It is currently Wed Nov 13, 2024 11:23 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Sicko
PostPosted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 7:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65731
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
Ok W_Z. I just don't buy that we are such horrible a country.
I don't agree with your assessment on the middle class. Most of the suburbs is middle class, and a nice chunk of Chicago is too.
I don't agree with you on social security. Without any modification, SS should pay out over 75% of of anticipated benefits in 2045. We'll make the necessary adjustments.
Our health care system isn't so awful. I don't know why you say that. I have a friend that was diagnosed with brain cancer 5 years ago and was told to prepare his affairs as he had less than 6 months to live, and here he is alive today, the benefit of experimental chemotherapy wafers embedded in his skull. That's quality medical care.
Moore isn't exposing AWFUL things America does, he exaggerates the things we could improve upon. badly exaggerates these things.
We are not bad people.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sicko
PostPosted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:56 pm
Posts: 37799
Location: ...
Darkside wrote:
Ok W_Z. I just don't buy that we are such horrible a country.
I don't agree with your assessment on the middle class. Most of the suburbs is middle class, and a nice chunk of Chicago is too.
I don't agree with you on social security. Without any modification, SS should pay out over 75% of of anticipated benefits in 2045. We'll make the necessary adjustments.
Our health care system isn't so awful. I don't know why you say that. I have a friend that was diagnosed with brain cancer 5 years ago and was told to prepare his affairs as he had less than 6 months to live, and here he is alive today, the benefit of experimental chemotherapy wafers embedded in his skull. That's quality medical care.
Moore isn't exposing AWFUL things America does, he exaggerates the things we could improve upon. badly exaggerates these things.
We are not bad people.


DS it's really going to depend on who you talk to...but the point is, there are plenty of things in this country that do need improvement, but sentiments like what you just said, is not going to help any situation...I don't agree at all that we're moving in the right direction as a nation, and I think we need the muckrakers to have a voice. Michael Moore certainly exaggerates, every person in the media does, to get their point across. He's also a satirist.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sicko
PostPosted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65731
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
W_Z wrote:
DS it's really going to depend on who you talk to...but the point is, there are plenty of things in this country that do need improvement, but sentiments like what you just said, is not going to help any situation...I don't agree at all that we're moving in the right direction as a nation, and I think we need the muckrakers to have a voice. Michael Moore certainly exaggerates, every person in the media does, to get their point across. He's also a satirist.


Ok. I'll buy everything you said.
Now, if Moore wants to be a satirist, and wants to exaggerate to get his point acress, that's fine, but he should not be posing these exaggerations and satire as documentary.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sicko
PostPosted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:56 pm
Posts: 37799
Location: ...
Darkside wrote:

Ok. I'll buy everything you said.
Now, if Moore wants to be a satirist, and wants to exaggerate to get his point acress, that's fine, but he should not be posing these exaggerations and satire as documentary.


Yeah I don't know what else it could be categorized as, since it's not totally fiction ( :wink: ) but I will never argue that Moore's stuff is 100% accurate or 100% fair-minded because it isn't.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sicko
PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 9:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:35 pm
Posts: 6248
Location: Crown Point, Indiana (obviously)
Darkside wrote:
Quote:
Do you suppose there's a victim of propaganda who thinks otherwise?

Yes, sir. You are my best example.

I believe I'm a victim of propaganda?

Quote:
Quote:
The meme that it's anti-American to dissent with government policy is clearly the result of a propaganda campaign that took place post-911. Perhaps, you, personally, came to that ludicrous conclusion wholly independently of the millions of others who clearly were influenced by rightist propaganda, but I doubt it.

I disagree with the government on just about everything. I'm as pro-American as you can get. I fully believe in my right to petition my grievences to the government. Not sure what you're talking about.

Well, Michael Moore disagrees with the government on just about everything; he makes movies which explain the nature of his disagreement. For some reason, a reason you tellingly refuse to name, you find that anti-American. I suspect that is because you are a victim of propaganda.

Quote:
Quote:
That Moore's brand of journalism would be tolerated in Iran and Pakistan.

Would Iran tolerate Moore talking about their President the way he talks about ours (justified or otherwise). I seriously doubt it. Maybe we can send him over there to find out. I wonder if he's have the sack.

I suppose its hard to say. The overriding point is that the US isn't exceptional in that he could make such a film here.

Quote:
Quote:
Most foreigners I talked to did not come to that conclusion.

Well, they are certainly entitled to their opinion.

Indeed. And the opinion that the US is the best place to live on earth is an example of an opinion; and opinion in your case, I suspect, isn't formed from a depth of knowledge from first-hand experience.

Quote:
Quote:
So? Why would anyone care about our high productivity per worker, when the workers aren't benefiting from it? And of course they're not the economic superpower the US is: for one, they didn't enjoy the special status post-WW2 of being relatively unblemished by the war, and for another, they only have 1/5th the population the US has

each worker is less productive than each American worker. So they are capable of producing less than 1/5th their GDP of the US with 1/5th the workers. Who enjoys the benefits? Well, we do. all Americans.

No, in fact, they don't. All that excess production just ends up in the massive bank-rolls of the extremely wealthy. The percentage of total wealth in the US owned by the richest 1% of Americans just continues to increase, with no relative advances materially between you average Frenchmen and your average US citizen.

Quote:
Quote:
How does joining the EU "subvert" their economic sovereignty?

Serious? You're asking me how joining an economic union with other countries where they cannot decide on their own economic policy subverts their sovergnity?

Yes. Because it seems to me, they're still sovereign, and could opt out any time they liked.

]qipte\
Quote:
Whatever; why you get those vacation days is not important. What's important is that all the French workers get them, and that's a serious quality of life issue

Why is it unimportant how I got those days but it is important how the French get those days? That doesn't make sense.[/quote]
Because US workers don't all get them. That some Americans do, doesn't change that fact. How some Americans do, clearly, is irrelevant.

Quote:
Quote:
I ask: do you also believe our 40 hour work week is "fucked up?" Why or why

No. I haven't worked a 40 hour week in months, it's usually more like 45-50. No I don't think it's crazyu or fucked up, it's the amount of work I do vs. how much my work is valued vs. the going rate for said services.

