, rather than pride) does nothing other than stand there, I feel as if he doesn't care about the flag or what it stands for.

[DuncanONeil]

Welcome aboard! You are the first of all the places I have posted about the FairTax that has had a positive response.
Is it possible to ask you if you have a favorite part of the FairTax?

On the other hand if everyone is paid the same, how is there anything left for investing? Further married or extended families are instantly better of than the rest of the country!!


Would it not be interesting to be able to experiment with the redistribution idea though. I think I can predict the outcome. All wealth is redistributed equally. Some buy new cars, some party, some save some, and a few invest, take risks, gain or lose. In the end two things happen. the investing risk takers employ many, have control of a large amount of the wealth, and strengthen the ecomomy, and those who did not take those chances, demand redistribution.

I think that is why I would prefer the fair tax

[DuncanONeil]

The FairTax does not apply to the states! It is the only remaining Federal Tax on the monies of the citizens upon passage. Where I live the FairTax and the local 5.6% would still apply. Although it would apply to a lesser amount.


The main reason I like the fair tax as a replacement for ALL other taxes is that it is taken at the lowest level of government, counties and cities. Then the State gets its cut, and lastly the Federal government, which only has a very few things constitutionally it is allowed to pay for, like national defence. I keep watching these comercials about the census, so communities can get their fair share. Reminds me of a prayer I heard once. "my name is Jimmy, now gimmy, gimmy, gimmy!" Under the fair tax the money would never have left the area to begin with. Cities would have the money they need to maintain their infrastructure, as well as the States. If you would then either use private companies, not municipal workers, to maintain these things the free market could control costs, and ultimately save money. If you are determined to use public employee's keep costs down by competition. For instance, if the Arizona Department of Transportation could repair roads in California cheaper than CalTrans, they should get the job, not caltrans.

By keeping the money locally, and passing lesser amounts up the 'chain' you empower the local municipalities, and then States, and lastly the Federal Government. As I said, the Federal Government should be strong but very limited to only those areas given it in the constitution. I'm not necessarily against the idea of universal health care, as my wife was a transplant patient, and we could have never paid for that surgery without SSI, I just think it should not be a legislative act, or the achievement of a president. Something that vast takes powers the constitution never grants the Federal Government. The only way it should be done is by Constitutional Amendment, a complicated, drawn out and intentionally very difficult thing to do, in order to protect the citizens from the rampages of power hungry controlling government.

Remember in some "free" western countries, you have to have permission from the police to move to a new neighborhood. Out of control Government is a continuous, unsatable monster, rampaging on liberty.

[DuncanONeil]

No! No! No!
This is not how the FairTax works. The FairTax is the same across the board "(t)he FairTax is a single-rate, federal retail sales tax collected only once, at the final point of purchase of new goods and services for personal consumption. Used items are not taxed. Business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services are not taxed. A rebate makes the effective rate progressive."
One of the basic tenents of the FairTax is that is not the business of Government to determine winners and losers in the marketplace.


The only issue I have with the Fair Tax is that it still allows for Progression. "Tax this, but not this...this service should be taxed more than this one...etc." A Flat Tax doesn't allow for that. No matter where you fall on the economic scale, you pay X amount per dollar on your income...period. No chance for adjustments for this service, or that service.

[DuncanONeil]

"The flat tax and the FairTax share some important similarities. They are both flat-rate taxes that are neutral with respect to savings and investment. The flat tax, however, retains the invasive income tax administration apparatus and can easily revert to a graduated, convoluted mess, as it has many times over many years.

Very few people really understand the flat tax. Its authors will tell you it is a consumption tax that uses the income tax system for implementation. Only an academic or government bureaucrat would dream up a consumption tax that needs the invasive income tax apparatus for its application, when one can simply have a retail sales tax and reduce the bureaucracy by 90 percent or more! In addition, a large part of the burden of the flat tax -- the business tax -- will remain hidden from people in the retail price of goods and services.

In contrast, the FairTax is simple, easy to understand, and visible. It cannot be converted into an income tax."


The only issues I have with flat tax, is the institution of a coorperation with limited liability will be the sole prime benefactors, while all the rest of us who are not super rich will have our taxes nearly trippled to fill the void. So long as faceless corperations are being treated with all of the perks of "personhood" with none of the responsabilities, any such endeavor will do far more harm than good.

If each company was owned by individuals who are fully liable then and only then would I support a fair tax em all you want position. Though I am sure that has its own drawbacks.

As for a full on redistribution of wealth...smh..we havent ever even got close to that in the United States. In fact no one anywhere really has short of a few handfuls of hippie communes and the Hutterites.

Additionally I seriously doubt "global" corpperations of american origin or otherwise will ever allow the politicians that they own lock stock and barrel in several countires to take away their sacred profit margins.

Nor do I believe will the extremely wealthy individuals that are out there support any such endeavor, for they gain nothing by it.

Even the full blown "communist" countries failed to fully redistribute the wealth nor control its redistribution in any kind of productive manner in anything more than "theory" and that was the basis for their very rise to power on the ignorant massess proverbial backs.

Sadely...it is greed..imho...that ultimately rules the day when all is said and done.

[DuncanONeil]

Essential services?

Like Social Security and Medicare?

Neither is an essential Government service!



Like the Military and Police Departments?

Military is an Essential Government service. Police, however, are a local issue!



Like the Fire department and in some countries all health care?

Again the Fire Department is a local issue! As for health care that is, again, not an essential Government service




I think these can all be done quite nicely without having "corporate involvement".

(and btw I include Labor Unions in the same catagory as their corperate counterparts becuase , well historically speaking, one is a sympton of the other)

Just like they were done (and done quite well I might add) prior to the advent of the modern corporation or it's involvement in politics or its rise to hegemony over the world.

Greed need not be the sole motivating factor used to drive incentive...and one day I hope that mankind will find it a necessity to rise above it's strangle hold before we end up in another dark age or worse as we scramble to "acquire" control over the worlds dwindling resources.

[DuncanONeil]

This quote is perfection. Term limits are not enough.


How about a single term??

[DuncanONeil]

No! I changed my mind I am not going to say it.


If career politicians are a problem, how to fix it?

One Idea, make the house an amateur part of government, and the senate professional. The house of representatives, would have a two term lifetime limitation on it, and the Senators would have to be elected from past house members. Would allow continuous turnover of one part of legislature, and yet have a career base in the other, with the advantage that everyone who ran for the senate, would have a track record the voters could view.

No campaign financing by unions, corporations, or involuntary organizations. All campaign financing should be individual donations, (unlimited, as I find it disturbing to tell others what they can use their money for) , and donations from voluntary organizations like the American Cival Liberties Union, or the National Rifle Association, (unlimited, for the same reason).

Have a part time legislature. 90 days every two years sounds good to me, with only special sessions for budget emergencies, acts of war, or to issue letters of Marquie and Reprisal (Congress' way to initiate mililtary action should a commander in chief refuse to when it is necessary.) In the day of the internet they could do all their debates online, creating a permanant record of all their communications, and acts, both debating a bill and in their caucuses. The legislature could only go to Washington for the State of the Union, and to deal with confidential National Security issues only. Make them work out of offices in the geographic center of areas they represent, whether this is a large city or very small town. THen, if you did not like what your legislature is doing, go tell him/her. Talk about being in touch with their districts.

PS if they only worked 90 days it would save money, as they would have to have JOBS. Another good way for them to keep in touch with their electorate:

I know, probably not workable, but fun to think about. :icon277:

[DuncanONeil]

Much ado about nothing?


It is not nothing and there has not been enough ado!

[DuncanONeil]

Now that is interesting! And it does appear to solve a whole host of problems. But are we not then removing the choice of the people to support the candidate of their choice??


I wonder if we couldn't require that ALL donations to political organizations be pooled into a common fund, with each candidate dipping from the same pool. You eliminate the lobbyists and you minimize the corporate influences on politicians. The potential for bribery goes up, but it would obviously be illegal, with both the receiver and briber being liable for criminal penalties. As things are now, corporations give their candidates boatloads of money for reelection, but it isn't considered a bribe, even though that is in fact what it amounts to.

[DuncanONeil]

Why not eliminate campaign donations all together?


Then only the independantly wealthy can run for office.

[DuncanONeil]

I'm with Lion on this one. I see no reason why anyone should feel it necessary to display their patriotism openly. It shows no disrespect for the flag. It certainly was far less disrespectful than that rendition of the Star Spangled Banner! That person should have been shot!

For the record, I don't place my hand over my heart for the Anthem either, though I do remove my hat. Does that make me a bad person?


I choose to stand at attention! And am frustrated by the people that can not stand still for three and one half minutes!

[denuseri]

If you really read previous posts I wouldnt have to point out that I purposed a way for elections to be held that removed campaign donations from the loop without turing the thing into a "only the rich" can run affair Duncan.

And I dont care if its federal, state or local...its still government provided services and ones that many consider to be essential at that.

[steelish]

I wonder if we couldn't require that ALL donations to political organizations be pooled into a common fund, with each candidate dipping from the same pool. You eliminate the lobbyists and you minimize the corporate influences on politicians. The potential for bribery goes up, but it would obviously be illegal, with both the receiver and briber being liable for criminal penalties. As things are now, corporations give their candidates boatloads of money for reelection, but it isn't considered a bribe, even though that is in fact what it amounts to.

This is interesting, however, given the current trend towards unpunished bribery within the federal government (and likely everywhere else too...state, local) I highly doubt it will discourage corruption.

The final votes for the healthcare bill were bought. That much was obvious.

[Kendal]

How interesting that you feel that way. I consider myself "middle class" and work very hard pushing 500 lb cages full of mail and parcels inside a Post Office the length and width of a football field. My husband works full time shoeing horses outside in the Florida heat. He works part time as a Police Officer. We do not complain about the rich, we see it as a goal to strive for rather than something to be vilified. Have you understood my post correctly. My point was how the higher taxed upper middle classes complain they "work hard" for their money as if they are the only ones who do. I was saying the lower and middle class work just as hard, as you yourself confirm pisshing 500lb cages around. I would have thought you would resent the implication only the high earners work and not the lower paid.


As to the uber-rich being snakes who care nothing for the "little man", how about Jon HuntsmanSr who has donated billions to the poverty stricken and to cancer research? How about ...list of the uber-rich philanthropists? You are talking about how they spend the money once they have it. I am talking about how they got it in the first place. It's a bit like the Godfather movie where Michael Corleone donates a million to the church - good man but how did he get the money. I am not suggesting every super rich is a gangster and dont have time to go through backgrounds of a list of philanthropists but I am sure a large number have been devious.


Yes, there are some rich folks who got there by slight of hand and ill gotten means, but to condemn them all is akin to saying all people who are poor are that way because they refuse to raise a finger to work. Fair point but I dont think I said "all" but the bad uber rich is the person most likely to use his money for bribes and lobbyist to control the law to keep the cards stacked in his favor. It is then not equal opportunity. Microsoft have been nailed countless times for this. The principle is well known. Once you have power you use that power to retain power by whatever means.


General education (K-12) is free and available to ALL Americans....... Are you trying to say the poor kid with his free K12 has the same opportunity as the rich kid with the college degree. Yes there are some sponsorships but that is some. Until such time as money is not a barrier to education there will not be equal opportunity.

[Kendal]

Ah, but who actually forced King John to sign? You said the rulers "gave" the rights to the ruled. I replied not so the ruled fought for those rights. Yes the baron was not the common man but they were ruled by the king. In turn and in later years the common man was to fight for his rights. Similary the American Rights may have been fought for by wealthy merchants but they were the ruled fighting the rulers. King George did not "give" those rights away, he was forced to concede them through battle. Did America give the slaves freedom or was there a war. Did American Congress one day end segregation or did the common black man have to fight for the rights. Maybe you can cite one of the noble ruler freeely giving rights but for every example you find I will find 10 where rights had to be fought for.


Sorry, but there have been several people here who have stated quite bluntly that they would like to see money taken from the rich and given to the poor. You are nitpicking. Taking money from rich and giving to poor is not saying you want equalty. I said people want to raise the standard of the poor and narrow the gap between rich and poor. Narrowing a gap is not the same as closing a gap. Nobody is suggesting we should all be paid and taxed the same irrespective of job. Please dont nitpick.


That's probably because we in the middle class know that, regardless of how the money is distributed, we're unlikely to see any of it Yes I totally agree but is it the principle of taxation that is the problem or the fact that government is wasteful and the brunt of taxation falls on the middle class. I say the principle is fair its just the governemt is inept and inefficient and the middle class bears the brunt of their mistakes.


This is about the most intelligent comment I've seen here, and it's been said many times by many of us. But you do not comment on whether the principle of taxation wrong or is it simply those managing it are incompetent. If a bad pilot crashes a plane you dont say the principles of aerodynamics are wrong do you !




.

[Thorne]

I choose to stand at attention! And am frustrated by the people that can not stand still for three and one half minutes!

That is your choice, and you're certainly free to do as you see fit. I stand quietly and wait for the usually badly sung anthem to be finished. I have no need to publicly display my love of country by standing at attention, or saluting, or holding my hand over my heart. I certainly don't sing, out of respect for other people's ears.

[steelish]

The specific quote I was responding to is this one


But the loadest complaints about wealth spreading comes from the middle and upper middle classes. Yes they work for their money but they moan about how they "work hard" as if other workers dont. I don't know about you but I would rather have hard work in the air conditioned office with executive lunches than the easy life working down the mines or at MacDonalds.

My comprehension is thus:

Middle and upper middle class complain the most (I am middle...possibly considered "upper" middle)
Then you go on to describe "hard work" in an air conditioned office, yet don't mention which "class" you are referring to. Upper Middle and some upper class do this. The uber rich rarely have this type of lifestyle. You made it seem as if you view the upper middle class as those executive lunch crowd who works so hard in a/c at a desk. I caught the sarcasm in the post when you referred to the "easy" life in the coal mines or at MacDonalds (which I'm assuming is what you would consider lower and some middle class). I realize (as do most others) that all economic class levels work hard. (That's not to say that all workers work hard. Some work harder than others at the exact same job)

The biggest problem that faces everyone is misconception. Unless you walk a mile in someone else's shoes, you will not understand their point of view.

[steelish]

That is your choice, and you're certainly free to do as you see fit. I stand quietly and wait for the usually badly sung anthem to be finished. I have no need to publicly display my love of country by standing at attention, or saluting, or holding my hand over my heart. I certainly don't sing, out of respect for other people's ears.

It's sad that it's gotten to this point. I understand your view completely of how bad some of the National Anthem singers are. I too cringe as they muddle their way through the song. BUT, it's not how well it's sung that makes me want to stand at attention or place my hand over my heart...it's the words and what they mean. It's the history.

One of my duties every evening is to lower the flag at the Post Office and fold it. I do so with the utmost respect. I've had military personnel stop on the sidewalk outside and watch me take it down. I know they're just waiting to see if I let it touch the ground. I take pride in this simple task and am always grinning when they watch. I know how important it is to them. It's important to me also. That tight triangle with the field of blue showing on both sides is an honor to place in storage for a co-worker to raise the following day.

You all may think I'm crazy for my patriotic feelings. You may think me strange to gaze at the flag, hand over heart when someone sings the National Anthem off key or tunelessly. Call me crazy. I don't care. I've never lost my love of my country. Remember how we all felt on 9/11? Call me crazy or "much ado about nothing" when I get irritated over a President who cannot show respect in front of American citizens at a public ceremony. I think it's a gesture that the President SHOULD be doing. But, having said that, I would rather he do it only if he truly feels that respect. If he does not, then it's just an empty gesture. At least, in my eyes, he is showing me how he really feels about America.

[Thorne]

You said the rulers "gave" the rights to the ruled. I replied not so the ruled fought for those rights. Yes the baron was not the common man but they were ruled by the king.
But still they were rulers in their own rights, and the king relied upon their support for his own rule. Without the barons' money and troops the king could not rule. All the barons did was to improve their own lots in life, without much direct benefit to the commoners.


Did America give the slaves freedom or was there a war.
The American Civil War was never about freeing the slaves. It was about the rights of the states to rule themselves. Slavery happened to be one of those rights. Lincoln did not free the slaves out of the goodness of his heart. The Emancipation Proclamation was a desperate attempt to encourage the slaves to revolt, forcing the Confederacy to pull troops from the fronts. Their freedom was handed to them by the government.


Did American Congress one day end segregation or did the common black man have to fight for the rights.
This one I have to give to you.


If a bad pilot crashes a plane you dont say the principles of aerodynamics are wrong do you !
No, the principles aren't necessarily wrong, but don't automatically blame the pilot, either.

The principle of using tax moneys to benefit all of the people is a good one. Certain things need to be done for the nation as a whole which individual states or communities cannot be relied upon to handle. Forcing donations to charity isn't, in my opinion, one of those things. And yes, using tax dollars to try to keep the poor people happy in their poverty is forced charity. Using it to improve schools and other infrastructure benefits everyone, not only the poor. But ultimately the poor would gain the most benefit, as the biggest gap between the haves and the have-nots is education.

[Thorne]

You all may think I'm crazy for my patriotic feelings. You may think me strange to gaze at the flag, hand over heart when someone sings the National Anthem off key or tunelessly. Call me crazy. I don't care. I've never lost my love of my country.
I don't think it's crazy at all. My point is that a love of country doesn't require overt displays of patriotism. And conversely, displays of patriotism don't necessarily guarantee a love of country.


Remember how we all felt on 9/11?
I remember. And I showed no more overt patriotism then than now. I remember seeing all the people with flag bumper stickers, and flags flying from antennas and flags hanging from their windows. And I can remember thinking that the hidden enemies of the country would have been among the first to join in those displays. It makes for good camouflage.


I think it's a gesture that the President SHOULD be doing.
I agree, and unless I'm mistaken, as Commander-in-Chief he's required to salute the flag, as part of the military code of conduct. But look again at that video. He was not yet president then. And the flag was behind him, not in front of him.

[DuncanONeil]

I do remember you presenting this idea earlier. I confess that the details of that message must have become lost in time.

As for the essential services argument. I must say that all levels of government can not be lumped together into a single entity. Each level of government operates on different sets of rules.
The Federal Government, that we all must care about has a very specific set of rules that are, largely, designed to limit their ability to "stick it to us". Too many of the people in Washington are what can kindly be called "bleeding hearts" and believe that being a parent to the people of the nation qualifies as "promote the general welfare". But in doing so they tend to ignore the very next section; "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". Washington is promoting the first at the expense of the second!


If you really read previous posts I wouldnt have to point out that I purposed a way for elections to be held that removed campaign donations from the loop without turing the thing into a "only the rich" can run affair Duncan.

And I dont care if its federal, state or local...its still government provided services and ones that many consider to be essential at that.

[DuncanONeil]

Fair point but I dont think I said "all" but the bad uber rich is the person most likely to use his money for bribes and lobbyist to control the law to keep the cards stacked in his favor. It is then not equal opportunity. Microsoft have been nailed countless times for this. The principle is well known. Once you have power you use that power to retain power by whatever means.

Like the members of Congress who see their job and the salary we pay them as merely there for the purpose of retaining said job??



Are you trying to say the poor kid with his free K12 has the same opportunity as the rich kid with the college degree. Yes there are some sponsorships but that is some. Until such time as money is not a barrier to education there will not be equal opportunity.