?? So, I am to understand that you feel it's not "fucked up" for the government to limit the number of hours employers can have employees work, without paying them extra? Am I to understand you also feel that it isn't "fucked up" for the government to set a minimum wage which employers can pay workers?

If both are "yes," how do you come to the conclusion that its "fucked up" for the government to set a minimum amount of vacation days employers much allow employees?

Quote:
Quote:
Relevance to my point = 0. The fact is, many people are ruined by illness due to lack of UHC. One untimely illness, and your prospects for success are destroyed

I doubt that. There's medical care available to all Americans, and once again I point to my shitdick friend who has doctors available to him immediately with his fucked up DuPage Health card. It sickens me that this shitdick doesn't work because he's too damn lazy and tax dollars support his medical care. He does not deserve it.

So, are you just outright denying that people can be ruined by sickness, despite examples provided in the very movie to which this topic is dedicated?

Quote:
Quote:
Right, because no one ever makes mistakes or falls on hard times

Mistakes happen, I get that, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't ultimately be responsible for your debt. Discharging any form of debt is bullshit and should never be done. Restructering is understandable and it should happen for those who need it becasue they lost their ability to earn or something catrostrophic happened to them, but some asshole with 30k in CC debt that comes from all the CD's and DVD's they HAD to have and bought on credit shouldn't be forgiven his debt just because he can't pay it.
The bankruptcy system needed to be changed becasue it was being abused. I'm glad it was done. More needs to be done.

Yes, until there's outright slavery, freedom will never be achieved.

Quote:
Quote:
Yes, debtor prisons should surely make a comeback.

There's no need to misquote me or change my message to fit your needs.

That's pretty much the logical conclusion of your beliefs, don't you think? Guy refused to pay the debt. Now what?

Quote:
Quote:
Yeah, getting things like an education or a house.

These debts cannot be discharged in bankruptcy under either the old or new rules and thus are not relevant in this converstaion.

It is, because I'm making a point of how much debt US citizens are trapped under.

Quote:
Quote:
Our tax policy keeps people in poverty, as I've outlined elsewhere. And our monetary policy is designed to keep people in debt

Any time you're ready to stop evading the question and actually answer it would be fine.
Specifically, what policy keeps people in poverty?

The taxation of wages and consumption before economic rents have been exhausted, specifically.

Quote:
Specifically what policy keeps people in debt?

The policy of borrowing non-existent money from private banks, and spending that money into circulation, rather than just creating money by fiat, and the policy of having a money supply that is much too small, and complementing it with a system of fractional reserve banking, which allows banks to collect interest on non-existing money.

Quote:
Other than my house, I have not a cent of debt. How did I manage to avoid these scary monetary policies and others did not?

Some are more fortunate than others.

Quote:
Quote:
That's just a bait-and-switch (or a switch-and-take, if you're Jurko). I didn't say there was no opportunity in Gary; I said that there's less opportunity in Gary.

No it is not. There is opportunity. If you really don't think so, what's keeping anyone there? Go. Get elsewhere.

I'm sure they'd love to. They can't afford to, however.

Quote:
My grandparents were completely broke and had no posessions nor opportunity where they came from but still managed to move to the land of opportunity, America. There is no anchor keepiung someone in an economically destitute location.

Except for the fact that land is worth more now than then, and people these days are likely burdened by debt they're now unable to relinquish. Have you read the fine print on the credit cards? It's truly incredible what they can get away with. As The Onion pointedly reported, the credit cards are putting the ma and pa loansharks out of business.

Quote:
Quote:
Oh, at the end of the day, the emergency room has to admit you. But that's a far cry from healthcare.

Why is that a far cry from healthcare? Is that not actually, specifically health care? It is.
And again I reference the godfdamn awful Dupage county health card, which I am sure exists in various forms all over the Country.

Because full healthcare would provide them healthcare when they needed it -not just when they had a healthcare emergency.

You pay for it either way; if you treated them when they needed it, you'd save money when compared with treating them only in cases of emergency. Your philosophy would have you cut off your nose to spite your face on principle.

Quote:
Quote:
Freedom and Justice.

We are missing neither.

We are certainly missing both.

_________________
You can't see me because of internet.

The landowner effectively owns part shares in millions of part-time slaves called, "taxpayers." -Roy L
A Personal Relationship with Jesus?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sicko
PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 9:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:35 pm
Posts: 6248
Location: Crown Point, Indiana (obviously)
W_Z wrote:
Darkside wrote:
Ok. I'll buy everything you said.
Now, if Moore wants to be a satirist, and wants to exaggerate to get his point acress, that's fine, but he should not be posing these exaggerations and satire as documentary.

Yeah I don't know what else it could be categorized as, since it's not totally fiction ( :wink: ) but I will never argue that Moore's stuff is 100% accurate or 100% fair-minded because it isn't.

There is no such thing. We all need to keep that in mind when watching any documentary. But the fact is, most of Moore's facts check out. Sure, he presents a certain perspective, but everyone does.

_________________
You can't see me because of internet.

The landowner effectively owns part shares in millions of part-time slaves called, "taxpayers." -Roy L
A Personal Relationship with Jesus?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sicko
PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 9:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:35 pm
Posts: 6248
Location: Crown Point, Indiana (obviously)
By the way, Darko, here's an open letter to Mikhail Gorbachev, explaining the reasons standard taxation acts to impoverish the masses for the benefit of the wealthy.

Sadly, and somewhat predictably, this advice wasn't followed. Instead, Russia followed the standard neoliberal policy promoted in the Western mainstream; the resulting oligarchy was predictable.

_________________
You can't see me because of internet.

The landowner effectively owns part shares in millions of part-time slaves called, "taxpayers." -Roy L
A Personal Relationship with Jesus?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sicko
PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65731
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
Quote:
I believe I'm a victim of propaganda?

No. I believe you are one who is not aware of it. See how easy it it so dismiss one's idea's like you do? All you have to do is claim that you're a victim of a non-existant propaganda campaign and presto viola, dismissed argument.

Quote:
Well, Michael Moore disagrees with the government on just about everything; he makes movies which explain the nature of his disagreement. For some reason, a reason you tellingly refuse to name, you find that anti-American. I suspect that is because you are a victim of propaganda.

Michael Moore goes further than having a disagreement with the government. He seems to have a genuine dislike for this country. He seems to directly indict our political system, our standards and moors. This isn't just a disagreement, it's a skewering of facts, a twisting of the presentation of his half truths and innuendo, clever editing used to make his opponants look foolish.
Is is fair to have a documentary where ony one side is properly represented? Or is that a propoganda film?
Also, I am no victim of propoganda. What program or newspaper do you seem to think I read that indoctrenated me with said propoganda? Just because I disagree with you, MITC, does not make me a mindless drone. Refusing to acknowledge the points of a dissenting opinion, however, does.
Quote:
I suppose its hard to say. The overriding point is that the US isn't exceptional in that he could make such a film here.

Hard to say, we don't know, there's no fact here, but you're going to go ahead and make an overriding point? Using figures and facts that we cannot agree upon one way or another? Is the US "Exceptional" in this matter? Maybe not but certainly in the minority when you consider the population as a whole.
Quote:
Indeed. And the opinion that the US is the best place to live on earth is an example of an opinion; and opinion in your case, I suspect, isn't formed from a depth of knowledge from first-hand experience

Before you slam my first hand experience of the foreign worker may I question your first hand knowledge? Oh, you've only worked in the US? Then my point and opinion is just as valid as yours.
Quote:
No, in fact, they don't. All that excess production just ends up in the massive bank-rolls of the extremely wealthy. The percentage of total wealth in the US owned by the richest 1% of Americans just continues to increase, with no relative advances materially between you average Frenchmen and your average US citizen.

First, that isn't true that all that excess production just ends up in the hands of the extremely wealthy. Take for example the hard work and productivity of Broadcast.com, where, when sold 300 of 320 employees became millionaires. How about when Yahoo IPO'd?
And second, that increased productivity benefits those workers who do not become rich, by allowing their companies to continue their business and employ more workers.
Do you think that France with their 10% unemployment is a workers utopia? They have TWICE the percentage of unemployed workers that the US does by percentage. How's that productivity look when 1 in 10 cannot find a job. Here in the US, we're just over 5% unemployment and everyone is talking about how hard it is out there, how we're in recession. Imagine the US with DOUBLE that unemployment.
Worker Utopia indeed.
Quote:
Yes. Because it seems to me, they're still sovereign, and could opt out any time they liked.

well, they're not still sovereign as far as their econonmic matters go, unless they indeed to opt out, but they can't afford to opt out. So until the do opt out and are back on French resources only, then this argument is not relevant.

Quote:
Because US workers don't all get them. That some Americans do, doesn't change that fact. How some Americans do, clearly, is irrelevant.
Let me again reference the 10% unemployment rate in France, worker paradise. MITC, I just cannot wrap my mind around how the Government forcing business to give anyone days off makes for more happy, satisified workers. You can earn this in the US, without the Government giving it to you.

Quote:
?? So, I am to understand that you feel it's not "fucked up" for the government to limit the number of hours employers can have employees work, without paying them extra? Am I to understand you also feel that it isn't "fucked up" for the government to set a minimum wage which employers can pay workers?

If both are "yes," how do you come to the conclusion that its "fucked up" for the government to set a minimum amount of vacation days employers much allow employees?

Actually, I do find minimum wage a little stupid. I am surprised that the Government does not realize that this forces higher inflation. Also, paying someone 8/hr to mop floors is ridiculous.
As far as the 40 hour work week goes, MITC, I firmly believe that the government, at one point, had to set some sort of norm of what an "average" work day is. That is understandable, but how that is related to the government forcing employers to pay workers who are not working is shady at best.
Quote:
So, are you just outright denying that people can be ruined by sickness, despite examples provided in the very movie to which this topic is dedicated?

Sure, MITC, someone can be ruined by sickness. Wow. Huge relavation there.
Do we refuse any and all forms of help to these people? No. We don't. Again, we must understand the base cause and effect. I agree that people can be ruined by sickness, but you make the assumption that that sickness is a direct result of their health coverage when you said...
Quote:
The fact is, many people are ruined by illness due to lack of UHC

when clearly the ruining factor is their illness. UHC, or lack thereof, did not cause the illness that "ruined" your examples.
Quote:
Yes, until there's outright slavery, freedom will never be achieved.

I have no clue what the hell you're trying to say here. Seriously. It makes no sense.
Quote:
That's pretty much the logical conclusion of your beliefs, don't you think? Guy refused to pay the debt. Now what?

Matt, you shouldn't be making leaps of logic. Leave my logic to me.
I never said aything about debor prisons, nor did I advocate them.
So, now what?
There's legal action that can be taken against said debtor. He can have leins put on his home, so when he goes to sell, his debts are paid before his equity becomes profit. Seems fair.
Or he will have his wages garnished, so he will be FORCED to pay his debt.
He will lose his ability to borrow without colleteral again. This seems fair.
Once again, we are talking about people with high volume of credit card debt, people choosing not to pay or putting themselves in terrible financial positions thru mismanagement.
Quote:
It is, because I'm making a point of how much debt US citizens are trapped under

Well, these citizens are putting themselves under this debt thru stupid financial decisions.
You really want to improve the financial status of Americans? Leave the system alone. It works fine when used responsibly by informed consumers.
You want to improve this? Educate people on finance in school. that thread about "which CC to get" or whatever, showed me that some members of this board have no fucking clue how to run the finances of a household. No clue. Why not educate the public rather that allow everyone to Declare bankruptcy whenever they buy too much shit at Best Buy.
trapped under. That's actually making me laugh. Most debt that people are "trapped" under is of their own making thru stupid financial decisions. And no, I don't have sympathy for those folks.

Quote:
The taxation of wages and consumption before economic rents have been exhausted, specifically.