I am afraid that this a bit of a mischaracterization. She very clearly indicated that there are scholarships available. In fact it is easier for a minority to get a scholarship than those not "blessed" with minority status!

[SadisticNature]

The legislation is engineered in such a fashion as to increase the cost of insurance to a point that business can not afford to carry the burden. As has been demonstrated by the massive increases to business already reported.
Then there is the fact that the Government is to decide what MUST be covered and what the CHARGE for that coverage will be. As is the case with Medicare the Government decides what it will pay irrespective of the charges on the bill. When they have all private providers out of business that will extend to all. As Medicare has shown in spite of total control of the money paid in claims the costs of the program have done nothing but increase.

Medicare is actually doing a great job of controlling costs, the primary reason for the increase in costs is demographics, as the population ages the costs go up. There is a boom of elderly occurring. The costs in the private insurance industry are rising far faster (and largely for increased shareholder gains).

[SadisticNature]

Firstly, the US offers far fewer bursaries (scholarships with a financial need component) than other countries. Secondly, tuition in the US is higher than anywhere else in the world. Lastly, many scholarships are flawed in that they are based on a broken GPA system. Good private schools offer the full set of AP courses which in many systems allows a 6.0 GPA on a 4 scale. Kids without access to those courses can only get at best a 4.0 on a 4 scale. Most scholarships have cutoffs above 5/4, so if a poor kid is in a neighborhood where they can't take the full set of AP courses they are cut off from many scholarships even if they have perfect grades.

Lastly, for scholarships to be a real solution kids need a real opportunity to learn in schools. The US doesn't spend nearly enough on education compared to other G(whatever it is these days) countries.

Also poor is far from being a minority what about the white kid born to parents in a trailer park?

As for calling it a blessing, despite the advantages of affirmative action I suspect many of us would not want to be one.



Like the members of Congress who see their job and the salary we pay them as merely there for the purpose of retaining said job??




I am afraid that this a bit of a mischaracterization. She very clearly indicated that there are scholarships available. In fact it is easier for a minority to get a scholarship than those not "blessed" with minority status!

[DuncanONeil]

Did America give the slaves freedom or was there a war. Did American Congress one day end segregation or did the common black man have to fight for the rights. Maybe you can cite one of the noble ruler freeely giving rights but for every example you find I will find 10 where rights had to be fought for.

Little bit off in facts here. The "war" was not fought to end slavery. In fact the last "northern" state ended slavery in 1804. So of 33 states 20 had ended slavery without a war.


You are nitpicking. Taking money from rich and giving to poor is not saying you want equalty. I said people want to raise the standard of the poor and narrow the gap between rich and poor. Narrowing a gap is not the same as closing a gap. Nobody is suggesting we should all be paid and taxed the same irrespective of job. Please dont nitpick.

Raise the standard of the poor? Could you explain just what you mean by that? As for narrowing the gap. How do you propose to do that without confiscating from the "rich".
Without all making the same there will always be "poor". That brings us back to a description of that standard and what would be a sufficient raising.


Yes I totally agree but is it the principle of taxation that is the problem or the fact that government is wasteful and the brunt of taxation falls on the middle class. I say the principle is fair its just the governemt is inept and inefficient and the middle class bears the brunt of their mistakes.

There is no way you can support that the brunt of taxation falls upon the shoulders of the middle class. Again we are discussing a category of people without definition. Would you accept that the top 25% of earners are not in the middle class?
The minimum income to be included in that top 25% is about $64,700 with an AGI floor of about $32,000. These people pay $833 billion in tax. They take in 68% of the nations income and PAY 86% of the nations taxes. Now explain to me how the "middle class" bears the brunt of taxes! Heck half of the "middle class" pays little to no taxes!


But you do not comment on whether the principle of taxation wrong or is it simply those managing it are incompetent. If a bad pilot crashes a plane you dont say the principles of aerodynamics are wrong do you !

Taxation is one of those things that can easily be qualified as a necessary evil. However, income tax is the worst of those evils. It is less of a means to support the Government and more of a means of control. As such it is WRONG! That is one of the reasons I used to favor a flat tax. That is until I found about about the FairTax. Now our (ahem) representatives in Washington are raising the specter of a VAT tax on top of our onerous income tax. If there is anything that hurts the poor it is a VAT. Vat is easy to say. Then they point to all the "old countries" that have a VAT. But what is it? A tax that added to the price of an item EACH AND EVERY TIME (V)alue is (A)dded to some raw (or previously produced) material it has (T)ax added to the new price. Simple example;

Seed is turned into wheat
Wheat is turned into flour
Flour is turned into bread
Bread is sliced

At a 7% VAT this adds some 32% to the price of that loaf of bread.

[DuncanONeil]

No comment on your singing! But it is a very difficult song to actually sing.
Your standing and my attention probably look a lot alike. Outside of the fact that my thumbs are along the seam of my trousers.
Just my service background asserting itself!


That is your choice, and you're certainly free to do as you see fit. I stand quietly and wait for the usually badly sung anthem to be finished. I have no need to publicly display my love of country by standing at attention, or saluting, or holding my hand over my heart. I certainly don't sing, out of respect for other people's ears.

[DuncanONeil]

In 2006 the bottom 50% of earners had an AGI of over $1 trillion, yet only paid $30 million in taxes. Less that 4%!


The specific quote I was responding to is this one



My comprehension is thus:

Middle and upper middle class complain the most (I am middle...possibly considered "upper" middle)
Then you go on to describe "hard work" in an air conditioned office, yet don't mention which "class" you are referring to. Upper Middle and some upper class do this. The uber rich rarely have this type of lifestyle. You made it seem as if you view the upper middle class as those executive lunch crowd who works so hard in a/c at a desk. I caught the sarcasm in the post when you referred to the "easy" life in the coal mines or at MacDonalds (which I'm assuming is what you would consider lower and some middle class). I realize (as do most others) that all economic class levels work hard. (That's not to say that all workers work hard. Some work harder than others at the exact same job)

The biggest problem that faces everyone is misconception. Unless you walk a mile in someone else's shoes, you will not understand their point of view.

[DuncanONeil]

And yes, using tax dollars to try to keep the poor people happy in their poverty is forced charity. Using it to improve schools and other infrastructure benefits everyone, not only the poor. But ultimately the poor would gain the most benefit, as the biggest gap between the haves and the have-nots is education.


Assuming you can get any real improvement into the schools and not the teachers and their union bosses!!

[DuncanONeil]

Then why is there so much fraud? And promises, ad naseum, to end the fraud? You are talking admin costs aren't you?
All the third party insurance programs are one of the major causes of cost increases in health care.
Yes that is an opinion!


Medicare is actually doing a great job of controlling costs, the primary reason for the increase in costs is demographics, as the population ages the costs go up. There is a boom of elderly occurring. The costs in the private insurance industry are rising far faster (and largely for increased shareholder gains).

[DuncanONeil]

Flimsy argument!?!?!
Sorry SN, the language is right there in the bill.
In fact nothing in your reply refutes the statements I actually made.


Medicare is actually doing a great job of controlling costs, the primary reason for the increase in costs is demographics, as the population ages the costs go up. There is a boom of elderly occurring. The costs in the private insurance industry are rising far faster (and largely for increased shareholder gains).

[DuncanONeil]

First you say that the cost of school is too high in the US and then say we need to spend more? Huh!?

Money will never solve the education problem in this country! The biggest problem is the kids are just shuffled through the schools like an assembly line. If the kid does not perform or learn the material, no matter, they need not learn. It would damage their poor fragile psyche to be held back to learn the material. No matter that not learning the first set of material deliberately dooms them to failure. With it being below 70% nationally and trending down in spite of in the neighborhood of $200,000 per classroom. Something is wrong that money can not solve.


Firstly, the US offers far fewer bursaries (scholarships with a financial need component) than other countries. Secondly, tuition in the US is higher than anywhere else in the world. Lastly, many scholarships are flawed in that they are based on a broken GPA system. Good private schools offer the full set of AP courses which in many systems allows a 6.0 GPA on a 4 scale. Kids without access to those courses can only get at best a 4.0 on a 4 scale. Most scholarships have cutoffs above 5/4, so if a poor kid is in a neighborhood where they can't take the full set of AP courses they are cut off from many scholarships even if they have perfect grades.

Lastly, for scholarships to be a real solution kids need a real opportunity to learn in schools. The US doesn't spend nearly enough on education compared to other G(whatever it is these days) countries.

Also poor is far from being a minority what about the white kid born to parents in a trailer park?

As for calling it a blessing, despite the advantages of affirmative action I suspect many of us would not want to be one.

[TantricSoul]

Oh come on folks... is it really a news flash that our president is a human being and as such will make a mistake or two here and there?

Was BushII, or Clinton, or BushI, or Reagan or any sitting president soooo perfect as to never make a human mistake?

No they all have, and they all have in common that their detractors will use those human displays to attack.

I have to agree that the rendition was not pleasing to my ears ... but Obama must have enjoyed it as he appears to be the only one there singing along.

Can we move onto something more substantial please? like the topic?

~Tantric

[denuseri]

Getting back to the main part of the topic:

The only way we will ever have any kind of society that approaches any kind of real equality is if we abandon capitalism all together on a world wide basis in favor of an entirely different system that isnt dependent upon greed to function and takes stringent means to curtail greed based coruption.

[Canyon]

Origionally posted by Thorne.
That is your choice, and you're certainly free to do as you see fit. I stand quietly and wait for the usually badly sung anthem to be finished. I have no need to publicly display my love of country by standing at attention, or saluting, or holding my hand over my heart. I certainly don't sing, out of respect for other people's ears.

With one exception where the singer may (I'll give her the benifit of the doubt, she may just be a truely horrible singer) have disrespected the song , then mocked the audience by spitting (at least thats what it looked like) when they showed her their displeasure, I can honestly say I've never heard the song sung badly, no matter how poor the singer. You should hear me try to hit that high note. Still love the song.


Origionally posted by steelish.
One of my duties every evening is to lower the flag at the Post Office and fold it. I do so with the utmost respect. I've had military personnel stop on the sidewalk outside and watch me take it down. I know they're just waiting to see if I let it touch the ground. I take pride in this simple task and am always grinning when they watch. I know how important it is to them. It's important to me also. That tight triangle with the field of blue showing on both sides is an honor to place in storage for a co-worker to raise the following day.

Thank you so much.


Origionally posted by steelish
You all may think I'm crazy for my patriotic feelings. You may think me strange to gaze at the flag, hand over heart when someone sings the National Anthem off key or tunelessly. Call me crazy. I don't care. I've never lost my love of my country.

Your not crazy. I hope you never lose that love for your country

[Kendal]

The biggest problem that faces everyone is misconception. Unless you walk a mile in someone else's shoes, you will not understand their point of view. That the middle classes bear the brunt of taxation I agree. That they are taxed too much I agree, But they all too often talk about how they "work hard:" as if others do not. I was pointing out they are not the only people who work hard and life down the mines is (as the recent accident shows) hard work also, Yes I was being sarcastic when I said easy life down the mines. Was it not obvious?

Part of the miscommunciation here is our difference of understnding what the classes are. In UK manual (blue collar) workers were/are lower class. The term is consider demeaning today so now they are called lower middle class. The middle class is the foreman, junior manager, shopkeeper. The upper middle is the professionals - senior managers, doctors, lawyers etc. The upper class would be the directors and (large)company owners. Clearly UK is different from USA because the person pushing cages would be lower(middle) and the saying where to push those cages (supervisor/manager) would be middle. To translate my gripe into your company it would be like the Logistics Manager saying he works hard as if the cage pusher does not. I would have thought you would agreeing with me.


But still they were rulers in their own rights, and the king relied upon their support for his own rule. Without the barons' money and troops the king could not rule. All the barons did was to improve their own lots in life, without much direct benefit to the commoners In terms of rights (eg Magna Carta) the ruler (king) ruled over the barons (ruled) and did not freely give those rights and much as we have loved could could not take back the rights he had given. The fact that the barons ruled the serfs is another situtation and the baron did not freely give the serfs rights, they fought for them be it through rebellion or petioning the king. The fact remains rights are rarely given freely they are won through battle.


The American Civil War was never about freeing the slaves. It was about the rights of the states to rule themselves. Yes I know. I did not want to turn my post into a history class and said that for simplicity. The fact still remains the rights were not given, they were fought for. In this case they lost and with that defeat lost the rights.


No, the principles aren't necessarily wrong, but don't automatically blame the pilot, either. Correct. And the principles or calculations may be wrong. The question is then when it comes to heavy taxation is the problem the principle of taxing higher earners more one we disagree with or is it simply that because of government overspending and inefficiency the tax burder is too high. I do not see the middle classes complaining when America spends zillions to invade other countries but they do complain when money goes to the have nots. I maintain that it is possible to help the less well off and lower taxes on the middle class simply by by efficient, not wasteful and not looking soley to taxation for revenue. There are other ways governments can earn money not just income tax.

The government screwed up the banks by deregulating and not monitoring them. How much taxpayer money went to bail outs and how many companies went broke. How much has iraq and Afghanistan cost - and you still haven't caught Bin Ladin or stopped terrorism.. That mispent money could have been saved, put into health and your taxes would probably still be the same.

I agree the middle class is over taxed. My gripe is how they point the finger at poor man saying "why should I pay for him" rather than pointing the finger at the rich politician and asking why are you making such a balls up of everything. To my mind money for heal sick americans is more noble than money for into the pockets of the userers or to drop bombs on people in a far off land.

[steelish]

That the middle classes bear the brunt of taxation I agree. That they are taxed too much I agree, But they all too often talk about how they "work hard:" as if others do not. I was pointing out they are not the only people who work hard and life down the mines is (as the recent accident shows) hard work also, Yes I was being sarcastic when I said easy life down the mines. Was it not obvious?

Oh, it was obvious, but you're analogy was not. Coal miners typically make almost $22.00 per hour, which is middle class wages.

Lower class are those who make minimum wage, or just barely over it. (Adults who are workers at McDonalds, or baggers at the grocery store, etc.) But no one thinks they don't work hard. The ones who don't work hard are the people who are capable of working yet have been on welfare for years. Those are the ones we complain about.

[Kendal]

steelish - UK is somewhat different than america. You define class in terms of money whereas in UK it is much more. The man who wins the lottery in America becomes upper class overnight but in UK his education and behavior would be a barrier. My point is everybody who is working works hard - so the gripe I work hard is redundant since it applies to all taxpayers.

I appreciate there may be a group who are the perpetual unemployed - the scroungers - but they should not be confused with the decent man who lost his job through no fault of his own but rather because the inept politicians and greedy bankers screwed up the economy and made his company bankrupt.

[SadisticNature]

First you say that the cost of school is too high in the US and then say we need to spend more? Huh!?

Money will never solve the education problem in this country! The biggest problem is the kids are just shuffled through the schools like an assembly line. If the kid does not perform or learn the material, no matter, they need not learn. It would damage their poor fragile psyche to be held back to learn the material. No matter that not learning the first set of material deliberately dooms them to failure. With it being below 70% nationally and trending down in spite of in the neighborhood of $200,000 per classroom. Something is wrong that money can not solve.

I said that university education was the most expensive of any country. Then in a discussion of scholarships which come from high school I pointed out that the US doesn't spend enough on schools. So yes, both statements are true. Of course you were probably skimming them so you assumed a contradiction through misreading where none exists, you've done that a lot lately.

As for money never solving the problem, it can if you bother to spend it correctly. Higher standards/qualifications for teaching accompanied by a modest pay raise (Canada has much higher teacher salaries and much better education performance, Finland spends even more than us and is among the best in the world), more money on materials for classrooms. Stop dumping money into voucher systems and calling it education spending, because having a lottery for 1% or less to escape a broken system is no way to run education.

As for fail vs pass student who has grades to fail, countless studies over the last 30+ years have consistently shown that in lower grades if you pass the student on they are more likely to catch up. Convincing a young kid they are stupid is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think a lot of the problem is there is good scientific information on this topic and people choose to ignore it in order to apply their ideologies to the education system complete with all their mistakes.

[SadisticNature]

Oh, it was obvious, but you're analogy was not. Coal miners typically make almost $22.00 per hour, which is middle class wages.

Lower class are those who make minimum wage, or just barely over it. (Adults who are workers at McDonalds, or baggers at the grocery store, etc.) But no one thinks they don't work hard. The ones who don't work hard are the people who are capable of working yet have been on welfare for years. Those are the ones we complain about.

Yet welfare is a program that is minimally abused, over 95% of welfare recipients are on the program for only a short period of time, only 5% are the chronic abusers you "complain" about. 95% of the people who use it need support while they look for a new job. I don't think the coal miner is lazy, and I don't begrudge him a few months on welfare after they close the coal mine.

If you want to scrap welfare how about we get rid of every program that has less than 95% efficiency first. Starting with all military technology spending, which just about never comes in on budget.

[DuncanONeil]

What would you like to suggest?


Getting back to the main part of the topic:

The only way we will ever have any kind of society that approaches any kind of real equality is if we abandon capitalism all together on a world wide basis in favor of an entirely different system that isnt dependent upon greed to function and takes stringent means to curtail greed based coruption.

[DuncanONeil]

steelish - UK is somewhat different than america. You define class in terms of money whereas in UK it is much more. The man who wins the lottery in America becomes upper class overnight but in UK his education and behavior would be a barrier. My point is everybody who is working works hard - so the gripe I work hard is redundant since it applies to all taxpayers.

I appreciate there may be a group who are the perpetual unemployed - the scroungers - but they should not be confused with the decent man who lost his job through no fault of his own but rather because the inept politicians and greedy bankers screwed up the economy and made his company bankrupt.


Interesting comment; "the gripe I work hard is redundant since it applies to all taxpayers." Makes your distinctions harder. Here in the US some 47% are not taxpayers!

[DuncanONeil]

You said; “Secondly, tuition in the US is higher than anywhere else in the world.”, and later; “The US doesn't spend nearly enough on education compared to other G(whatever it is these days) countries.”

Now you may want to say that you were speaking of University, but that you did not say. That little point aside grades below university still have a cost that averages approximately $10,000 per year. Our total expenditures in education are 3.6 times greater than the nearest country. Apparently no one spends more than we do, however, I do agree smarter is better than what is being done.

So as I said money is not the solution!


I said that university education was the most expensive of any country. Then in a discussion of scholarships which come from high school I pointed out that the US doesn't spend enough on schools. So yes, both statements are true. Of course you were probably skimming them so you assumed a contradiction through misreading where none exists, you've done that a lot lately.

As for money never solving the problem, it can if you bother to spend it correctly. Higher standards/qualifications for teaching accompanied by a modest pay raise (Canada has much higher teacher salaries and much better education performance, Finland spends even more than us and is among the best in the world), more money on materials for classrooms. Stop dumping money into voucher systems and calling it education spending, because having a lottery for 1% or less to escape a broken system is no way to run education.

As for fail vs pass student who has grades to fail, countless studies over the last 30+ years have consistently shown that in lower grades if you pass the student on they are more likely to catch up. Convincing a young kid they are stupid is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think a lot of the problem is there is good scientific information on this topic and people choose to ignore it in order to apply their ideologies to the education system complete with all their mistakes.

[DuncanONeil]

First of all I referred to speed reading a specific message. This is not skimming! You were not skimmed!

Can we say personal attack?


I said that university education was the most expensive of any country. Then in a discussion of scholarships which come from high school I pointed out that the US doesn't spend enough on schools. So yes, both statements are true. Of course you were probably skimming them so you assumed a contradiction through misreading where none exists, you've done that a lot lately.

As for money never solving the problem, it can if you bother to spend it correctly. Higher standards/qualifications for teaching accompanied by a modest pay raise (Canada has much higher teacher salaries and much better education performance, Finland spends even more than us and is among the best in the world), more money on materials for classrooms. Stop dumping money into voucher systems and calling it education spending, because having a lottery for 1% or less to escape a broken system is no way to run education.

As for fail vs pass student who has grades to fail, countless studies over the last 30+ years have consistently shown that in lower grades if you pass the student on they are more likely to catch up. Convincing a young kid they are stupid is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think a lot of the problem is there is good scientific information on this topic and people choose to ignore it in order to apply their ideologies to the education system complete with all their mistakes.

[DuncanONeil]

The Pattern of Dependence: Length of Time on Welfare

The public is often told that the current welfare system does not promote long-term dependence. According to this picture, AFDC generally provides temporary aid, and very few recipients receive welfare for extended periods. This picture is inaccurate.

Of the 4.7 million families currently receiving AFDC, most will be dependent on welfare for very long periods of time. As Chart 1 shows, families receiving AFDC at the present time have already spent, on average, six-and-a-half years enrolled in AFDC.1 When past receipt and estimated future receipt of AFDC are combined, the estimated average length of stay on AFDC among those families currently receiving AFDC benefits is an astounding 13 years.2 Moreover, these figures actually underestimate the length of welfare dependence, since such families are very likely to receive other welfare benefits (such as food stamps, SSI, Medicaid, and housing) even after they leave the AFDC caseload.
* The 4.7 million families currently receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) have already spent, on average, six-and-a-half years on welfare.

* When past and estimated future receipt of AFDC are combined, the estimated average length of stay on AFDC, among those families currently receiving benefits, is an astonishing 13 years.

* Among the 4.7 million families currently receiving AFDC, over 90 percent will spend over two years on the AFDC caseload. More than three quarters will spend over five years on AFDC. The Heritage Foundation


Yet welfare is a program that is minimally abused, over 95% of welfare recipients are on the program for only a short period of time, only 5% are the chronic abusers you "complain" about. 95% of the people who use it need support while they look for a new job. I don't think the coal miner is lazy, and I don't begrudge him a few months on welfare after they close the coal mine.

If you want to scrap welfare how about we get rid of every program that has less than 95% efficiency first. Starting with all military technology spending, which just about never comes in on budget.

[Canyon]

The Pattern of Dependence: Length of Time on Welfare

* The 4.7 million families currently receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) have already spent, on average, six-and-a-half years on welfare.

* When past and estimated future receipt of AFDC are combined, the estimated average length of stay on AFDC, among those families currently receiving benefits, is an astonishing 13 years.

* Among the 4.7 million families currently receiving AFDC, over 90 percent will spend over two years on the AFDC caseload. More than three quarters will spend over five years on AFDC. The Heritage Foundation


Is it any wonder we're losing a work ethic in so many homes. Children don't grow up to understand work because they don't see work. Sad. But, in a down ecomomy people cannot afford the taxation to carry others, yet often there is no job for the others to carry themselves with. Don't like either choice. I cannot see improvement unless we go back, create energy indepencence, become competative in the market, and get Government out of both the market place, and chairity business.

Yet there needs to be something. The years of happieness I shared with my wife were possible because of a transplant surgury we could never have afforded. SSI disability paid for it. I cannot want to completely remove a social safety net.

Maybe having the net, but making it uncomfortable would be a solution. For instance, instead of money to use in stores, a card, and limiting purchases to a very few (minimal) items. Instead of new apaartments with air conditioning, new fridges and washers, have simple barracks, wash racks and swamp coolers. Improvement of ones life is a powerful motivator to strive. However, possession of X-Box's, 60" TV's and the ever lengthing line of new cars and pickups, with dealer plates, at the unemployment and welfare offices seems to indicate to me there is no real incentive to try.

[steelish]

steelish - UK is somewhat different than america. You define class in terms of money whereas in UK it is much more. The man who wins the lottery in America becomes upper class overnight but in UK his education and behavior would be a barrier. My point is everybody who is working works hard - so the gripe I work hard is redundant since it applies to all taxpayers.

I appreciate there may be a group who are the perpetual unemployed - the scroungers - but they should not be confused with the decent man who lost his job through no fault of his own but rather because the inept politicians and greedy bankers screwed up the economy and made his company bankrupt.


Oh no. In America as well, even should you win the lottery it doesn't automatically make you "upper class". Your original post implied economic classes (you were speaking of employment). Even those without degrees can climb the corporate ladder in the US. It is possible to work your way up the corporate chain within a company by learning from the "ground up". I do not have a college degree yet my previous job consisted of boardroom meetings and I had a second story corner office with a fridge, two computers (Mac and PC), blackberry, etc.

The scroungers are in no way confused with decent people who lose their jobs and are unemployment (at least, not by me)...or those who are on welfare because they simply CANNOT work due to disabilities.

The point is - there is no such thing as equality. Every program created to "enforce" equality has failed miserably. There are those reading this thread who will point fingers at me and yell "racist"...there are those who will point fingers and accuse me of having a cold heart. But...think about it. The American government in their divine wisdom created "equal opportunity" within the workplace. There were thousands upon thousands of businesses who were forced to hire unqualified personnel just to meet the "racial" quota. I've sat in boardrooms (at my previous job) where this was discussed. I've overheard management (at my current job) talking about it. I've seen evidence of it. I've heard an African American (a term I still find offensive) telling co-workers he was going to "sue" the company because he didn't get a job he was qualified for, only to have his co-workers point out his lack of qualification. His response; "I don't care. If I have to play the race card, I will". The result...he got the management position over a year ago and is running the office into the ground.

Since when is it "equal" to give someone an "edge" over another person based upon race? Isn't that racism in and of itself? The thought that someone who is not caucasian needs "help" to get a job seems racist to me. It's the same as saying they can't get a job based upon their own merit. I know someone will say, "But without equal opportunity, there are still corporations that will discriminate". The way to change that mentality is not through brute force (forcing them to hire someone they "discriminate" against) but through example. How can discrimination ever disappear if people are behaving so reprehensibly?

So now along comes Obama and he's going to "fundamentally" transform America. Into what? He's going to "spread the wealth". Where? Within America? To other countries? Why? To make things equal?

Those are the questions I wish mainstream media would ask him. Those are the questions that if he tackled them with honesty we could get an open discussion on the table and possibly not be so alarmed with every move he makes. Honesty is, after all, the best policy.

[steelish]

I'm not sure this is accurate. Throughout history people have only had those "rights" which the ruling classes allowed, and they could be taken away at the whim of any member of that ruling class. It's only in modern times that we've begun thinking in terms of "human rights", thanks in large part to the advances of more democratic governments. I think that, ultimately, we can only have those rights which the most powerful people are willing to allow us to have. They have the power to rescind them by simply sending in the military/police forces. Once bullets and bombs start flying, the only right you have is the right to duck!


Sorry, I still disagree with this statement. When you're born, you are born a separate person, you're not part of the "borg" so to speak, so individuality is a right (the right to think, feel whatever you want). You have a right to life, only by natural death is that right not infringed upon by another. You have a right to liberty, because at the moment of birth, you are not oppressed. Even someone born into slavery is not oppressed until they are old enough to understand. At that point, their right is infringed upon, not "taken away".

I don't believe natural rights (or God's granted rights, if you will) can be "taken away" but only infringed upon. People who are oppressed and feel their rights are infringed upon eventually rebel in some way.

If you are kidnapped, do you think your right to liberty is gone? If suddenly, Obama becomes a dictator, do you think you no longer have the right to be free? Or will you be strong enough to rebel? (I would hope the American spirit is alive enough to rebel). If oppressed to the point of unhappiness, do you think your right to be happy is gone? I doubt it.

[DuncanONeil]

I was moved by your idea of making the welfare safety net uncomfortable. I then thought of the way many, and you have not, railed of the plight of the poor when in the US 46% of the officially poor OWN their own home, often have more than one car, color TV (B&W is hard to find), A/C, Cable, all kinds of things that qualify as luxuries.
So who really are "the poor"?


Is it any wonder we're losing a work ethic in so many homes. Children don't grow up to understand work because they don't see work. Sad. But, in a down ecomomy people cannot afford the taxation to carry others, yet often there is no job for the others to carry themselves with. Don't like either choice. I cannot see improvement unless we go back, create energy indepencence, become competative in the market, and get Government out of both the market place, and chairity business.

Yet there needs to be something. The years of happieness I shared with my wife were possible because of a transplant surgury we could never have afforded. SSI disability paid for it. I cannot want to completely remove a social safety net.

Maybe having the net, but making it uncomfortable would be a solution. For instance, instead of money to use in stores, a card, and limiting purchases to a very few (minimal) items. Instead of new apaartments with air conditioning, new fridges and washers, have simple barracks, wash racks and swamp coolers. Improvement of ones life is a powerful motivator to strive. However, possession of X-Box's, 60" TV's and the ever lengthing line of new cars and pickups, with dealer plates, at the unemployment and welfare offices seems to indicate to me there is no real incentive to try.

[DuncanONeil]

I have come to the conclusion that when people in this country argue about equality they are arguing from different understandings.

People in this country used to understand the result of hard work - success. That being said it is understandable that "equality" is equality of opportunity. The most vocal among us on the issue of equality are clearly favoring "equality" of result.

The first of those is much more efficient to the advancement of the entire society than the latter.


Oh no. In America as well, even should you win the lottery it doesn't automatically make you "upper class". Your original post implied economic classes (you were speaking of employment). Even those without degrees can climb the corporate ladder in the US. It is possible to work your way up the corporate chain within a company by learning from the "ground up". I do not have a college degree yet my previous job consisted of boardroom meetings and I had a second story corner office with a fridge, two computers (Mac and PC), blackberry, etc.

The scroungers are in no way confused with decent people who lose their jobs and are unemployment (at least, not by me)...or those who are on welfare because they simply CANNOT work due to disabilities.

The point is - there is no such thing as equality. Every program created to "enforce" equality has failed miserably. There are those reading this thread who will point fingers at me and yell "racist"...there are those who will point fingers and accuse me of having a cold heart. But...think about it. The American government in their divine wisdom created "equal opportunity" within the workplace. There were thousands upon thousands of businesses who were forced to hire unqualified personnel just to meet the "racial" quota. I've sat in boardrooms (at my previous job) where this was discussed. I've overheard management (at my current job) talking about it. I've seen evidence of it. I've heard an African American (a term I still find offensive) telling co-workers he was going to "sue" the company because he didn't get a job he was qualified for, only to have his co-workers point out his lack of qualification. His response; "I don't care. If I have to play the race card, I will". The result...he got the management position over a year ago and is running the office into the ground.

Since when is it "equal" to give someone an "edge" over another person based upon race? Isn't that racism in and of itself? The thought that someone who is not caucasian needs "help" to get a job seems racist to me. It's the same as saying they can't get a job based upon their own merit. I know someone will say, "But without equal opportunity, there are still corporations that will discriminate". The way to change that mentality is not through brute force (forcing them to hire someone they "discriminate" against) but through example. How can discrimination ever disappear if people are behaving so reprehensibly?

So now along comes Obama and he's going to "fundamentally" transform America. Into what? He's going to "spread the wealth". Where? Within America? To other countries? Why? To make things equal?

Those are the questions I wish mainstream media would ask him. Those are the questions that if he tackled them with honesty we could get an open discussion on the table and possibly not be so alarmed with every move he makes. Honesty is, after all, the best policy.

[TantricSoul]

So who really are "the poor"?

Just in case anyone really wants to know instead of making uninformed generalizations, you can find the answer to that question right here:

http://npc.umich.edu/poverty/

[steelish]

So who really are "the poor"?



Just in case anyone really wants to know instead of making uninformed generalizations, you can find the answer to that question right here:

http://npc.umich.edu/poverty/


Well, it depends on how you define "poor". Is someone who is poor a person who is poverty-stricken? Or is someone who is "poor" a person who is unhappy with their lot in life? Some people measure their worth by their possessions, some measure it by their happiness, others measure it by their wage. Everyone views it differently.

[steelish]

I have come to the conclusion that when people in this country argue about equality they are arguing from different understandings.

People in this country used to understand the result of hard work - success. That being said it is understandable that "equality" is equality of opportunity. The most vocal among us on the issue of equality are clearly favoring "equality" of result.

The first of those is much more efficient to the advancement of the entire society than the latter.

Equality of opportunity already exists in the US. Yes, there are some who still discriminate, but forcing understanding down their throats with regulations that cause them to view others with an even more discriminating eye will accomplish nothing. It's those who work hard, behave in a professional manner and don't behave as if the world "owes" them simply for being born a different ethnic background other than caucasian that will change the viewpoint of those who currently discriminate.

[Kendal]

She very clearly indicated that there are scholarships available. In fact it is easier for a minority to get a scholarship than those not "blessed" with minority status!

In my view education should not depend on getting or not getting a scholarship. Money should not play a part .. everybody should have the chance to go as far as their ability allows.

Of course in reality we are hampered by cost and this is not possible but the fact it is not feasable today does not mean it is not the goal for tommorow. I went to university and my government paid uni fees and my personal expenses. I did not have to win a scholarship or pay a dime. All I had to do was meet the entrance requirements. If the UK could do it.. then USA could. (note - it has changed now in UK but the point is valid).

[Kendal]

Yes steelish - there is more chance of the person without a degree climbing the corporate ladder in american than england but broadly speaking education-profession-salary go hand in hand. The CEOs who climbed the ladder invariably come from sales or a field where education(training) is not so critical as it is for a doctor, lawyer or one of the professional classes.

The question for me still remains - do we believe in equal (or fairer) opportunity and higher minimum standards of living for those at the bottom. For me they are goals to aim for but others seem to have the harsh attitude that people should only look out for themselves and are not under any obligation to help others.

As regards "racist" I sense dangerous waters so will tread carefully. I do not know USA so may well be wrong but I think there is a flaw in what you say. You are talking on the individual level - (ie forcing to hire somebody) but the laws are aimed at the group level. The problem is the game did not start with all players equal (ie segregation etc) so when you suddenly say from now on we play on even playing field it is not equal until you correct the imbalances from before. This is the aim. Whether it has succeeded or not I dont know but I would say the principle on which it is based is sound. If we want a fair horse race we handicap horses with more or less weight. Nobody complaines the race is unfair - far from it - that is seen to make it a more even match. Perhaps not the perfect analagy but to say why should I carry more weight than the other does not negate the principle of fairness and equality. In short - you started unequal so to make it equal now we need to give a boost to the other. If you've ever played poker against a man who started with a lot more money you will know what I am talking about,.

[steelish]

Yes steelish - there is more chance of the person without a degree climbing the corporate ladder in american than england but broadly speaking education-profession-salary go hand in hand. The CEOs who climbed the ladder invariably come from sales or a field where education(training) is not so critical as it is for a doctor, lawyer or one of the professional classes.


Of course education plays a very large role in being a doctor, lawyer or other such profession - but those were not spoken of...CEO of a corporation was spoken of.



The question for me still remains - do we believe in equal (or fairer) opportunity and higher minimum standards of living for those at the bottom. For me they are goals to aim for but others seem to have the harsh attitude that people should only look out for themselves and are not under any obligation to help others.


I don't know how you could get any more "equal" than it is now. Our current problem is unemployment across the board, but those at the so called "bottom" do have jobs available to them because out of work executives and other such people who might think themselves "above" bagging groceries or sweeping floors, working at MacDonalds, etc. pass up those jobs in the hopes that the perfect job for them will fall in their lap. I see "Help Wanted" and "Now Hiring" signs everywhere.

As to your second statement; therein lies the misconception. We are not (I am not) advocating "look out for yourself and to hell with everyone else". This is the attack that is being used by people who want a nanny state. Instead of creating programs that create dependency, why can't we create programs that create independence?

Think of it this way - If you are raising a child, and give them everything...they never have to earn anything for themselves - no chores, no jobs, nothing. Everything gets handed to them. What kind of person do you think they will turn out to be? There are a select few who will still be responsible, independent people, but that will be rare. Most of them will hold out their hand every time they need something. A strong nation is a nation full of people who can stand up for themselves. People who are not only independent, but caring. America has always been a nation of such in the past. I hate that we are turning into a nation of dependency.



As regards "racist" I sense dangerous waters so will tread carefully. I do not know USA so may well be wrong but I think there is a flaw in what you say. You are talking on the individual level - (ie forcing to hire somebody) but the laws are aimed at the group level. The problem is the game did not start with all players equal (ie segregation etc) so when you suddenly say from now on we play on even playing field it is not equal until you correct the imbalances from before. This is the aim. Whether it has succeeded or not I dont know but I would say the principle on which it is based is sound. If we want a fair horse race we handicap horses with more or less weight. Nobody complaines the race is unfair - far from it - that is seen to make it a more even match. Perhaps not the perfect analagy but to say why should I carry more weight than the other does not negate the principle of fairness and equality. In short - you started unequal so to make it equal now we need to give a boost to the other. If you've ever played poker against a man who started with a lot more money you will know what I am talking about,.


"Balancing" the workforce through use of regulations and legislation in my opinion was not the route to take. The route to take would have been through more extensive and readily available education programs. Remember, we're talking about legislation that started in the 60s. The problems faced then are hardly comparable to what life is like now. Education is more readily accessible to all ethnic groups whereas in the 60s, such was not the case.

[Kendal]

but those were not spoken of...CEO of a corporation was spoken of. To refresh your memory - I was talking about equal opportunity and how critically important it is that all should have equal opportunity when it comes to education. Class was mention and I loosely defined how I see class with CEOs in the top band and professionals in upper middle. You pointed out that people with poor education can be CEOs ( actually I dont think this is true for 95% iof top CEOs) and I acknowledge that but pointed out it does not hold true for the upper middle class bracket. That's a fair summary yes. So from my point of view the professional classes have been talked about and even if they were not., what are you saying... you cannot talk about them because they have not been spoken of before. Can we not introduce new points or what?


I don't know how you could get any more "equal" than it is now. I guess no answer to that one is there. You achieved perfection.


those at the so called "bottom" do have jobs available to them because out of work executives and other such people who might think themselves "above" bagging groceries or sweeping floors If i was a CEO and my HR manager hired an executive to bag groceries I would fire him for incompetence. I want a stable workforce not a revolving door. The executive will be looking in the jobs vacant column from day one. Come on, you are being over simplistic and unrealisitic here. And in any case, I don't think it's asking too much for a person to have a job at same similar level. Drop a rung or two on the ladder okay but crash dive to the basement no.


We are not (I am not) advocating "look out for yourself and to hell with everyone else". No - you are advocating executives sweep florr and if they dont then no sympathy for them.