What?
Quote:
The policy of borrowing non-existent money from private banks, and spending that money into circulation, rather than just creating money by fiat, and the policy of having a money supply that is much too small, and complementing it with a system of fractional reserve banking, which allows banks to collect interest on non-existing money
.
How could this "keep people in debt"?
Quote:
Some are more fortunate than others.

This makes no sense MITC. If it were government policy and mandate that keeps people poor and in debt what I just won some lottery that put me in that position? Are you claiming that my situation is a result of luck rather than financial virtue and careful planning?
If I did it, then anyone can do it with again, careful planning, shunning excesses, then it is not a government policy that puts people in debt, it's people.
MITC you sure like to absolve the average person from the consequences of theior actions. You seem to think it's always someone elses fault. Don't you ever admit that the debts people have and their poor financial positions could be the result of poor planning? Isn't it ever the fault of the borrower that overborrowed? Aren't people ever responsible for their own actions in your world?
Quote:
I'm sure they'd love to. They can't afford to, however.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
You're telling me that first, opportunity doesn't exist 15 miles away, then you follow that up with that people can't afford to move 15 miles??? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Man, that's hilarious. They cannot afford to get jobs 15 miles away? Man, that's good.
Once again, MITC, opportunity is everywhere. In Gary Indiana someone can set up a new web service just like they can in Silicone Valley and make a ton of money. Or they can get on the train and head into Chicago, or move there.
They can't afford to, lolololol.
Quote:
Except for the fact that land is worth more now than then, and people these days are likely burdened by debt they're now unable to relinquish. Have you read the fine print on the credit cards? It's truly incredible what they can get away with. As The Onion pointedly reported, the credit cards are putting the ma and pa loansharks out of business.

Well, if the Onion came up with that it sure is hard to argue with. Great source.
The land is worth more now? Well, how many people are working in textile shops for $1 a week in today's world? How many folks are working in the hog lines for 80 hours for $0.25 an hour? There's much more money to be earned today, and land cost has gone up right along with it.
Quote:
Because full healthcare would provide them healthcare when they needed it -not just when they had a healthcare emergency.

You pay for it either way; if you treated them when they needed it, you'd save money when compared with treating them only in cases of emergency. Your philosophy would have you cut off your nose to spite your face on principle.

AGAIN, MATT, I BEG OF YOU TO READ.
Again, my friend with the DuPage health card gets to go to the doctor anytime he wants. He's gone twice this last month to get his "depression" meds changed.
he has a nebulizer for his breathing problem related to his fat ass.
He has no insurance policy and the fine folks of DuPage are paying for this.
And, these are not emergency room situations only. Why are you so careful;ly avoiding that? Again, Stroger hospital, not just an emergency room, filled with uninsured people taking advantage of Cook's uninsured health benefits.
We already have health care available for anyone who wants it. We don't have Universal care, but each county has a health board that will make sure that people get their medical care. I gave you one specific example of someone I know who does this. Perfectly healthy. Perfectly capable of work. Lazy as fuck, don't work becasue he's happier living in his parents house and playing video games all afternoon long, and DUPAGE CITIZENS pay for his health care.
hey Dupage citizens, is this fair to you?
Quote:
We are certainly missing both

No. We are not, and that kind of statement just makes me sick.
Take a look at how the olympics went down, see how it affected China's citizens, and the people they stole their houses from, tore down, to make a water cube. See how freedom of speech and freedom of religon is nonexistant there, then come back here and tell me we're missing freedom and justice.
That's just asinine.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sicko
PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:35 pm
Posts: 6248
Location: Crown Point, Indiana (obviously)
Darkside wrote:
Quote:
I believe I'm a victim of propaganda?

No. I believe you are one who is not aware of it. See how easy it it so dismiss one's idea's like you do? All you have to do is claim that you're a victim of a non-existant propaganda campaign and presto viola, dismissed argument.

But the propaganda campaign to slander anyone who disagrees with the government in general, and the Bush administration in particular, definitely existed; and Moore was specific victim of that campaign.

Quote:
Quote:
Well, Michael Moore disagrees with the government on just about everything; he makes movies which explain the nature of his disagreement. For some reason, a reason you tellingly refuse to name, you find that anti-American. I suspect that is because you are a victim of propaganda.

Michael Moore goes further than having a disagreement with the government. He seems to have a genuine dislike for this country. He seems to directly indict our political system, our standards and moors.

At least he didn't indict our moops! Seriously, though, I don't see your point. What are our standards and mores?

Oh, I get it. By "our" you mean "people who think like me." Well, yes, he definitely has a genuine dislike for the ridiculous conservative philosophy prevalent in the US these days.

Quote:
This isn't just a disagreement, it's a skewering of facts, a twisting of the presentation of his half truths and innuendo, clever editing used to make his opponants look foolish.
Is is fair to have a documentary where ony one side is properly represented? Or is that a propoganda film?
Also, I am no victim of propoganda. What program or newspaper do you seem to think I read that indoctrenated me with said propoganda?

Pretty much all the mainstream TV news is propaganda.

Quote:
Just because I disagree with you, MITC, does not make me a mindless drone. Refusing to acknowledge the points of a dissenting opinion, however, does.

If you think only mindless drones are susceptible to propaganda, you're sorely wrong, and leaving yourself open to being propagandized by your hubris.

Quote:
Quote:
I suppose its hard to say. The overriding point is that the US isn't exceptional in that he could make such a film here.

Hard to say, we don't know, there's no fact here, but you're going to go ahead and make an overriding point? Using figures and facts that we cannot agree upon one way or another? Is the US "Exceptional" in this matter? Maybe not but certainly in the minority when you consider the population as a whole.

Big deal.

Quote:
Quote:
Indeed. And the opinion that the US is the best place to live on earth is an example of an opinion; and opinion in your case, I suspect, isn't formed from a depth of knowledge from first-hand experience

Before you slam my first hand experience of the foreign worker may I question your first hand knowledge? Oh, you've only worked in the US? Then my point and opinion is just as valid as yours.

I didn't make the positive claim: you did.