Instead of creating programs that create dependency, why can't we create programs that create independence? being foreigner I dont know what you mean here but the point of government schemes, benefits, programs is to provide a safety net for those at the bottom or most in danger of falling. The goal is to increase wealth and standards such that nobody needs the net. The Harvard graduate does not need employment programs and high paid do not need free medical care. They are not dependant but if you do not help the less fortunate then you are condemning them to their fate.


Think of it this way - If you are raising a child, and give them everything...they never have to earn anything for themselves - no chores, no jobs, nothing. Everything gets handed to them. What kind of person do you think they will turn out to be? You lost me here. What do you do in America..put the children to work making Nike shoes as soon as they are old enough to walk. The child is at school and presumably working doing school work. I never had chores and see no reason with they will not turn out like me.


The route to take would have been through more extensive and readily available education programs. Yes I agree education is the way. The problem is if you have the man who is 30 with the 3 year old son if you wait for the education route you are basically skipping a generation and condemning that man. And as I understand it education for the poor mans son would be dependant on scholarships and we know how you hate dependency don't we :)

[Canyon]

The point is - there is no such thing as equality. Every program created to "enforce" equality has failed miserably. There are those reading this thread who will point fingers at me and yell "racist"...there are those who will point fingers and accuse me of having a cold heart. But...think about it. The American government in their divine wisdom created "equal opportunity" within the workplace. There were thousands upon thousands of businesses who were forced to hire unqualified personnel just to meet the "racial" quota. I've sat in boardrooms (at my previous job) where this was discussed. I've overheard management (at my current job) talking about it. I've seen evidence of it. I've heard an African American (a term I still find offensive) telling co-workers he was going to "sue" the company because he didn't get a job he was qualified for, only to have his co-workers point out his lack of qualification. His response; "I don't care. If I have to play the race card, I will". The result...he got the management position over a year ago and is running the office into the ground.

Since when is it "equal" to give someone an "edge" over another person based upon race? Isn't that racism in and of itself? The thought that someone who is not caucasian needs "help" to get a job seems racist to me. It's the same as saying they can't get a job based upon their own merit. I know someone will say, "But without equal opportunity, there are still corporations that will discriminate". The way to change that mentality is not through brute force (forcing them to hire someone they "discriminate" against) but through example. How can discrimination ever disappear if people are behaving so reprehensibly?


Yes steelish - there is more chance of the person without a degree climbing the corporate ladder in american than england but broadly speaking education-profession-salary go hand in hand. The CEOs who climbed the ladder invariably come from sales or a field where education(training) is not so critical as it is for a doctor, lawyer or one of the professional classes.

The question for me still remains - do we believe in equal (or fairer) opportunity and higher minimum standards of living for those at the bottom. For me they are goals to aim for but others seem to have the harsh attitude that people should only look out for themselves and are not under any obligation to help others.

As regards "racist" I sense dangerous waters so will tread carefully. I do not know USA so may well be wrong but I think there is a flaw in what you say. You are talking on the individual level - (ie forcing to hire somebody) but the laws are aimed at the group level. The problem is the game did not start with all players equal (ie segregation etc) so when you suddenly say from now on we play on even playing field it is not equal until you correct the imbalances from before. This is the aim. Whether it has succeeded or not I dont know but I would say the principle on which it is based is sound. If we want a fair horse race we handicap horses with more or less weight. Nobody complaines the race is unfair - far from it - that is seen to make it a more even match. Perhaps not the perfect analagy but to say why should I carry more weight than the other does not negate the principle of fairness and equality. In short - you started unequal so to make it equal now we need to give a boost to the other. If you've ever played poker against a man who started with a lot more money you will know what I am talking about,.



At work there is a Supervisor who insists that Affirmative Action is necessary because how can you expect in one generation to overcome the deficiencies of the past. We have some "spirited" conversations over this. He thinks it should go on for ever. I say people have had the opportunity to prove they can do the job with government support, now let them prove it without it. He is always angry claiming African Americans do are not properly represented in our Department. He refused to take into account our Peace Officer status, and firearms requirements. the exceptionally large numbers of blacks committing crimes, which disqualify them from this type of job are not my fault. Looking at from a law abiding point of view blacks are overrepresented, as they reflect nearly the population, not the law abiding population. I think he is wrong about his desire for Affirmative Action.

I guess I'm much harder... Take the job, do the job, or lose the job. If you cannot pass our academy or do our job because they don't serve collard greens in the snack bar, that is stupid. Yet you see that type of argument all the time.

Amazing, how even with furloughs, our California Department of Motor Vehicles improve service for a short time, when they thought Arnold would lay people off based on performance, rather than seniority. I know that is not possible but I love the thought. Not only should they use performance, but they should go back for years, before it even became an issue, as performance then speaks to character, not seniority.

steelish I do congratulate you on the jobs you have held without a degree. Performance can go a long way in advancement, for performers.

In a job I had once, I made wheelchairs. My peers always told me that I should not work so hard because if I had a bad, or occasionally less productive day management would notice and come down on me. Everyone has bad days, and management never questioned me if I fell short. I felt I should give them the best days work I could everyday. Thats how I was raised, and between my upbringing and Military time, I really cannot think any other way. In the military there were standards and you met them or exceeded them and I still have trouble dealing with the civilian standard of mediocrity. I know now as a Supervisor myself, how much management at that plant I worked at must have appreciated the extra effort I put in. Often at the bottom you think it is not noticed, but, I assure you, if your first line supervisor is worth anything, it is.

Having said that. many jobs have an educational requirement. Education is always an advantage. If I could go back in time and start over, I would graduate high school with a 4.0, have gone to west point, and pursued my military career from the returning side of the salute. Hard work can take you far, but even CEO's in America who started up the corporate ladder without education, generally get some.

[Canyon]

Having said all of the above, I must say that there are still things that should be done. I'm in my present job, because I needed a health care plan for my wife, and would end up getting laid off when a small companies premiums went up when I added her. I am not a fan of Obamacare, as now I have to wonder, where in the world will all the super rich Canadians and Europeans go to get quality health care. Yet protection against insurance companies discriminating against Pre-existing conditions is a valid problem in our system, with the caveat that the person with the pre-existing condition have been responsible to have insurance when it came up.

Remember too, my wife had a liver transplant, a horribly expensive operation. Although she was young when the original poisoning happened that damaged her liver (a drive by spraying by a farmer with pesticide) and covered by her parents plan, after that she could never get health coverage. SSI paid for that transplant, and indirectly therefore, the happy years we had together. So I'm not willing to throw out all of our programs that help people.

I also believe we should help unemployed people, but not without them trying to find work, even below their "station." If a management type is too proud to flip burgers until another good job comes along, why can't I be too proud to pay him to do nothing.

There has to be a line, and it should be on the recipient to comply with it. If you are on unemployment, as far as I'm concerned it is your job to find a job, and you should look all day, every day. When I was younger, I remember learning about a woman who wanted to be an oceanographer, a very closed profession, with far more people wanting in than good paying jobs. Additionally she felt she should have that work in Florida only. Of course there were jobs available in Washington state, Alaska and I understand even in Canada. (However I suspect these areas are not conducive to wearing a bikini at work and filing sexual harassment suits.) She wanted to be paid by the government and have her student loans paid until she found work in her chosen field, and in the area she wanted to work. I don't mind her career choice or area preference, but why should I have to pay for it. If there is no work where you are, and jobs are available elsewhere or in another field you should take them until your preferences are available. thats only fair to me, and others who are working, and have to pay for you.

We definitely should remove people from public assistance who lie to get it or lie to keep it. I like my departments definition here, Less than Truthful, which is defined as false, incomplete, or intentionally misleading. I would not even mind if we made that retroactive, and cut any one off who was less than truthful at any time in their lives from government aid, even during times no one cared. I should not have to aid those whose character is so poor they think anything is acceptable. It burdens me to carry them. But for the truthful, working, striving ones, I believe we should have that hand out, following an old proverb as best we can, "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

Sorry if this rambles, I guess I'm a little tired.

[Kendal]

I agree with most of what Canyon saysbut would comment:

1. why can't I be too proud to pay him to do nothing.
If the enemy tortures it's prisoners would you say "they do it so why shouldn't we" or would you say "if we do what our enemy does it makes us no better than him and we lose the moral high ground and justification". The reason you cannot be too proud is because pride is a sin and it would be wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right!

2, I believe we should have that hand out
My problem with the why should we help them camp is they see it in simple terms of a taxpayer paying the liviing expenses for the unemployed. There are many types of unemployed at the solutions are different for different categories. I like how Canyon does differentiate between the different cases and offers different approaches.

In Europe people receive(d) assistance for a certain timeframe to give them time to find suitable employment. The Employment (Welfare) discusses their situation and helps them accordingly. For some with obsolete job skills (eg miner in coal depleted England) they put them on job retraining schemes. In other cases they find and offer a suitable job and if the person refuses the job without good cause benefit payments are affected. Yes you will have the group of 'scroungers' who do not work and there needs to be schemes specific to that group. But bear in mind if you cut of the money such that a man is starving the taxpayer will not save - he will pay more when that person turns to crime and ends up in jail.

It's difficult but for me the "why should I pay for him" argument is weak on both the moral and economic level. What annoys me is how I can walk around England as see all manner of public work that needs to be done (eg little, graffiti etc) and the local government says it doesn't have the funds to pay to get it done. Then you walk round the corner and see an army of jobless getting paid for doing nothing. Pity nobody sees the obvious way to kill two birds with one stone.

[steelish]

To refresh your memory - I was talking about equal opportunity and how critically important it is that all should have equal opportunity when it comes to education. Class was mention and I loosely defined how I see class with CEOs in the top band and professionals in upper middle. You pointed out that people with poor education can be CEOs ( actually I dont think this is true for 95% iof top CEOs) and I acknowledge that but pointed out it does not hold true for the upper middle class bracket. That's a fair summary yes. So from my point of view the professional classes have been talked about and even if they were not., what are you saying... you cannot talk about them because they have not been spoken of before. Can we not introduce new points or what?

I never said we couldn't discuss economic or social classes. All I pointed out was MY interpretation of what you said. You can explain and explain...how I feel and view what you said will still be the same.


I guess no answer to that one is there. You achieved perfection.

And now you're being deliberately snarky. I am not implying that we've achieved perfection. My point is that America has equal opportunity. We cannot MAKE people view everything the same. (obviously...otherwise there would be no point in discussions or even threads like this). It doesn't matter how many regulations are in place to dictate how people should treat/view others. Until attitudes change things will be "unequal". (and the only way to change attitudes is by the example of those who are discriminated against) It doesn't matter what the discrimination is based upon, attitudes can change.


If i was a CEO and my HR manager hired an executive to bag groceries I would fire him for incompetence. I want a stable workforce not a revolving door. The executive will be looking in the jobs vacant column from day one. Come on, you are being over simplistic and unrealisitic here. And in any case, I don't think it's asking too much for a person to have a job at same similar level. Drop a rung or two on the ladder okay but crash dive to the basement no.

Oh, so what you're implying is only the lower classes sweep floors or bag groceries? A janitor in the Post Office where I work used to be in Marketing and yes, has a degree. She said she took the job because it's so hard to find employment. And in Florida, it is. Our unemployment is over 10%. The job fairs I attended had well over 2,000 job seekers vying for what was available. What is wrong with taking a job you are overqualified for? Most employers know what life is like right now and understand.


No - you are advocating executives sweep florr and if they dont then no sympathy for them.

Again, that's not what I said. America is a land of choices. You choose not to take a lower paid position because you feel your educational level is above it...so be it. That is your choice. It's not that I have no sympathy for them, but if they come along with hands held out for $$ from the government while ignoring available jobs, well then yes, I will be unsympathetic.


being foreigner I dont know what you mean here but the point of government schemes, benefits, programs is to provide a safety net for those at the bottom or most in danger of falling. The goal is to increase wealth and standards such that nobody needs the net. The Harvard graduate does not need employment programs and high paid do not need free medical care. They are not dependant but if you do not help the less fortunate then you are condemning them to their fate.

I know what the programs are for. But they've backfired. What we have now is two generations of Americans who have been raised on Welfare. People who feel that they should be able to live their life collecting what is "due" to them. These same people who drive Cadillac Escalades and wear designer clothes, yet buy their food with food stamps and get a government payout every month. Before anyone scoffs or roll their eyes at what I "think"....it's not what I "think" but what I know. I see them with my own eyes. Hell, I even have a couple of cousins who live this way.


You lost me here. What do you do in America..put the children to work making Nike shoes as soon as they are old enough to walk. The child is at school and presumably working doing school work. I never had chores and see no reason with they will not turn out like me.

So you never did chores around the house when you were a kid to get a weekly allowance? While I was growing up, the usual chores (helping with dishes, helping keep the house clean, etc.) didn't result in allowance. However, taking initiative and pulling weeds from the vegetable garden, or mowing the lawn (once I reached 12 years old) gained me $5 weekly. I liked having my own money so much I got a paper route at 13. I'd like to think I would have been that way without learning the value of working hard to earn money, but who knows...


Yes I agree education is the way. The problem is if you have the man who is 30 with the 3 year old son if you wait for the education route you are basically skipping a generation and condemning that man. And as I understand it education for the poor mans son would be dependant on scholarships and we know how you hate dependency don't we :)

Ooooo. More snarkiness.
Many of the available scholarships have to be earned. Even the financial aid ones have to be earned through grades.

BTW - Your analogy is lost on me (the 30yo man with the 3yo child) because there are children of all ages in school. It's not as if an entire generation is lost because all kids are 3yo at the same time. A generation might be skipped only in his family. Again...he chose to have a child at the age of 27 (that's when I had mine). How does he get condemned? His child needs no scholarship for basic education, it's free. His child has 12 years in which to apply himself in school and get grades good enough to qualify for a financial aid scholarship. Not only that, but in Florida, he (the man) can apply for Florida Prepaid College Tuition and lock in the college tuition rates while his child is 3, pay monthly into the plan, then when his child graduates high school college will be prepaid. He (or his child) won't have to pay the tuition rates that will be charged when his child is college aged.

[steelish]

What annoys me is how I can walk around England as see all manner of public work that needs to be done (eg little, graffiti etc) and the local government says it doesn't have the funds to pay to get it done. Then you walk round the corner and see an army of jobless getting paid for doing nothing. Pity nobody sees the obvious way to kill two birds with one stone.

BINGO!

And you think it's any different in America?

[Kendal]

I am not implying that we've achieved perfection. My point is that America has equal opportunity.
I know it says it has. I know the worker can (in certain fields) rise to become CEO but I have doubts about how equal the equal opportunity is in a land where money talks and those who have it will use it to ensure they and their progeny keep it.

Until attitudes change things will be "unequal".
Didn't you just say you have equal opportunity and now you say unequal. In any cases I dont think anybody expects perfect equality - they are just looking for a fairer opportunity and less loading of the dice to favour the status quo result of years of inequality.

Oh, so what you're implying is only the lower classes sweep floors or bag groceries?
If you want to put it in such harsh terms - yes I am or yes they should.

A janitor in the Post Office where I work used to be in Marketing and yes, has a degree.
And how long do you expect him to stay in the janitor job before he quits for a better job. Staff turnover is a factor for employers to consider when hiring.

What is wrong with taking a job you are overqualified for?
Okay here are a few. The disadvantage to the employer is janitors keep quitting for marketing jobs and the company keeps having to find replacements. You know the importance of stable workforce yes. The disadvantage to the employee is it can adversely affect his chance of getting the executive job and pay negotiation when his last job was janitor. And when you are busy spending all day sweeping floors you are not going to be attending many job interviews are you. And if you do how long before they fire the janitor because he's not there and now he had "fired janitor" on his resumee. Steelish it is not as simple as you make out. From a business point of view you want to use human resources in the most efficient way which means putting round pegs in round holes and when the square peg comes along you don't give him the round hole job.

You choose not to take a lower paid position because you feel your educational level is above it...so be it. That is your choice. It's not that I have no sympathy for them,
The problem is you can get into a downward spiral. I am not saying people should not take lower jobs but you are going from executive to sweeper which is something different and the fact is employers won't hire you because they know you won't stay. Most people take temp employment or some sort of self employed work. That is okay but you are almost advocating career change from executive to sweeper.

So you never did chores around the house when you were a kid to get a weekly allowance?
No. I helped my mother volountarily or was asked to if she was especially busy but I never had "chores" assigned to me. My chores was my homework to get the grades to go to university. Never had a weekly allowance either. Our different backgrounds maybe explain our different outlooks. You are of the - finish the sweeping or you dont get any supper - category. I come from the - can I help you peel the potatos mom - category. I offered and was not coerced because I was taught helping others who need help is the right thing to do.

Ooooo. More snarkiness
Well be fair you can't have it both ways can you. Or maybe in bdsm you can :)

Even the financial aid ones have to be earned through grades.
The problem with scholarships is they do not (I think) say everybody who gets 80% qualifies for scholarship. They say there are 10 scholarships and we take the top ten. So if 12 get 80%+ grades 2 are going to be disadvantaged and miss out on college even though academically they deserve to be there. I dont know the grades and places available but I do think not everybody who has the academic ability gets the financial ability.

BTW - Your analogy is lost on me
I chose 30 years because thats about what a generation is in terms of workforce. A newborn baby will not enter the workforce untill early-mid twenties then a few years job training before he is fully productive at suitable level. Another 30 years later he is hitting retirement. Your idea that we rely solely on education means if you implement change today the results will not take effect for another 30 years. If you go to the voters and tell them they will never see the benefit of your policy but their children will - few will vote for you.

[Kendal]

BINGO! And you think it's any different in America?

No I dont but personally if I cant put them to public works I'd rather pay them than starve them so they rob my house to buy bread. What are you advocating steelish. Stopping welfare for those who wont work. What do you think they will do... quietly starve to death.

[steelish]

No I dont but personally if I cant put them to public works I'd rather pay them than starve them so they rob my house to buy bread. What are you advocating steelish. Stopping welfare for those who wont work. What do you think they will do... quietly starve to death.

What are you advocating Kendal? Blindly paying them to sit around and do nothing, while they create future generations who will live the same way? Encouraging that type of behavior?

How about if we turn the programs into something that enables the able-bodied to be independent productive citizens? A program that "weans" people off and into the workforce, rather than continues to blindly hand out money with no end in sight.

I've seen this hundreds of times, and it is so true; Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.

[steelish]

No. I helped my mother volountarily or was asked to if she was especially busy but I never had "chores" assigned to me. My chores was my homework to get the grades to go to university. Never had a weekly allowance either. Our different backgrounds maybe explain our different outlooks. You are of the - finish the sweeping or you dont get any supper - category. I come from the - can I help you peel the potatos mom - category. I offered and was not coerced because I was taught helping others who need help is the right thing to do.

Now you've offended me. "Finish sweeping the floors or you don't get supper???" Excuse me? I also helped voluntarily. I never said I got allowance for helping with dishes, keeping my room clean, etc. (or even helping peel potatoes). What I got allowance for was the hard jobs that were considered something "above and beyond". And, btw - I didn't have to ask if she needed help, I assumed she did and jumped in to help.

When I speak of allowance for the other "jobs" I did I am saying I simply learned the value of a dollar whereas those who grow up on welfare or get things handed to them rarely learn the lesson.

[denuseri]

How about we put people who loose their jobs in the private sector to work rebuilding the infrastructure (that btw is in a state of rapid decline all over our respective countries) so that they can "earn" their wages and put much tighter restrictions on just who cualifies for any free rides (like those on disability etc)?