Quote:
Quote:
No, in fact, they don't. All that excess production just ends up in the massive bank-rolls of the extremely wealthy. The percentage of total wealth in the US owned by the richest 1% of Americans just continues to increase, with no relative advances materially between you average Frenchmen and your average US citizen.

First, that isn't true that all that excess production just ends up in the hands of the extremely wealthy. Take for example the hard work and productivity of Broadcast.com, where, when sold 300 of 320 employees became millionaires. How about when Yahoo IPO'd?
And second, that increased productivity benefits those workers who do not become rich, by allowing their companies to continue their business and employ more workers.

There's exceptions to every rule. But the bottom line is that workers in the US don't benefit from the relative superiority of their productivity.

Quote:
Do you think that France with their 10% unemployment is a workers utopia? They have TWICE the percentage of unemployed workers that the US does by percentage. How's that productivity look when 1 in 10 cannot find a job. Here in the US, we're just over 5% unemployment and everyone is talking about how hard it is out there, how we're in recession. Imagine the US with DOUBLE that unemployment.
Worker Utopia indeed.

We doctor our unemployment stats, so I wouldn't lean on that one if I were you.

Quote:
Quote:
Yes. Because it seems to me, they're still sovereign, and could opt out any time they liked.

well, they're not still sovereign as far as their econonmic matters go, unless they indeed to opt out, but they can't afford to opt out. So until the do opt out and are back on French resources only, then this argument is not relevant.

Garbage. Sovereignty means having the choice to decide.

Quote:
Quote:
Because US workers don't all get them. That some Americans do, doesn't change that fact. How some Americans do, clearly, is irrelevant.
Let me again reference the 10% unemployment rate in France, worker paradise. MITC, I just cannot wrap my mind around how the Government forcing business to give anyone days off makes for more happy, satisified workers. You can earn this in the US, without the Government giving it to you.

You can't see how vacation makes for happier workers? Wow.

Quote:
Quote:
?? So, I am to understand that you feel it's not "fucked up" for the government to limit the number of hours employers can have employees work, without paying them extra? Am I to understand you also feel that it isn't "fucked up" for the government to set a minimum wage which employers can pay workers?

If both are "yes," how do you come to the conclusion that its "fucked up" for the government to set a minimum amount of vacation days employers much allow employees?

Actually, I do find minimum wage a little stupid.

Shocker.

Quote:
I am surprised that the Government does not realize that this forces higher inflation.

They don't realize that because it's not real.

Quote:
Also, paying someone 8/hr to mop floors is ridiculous.

Why is that?

Quote:
As far as the 40 hour work week goes, MITC, I firmly believe that the government, at one point, had to set some sort of norm of what an "average" work day is. That is understandable, but how that is related to the government forcing employers to pay workers who are not working is shady at best.

In either case, the government is setting standards. The people say "if you want to run a business in this country, you will follow certain rules."

Quote:
Quote:
So, are you just outright denying that people can be ruined by sickness, despite examples provided in the very movie to which this topic is dedicated?

Sure, MITC, someone can be ruined by sickness. Wow. Huge relavation there.
Do we refuse any and all forms of help to these people? No. We don't. Again, we must understand the base cause and effect. I agree that people can be ruined by sickness, but you make the assumption that that sickness is a direct result of their health coverage when you said...
Quote:
The fact is, many people are ruined by illness due to lack of UHC

when clearly the ruining factor is their illness. UHC, or lack thereof, did not cause the illness that "ruined" your examples.

It caused them to be destitute. UHC would have prevented that. People don't get ruined by illness in GB or Canada or France, or any other first world nation (and a number of non-first-world nations). The US is exceptional when it comes to that.

Quote:
Quote:
Yes, until there's outright slavery, freedom will never be achieved.

I have no clue what the hell you're trying to say here. Seriously. It makes no sense.

That's the point.

Quote:
Quote:
That's pretty much the logical conclusion of your beliefs, don't you think? Guy refused to pay the debt. Now what?

Matt, you shouldn't be making leaps of logic. Leave my logic to me.
I never said aything about debor prisons, nor did I advocate them.
So, now what?
There's legal action that can be taken against said debtor. He can have leins put on his home, so when he goes to sell, his debts are paid before his equity becomes profit. Seems fair.
Or he will have his wages garnished, so he will be FORCED to pay his debt.
He will lose his ability to borrow without colleteral again. This seems fair.
Once again, we are talking about people with high volume of credit card debt, people choosing not to pay or putting themselves in terrible financial positions thru mismanagement.

So you're basically just advocating debt slavery. The creditor can just roll over that debt at an insane interest rate, making the debt effectively impossible to pay off, and you'd have the debtor as their slave, possibly for the rest of their life, because they made a mistake (or, as mentioned previously, fell on hard times).

Quote:
Quote:
It is, because I'm making a point of how much debt US citizens are trapped under

Well, these citizens are putting themselves under this debt thru stupid financial decisions.

No, not really. Our system is set up so that it's almost impossible to avoid.

Quote:
You really want to improve the financial status of Americans? Leave the system alone. It works fine when used responsibly by informed consumers.
You want to improve this? Educate people on finance in school. that thread about "which CC to get" or whatever, showed me that some members of this board have no fucking clue how to run the finances of a household. No clue. Why not educate the public rather that allow everyone to Declare bankruptcy whenever they buy too much shit at Best Buy.
trapped under. That's actually making me laugh. Most debt that people are "trapped" under is of their own making thru stupid financial decisions. And no, I don't have sympathy for those folks.

Of course you don't. If you had any sympathy for your fellow man, you wouldn't be a conservative.

Quote:
Quote:
The taxation of wages and consumption before economic rents have been exhausted, specifically.

What?

Exactly what I said. This country taxes wages and consumption primarily; to tax these two sides of the production coin while leaving economic rents largely untaxed is criminal, and the inevitable result is poverty.

Fred Harrison explains.

Quote:
Quote:
The policy of borrowing non-existent money from private banks, and spending that money into circulation, rather than just creating money by fiat, and the policy of having a money supply that is much too small, and complementing it with a system of fractional reserve banking, which allows banks to collect interest on non-existing money
.
How could this "keep people in debt"?

You don't see how the money supply being comprised of debt keeps people in debt?

Quote:
Quote:
Some are more fortunate than others.

This makes no sense MITC. If it were government policy and mandate that keeps people poor and in debt what I just won some lottery that put me in that position? Are you claiming that my situation is a result of luck rather than financial virtue and careful planning?
If I did it, then anyone can do it with again, careful planning, shunning excesses, then it is not a government policy that puts people in debt, it's people.

The fortunate very frequently claim anyone could have had their fortune.

Quote:
MITC you sure like to absolve the average person from the consequences of theior actions. You seem to think it's always someone elses fault. Don't you ever admit that the debts people have and their poor financial positions could be the result of poor planning? Isn't it ever the fault of the borrower that overborrowed? Aren't people ever responsible for their own actions in your world?

Of course they made mistakes. I understand that. But people make mistakes. If your system is dependent upon no one ever making mistakes, your system is designed poorly.

Quote:
Quote:
I'm sure they'd love to. They can't afford to, however.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Unsurprised to find you find their plight funny.

Quote:
You're telling me that first, opportunity doesn't exist 15 miles away, then you follow that up with that people can't afford to move 15 miles??? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Man, that's hilarious. They cannot afford to get jobs 15 miles away? Man, that's good.
Once again, MITC, opportunity is everywhere. In Gary Indiana someone can set up a new web service just like they can in Silicone Valley and make a ton of money. Or they can get on the train and head into Chicago, or move there.
They can't afford to, lolololol.

Uh, ok. How you figure they can afford to move anywhere, especially an expensive place like Chicago, is beyond me.

Quote:
Quote:
Except for the fact that land is worth more now than then, and people these days are likely burdened by debt they're now unable to relinquish. Have you read the fine print on the credit cards? It's truly incredible what they can get away with. As The Onion pointedly reported, the credit cards are putting the ma and pa loansharks out of business.

Well, if the Onion came up with that it sure is hard to argue with. Great source.
The land is worth more now? Well, how many people are working in textile shops for $1 a week in today's world? How many folks are working in the hog lines for 80 hours for $0.25 an hour?

Thanks to people who don't share your philosophy, none. If it were up to you, there'd be plenty of each. There's not so much as a doubt in my mind that, had you lived in the early 20th century, you'd be among the ranks who said there should be no minimum wage, and that if the people didn't want to work in sweatshops 18 hours a day for $.25 per hour, they could just save more and get some skills and get a better job. Like you. If you did it, anyone could.

Quote:
There's much more money to be earned today, and land cost has gone up right along with it.

And with population, which has increased considerably since then.

Quote:
Quote:
Because full healthcare would provide them healthcare when they needed it -not just when they had a healthcare emergency.

You pay for it either way; if you treated them when they needed it, you'd save money when compared with treating them only in cases of emergency. Your philosophy would have you cut off your nose to spite your face on principle.

AGAIN, MATT, I BEG OF YOU TO READ.
Again, my friend with the DuPage health card gets to go to the doctor anytime he wants. He's gone twice this last month to get his "depression" meds changed.
he has a nebulizer for his breathing problem related to his fat ass.
He has no insurance policy and the fine folks of DuPage are paying for this.
And, these are not emergency room situations only. Why are you so careful;ly avoiding that? Again, Stroger hospital, not just an emergency room, filled with uninsured people taking advantage of Cook's uninsured health benefits.
We already have health care available for anyone who wants it. We don't have Universal care, but each county has a health board that will make sure that people get their medical care. I gave you one specific example of someone I know who does this. Perfectly healthy. Perfectly capable of work. Lazy as fuck, don't work becasue he's happier living in his parents house and playing video games all afternoon long, and DUPAGE CITIZENS pay for his health care.
hey Dupage citizens, is this fair to you?

No. It should just be taken from everyone's pay, as part of a single-payer insurance program.

Quote:
Quote:
We are certainly missing both

No. We are not, and that kind of statement just makes me sick.
Take a look at how the olympics went down, see how it affected China's citizens, and the people they stole their houses from, tore down, to make a water cube. See how freedom of speech and freedom of religon is nonexistant there, then come back here and tell me we're missing freedom and justice.
That's just asinine.

Oh, we have freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. But Americans are subject to many injustices, and suffer reductions of freedoms so that some can have special privileges.

_________________
You can't see me because of internet.

The landowner effectively owns part shares in millions of part-time slaves called, "taxpayers." -Roy L
A Personal Relationship with Jesus?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sicko
PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 11:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:27 pm
Posts: 134
From the net:

Sharing: A lesson on human nature

I was talking to a friend of mine's little girl the other day. I asked
her what she wanted to be when she grew up and she replied, "I want to
be President!" Both of her parents are liberal Democrats and were
standing there. So then I asked her, "If you were President what would
be the first thing you would do?"

She replied, "I'd give houses to all the homeless people."

"Wow - what a worthy goal." I told her, "You don't have to wait until
you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow, pull
weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over
to the grocery store where this homeless guy hangs out, and you can give
him the $50 to use toward a new house."

Since she is only 6, she thought that over for a few seconds. While her
Mom glared at me, she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why
doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay
him the $50?"

And I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

Her folks still aren't talking to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sicko
PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 1:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65731
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
Quote:
But the propaganda campaign to slander anyone who disagrees with the government in general, and the Bush administration in particular, definitely existed; and Moore was specific victim of that campaign

Obama is an example of someone who is experiencing great success with disagreeing with the government. Why wouldn't he be the victim of propaganda then?
Moore is no victim.
Quote:
Oh, I get it. By "our" you mean "people who think like me." Well, yes, he definitely has a genuine dislike for the ridiculous conservative philosophy prevalent in the US these days

He's entitled to his opinion, and I am entitled to mine.

Quote:
Pretty much all the mainstream TV news is propaganda.

Are you referring to the liberal media? Or conservative talk radio?
Liberals blames conservative talk radio.
Conservatives blame liberal media.
So which is propaganda? Both?