[DuncanONeil]

Just in case anyone really wants to know instead of making uninformed generalizations, you can find the answer to that question right here:

http://npc.umich.edu/poverty/


Well! That puts you two up on most people.

Many try to do what you said. The chart seems a bit short though it is a good start. The income cutoff goes as high as a little over $30,000. Alaska and Hawaii have separate rates.
Even at these numbers 46% of the poor own their own home! And a whole host of things that many consider luxuries.

[DuncanONeil]

Well, it depends on how you define "poor". Is someone who is poor a person who is poverty-stricken? Or is someone who is "poor" a person who is unhappy with their lot in life? Some people measure their worth by their possessions, some measure it by their happiness, others measure it by their wage. Everyone views it differently.


To discuss the issue we have to have a common definition. I would suggest that a person unhappy is just that not poor.
Growing up I understood my family to be poor. We had no air, one phone, no car, one old TV, had to work to help pay for school. Yet I know find that the families income was a little over 2.5x the average. My dad alone brought home $180 every two weeks!

[DuncanONeil]

Equality of opportunity already exists in the US. Yes, there are some who still discriminate, but forcing understanding down their throats with regulations that cause them to view others with an even more discriminating eye will accomplish nothing. It's those who work hard, behave in a professional manner and don't behave as if the world "owes" them simply for being born a different ethnic background other than caucasian that will change the viewpoint of those who currently discriminate.
In order for the people of the group that my family hails to secure any kind of work they were required to accept wages at a rate lower than the Blacks.

[DuncanONeil]

In my view education should not depend on getting or not getting a scholarship. Money should not play a part .. everybody should have the chance to go as far as their ability allows.

Of course in reality we are hampered by cost and this is not possible but the fact it is not feasable today does not mean it is not the goal for tommorow. I went to university and my government paid uni fees and my personal expenses. I did not have to win a scholarship or pay a dime. All I had to do was meet the entrance requirements. If the UK could do it.. then USA could. (note - it has changed now in UK but the point is valid).


I am unable to agree with you. That thing we receive at no cost to ourselves is not valued. I have seen this personally. There exist scholarships that are available without biased requirements. More a reward for service rendered. More along the lines of deferred compensation. But you did work for it!

[DuncanONeil]

Yes steelish - there is more chance of the person without a degree climbing the corporate ladder in american than england but broadly speaking education-profession-salary go hand in hand. The CEOs who climbed the ladder invariably come from sales or a field where education(training) is not so critical as it is for a doctor, lawyer or one of the professional classes.

The question for me still remains - do we believe in equal (or fairer) opportunity and higher minimum standards of living for those at the bottom. For me they are goals to aim for but others seem to have the harsh attitude that people should only look out for themselves and are not under any obligation to help others.



The concept you present of a company head and professionals is apples and oranges. Comparisons are not possible in this example.

[DuncanONeil]

About that standard of living! There again we have to get into definitions. As I said before 46% of the official poor in the US own their own home.

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical 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; 31 percent own two or more cars.

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.


Yes steelish - there is more chance of the person without a degree climbing the corporate ladder in american than england but broadly speaking education-profession-salary go hand in hand. The CEOs who climbed the ladder invariably come from sales or a field where education(training) is not so critical as it is for a doctor, lawyer or one of the professional classes.

The question for me still remains - do we believe in equal (or fairer) opportunity and higher minimum standards of living for those at the bottom. For me they are goals to aim for but others seem to have the harsh attitude that people should only look out for themselves and are not under any obligation to help others.

As regards "racist" I sense dangerous waters so will tread carefully. I do not know USA so may well be wrong but I think there is a flaw in what you say. You are talking on the individual level - (ie forcing to hire somebody) but the laws are aimed at the group level. The problem is the game did not start with all players equal (ie segregation etc) so when you suddenly say from now on we play on even playing field it is not equal until you correct the imbalances from before. This is the aim. Whether it has succeeded or not I dont know but I would say the principle on which it is based is sound. If we want a fair horse race we handicap horses with more or less weight. Nobody complaines the race is unfair - far from it - that is seen to make it a more even match. Perhaps not the perfect analagy but to say why should I carry more weight than the other does not negate the principle of fairness and equality. In short - you started unequal so to make it equal now we need to give a boost to the other. If you've ever played poker against a man who started with a lot more money you will know what I am talking about,.

[Kendal]

Now you've offended me.
It was not my intension. My point was there is a parental school of thought that seeks to teach children from a very early age the importance of work by saying if you dont do this work you dont get that material reward. There's no argument about the work-reward relationship but personally I dont think there's anything wrong with letting children be children and letting them learn values slowly as they grow. There are many people who work in this world for principles higher than personal gain and the reason you should do that chore may be because mom does not have time rather than because the kids earns some candy money.

What are you advocating Kendal? Blindly paying them to sit around and do nothing,
First I would define who "them" are and not tar all unemployed with the same brush. I would then take different approaches with the different types of "them". Yes there are some that do not
want to work but I think there are more options than continue paying or stop paying. In UK a lot of "them" are working in the black economy and welfare payments is extra money. That type of "them" are clearly criminals.

while they create future generations who will live the same way?
I am sure there are many who would be offended by that remark. What makes you say this. Will the son of the wife beater grow up to be a wife beater. There are plenty of cases where children want to be the exact opposite and parents serve as cautionary tales rather than role models.

I've seen this hundreds of times, and it is so true; Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.
Care to explain how the man you taught to fish lives if you dont give him a fishing rod or there are no fish (jobs) in the (employment) river. These maxims are all very good but they are rather simplistic.

What I got allowance for was the hard jobs that were considered something "above and beyond".
The lesson is still the same - material reward for hard work. I used to enjoy (hard) work because it meant I was doing my bit in the family team and to show I was a big boy even though I wasn't. I enjoyed making a difference and leaving my mark .... ie I come yard dirty... I go yard clean.

When I speak of allowance for the other "jobs" I did I am saying I simply learned the value of a dollar..........whereas those who grow up on welfare or get things handed to them rarely learn the lesson.
Nothing wrong with that but there are values higher than the almighty dollar that motivate some people to work without needing personal material gain. In my life people have given (handed) me "things". I repay those people by giving to others in return. And again I dispute the claim that children follow in the footsteps of the parents.

[Kendal]

I am unable to agree with you. That thing we receive at no cost to ourselves is not valued.
That's rather a sweeping statement. I value love, oxygen and nature but did not work or pay for them. I know what you are saying but this is another one of those proverb type statements which have some truth but are not entirely valid.

I have seen this personally. There exist scholarships that are available without biased requirements. More a reward for service rendered. More along the lines of deferred compensation. But you did work for it!
I do not know the american scholarship system and am also unsure if I understand your point correctly. Personally I do not think the principle - you only get what you work for - is the only principle at work. Often the benefits we received are not the fruits of our labor but the legacy of our parents. I had a good education but did not work for it in the sense you may be implying. The result of that education is an awareness of obligations and my duty to give to my children the same or better than what I received. I do not teach my kid he has to do this to get that. I teach him we do this because it is the right thing to do, it is our way, it is what makes us who we are.

Let's not forget the country benefits from education. and the government is repaid with the higher taxes paid on the higher wages the educated get. The Chinese work bloody hard but China is poorer than USA. The better education in America creates better skilled workers who create better technologies which increase national wealth. The tax the government receives from it's higher paid better skilled workforce is more than from poorly educated and low paid Chinese. I believe education should be free for all. It is not a cost, it is an investment and a bloody good one at that.

The concept you present of a company head and professionals is apples and oranges.
I agree. Steelish introduced the climb up the corporate ladder point. I moved focus away because the number of people who succeed without education is small compared to the people for whom it would be impossible to succeed without education. The apples dont matter compared to the oranges.

PS - I think povery can be defined in terms on the minimum needed to live ie shelter, food, health etc. The country must provide this minimum life support no matter how undeserving the recipients may be. Above that minimum - okay that's a different kettle of apples.

[DuncanONeil]

Kendal, I think you are too fixated on material v, immaterial. You completely miss the point that reward is reward!
It can not be reward unless and until you have done something to earn it. The earning it is the hard work. Were the altruistic people you mention not schooled in the work - reward relationship as youth they would not be capable of deriving the satisfaction that they do in their personal accomplishments.
Further it is acceptable to approach an adult from the aspect of altruism. But children, the ones taught, as we discussed grow from the self to the group. They are all self-centered in the beginning.


Now you've offended me.
It was not my intension. My point was there is a parental school of thought that seeks to teach children from a very early age the importance of work by saying if you dont do this work you dont get that material reward. There's no argument about the work-reward relationship but personally I dont think there's anything wrong with letting children be children and letting them learn values slowly as they grow. There are many people who work in this world for principles higher than personal gain and the reason you should do that chore may be because mom does not have time rather than because the kids earns some candy money.

What are you advocating Kendal? Blindly paying them to sit around and do nothing,
First I would define who "them" are and not tar all unemployed with the same brush. I would then take different approaches with the different types of "them". Yes there are some that do not
want to work but I think there are more options than continue paying or stop paying. In UK a lot of "them" are working in the black economy and welfare payments is extra money. That type of "them" are clearly criminals.

while they create future generations who will live the same way?
I am sure there are many who would be offended by that remark. What makes you say this. Will the son of the wife beater grow up to be a wife beater. There are plenty of cases where children want to be the exact opposite and parents serve as cautionary tales rather than role models.

I've seen this hundreds of times, and it is so true; Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.
Care to explain how the man you taught to fish lives if you dont give him a fishing rod or there are no fish (jobs) in the (employment) river. These maxims are all very good but they are rather simplistic.

What I got allowance for was the hard jobs that were considered something "above and beyond".
The lesson is still the same - material reward for hard work. I used to enjoy (hard) work because it meant I was doing my bit in the family team and to show I was a big boy even though I wasn't. I enjoyed making a difference and leaving my mark .... ie I come yard dirty... I go yard clean.

When I speak of allowance for the other "jobs" I did I am saying I simply learned the value of a dollar..........whereas those who grow up on welfare or get things handed to them rarely learn the lesson.
Nothing wrong with that but there are values higher than the almighty dollar that motivate some people to work without needing personal material gain. In my life people have given (handed) me "things". I repay those people by giving to others in return. And again I dispute the claim that children follow in the footsteps of the parents.

[steelish]

Now you've offended me.
It was not my intension. My point was there is a parental school of thought that seeks to teach children from a very early age the importance of work by saying if you dont do this work you dont get that material reward. There's no argument about the work-reward relationship but personally I dont think there's anything wrong with letting children be children and letting them learn values slowly as they grow. There are many people who work in this world for principles higher than personal gain and the reason you should do that chore may be because mom does not have time rather than because the kids earns some candy money.

That may not have been your intent, but you did so just the same. We were allowed to be kids. We played, we had friends. We also earned money when we saw something in the store we wanted but my mother could not afford. My mother raised four kids by herself. My father left when I was 9. We did what we could as we got old enough to do things to earn a touch of money. Mowing a yard for a neighbor, weeding my grandfather's 16 acre vegetable garden, etc.


What are you advocating Kendal? Blindly paying them to sit around and do nothing,
First I would define who "them" are and not tar all unemployed with the same brush. I would then take different approaches with the different types of "them". Yes there are some that do not
want to work but I think there are more options than continue paying or stop paying. In UK a lot of "them" are working in the black economy and welfare payments is extra money. That type of "them" are clearly criminals.

You defined "them" previously. You're statement was: "What are you advocating steelish. Stopping welfare for those who wont work. What do you think they will do... quietly starve to death."


while they create future generations who will live the same way?
I am sure there are many who would be offended by that remark. What makes you say this. Will the son of the wife beater grow up to be a wife beater. There are plenty of cases where children want to be the exact opposite and parents serve as cautionary tales rather than role models.

There might be many offended. I never said EVERYONE who is raised on welfare continues the tradition. However, many do. I see it. I have family members who live it. My aunt raised four girls on her own. She was on welfare due to Lupus. She couldn't work. My mother helped when she could. So did all of us kids. Two of her children worked hard in school and went on to college. Two decided to sit around and do nothing although they are able-bodied. They live on welfare. They are raising kids of their own. Some of their kids seem to have the same mindset as their mothers.


I've seen this hundreds of times, and it is so true; Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.
Care to explain how the man you taught to fish lives if you dont give him a fishing rod or there are no fish (jobs) in the (employment) river. These maxims are all very good but they are rather simplistic.

Not so. It's an analogy. You're taking it so literally.


What I got allowance for was the hard jobs that were considered something "above and beyond".
The lesson is still the same - material reward for hard work. I used to enjoy (hard) work because it meant I was doing my bit in the family team and to show I was a big boy even though I wasn't. I enjoyed making a difference and leaving my mark .... ie I come yard dirty... I go yard clean.

When I speak of allowance for the other "jobs" I did I am saying I simply learned the value of a dollar..........whereas those who grow up on welfare or get things handed to them rarely learn the lesson.
Nothing wrong with that but there are values higher than the almighty dollar that motivate some people to work without needing personal material gain. In my life people have given (handed) me "things". I repay those people by giving to others in return. And again I dispute the claim that children follow in the footsteps of the parents.

Seems as if you and I will go round and round. See above explanation.

[DuncanONeil]

I am unable to agree with you. That thing we receive at no cost to ourselves is not valued.
That's rather a sweeping statement. I value love, oxygen and nature but did not work or pay for them. I know what you are saying but this is another one of those proverb type statements which have some truth but are not entirely valid.

The last sentence is quite true. But one must always analyze "proverbs". In the sense we are speaking neither oxygen nor nature are "given" to you. Love is a very unique entity. As a monopole construct it is nearly worthless and often frustrating. To be truly effective it must be given away, to be returned. And as that dipole construct it gains its true measure of value.


I have seen this personally. There exist scholarships that are available without biased requirements. More a reward for service rendered. More along the lines of deferred compensation. But you did work for it!
I do not know the american scholarship system and am also unsure if I understand your point correctly. Personally I do not think the principle - you only get what you work for - is the only principle at work. Often the benefits we received are not the fruits of our labor but the legacy of our parents. I had a good education but did not work for it in the sense you may be implying. The result of that education is an awareness of obligations and my duty to give to my children the same or better than what I received. I do not teach my kid he has to do this to get that. I teach him we do this because it is the right thing to do, it is our way, it is what makes us who we are.

In some respects that is correct. I suppose I was mostly considering the last eight years of school. I did consider the cost issue. I worked in the high school to pay a portion of my tuition. I worked in college as well, though many of us do. My scholarship was a result of taking a specific job that if I completed the job I earned a set sum to assist with college.
But back to elementary school, all school actually, if you do not work and apply yourself as a student everything is wasted. The learning is not a total washout but we do graduate students from high school that can not read.


Let's not forget the country benefits from education. and the government is repaid with the higher taxes paid on the higher wages the educated get. The Chinese work bloody hard but China is poorer than USA. The better education in America creates better skilled workers who create better technologies which increase national wealth. The tax the government receives from it's higher paid better skilled workforce is more than from poorly educated and low paid Chinese. I believe education should be free for all. It is not a cost, it is an investment and a bloody good one at that.

First, there is no way that education can be free. Here education is not within the authority of the Congress. They should not be involved! Yes education is an investment. An investment in the future. But not for the nation, that is a corollary. Education is an investment in self! Perhaps in your statement it is true that America has a better education, but in my estimation the education in America sucks!


The concept you present of a company head and professionals is apples and oranges.
I agree. Steelish introduced the climb up the corporate ladder point. I moved focus away because the number of people who succeed without education is small compared to the people for whom it would be impossible to succeed without education. The apples dont matter compared to the oranges.

Yes few make it to the top. That is because there are FEW at the top. The difference between having an idea, a good work ethic, and drive to build a company and becoming a doctor or a lawyer are different tracks. To equate them is to diminish humanity a bit I might think. Or it presents an overdependence on formal education to provide all the answers.


PS - I think povery can be defined in terms on the minimum needed to live ie shelter, food, health etc. The country must provide this minimum life support no matter how undeserving the recipients may be. Above that minimum - okay that's a different kettle of apples.

Did you see the posting regarding the standard of living of the "poor" in the USA?

[Kendal]

But one must always analyze "proverbs".
I cannot really analyse fortune cookies, proverbs, bumper stickers, tea leaves or whatever. Yes there is some truth in them but it is far from the whole truth.

I suppose I was mostly considering the last eight years of school. I did consider the cost issue.
Well maybe this is why we all differ. You are talking from your personal background, steelish is talking from the basis of hers and I am not talking from my own personal background just the values and principles I was taught to believe in.

if you do not work and apply yourself as a student everything is wasted
I said children do work - doing schoolwork. Steelish talked about work meaning doing chores for cash to learn the value of a buck and importance of hard work. Yes of course if they dont apply themselves as student then the education is not entirely wasted but they are not making the most of the opportunity but is this the same work as cash for chores.

First, there is no way that education can be free. Here education is not within the authority of the Congress. They should not be involved!
By free I mean at zero financial cost to student or family. Governments (local-national) should pay for it and have a degree of say in educational matters. My view is obviously different to yours on this one.

Education is an investment in self! Perhaps in your statement it is true that America has a better education, but in my estimation the education in America sucks!
Better than China - but thats not saying much is it. As for Europe-America comparison I'm sure that would be a hot potato (we won't even agree on how to pronounce that word). Everybody benefits from education. The student from better job and pay. The government from more tax and more manageable citizens (unlikely to riot). The country from increased wealth, better products and services etc.

Yes few make it to the top. That is because there are FEW at the top.I am talking percentage. What percent of CEOs in America don't have a degree and also what percent of high earners are in jobs where you can succeed without a degree. The number of people steelish is talking about who made it to the top without education is few both in number and percent.

The difference between having an idea, a good work ethic, and drive to build a company and becoming a doctor or a lawyer are different tracks.
I agree mostly but not entirely. I think back in the days of Henry Ford and the like you would be right but in todays world I am not so sure. Yep a Henry Ford today could probaby have a good garage and be moderately successful but I doubt he could have the same level of success. The difference between now and then is the higher level of technology and knowledge needed. I am not sure on this one but suspect I am right.

Did you see the posting regarding the standard of living of the "poor" in the USA?
I briefly looked but the moment I saw stats on TV and house ownership I knew my defintion of poor was very different from what was being discussed. By poor I mean eating out of trash cans or not enough to give your kids healthy diets.


PS Steelish - If this topic is to be discussed in terms of your personal family background you make it impossible for me to respond without running the risk of offending you again. I am in effect silenced.

[steelish]

I am unable to agree with you. That thing we receive at no cost to ourselves is not valued.
That's rather a sweeping statement. I value love, oxygen and nature but did not work or pay for them. I know what you are saying but this is another one of those proverb type statements which have some truth but are not entirely valid.

Sorry, but I just had to comment on this, because in my view, you are being facetious. Love, oxygen and nature are things that exist in nature yet cannot be confined, whereas beef (food stuffs), goods and such can be confined and as such, sold by those with the means to confine them. You know this. I know this. We cannot live as the American Indians did years ago, hunting for what we needed and free-roaming, following our food source.

Clothing is manufactured, and as such, has to be purchased. During purchase, people use money that they have earned. If they do not earn it, they receive it either through entitlement programs, or gifts. The same goes for other things that are "manufactured" including food, a/c and heat, water sources, fuel (electricity, gas, oil, etc.), and almost anything needed in which to live upon. Such is life.

[Kendal]

Yes they were poor examples I agree. I did not want to spend much thought debunking proverbs. People using proverbs to support their argument in a political discussion always seems to me like those the Southern lawyers who quote the scriptures to prove their case - it's makes for good drama and showmanship but is a load of hogwash. This is why politicians steer clear of them - they get nailed.

Anyhow back to the point. You claim people do not value that which is obtained at no cost to themselves.

- Do you value this website - you did not pay for admission.
- Do you value the posts and posters on here for which you have given thanks.
- Does the hungry man value the food from the soup kitchen or bed at the hostel.
- Does the hitchhiker value the ride he gets.
- Do people go intro stampede mode at stores when the word "free" is mention.
- Did you value your allowance - (the one you got without having to work for it)
- Do people value the sermom and service they get at the church.
- Will you value the wedding ring you get(got)
- Are all of the above definable and finite products, services and commodities.

I think the answer to all of the above is Yes. And all were obtained for FREE.

[Kendal]

I can add another to the list. The gifts we receive at Christmas. The Santa Klaus the Dutch brought to America from Europe gave gifts to all equally. Americans introduced the naughty and nice list - the concept that if the kid did not work, did not do as he was told then he would not get the (same)material reward of a gift. The work ethic is at being taught even with Santa in America. The Europeans follow the principle that all are equal in love and all shall receive the same. The lazy boy shall receive the same gift as the hard working boy for they are loved equally by the parents, Jesus and God. And some would say the bad boy is loved more - because he has strayed the furthest and it is the love and charity that shall bring him back.

I dont want to debate whether American or European Santa is right but hope we can agree they are different and follow different principles when it comes to giving and who is deserving.

[steelish]

Yes they were poor examples I agree. I did not want to spend much thought debunking proverbs. People using proverbs to support their argument in a political discussion always seems to me like those the Southern lawyers who quote the scriptures to prove their case - it's makes for good drama and showmanship but is a load of hogwash. This is why politicians steer clear of them - they get nailed.

Anyhow back to the point. You claim people do not value that which is obtained at no cost to themselves.

- Do you value this website - you did not pay for admission.

Actually, I did...in the form of the internet service in my home. I could not access it without that.


- Do you value the posts and posters on here for which you have given thanks.

Yes, and they probably (likely) had to pay for internet access as well. If they didn't, then they had to find a way to get somewhere to have a computer with internet access.


- Does the hungry man value the food from the soup kitchen or bed at the hostel.

I would hope so...because SOMEONE payed for it.


- Does the hitchhiker value the ride he gets.

I would hope so...for the same reason. It wasn't free. The driver put gas in his car. He's putting mileage on his car. I would hope the hitchhiker appreciates it.


- Do people go intro stampede mode at stores when the word "free" is mention.

Hmmmm...must be a UK thing. Stores in the US don't give away FREE things.


- Did you value your allowance - (the one you got without having to work for it)

I never got an allowance for doing nothing. I could have sworn I've already made that point clear.


- Do people value the sermom and service they get at the church.

I'm sure they do. They put on their Sunday best (clothing they purchased with churchgoing in mind) and drive (gas, mileage) to church. But then, that's not free is it.


- Will you value the wedding ring you get(got)

I'm pretty sure my husband paid for it.


- Are all of the above definable and finite products, services and commodities.

Yes, they are.


I think the answer to all of the above is Yes. And all were obtained for FREE.

No, not free. I think I've established that. Just because someone benefited from a couple of them and did not have to pay directly for them does not make them free.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone, somewhere has to pay for it.

[Kendal]

steelish - Duncan said -

"That thing we receive at no cost to ourselves is not valued"

I disputed that. You disputed me on the basis somebody down the line paid for it. Somebody else paying is not YOU (ie ourselves) paying is it. It is therefore no cost to you - which is what Duncan meant.

Pick an apple off the tree or pluck a flower on open public land. And saying this site is not free because you have to pay for connection. You could go to public library and use their computer. If you want to go to the ridiculous extreme you pay for the food you eat and without that food you could not visit the site because you would be dead from starvation.

If one trie to defend proverbs one will get a tough time. Better one leaves proverbs and fortune cookies out of serious discussions.

PS - Nothing in life is free is another one of these glib maxims. If a country was governed by proverbs we would be in a worse mess than we already are.

[Thorne]

- Do you value this website - you did not pay for admission.
As steelish said, I pay through my ISP fees, but the real value in a site such as this is in the effort we all put into making it interesting and relevant. I would hope my own modest efforts have added to that value for others as well as myself.


- Do you value the posts and posters on here for which you have given thanks.
Every poster here has some value. Naturally, I value some higher than others, and I do give thanks when they are deserved. In other words, poster should have to earn their thanks!


- Does the hungry man value the food from the soup kitchen or bed at the hostel.
I'm sure he does, just as (as noted in your next post) we value gifts which we are given. But if our hungry man is given that gift every day, there will come a point where he will view it not as a gift but as an entitlement, and when the soup kitchen closes down he will rant about his rights being taken away.


- Does the hitchhiker value the ride he gets.
Same as above.


- Do people go intro stampede mode at stores when the word "free" is mention.
I'm sure they do, but the cost of that "free" item is spread out over the cost of everything else we buy, so it's not actually free, is it?


- Did you value your allowance - (the one you got without having to work for it)
Like steelish (and I expect, like most who received an allowance) I didn't get an allowance for doing nothing. I earned it. As I grew older and was able to do more, I received a larger allowance. Then, in order to cement my understanding of the value of my efforts, when I got old enough to have a job, I was expected to pay a percentage of my pay as 'room and board'. In retrospect, at least, the lessons I learned were far more valuable than the money I paid.


- Do people value the sermom and service they get at the church.
Apparently, though I have difficulty understanding why. But then, they've put a lot of time and effort into maintaining their church, in some form or another.So again, it's not 'free'.


- Will you value the wedding ring you get(got)
You don't just 'get' a wedding ring. You have to invest a tremendous amount of time and energy, both physical and emotional. And the future costs are even higher. And if you're as lucky as I am, it will all be worth it. If you can even think that the receipt of a wedding ring is 'free' your value system may be seriously flawed.

Paying money for something is not the only way to pay for it. After all, money is just a placeholder, a way of showing how much work we've done to earn what we are buying. Gifts received generally come from expenditures in emotional bonds. Even charity comes at a cost to someone. Being the recipient of charity should make you feel grateful to those providing it, but can also be humbling to a degree, knowing that you must rely on the charity of others. But those who have come to rely on charity, and have lost that gratitude, are the ones who make it so hard for people like me to see the 'value' in giving that charity. When charity is no longer viewed as a gift but as a right, it ceases to become charity. And it no longer has any value to society.

[Kendal]

You guys are trying to nail every example with very obscure reasoning because you are clinging to the principle you have to work for everything you get. I am not disputing the value of slogans and ethics like this but they should not be seen as the sort of global laws of the universe both of you make out. There are other principles involved like charity and the responsibility of the strong to help the weak. It is not as simple as the 1:1 direct relationships you make out. Much of what I have and have been given is the legacy of our fathers. I have lived in peace and security not because of my work but because 2 generations gave their tommorow so I could have my today. I help those less fortunate than myself because it is the right thing to do. I hope should they be able one day they will in turn help somebody. If not - so be it - I do what I must. I cannot look the other way and recite some proverb to the hungry man. I see nothing wrong in giving those at the bottom of the economy a leg up so they can in turn do the same for others. And if some are them are just parasites on society - so be it - I am not going to refuse to water the garden because there may be some weeds in there amonst the flowers. We will just have to agree we are from different cultures with different social values.

[steelish]

steelish - Duncan said -

"That thing we receive at no cost to ourselves is not valued"

I disputed that. You disputed me on the basis somebody down the line paid for it. Somebody else paying is not YOU (ie ourselves) paying is it. It is therefore no cost to you - which is what Duncan meant.

Pick an apple off the tree or pluck a flower on open public land. And saying this site is not free because you have to pay for connection. You could go to public library and use their computer. If you want to go to the ridiculous extreme you pay for the food you eat and without that food you could not visit the site because you would be dead from starvation.

If one trie to defend proverbs one will get a tough time. Better one leaves proverbs and fortune cookies out of serious discussions.

PS - Nothing in life is free is another one of these glib maxims. If a country was governed by proverbs we would be in a worse mess than we already are.

It matters not to me which one of you said it. My point is that I value the things you mentioned/listed. BTW - I never said "Nothing in life is free". What I said is "There's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone, somewhere has to pay for it."

My other point is that there are people out there who value only that which they will never have to pay for...(their concept of "free" is skewed)

Like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI&feature=related) woman
or these (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ojd13kZlCA&feature=related) people
Oh wait, what about this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV2ngvYI_ZU&feature=fvw)?

[steelish]

You guys are trying to nail every example with very obscure reasoning because you are clinging to the principle you have to work for everything you get. I am not disputing the value of slogans and ethics like this but they should not be seen as the sort of global laws of the universe both of you make out. There are other principles involved like charity and the responsibility of the strong to help the weak. It is not as simple as the 1:1 direct relationships you make out. Much of what I have and have been given is the legacy of our fathers. I have lived in peace and security not because of my work but because 2 generations gave their tommorow so I could have my today. I help those less fortunate than myself because it is the right thing to do. I hope should they be able one day they will in turn help somebody. If not - so be it - I do what I must. I cannot look the other way and recite some proverb to the hungry man. I see nothing wrong in giving those at the bottom of the economy a leg up so they can in turn do the same for others. And if some are them are just parasites on society - so be it - I am not going to refuse to water the garden because there may be some weeds in there amonst the flowers. We will just have to agree we are from different cultures with different social values.

No. What we are saying is there is great value in being a productive citizen if you have the ability to do so. To be able-bodied, yet choose to do nothing to contribute to society and instead to live off the efforts of your fellow man is WRONG.

[DuncanONeil]

But one must always analyze "proverbs".
I cannot really analyse fortune cookies, proverbs, bumper stickers, tea leaves or whatever. Yes there is some truth in them but it is far from the whole truth.

Everything can be analyzed! You have said so yourself in other posts. Am I now to conclude that only those things you favor deserve analysis? By implication failure to analyze puts you in a position of, alternately, blindly accepting or blindly dismissing data.


I suppose I was mostly considering the last eight years of school. I did consider the cost issue.
Well maybe this is why we all differ. You are talking from your personal background, steelish is talking from the basis of hers and I am not talking from my own personal background just the values and principles I was taught to believe in.

Here you are expressing that which has been clear in a lot of your writings, you assume. Neither I nor Steelish are capable of being so cavalier with our values and principles as you seem to think people are capable. Those are an ingrained part of all of us. What you are referring to, improperly I think, to a discussion based on values and principles leavened with personal experience.


if you do not work and apply yourself as a student everything is wasted
I said children do work - doing schoolwork. Steelish talked about work meaning doing chores for cash to learn the value of a buck and importance of hard work. Yes of course if they dont apply themselves as student then the education is not entirely wasted but they are not making the most of the opportunity but is this the same work as cash for chores.

Yes! It is the same!


First, there is no way that education can be free. Here education is not within the authority of the Congress. They should not be involved!
By free I mean at zero financial cost to student or family. Governments (local-national) should pay for it and have a degree of say in educational matters. My view is obviously different to yours on this one.

I have some small concerns of the input of government but as I said, very clearly Congress has no authority to intrude on the prosecution of education. I am very aware that such in not the case in all nations but it is here! The post high school level of education is divided between state schools and private schools. It is clear that the state schools are getting significant support from the state. If the state so chooses to do fine. But the Feds need to take their ball and go home. Lets include the teachers unions in that, they are weakening education as we speak.


Education is an investment in self! Perhaps in your statement it is true that America has a better education, but in my estimation the education in America sucks!
Better than China - but thats not saying much is it. As for Europe-America comparison I'm sure that would be a hot potato (we won't even agree on how to pronounce that word). Everybody benefits from education. The student from better job and pay. The government from more tax and more manageable citizens (unlikely to riot). The country from increased wealth, better products and services etc.

See in this we largely agree! I would defy you to find anyone who would not. The argument arises in execution.
Government (in case it is not yet clear the preceding word in that form refers to the Feds) and teacher unions are an impediment to good education. As a result we are losing our educated base.


Yes few make it to the top. That is because there are FEW at the top.I am talking percentage. What percent of CEOs in America don't have a degree and also what percent of high earners are in jobs where you can succeed without a degree. The number of people steelish is talking about who made it to the top without education is few both in number and percent.

That is really an apocraphyl statement. With 31 million companies in the US employing over 500 people determining such a data set is a large task. Especially including positions below the CEO. But even so we are looking at a set of the US that encompasses a mere 10% of the country. Even a small percent of them is significant. Nobody gives two thoughts about youth that seek to be major league football players and that data set is, in total, only about 850 people nationally! Much smaller than the business community! And it is way easier to start a new business than a new football team.


The difference between having an idea, a good work ethic, and drive to build a company and becoming a doctor or a lawyer are different tracks.
I agree mostly but not entirely. I think back in the days of Henry Ford and the like you would be right but in todays world I am not so sure. Yep a Henry Ford today could probaby have a good garage and be moderately successful but I doubt he could have the same level of success. The difference between now and then is the higher level of technology and knowledge needed. I am not sure on this one but suspect I am right.

1900 or now it is not the knowledge that makes success. It is the idea and drive. Even the Wright brothers did not do all of their airplanes themselves. Even today I do not need all the knowledge. I do need to know how to find it though. That is where the drive comes in.


Did you see the posting regarding the standard of living of the "poor" in the USA?
I briefly looked but the moment I saw stats on TV and house ownership I knew my defintion of poor was very different from what was being discussed. By poor I mean eating out of trash cans or not enough to give your kids healthy diets.

This is why when a discussion of any of the "poor", "middle class", or "rich" come up I need a definition. Not so much because things but because there are so many assumptions. The category of "poor" you infer (not define) are infinitesimal. Not to say they are to be ignored. But we need to know what we are talking about. The lifestyle of the officially poor in the US puts the normal life style of some Europeans to shame. No wonder so many want to come here if the poor can live so well. Much of that stuff I did not have growing up, but then a bunch of it did not exist either. I still felt poor though we were, according to the stats, not.


PS Steelish - If this topic is to be discussed in terms of your personal family background you make it impossible for me to respond without running the risk of offending you again. I am in effect silenced.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like a cop out to me!!

[steelish]

PS Steelish - If this topic is to be discussed in terms of your personal family background you make it impossible for me to respond without running the risk of offending you again. I am in effect silenced.

If I cannot draw from my own experiences and knowledge of a subject, from where then?

I was offended by your accusations, not your argument.

[DuncanONeil]

yes they were poor examples i agree. I did not want to spend much thought debunking proverbs. People using proverbs to support their argument in a political discussion always seems to me like those the southern lawyers who quote the scriptures to prove their case - it's makes for good drama and showmanship but is a load of hogwash. This is why politicians steer clear of them - they get nailed.

Anyhow back to the point. You claim people do not value that which is obtained at no cost to themselves.


- do you value this website - you did not pay for admission.

i do not value the website nearly as much as i value the people and discussions in which i engage! The people have inestimable value, the site itself not nearly as much.


- do you value the posts and posters on here for which you have given thanks.

see above


- does the hungry man value the food from the soup kitchen or bed at the hostel.

no! He values not being hungry for a while.


- does the hitchhiker value the ride he gets.

perhaps? The true measure of said valuation is subject to the situation. On would have to presume that gratitude and value are synonymous.


- do people go intro stampede mode at stores when the word "free" is mention.

more likely greed than value!


- did you value your allowance - (the one you got without having to work for it)

a free, unencumbered allowance? Most kids do not value such. They perceive it as a gift or right.


- do people value the sermom and service they get at the church.

completely different animal! Not definable nor finite.


- will you value the wedding ring you get(got)

this is a quid pro quo! Something that both parties have worked for.


- are all of the above definable and finite products, services and commodities.

no!


i think the answer to all of the above is yes. And all were obtained for free.
000000000

[DuncanONeil]

Except even the naughty kids get Xmas gifts.
And the naughty - nice thing is not about "the concept that if the kid did not work ... he would not get the (same)material reward of a gift."


I can add another to the list. The gifts we receive at Christmas. The Santa Klaus the Dutch brought to America from Europe gave gifts to all equally. Americans introduced the naughty and nice list - the concept that if the kid did not work, did not do as he was told then he would not get the (same)material reward of a gift. The work ethic is at being taught even with Santa in America. The Europeans follow the principle that all are equal in love and all shall receive the same. The lazy boy shall receive the same gift as the hard working boy for they are loved equally by the parents, Jesus and God. And some would say the bad boy is loved more - because he has strayed the furthest and it is the love and charity that shall bring him back.

I dont want to debate whether American or European Santa is right but hope we can agree they are different and follow different principles when it comes to giving and who is deserving.

[DuncanONeil]

The library would never let you on this site!
Can;t wait to see what you have to say to me on the subject!


steelish - Duncan said -

"That thing we receive at no cost to ourselves is not valued"

I disputed that. You disputed me on the basis somebody down the line paid for it. Somebody else paying is not YOU (ie ourselves) paying is it. It is therefore no cost to you - which is what Duncan meant.

Pick an apple off the tree or pluck a flower on open public land. And saying this site is not free because you have to pay for connection. You could go to public library and use their computer. If you want to go to the ridiculous extreme you pay for the food you eat and without that food you could not visit the site because you would be dead from starvation.

If one trie to defend proverbs one will get a tough time. Better one leaves proverbs and fortune cookies out of serious discussions.

PS - Nothing in life is free is another one of these glib maxims. If a country was governed by proverbs we would be in a worse mess than we already are.

[DuncanONeil]

I can remember two allowances I received in my youth. In elementary school a nickle credit at the local grocery I used on return to school from lunch.
In high school $3 per week, however, I was expected to buy my own lunch from that sum.


As steelish said, I pay through my ISP fees, but the real value in a site such as this is in the effort we all put into making it interesting and relevant. I would hope my own modest efforts have added to that value for others as well as myself.


Every poster here has some value. Naturally, I value some higher than others, and I do give thanks when they are deserved. In other words, poster should have to earn their thanks!


I'm sure he does, just as (as noted in your next post) we value gifts which we are given. But if our hungry man is given that gift every day, there will come a point where he will view it not as a gift but as an entitlement, and when the soup kitchen closes down he will rant about his rights being taken away.


Same as above.


I'm sure they do, but the cost of that "free" item is spread out over the cost of everything else we buy, so it's not actually free, is it?


Like steelish (and I expect, like most who received an allowance) I didn't get an allowance for doing nothing. I earned it. As I grew older and was able to do more, I received a larger allowance. Then, in order to cement my understanding of the value of my efforts, when I got old enough to have a job, I was expected to pay a percentage of my pay as 'room and board'. In retrospect, at least, the lessons I learned were far more valuable than the money I paid.


Apparently, though I have difficulty understanding why. But then, they've put a lot of time and effort into maintaining their church, in some form or another.So again, it's not 'free'.