Quote:
If you think only mindless drones are susceptible to propaganda, you're sorely wrong, and leaving yourself open to being propagandized by your hubris.

That isn't what I said. This marks the 3rd or 4th time you have misquoted me in this thread.
What I said was that refusing to acknowledge the points of a dissenting opinion makes you mindless. And I'll stand by that.

Quote:
There's exceptions to every rule. But the bottom line is that workers in the US don't benefit from the relative superiority of their productivity.

The hell they don't. US workers benefit from higher productivity by keeping their companies in business, and keeping their jobs, and keeping the economy flowing. We all benefit, as evidenced by the aforementioned significant difference in our unemployment rates.

Quote:
We doctor our unemployment stats, so I wouldn't lean on that one if I were you.

You're right, MITC, why let a real fact get in the way of your argument. Just dismiss the fact!

Quote:
Garbage. Sovereignty means having the choice to decide
.
Almost. It means having the ability to decide without outside influence, something France as a member of the EU does not enjoy. France was a terrible example for you to bring up.

Quote:
You can't see how vacation makes for happier workers? Wow.

Sure I do, but I also see how having half the unemployed workers makes people much happier than vacation time.
5 weeks of vacation sure as hell isn't helping the 10% of frenchmen not working does it?
When you can't get a paying job, who gives a rat's ass about vacation benefits?

Quote:
Shocker.

You're right. Let's just make minimum wage $100/hour. Of course, your double cheeseburger at McDonalds would cost $75, but hey, we're paying out $100/hr to mop floors what a worker paradise!

Quote:
They don't realize that because it's not real.

Yes it is. Willing it not to be so does not work.

Quote:
It caused them to be destitute. UHC would have prevented that. People don't get ruined by illness in GB or Canada or France, or any other first world nation (and a number of non-first-world nations). The US is exceptional when it comes to that.

Does UHC pay for your mortgage if you have a sickness and can't work? Does it pay the light bill? car note?
People don't get ruined in GB or Canada with illness. Sure as hell they do. Maybe they've got their medical expenses covered, but if you can't work due to illness, you're going to lose that house or car or whatever. UHC isn't the final answer.

Quote:
That's the point.

So your point was to make no sense? Thanks for the heads up. how many of your other points were suppossed to make no sense?

Quote:
So you're basically just advocating debt slavery. The creditor can just roll over that debt at an insane interest rate, making the debt effectively impossible to pay off, and you'd have the debtor as their slave, possibly for the rest of their life, because they made a mistake (or, as mentioned previously, fell on hard times).

No MITC, and if you keep misquoting me or making up shit that you think I advocate I won't bother to debate with you any longer. I'm a little sick of this right now.
No, what I said was that I have no sympathy for the guy who had to have the new Iphone, or the new CD or DVD or a 52 inch 1080p monitor, and found that he couldn't afford all the payments.
I don't think you should ever discharge a debt. You should always wiothout exception, pay for what you buy.
Now, I do believe there should be restructering available to those that are victims of unforseen circumstances, medical emergencies, or other disasters.
but discharging debt simply cause one were too stupid to porperly manage money isn't right or fair. And it was being abused terribly, hence the bankruptcy reform.

Quote:
No, not really. Our system is set up so that it's almost impossible to avoid.

That could not be any more false. No one forces anyone into debt.

Quote:
Of course you don't. If you had any sympathy for your fellow man, you wouldn't be a conservative.

I am not a conservative.
But sympathy doesn't make the world a better place.

Quote:
Exactly what I said. This country taxes wages and consumption primarily; to tax these two sides of the production coin while leaving economic rents largely untaxed is criminal, and the inevitable result is poverty.

In my opinion,. taxes should more of less reside strictly on consumption and employment. Taxing income to me is horrifying.

Quote:
You don't see how the money supply being comprised of debt keeps people in debt?

No, because public monetary policy and private financial decisions are independant.
you go into debt becasue you choose to buy now pay later, and the wisdom of that choice is dependant on what you buy and under what terms.

Quote:
The fortunate very frequently claim anyone could have had their fortune.

To me, your point here confirmes my theory.
First, it's unfair that you call them "fortunate" rather than "successful" becuse it implies that they are successful because of some cosmic dice roll or something. They themselves say that anyone could have had their fortune implied that there was nothing special, no stellar allignment that opened doors for them. They were able to see opportunity, jump on it and succeed, and they firmly believe that anyone can do it. I agree. Listen to them, they're right.

Quote:
Unsurprised to find you find their plight funny.

MITC this is yet another of your bullshit misquotes. If I see another of these eggregious misquotes we're done here.
No, what I find funny is that you seem to think that these folks can't get more than 15 miles from their front door.
You seem to think they're not capable of jumpin to the train to chicago to get a job there, or bike the 10 miles to the Crown to get work there. Is there some anchor keeping them in Gary? Why were some able to succeed and other not?

Quote:
Uh, ok. How you figure they can afford to move anywhere, especially an expensive place like Chicago, is beyond me.

WHAT??!! You think that everyone who lives in Chicago is making a ton of money?
There's no public housing in Chicago?
There's no section 8 available in chicago?
There's no low income rent in Chicago?
You're full of it on this one.
Quote:
and that if the people didn't want to work in sweatshops 18 hours a day for $.25 per hour, they could just save more and get some skills and get a better job. Like you. If you did it, anyone could.

Can you tell me why it isn't possible to get training in some field and get a better job? there ios NOTHING holding anyone back.
Quote:
No. It should just be taken from everyone's pay, as part of a single-payer insurance program.

OK, you're willing to pay an additional 15-25% of your income to pay for people who cannot get health insurance because of both the inability to work and those that are too lazy to work? Why not start conrtibuting now? Why not take that 15% of your take home and get it to the health department in your county, start paying for some of those folks who don't want to or can't work.

Quote:
Oh, we have freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. But Americans are subject to many injustices, and suffer reductions of freedoms so that some can have special privileges.

What injustices are we subject to.
Hey we're given the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. Not just given happiness, but the right to pursue it.
You have to work hard to chase happiness, you have to go after it and grab it. No one will give you success, you have to be willing to chase it down.