You don't just 'get' a wedding ring. You have to invest a tremendous amount of time and energy, both physical and emotional. And the future costs are even higher. And if you're as lucky as I am, it will all be worth it. If you can even think that the receipt of a wedding ring is 'free' your value system may be seriously flawed.

Paying money for something is not the only way to pay for it. After all, money is just a placeholder, a way of showing how much work we've done to earn what we are buying. Gifts received generally come from expenditures in emotional bonds. Even charity comes at a cost to someone. Being the recipient of charity should make you feel grateful to those providing it, but can also be humbling to a degree, knowing that you must rely on the charity of others. But those who have come to rely on charity, and have lost that gratitude, are the ones who make it so hard for people like me to see the 'value' in giving that charity. When charity is no longer viewed as a gift but as a right, it ceases to become charity. And it no longer has any value to society.

[DuncanONeil]

Perhaps you are unwilling to surrender your idea that free things can be valued.
Very little in life is simple but in this forum we perforce restrict ourselves to short periods of time. Forcing short answers.
You mentioned something specific; "Much of what I have and have been given is the legacy of our fathers. I have lived in peace and security not because of my work but because 2 generations gave their tommorow so I could have my today." That kind of thought process leads me to believe there is personal aspect to the comment. If not you are way better than most. The vast majority of this country are unable to see what you just said. Some even with such a person in their family. The sad fact is that for most people history begins the day they are born.

The only real difference I can see is that you are of the opinion that people value free things and Steelish, Thorne, and I do not so opine.
Much of the past hour I have been thinking on this charitable works issue. It also has two aspects. My expending something as simple as my time and effort to assist someone through "something" is not quite the same as going over to the local homeless jungle and handing out "stuff". I am a volunteer in an organization, known to save a life of two each year. I still can see the difference in putting yourself out there and just handing out "stuff". I just can't think of a better way to phrase it!


You guys are trying to nail every example with very obscure reasoning because you are clinging to the principle you have to work for everything you get. I am not disputing the value of slogans and ethics like this but they should not be seen as the sort of global laws of the universe both of you make out. There are other principles involved like charity and the responsibility of the strong to help the weak. It is not as simple as the 1:1 direct relationships you make out. Much of what I have and have been given is the legacy of our fathers. I have lived in peace and security not because of my work but because 2 generations gave their tommorow so I could have my today. I help those less fortunate than myself because it is the right thing to do. I hope should they be able one day they will in turn help somebody. If not - so be it - I do what I must. I cannot look the other way and recite some proverb to the hungry man. I see nothing wrong in giving those at the bottom of the economy a leg up so they can in turn do the same for others. And if some are them are just parasites on society - so be it - I am not going to refuse to water the garden because there may be some weeds in there amonst the flowers. We will just have to agree we are from different cultures with different social values.

[TantricSoul]

There seems to be some interesting "facts" (loose definition imho) presented in this thread and in my opinion some balance is in order. However I will attempt to leave out the propaganda ;)

I believe that this data might be relevant:

On any given night in America, anywhere from 700,000 to 2 million people are homeless, according to estimates of the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty.

According to a December, 2000 report of the US Conference of Mayors:

* single men comprise 44 percent of the homeless, single women 13 percent, families with children 36 percent, and unaccompanied minors seven percent.
* the homeless population is about 50 percent African-American, 35 percent white, 12 percent Hispanic, 2 percent Native American and 1 percent Asian.

According to the 1996 National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients (NSHAPC):

* single homeless individuals in 1996 reported an average income of $348 during the last 30 days, about 51 percent of the 1996 federal poverty level of $680/month for one person.
* 28 percent said they sometimes or often do not get enough to eat, compared with 12 percent of poor American adults.
* 44 percent did paid work during the past month.
* 21 percent received income from family members or friends.
* 66 percent of the homeless have problems with alcohol, drug abuse, or mental illness.
* 22 percent have been physically assaulted.
* 7 percent have been sexually assaulted.
* 38 percent say someone stole money or things directly from them.
* 30 percent have been homeless for more than two years.

of course this was pre-recession...

[TantricSoul]

found this interesting tidbit ... and I would place it on equal par with some of the "facts" offered in this thread so far...

The only CEO of the top-50, whose education is listed as n/a is Martin
J Sullivan, the CEO of AIG, and despite my best efforts, I couldn't
find where (or whether) he went to college. However, if he hasn't gone
to college (which I doubt, I think that his full biography is just
unavailable online) he is the only one of those top-50. I have checked
for the other 49, and they all *graduated* from college.

Hmmm .. AIG ... really now where have I heard that recently?

[TantricSoul]

From the moderators point of view this thread has been an interesting exchange of point and counterpoint, at least a decent representation of differing "debate" styles...

What I have not witnessed recently is any personal attacks.
Thank you.

[Kendal]

Steelish - To be able-bodied, yet choose to do nothing to contribute to society and instead to live off the efforts of your fellow man is WRONG.
Personally I believe that although they may be able bodied they are not able minded. You appear to lay all the blame at their door. Yes they must share the blame but in my view so must society. Perhaps I have got this wrong but you seemed to be suggesting welfare should be stopped which would in effect cut of their only means of survival (ie food shelter etc not tv sets). This seems harsh in the extreme to me and I think would not save the taxpayer when they all end up in jail.

I would like to analyze * winks at Duncan * what went wrong because clearly something has. And address that problem. Yes its not easy to fix - but at least we should be trying. The USA can land a man on the moon and a missile on a dime the other side of the world. I think the problem of poverty and employment can be solved.

Duncan - Everything can be analyzed! You have said so yourself in other posts
Correct - but suggesting I analyse a proverb is for me not relevant to a serious discussion on equality and equal opportunit

Neither I nor Steelish are capable of being so cavalier with our values and principles as you seem to think people are capable. Those are an ingrained part of all of us.y.
Steelish no work no reward views are the result of her parents teachings. Your similar view is based on what you had to do to get to college. My views are based on the output of my education ie my schooling. Both your views are based on what you had to do to get your education.

Yes! It is the same!
Then when I pointed out to steelish that kids do work - they do homework - you agree with me.

I have some small concerns of the input of government
In the UK the national government exercises little control over education other than what is in law (eg every day shall start with an act of worship). Control is linked to funding. So a private school will be self funded and controlled. State schools are run and funded by local government who share control with the school itself. I think it fair control and funding are loosely linked. I appreciate the USA is probably different but I am not talking about how it is as much as how I think it ought to be in both UK, USA.

See in this we largely agree! I would defy you to find anyone who would not. The argument arises in execution.
My point was I believe education should be free and paid for by government (local/national) with help from industry and elsewhere. Students should be able to go as far as their ability not pocket allows. I accept we cannot afford it but nevertheless it is the goal I would strive for and direction I would aim for.

Other issues - teacher unions etc - are other matters. As I said before, if governments were efficient they mostly probably could offer better education and health without extra burden to taxpayer. Problem is they are not.

With 31 million companies in the US employing over 500 people determining such a data set is a large task
I dont think we need to survey all 31 million. There are ways to get stats with sampling. For the poverty stats quoted they didn't run around homes counting TV sets did they. Please - it is possible to get stats and ballpark estimates.

1900 or now it is not the knowledge that makes success.
The more complex the product, market and business environment the more complex the skill set needed to be successful.

This is why when a discussion of any of the "poor", "middle class", or "rich" come up I need a definition.
It must be possible to work out the minimum needed to support a healthy life. Food, shelter, hygene etc. I am pretty sure it's not that hard to work out. This for me is subsistance level and that is a minimum a government must provide.

Sounds like a cop out to me!!
Correct, it is! I do not want to comment on her personal backgound because that is not the topic and because I do not want her to be offended, which she undoubtably would be.

[TantricSoul]

If your interested in who is going hungry in America...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/16/AR2009111601598.html

[TantricSoul]

Who is in need of medical care in America ...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/hinsure.htm
I know these links aren't as entertaining as Youtube

[Kendal]

I believe that this data might be relevant:
Thanks - Yes facts won't be accurate but they do put us in the ballpark. For me not having a home meets my defintion of poor. I can go along with them living in hostels but if we are talking about on the streets then that problem must be addressed.

The only CEO of the top-50, whose education is listed as n/a is Martin J Sullivan, the CEO of AIG
AIG is probably different because it is a hard sell business and I bet (dont know) that guy came through sales to the top.

Hmmm .. AIG ... really now where have I heard that recently?
Nice one lol. If he did come through sales then it is not coinicidence. It was pushing to maximize sales no matter the risk that caused the crash.

What I have not witnessed recently is any personal attacks
Sorry I didn't know we were supposed to do that.

PS - Duncan
The concept is expressed on war memorials throught England. It comes from the epitaph on the memorial to the Indian and Allied soldier who halted the Japanese advance into Indian.

"When you go home tell them of us and say
For your tomorrow we gave our today."

It is believed the author took it from the Greek poet who wrote after the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC:

"Go tell the Spartans, thou that passest by,
That faithful to their precepts here we lie."

See what you get with a decent education. You get to built words from dead poets into posts. Almost as bad as using everyday proverbs but less obvious. :)

[steelish]

Steelish - To be able-bodied, yet choose to do nothing to contribute to society and instead to live off the efforts of your fellow man is WRONG.
Personally I believe that although they may be able bodied they are not able minded. You appear to lay all the blame at their door. Yes they must share the blame but in my view so must society. Perhaps I have got this wrong but you seemed to be suggesting welfare should be stopped which would in effect cut of their only means of survival (ie food shelter etc not tv sets).

Oh yes, you most definitely have that wrong. I never suggested "stopping" welfare. What I am suggesting is to make the system better. Weed out those who take advantage and have the ability to hold a job and choose not to. To enable those who want to work, yet don't have the skills (either because they dropped out of school or some other reason).

No one that I know of wants to "punish" those who truly need welfare in order to spite those who do not.

[DuncanONeil]

Steelish - To be able-bodied, yet choose to do nothing to contribute to society and instead to live off the efforts of your fellow man is WRONG.
Personally I believe that although they may be able bodied they are not able minded. You appear to lay all the blame at their door. Yes they must share the blame but in my view so must society.

Which comment can be interpreted as; "If they do not have a job it is not their fault"


Perhaps I have got this wrong but you seemed to be suggesting welfare should be stopped which would in effect cut of their only means of survival (ie food shelter etc not tv sets). This seems harsh in the extreme to me and I think would not save the taxpayer when they all end up in jail.

Your assumption is predicated on a total lack of charity. Something you have espoused in earlier posts.


I would like to analyze * winks at Duncan * what went wrong because clearly something has. And address that problem. Yes its not easy to fix - but at least we should be trying. The USA can land a man on the moon and a missile on a dime the other side of the world. I think the problem of poverty and employment can be solved.

Thank you for the shout out. The only way that poverty can be eliminated is for everyone to have and make the same. In any other combination those with less will either be considered poor, or consider themselves poor.


Duncan - Everything can be analyzed! You have said so yourself in other posts
Correct - but suggesting I analyse a proverb is for me not relevant to a serious discussion on equality and equal opportunit

If it comes up as part of the discussion it becomes part of the discussion. You trivialize it by refusing to consider it.


Neither I nor Steelish are capable of being so cavalier with our values and principles as you seem to think people are capable. Those are an ingrained part of all of us.y.
Steelish no work no reward views are the result of her parents teachings. Your similar view is based on what you had to do to get to college. My views are based on the output of my education ie my schooling. Both your views are based on what you had to do to get your education.

Again you are slightly off point. My views did not come about as a result of my earning a place in College. In fact the opposite is true. My views showed that I could earn a way into college. There is a school of thought that explains values; "What you are is where you were when!", Morris Massey.


Yes! It is the same!
Then when I pointed out to steelish that kids do work - they do homework - you agree with me.

And that is supposed to prove what?


I have some small concerns of the input of government
In the UK the national government exercises little control over education other than what is in law (eg every day shall start with an act of worship). Control is linked to funding. So a private school will be self funded and controlled. State schools are run and funded by local government who share control with the school itself. I think it fair control and funding are loosely linked. I appreciate the USA is probably different but I am not talking about how it is as much as how I think it ought to be in both UK, USA.

I note you left the unions out completely!! True I am not intimately conversant with the school system in the UK. But funding comes with strings. Strings from the Government are called mandates. Basically, you take our money you do it our way! Just that economic strings the administration is spreading and pulling in as many areas of the country as possible. Control of the schools should be community based, unfortunately the teacher unions have usurped that role as well!


See in this we largely agree! I would defy you to find anyone who would not. The argument arises in execution.
My point was I believe education should be free and paid for by government (local/national) with help from industry and elsewhere. Students should be able to go as far as their ability not pocket allows. I accept we cannot afford it but nevertheless it is the goal I would strive for and direction I would aim for.

The money is not what we agreed on. It was the goal and outcome of education. The funding is a Pandora's box especially if it comes from Government or is controlled by the union.


Other issues - teacher unions etc - are other matters. As I said before, if governments were efficient they mostly probably could offer better education and health without extra burden to taxpayer. Problem is they are not.

Nor are they flexible or risk takers. The are by nature pedantic and hidebound. Teacher unions are merely myopic!


With 31 million companies in the US employing over 500 people determining such a data set is a large task
I dont think we need to survey all 31 million. There are ways to get stats with sampling. For the poverty stats quoted they didn't run around homes counting TV sets did they. Please - it is possible to get stats and ballpark estimates.

Still requires a huge amount of time and capital to accomplish.


1900 or now it is not the knowledge that makes success.
The more complex the product, market and business environment the more complex the skill set needed to be successful.

Again the assumption that a single person requires all the knowledge to accomplish the task at hand. I had a contract to deal with. I did not like to focus nor terms of the contract. I read and wrote amendments to the contract. Then I called my lawyer in. Having done what I did we cleared the project in about an hour. It would have taken longer than that to explain my position to the lawyer. Plus the time for him to codify and put to paper the discussion. I am not a lawyer yet I was able to accomplish a law task on my own with a post consult with an expert. This is what I said in the previous message.


This is why when a discussion of any of the "poor", "middle class", or "rich" come up I need a definition.
It must be possible to work out the minimum needed to support a healthy life. Food, shelter, hygene etc. I am pretty sure it's not that hard to work out. This for me is subsistance level and that is a minimum a government must provide.

So basically what you are saying here is that it is the responsibility of the Government to GIVE you;
a house
2,000 calories of food per day
bath soap
sampoo
manicure
pedicure
haircut
free transport to work


That "etc" is real hard to deal with! As well as subsistence, That is as varied as the definition of poor!



Sounds like a cop out to me!!
Correct, it is! I do not want to comment on her personal backgound because that is not the topic and because I do not want her to be offended, which she undoubtably would be.

She already told you such would not be the case!

[DuncanONeil]

You felt slighted by what I said? I was complimenting you!


I believe that this data might be relevant:
Thanks - Yes facts won't be accurate but they do put us in the ballpark. For me not having a home meets my defintion of poor. I can go along with them living in hostels but if we are talking about on the streets then that problem must be addressed.

The only CEO of the top-50, whose education is listed as n/a is Martin J Sullivan, the CEO of AIG
AIG is probably different because it is a hard sell business and I bet (dont know) that guy came through sales to the top.

Hmmm .. AIG ... really now where have I heard that recently?
Nice one lol. If he did come through sales then it is not coinicidence. It was pushing to maximize sales no matter the risk that caused the crash.

What I have not witnessed recently is any personal attacks
Sorry I didn't know we were supposed to do that.

PS - Duncan
The concept is expressed on war memorials throught England. It comes from the epitaph on the memorial to the Indian and Allied soldier who halted the Japanese advance into Indian.

"When you go home tell them of us and say
For your tomorrow we gave our today."

It is believed the author took it from the Greek poet who wrote after the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC:

"Go tell the Spartans, thou that passest by,
That faithful to their precepts here we lie."

See what you get with a decent education. You get to built words from dead poets into posts. Almost as bad as using everyday proverbs but less obvious. :)

[DuncanONeil]

If your interested in who is going hungry in America...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/16/AR2009111601598.html


I suspect articles like this are written for emotional reaction.

The material I originally presented (for Kendal's consumption as well) actually does encompass nearly everyone in the nation as the data comes from the census.

But on to the food issue mentioned here. From the same source, the census.
"As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middleclass children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higherincome children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally wellnourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is shortterm. Eightynine percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat."

And even the term "often" can be called into question, as can "enough". Understand I am not dismissing but trying to reach a more concrete level of terms and understanding of the issue itself.
As for one of the criteria, skipping meals, I can report that I regular skip meals. Yet would I report that I go hungry? No! And I skip meals EVERY day!

[Kendal]

Weed out those who take advantage and have the ability to hold a job and choose not to. What does "weed out" mean exactly. Would you provide these people with the minimum needed to live or would you stop all benefits entirely. I have no problem with reducing them to the basics but do not see it as a simple "to pay or not to pay" problem. I would be looking for initiatives to address the underlying problems and I'd also be looking to raise minimum wages so the difference between welfare and wage does make it woth while.

But - as I understand it the problem in America today is not there are lots of jobs but the lazy buggers won't take them. The problem is there are not enough jobs because the greedy bankers screwed up the economy. I would not even bother trying to address the problem of the dont-wanna-job when there are millions of do-wanna-jobs out there and not enough jobs for them.

[Kendal]

Which comment can be interpreted as; "If they do not have a job it is not their fault"
Not sure if we have wires crossed here. You and steelish seem to be implying that it is the fault of the lazy able bodied man that he has no work. I do not disagree he carries blame but I ask why does this man have such low morale and self esteem having been through the education system. I think we need to address the problem of what made him that way as well as what to do with him now he is that way.

Your assumption is predicated on a total lack of charity. Something you have espoused in earlier posts.
Correct. I do not believe in reliance on charity. Government should take care of those in need and charity should provide extra (not minimal) help. I would not want the street full of beggars harrassing people because government does not take care of them. That's what Victorian England was like.

This is a culture difference. Americans pay low wages to service staff such that a tip is not an extra, it is a necessity. I hate American tipping culture. America talks about how much foreign aid it gives. If you look at the stats. America is way down in government aid. BUT the stats are skewed because in other countries it is the governments who give aid whereas in America is mostly through private aid organisation.

Anyhow - as I see it. We cut off the man's welfare to save taxpayer expense. The man is reduced to sending his kids onto the streets to beg to feed his family. The taxpayer can then walk past the starving kid or the man with "will work for food" sign and drop his tax dollar savings into the tin cup.

In any other combination those with less will either be considered poor, or consider themselves poor
I disagree and dont think in a world of millionaires the man with one mercedes when all else have two would meet any definition of poverty. I am talking about the basic necessities to support life. Food, health, shelter. I have said this many times now but for some reason you dont grasp it. Poverty can be defined well enough.

If it comes up as part of the discussion it becomes part of the discussion. You trivialize it by refusing to consider it.
From my side I did not trivialise it - it was trivial before I got to it. If I talk about red herrings do red herrings become part of the discussion or would they be considered off topic.

My views showed that I could earn a way into college.
Yes you could but there are many who could not. I think we should be working to a system where you should not have to. Our views are different.

And that is supposed to prove what?
That kids can learn ethics from school as well as from sweeping floors at home.

I note you left the unions out completely!!
Correct. The topic is equality, equal opportunity and the importance of education in making opportunity more equal. If you want to start a new thread about unions I will be happy to contribute in that thread.

Again the assumption that a single person requires all the knowledge to accomplish the task at hand.
No of course that is impossible. I am not suggesting the CEO does all. I was told when I was at uni that uni teaches you just one thing - how to think. UK and USA are different. In USA college is like job training. You study what you what to do for career and employers hire the people with matching degrees. In the UK the college degree means the person can think and can be taught. It's like officer training and covers principles and methods used in all areas of business and industry. When I hire somebody - I look for degree because I know I can train them. If they do not have the degree I am taking more chance I will be wasting my time. The degree just reduces risk and time for me. Maybe I am wrong - but many others think the same. Ask somebody with HR experience in major corporations.

So basically what you are saying here is that it is the responsibility of the Government to GIVE you;
Shelter (can be shared), food, soap, shampoo yes. Haircut maybe. (you can have a free government hair salon and employ a jobless barber). Manicure and pedicure no but nail clippers yes. Soap,shampoo, toilet paper etc are hygene products. If you dont provide the basics because you want to save taxpayers money you wont when my kids get lice in their hair and end up at the doctors using healthcare tax dollars or your kids come home with my kids lice in their hair.

( the problem is you have to provide me with shampoo not give me cash else I spend the cash on beer and my kids get lice)

She already told you such would not be the case!
It does not matter what she told me. The topic is equality not steelish childhood.

You felt slighted by what I said? I was complimenting you!
Actually I smiled because you clearly missed the famous "our tommorow for your today" quote and principle. As a result you ended up with a wrong assumption and conclusion. This is an example of why you do not see my point. I do not expect you to share my view but I do hope you understand it.

[DuncanONeil]

What does "weed out" mean exactly. Would you provide these people with the minimum needed to live or would you stop all benefits entirely. I have no problem with reducing them to the basics but do not see it as a simple "to pay or not to pay" problem. I would be looking for initiatives to address the underlying problems and I'd also be looking to raise minimum wages so the difference between welfare and wage does make it woth while.
There is a small chance that I have been hearing "initiatives to address the underlying problems" longer than you have been alive. Just what do you think "the underlying problems" are?
Raising the minimum wage does not do what is expected. Any increase in wages does two very basic things not ever considered; raises the cost to the businesses, and forces a concomitant increase in the cost of goods sold. Meaning the increase in minimum wage is a wash.
The difference between minimum wage and welfare is immaterial! When you work you do not remain at the same wage you start your entire career. Heck feqw people even remain at the same job.


But - as I understand it the problem in America today is not there are lots of jobs but the lazy buggers won't take them. The problem is there are not enough jobs because the greedy bankers screwed up the economy. I would not even bother trying to address the problem of the dont-wanna-job when there are millions of do-wanna-jobs out there and not enough jobs for them.
"(T)here are not enough jobs because the greedy bankers screwed up the economy". Now where did you acquire that little insight into the job market? The economy was sent into a tailspin by regulations put in place forcing those "greedy" bankers to engage in business practices they knew were high rick and a poor business practice. But they had no choice because the other party to the equation has the power of force in their arsenal. When one party to rule setting has the ability to force their favored rules on the agreements what choice dose the party without force have? There is even evidence that the Government corporations involved in banking exacerbated the problem, looked the other way, and cooked the books.
This was not a matter of greed but a matter of trying to survive as a business. It is really getting to VERY old hearing any business that works to make money, based solely on being successful, being painted as greedy. There has to be more to this than is being claimed by these shouters of "GREED! GREED! END THE GREED!" In addition applying this appellation to any and every entity you do not like for some reason actually weakens the argument.

[DuncanONeil]

Which comment can be interpreted as; "If they do not have a job it is not their fault"
Not sure if we have wires crossed here. You and steelish seem to be implying that it is the fault of the lazy able bodied man that he has no work. I do not disagree he carries blame but I ask why does this man have such low morale and self esteem having been through the education system. I think we need to address the problem of what made him that way as well as what to do with him now he is that way.

It is not the job of the "education system" to impart morale and self esteem. It is the job of the education system to educate. Further you assume that this person made it through the education system. There is a good chance that what made him that way occurred to him outside of the education system.



Your assumption is predicated on a total lack of charity. Something you have espoused in earlier posts.
Correct. I do not believe in reliance on charity. Government should take care of those in need and charity should provide extra (not minimal) help. I would not want the street full of beggars harrassing people because government does not take care of them. That's what Victorian England was like.

In previous Kendal message you espoused charity. Now you appear to forsake charity. Which is it?
It appears here that you favor FORCED charity over and above VOLUNTARY charity.
I must disagree the second is by far the better charity than the former. Especially when the former rapidly becomes viewed as a right!



This is a culture difference. Americans pay low wages to service staff such that a tip is not an extra, it is a necessity. I hate American tipping culture. America talks about how much foreign aid it gives. If you look at the stats. America is way down in government aid. BUT the stats are skewed because in other countries it is the governments who give aid whereas in America is mostly through private aid organisation.

I am sorry but you are going to have to support that claim. It is probable that one can find a data set to support such a claim but how the data is compared is important. It seems entirely possible that we can have a lesser share and yet still provide a greater sum than others.
The only group that have a lower set wage are wait staff and farm workers. With respect to wait staff if you think such results in low wages for them you would in large part be in error.
In Government aid you are in error. of the top ten donor countries the US is on top 40% above second place, in dollars. In the UN the nations agreed to donate 0.7% of GDP, almost all fail in that goal!



Anyhow - as I see it. We cut off the man's welfare to save taxpayer expense. The man is reduced to sending his kids onto the streets to beg to feed his family. The taxpayer can then walk past the starving kid or the man with "will work for food" sign and drop his tax dollar savings into the tin cup.

Proof the "man" is lazy!



In any other combination those with less will either be considered poor, or consider themselves poor
I disagree and dont think in a world of millionaires the man with one mercedes when all else have two would meet any definition of poverty. I am talking about the basic necessities to support life. Food, health, shelter. I have said this many times now but for some reason you dont grasp it. Poverty can be defined well enough.

It does not matter!! Presume your desire comes to fruition. The scenario you posit is in fact a description of a poor man!
I know you are speaking of subsistence level versus an undisclosed level of rich. But you also favor making that subsistence level cease to exist. But it matters not, if they do not have exactly the same as all others they will be deemed poor!! That is indisputable. Yes poverty can be defined, but said definition is flexible. Poverty in the US is not the same as poverty in Botswana! Nor is poverty the same in Luxembourg as in the US, Their per capita income is twice the US



If it comes up as part of the discussion it becomes part of the discussion. You trivialize it by refusing to consider it.
From my side I did not trivialise it - it was trivial before I got to it. If I talk about red herrings do red herrings become part of the discussion or would they be considered off topic.

Depends



My views showed that I could earn a way into college.
Yes you could but there are many who could not. I think we should be working to a system where you should not have to. Our views are different.

Yes our views are different! But you choose to only consider your views just because they are your views. Currently education is free through high school. Such a good job is done in that arena that colleges are forced to offer remedial courses to their students so they can understand the material. I could posit that extension of free schooling would have the same result on a college education it has had on elementary and high school. Also who says everyone needs college?



And that is supposed to prove what?
That kids can learn ethics from school as well as from sweeping floors at home.

But they learn no such thing from schools. In fact in majority they learn that the world OWES them. A living, a life, anything they desire.



I note you left the unions out completely!!
Correct. The topic is equality, equal opportunity and the importance of education in making opportunity more equal. If you want to start a new thread about unions I will be happy to contribute in that thread.

Not a new subject. not a new thread. we were discussing education and the (bad) influence of the teacher unions is appropo.



Again the assumption that a single person requires all the knowledge to accomplish the task at hand.
No of course that is impossible. I am not suggesting the CEO does all. I was told when I was at uni that uni teaches you just one thing - how to think. UK and USA are different. In USA college is like job training. You study what you what to do for career and employers hire the people with matching degrees. In the UK the college degree means the person can think and can be taught. It's like officer training and covers principles and methods used in all areas of business and industry. When I hire somebody - I look for degree because I know I can train them. If they do not have the degree I am taking more chance I will be wasting my time. The degree just reduces risk and time for me. Maybe I am wrong - but many others think the same. Ask somebody with HR experience in major corporations.

That may be your understanding but it is wrong! The job of a student is to learn how to.
So the pare is more important than the person. Wonder how you would react to the Japanese system? Parents bust their butts to get the kid into the right kindergarten, elementary and high school. The kids work their butts off in school. The neighbor kid in Yokohama was routinely up until midnight doing her school work as a preteen. All of these efforts were aimed at getting into a "good" university. For the student that was the goal. For all intents and purposes the university years were a vacation before starting work.



So basically what you are saying here is that it is the responsibility of the Government to GIVE you;
Shelter (can be shared), food, soap, shampoo yes. Haircut maybe. (you can have a free government hair salon and employ a jobless barber). Manicure and pedicure no but nail clippers yes. Soap,shampoo, toilet paper etc are hygene products. If you dont provide the basics because you want to save taxpayers money you wont when my kids get lice in their hair and end up at the doctors using healthcare tax dollars or your kids come home with my kids lice in their hair.

That is silly! You are proposing communes. There is no individuality in this. Nor freedom.



( the problem is you have to provide me with shampoo not give me cash else I spend the cash on beer and my kids get lice)



She already told you such would not be the case!
It does not matter what she told me. The topic is equality not steelish childhood.



You felt slighted by what I said? I was complimenting you!
Actually I smiled because you clearly missed the famous "our tommorow for your today" quote and principle. As a result you ended up with a wrong assumption and conclusion. This is an example of why you do not see my point. I do not expect you to share my view but I do hope you understand it.
If you were quoting somebody you should have done that rather than make them your words.

[SadisticNature]

It is not the job of the "education system" to impart morale and self esteem. It is the job of the education system to educate. Further you assume that this person made it through the education system. There is a good chance that what made him that way occurred to him outside of the education system.

Except that morale and self esteem are huge factors in being successful in education and doing the best one can to insure students have them result in better education. So if they are more successful educators by imparting morale and self esteem then they should do so.

As for people being lazy and staying at home on welfare, the statistics repeatedly show this is a very small percentage of welfare users. The majority of welfare users are single mothers making difficult transitions. The ones who aren't are often there temporarily. Less than 5% of welfare users are abusing the system.

Most people who are on welfare are there because the country has fewer jobs than people who want to work, particularly in a recession. And much of the unfilled jobs require more education and experience than they have.

[SadisticNature]

You blame the teachers unions as any right-wing individual would. The fact that evidence does not support this is irrelevant.

FACT: Teaching unions in the US are weak and ineffective. They are unable to get decent salaries compared to other top countries and have been less successful than their equivalents in other countries at getting progress on just about every issue they've had in bargaining.

FACT: The US education system is weak and ineffective. It is ranked poorly and continues to decline.

FACT: The vast majority of successful educations systems have strong unions and highly paid teachers.

You can't expect to get good science teachers on $20,000-$40,000/year. If one has to do an undergraduate degree to get into a teaching program, and an additional year in a teaching program to be qualified, then at many American Universities you're talking about spending $100,000 and 5 years of your life doing this. Jobs from the BSc average about $44,000 and that's with 1 less year of education and 1 less year of tuition fees. In Canada, with full professional qualifications (BSc, BEd, MSc or MEd, up to date on all professional training requirements plus certain level of job experience) a teacher can earn $80,000/year (lets say about $75,000 US since the exchange rate fluctuates). The entry level position earns comparable to what one can get on a 5 year university education, and thus is competitive in the marketplace, and its more practical to go into teaching because the cost of university is much lower (The University of Toronto is ranked anywhere between 15th and 43rd in the World and costs approximately $6000/year for Canadian students to attend).

Countries like Sweden, Finland and Norway are famous for incredibly high literacy rates (near 100%) and strong education programs, all of them also have strong teachers unions, and good salaries.

The fact is Americans like their low taxes at the expense of good programs, and as long as you continue to do so your education program will be bad. When you try and put money on the problem it happens in effective ways based on political commitments and pork-barrel spending, programs which educators would tell you are doomed from the start, and then when they fail you take it as an excuse not to try. Anything for lower taxes seems to carry the day.

[Canyon]

I cannot argue everything you posted, but I think part of the problem is the Teachers union. You said right wing people blame them but they have chosen to try to be "change agents" for the advancement of the left. If they are week and ineffective its at least in part because they teach ideology rather than algebra.

Education systems in many other countries, some of which you named as better than ours, are very outcome based. You are being directed into future career paths at a much earlier age, and your education tailored to those ends. Do we want that here, where your 8Th grade scores determine how far in a university you can go, or begin to shape your hole life. I'm not sure I like that, but it is efficient.

I am in favor of higher pay for teachers, but let that be outcome based by the market place. If they provide better education, perhaps it will provide a better tax base, without raising taxes, to pay them from. I will bring back the old voucher idea, hated by the left, because it would allow many people who cannot now afford to, to choose the education of their children that THEY ARE PAYING FOR>

Get rid of tenure, if someone comes along and teaches algebra better than you, they should have your job. Very few teaching jobs (the Just the facts type of classes) should not be outcome based.

finely, require standards, make them high, and hold people to them. If you cannot compete in the American Educational system, as a student or teacher, you should be passed up. A friend of mines son failed almost every high school class and would get top scored in Adult School. I got a hold of one of his tests in adult school. I hadn't studied history in over 30 years and the test was beyond belief ridiculously simple. yet he gets A's. At the same time we are so afraid of offending children and their parents (are both the children and parents who are offended stupid) that it is now almost impossible to read a Th grade report card. no one can fail now, and therefore no one had a desire to achieve.

In my law enforcement academy I strove to be the best in a class of over 400. I worked very hard at it, and am still disappointed that my 96.14 overall score was second. I say that because now, they don't even tell the students how well they did. only pass or fail. What in the world is wrong with standards, and honoring achievements.

(P.S. I did tie for "top gun" on the shooting courses, as a consolation prise, so that was nice.)

I do agree with you that we like low taxes, but perhaps you are also right on our foolish pork barrel spending. I'll give you that there is room for improvement, but don't say the unions don't hold a very large share, perhaps the lions share of what problems there are in America's education system.

The thing is, no competition, just a monolithic secure bloc, makes for poor performance, not just in teaching, but in any field of endeavor, even some which are hard to quantify.

Even my own, (the prison system) very hard to have competition in could be improved by performance based outcomes. Seniority should not be determined by just time, but a combination of time, tested competence, performance evaluations, and physical fitness. This would both honor time, but also make learning, quality work, and effort a factor too. Have these both effect pay and posting and I would expect to see a vast improvement in the qualify of our staff, many who are already excellent. If you wonder what I think of private prisons, i cannot say. So far i have seen that they get to operate under separate rules and laws rather than the state systems, and in CA, they just return any problem, or medically expensive inmates back the state. The recent outsourcing of CA inmates to other state systems may be a good IDEA. I said earlier that public entities should be able to compete with each other for dollars, (if Reedley's department of public works can repair roads cheaper than Fresno's, they should be able to operate in Fresno.) just Ideas, probable not workable, but fun to think about.

I apologize again for the ramblings. I just came off of two days of double shifts.

[Kendal]

It is not the job of the "education system" to impart morale and self esteem
Education is preparing children to be good adults. The good english school converts dirty uncouth boys into educated gentlemen. As Sadistic pointed our, better morale equates to better learning.

In previous Kendal message you espoused charity. Now you appear to forsake charity. Which is it?Government should proved the basics, charity the extras. Feed the orphans from government funds, send them to Disneyland with charity donations.

I am sorry but you are going to have to support that claim.
USA is the top foreign aid donor nation by volume http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_aid_don-economy-economic-aid-donor#source This is no surprise given the size of the country. If you go per capita then it is at or on the bottom of the rankings. I cannot quickly find the OECD donor ranking table but going from the above CIA factbook source USA donated 23 billion compared to UK 12bn. The USA population is 5 times that of UK but donates only twice as much. American media likes to tell how generous the USA is but OECD stats show a different story - especially when you consider much of the aid ends up going US companies in Aid for Trade deals.

Poverty in the US is not the same as poverty in Botswana!. Nor is poverty the same in Luxembourg as in the US, Their per capita income is twice the US
In terms of food calories (for example) it is the same everywhere. The cost differs but not the need.

But you choose to only consider your views just because they are your views.
Not at all. I understand your point. You want to reduce government spending and taxation and you think that if forced the lazy man will work. I have a different view. No matter how much at fault a person may be for their misfortune, it does not affect my moral obligation to help him. And if his misfortune is in part due to a failure on my part then my obligation is greater.

But they learn no such thing from schools. In fact in majority they learn that the world OWES them. A living, a life, anything they desire.
Not a good testimonial for the US education system is it. Perhaps this ties in with your previous comment abouti it not being a school's job to teach self esteem.

we were discussing education and the (bad) influence of the teacher unions is appropo.
I was discussing Equality. Have I mistead the thread subject title.

That is silly! You are proposing communes.
I was not proposing, This was an accomodation for those who seek to minimize government spending. A man needs shelter and it must be provided. Put him in shared accomodation or a hostel if you must but not on the street without a roof over his head. Silly is better than cruel.

If you were quoting somebody you should have done that rather than make them your words.
Are you telling me how I should or should not compose posts. I built the words and concept into my own sentence in order to make it more applicable and understandable for you than the original. This is common practice in the US, especially with politicians. When Martin Luther King talked about jobs in his famous I have a Dream speech did he quote Shakespeares Richard III when he said "this sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn..."

[Thorne]

No matter how much at fault a person may be for their misfortune, it does not affect my moral obligation to help him. And if his misfortune is in part due to a failure on my part then my obligation is greater.
While I can agree with some of your points, and I can understand your desire to help people, this statement is something I cannot agree with. I've been arguing against this kind of thing for years here, and it still goes on.

Using a strict interpretation of your comment, if I should come home to find someone ransacking my home because he has no money, I should not only allow him to continue, I should help him by pointing out the more valuable items in my home, or the location of any money I have stashed away. And if he should stumble over a carelessly placed box and hurt himself, I should contact the rescue services and have him taken to the hospital for treatment at my expense, of course.

Now I know you will say that this is a rather extreme interpretation, but how is it any different from that same man being given goods and services, paid for with my tax dollars, while he sits at home watching Oprah or Judge Judy or any of the half-dozen premium channels he subscribes to,on his wide-screen, high-definition, plasma TV? All while contacting his friends on his high-end cell phone to tell them about the latest government give-away program they should get into.

Are there truly poor people in this country? Absolutely. Despite two hundred plus years of effort, there are still poor Americans. Despite more than ten thousand years of effort around the world, there are still poor people. There will always be poor people. Many, even most, may be poor through no fault of their own. I feel sorry for them. I don't, however, feel responsible for them. I don't feel any 'moral' imperative to help them. The only 'moral' responsibility I have is to help myself, and my family, to keep our heads above water without dragging someone else down with us.

[steelish]

USA is the top foreign aid donor nation by volume http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_aid_don-economy-economic-aid-donor#source This is no surprise given the size of the country.

What might surprise you though is that most US foreign aid donations come from private citizens rather than the government.