Matt, I'll debate this with you, but don't misquote me again. I don't need that shit.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sicko
PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 4:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:35 pm
Posts: 6248
Location: Crown Point, Indiana (obviously)
Albert Hofmann wrote:
MattInTheCrown wrote:
Indeed. And the opinion that the US is the best place to live on earth is an example of an opinion; and opinion in your case, I suspect, isn't formed from a depth of knowledge from first-hand experience.

You already said you havent lived anywhere else in the world besides here. I suggest trying it if you ever come down from that high horse.

I'm not on a high-horse. I'm simply pointing out the hollowness of the claim that this is the best nation in which to live.

Quote:
I dont feel like jumping into this war of words, though it is interesting to read, but overall I agree with Darkside that this is a flawed country but I wouldnt want to live anywhere else, and its flaws are greatly exagerated by those who wish to live in a "perfect" society.

That's quickly becoming less true, and I think this will become increasingly undeniable in the near term. Healthcare is just one of the serious problems our nation faces; but its an interesting one, because it demonstrates the hopelessness of our situation. The propaganda artists working for the insurance companies have successfully recruited armies to fight to the death to keep their crappy, over-priced healthcare, and have even managed to make a convert of the former UHC-crusading first lady.

_________________
You can't see me because of internet.

The landowner effectively owns part shares in millions of part-time slaves called, "taxpayers." -Roy L
A Personal Relationship with Jesus?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sicko
PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 4:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 91883
Location: To the left of my post
MattInTheCrown wrote:
That's quickly becoming less true, and I think this will become increasingly undeniable in the near term. Healthcare is just one of the serious problems our nation faces; but its an interesting one, because it demonstrates the hopelessness of our situation. The propaganda artists working for the insurance companies have successfully recruited armies to fight to the death to keep their crappy, over-priced healthcare, and have even managed to make a convert of the former UHC-crusading first lady.

Healthcare may have major problems now, but there are much better solutions than true UHC. Every country that has a single payer healthcare system still faces a series of major problems but they are different.

Maybe Hillary Clinton finally realized that true UHC isn't the best option, but a hybrid of both is.

The government should fix medicaid before forcing me to use it.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sicko
PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:35 pm
Posts: 6248
Location: Crown Point, Indiana (obviously)
Darkside wrote:
Quote:
But the propaganda campaign to slander anyone who disagrees with the government in general, and the Bush administration in particular, definitely existed; and Moore was specific victim of that campaign

Obama is an example of someone who is experiencing great success with disagreeing with the government. Why wouldn't he be the victim of propaganda then?

Fuck me, that's a hilarious joke!

Image
Look familiar? #1 on the best-sellers list, almost immediately. And Obama's hardly saying anything controversial; just being a Democrat is enough to get him propagandized as the next Satan. Lucky for him, he isn't fat! Can you imagine if he was fat? They'd have had a field day with that!

Quote:
Moore is no victim.

Right.

Quote:
Quote:
Oh, I get it. By "our" you mean "people who think like me." Well, yes, he definitely has a genuine dislike for the ridiculous conservative philosophy prevalent in the US these days

He's entitled to his opinion, and I am entitled to mine.

True enough, but I think it'd be nice if you had a factual basis for your opinions.

Quote:
Quote:
Pretty much all the mainstream TV news is propaganda.

Are you referring to the liberal media? Or conservative talk radio?
Liberals blames conservative talk radio.
Conservatives blame liberal media.
So which is propaganda? Both?

Both are propaganda, and the notion that any media -particularly any TV media- is liberal is absolutely laughable. I suppose it's liberal when compared to the neo-feudal rightist radio.

Quote:
Quote:
If you think only mindless drones are susceptible to propaganda, you're sorely wrong, and leaving yourself open to being propagandized by your hubris.

That isn't what I said. This marks the 3rd or 4th time you have misquoted me in this thread.
What I said was that refusing to acknowledge the points of a dissenting opinion makes you mindless. And I'll stand by that.

You said "Also, I am no victim of propoganda. What program or newspaper do you seem to think I read that indoctrenated me with said propoganda? Just because I disagree with you, MITC, does not make me a mindless drone." Clearly, the implication is that only mindless drones are susceptible to propaganda.

Quote:
Quote:
There's exceptions to every rule. But the bottom line is that workers in the US don't benefit from the relative superiority of their productivity.

The hell they don't. US workers benefit from higher productivity by keeping their companies in business, and keeping their jobs, and keeping the economy flowing. We all benefit, as evidenced by the aforementioned significant difference in our unemployment rates.

Our unemployment figures are figured differently than theirs are.

Quote:
Quote:
We doctor our unemployment stats, so I wouldn't lean on that one if I were you.

You're right, MITC, why let a real fact get in the way of your argument. Just dismiss the fact!

See above.

Quote:
Quote:
Garbage. Sovereignty means having the choice to decide
.
Almost. It means having the ability to decide without outside influence, something France as a member of the EU does not enjoy. France was a terrible example for you to bring up.

By this "reasoning" we've given up our sovereignty with every treaty we've ever made.

Quote:
Quote:
You can't see how vacation makes for happier workers? Wow.

Sure I do, but I also see how having half the unemployed workers makes people much happier than vacation time.
5 weeks of vacation sure as hell isn't helping the 10% of frenchmen not working does it?
When you can't get a paying job, who gives a rat's ass about vacation benefits?

So it's your argument that their productivity per capita is directly responsible for the greater rate of unemployment (to the extent that's even true)? Bit of a leap, don't you think? Their actual productivity per-hour per-capita is negligably lower, btw.

Quote:
Quote:
Shocker.

You're right. Let's just make minimum wage $100/hour. Of course, your double cheeseburger at McDonalds would cost $75, but hey, we're paying out $100/hr to mop floors what a worker paradise!

This reasoning assumes that the market dictates wages commensurate with services rendered -an assumption proved false throughout history. I agree that, at some point, a rise in the minimum wage will cause prices to inflate; but we're not at that point now, and as far as economists can tell, we were never at that point in the past.

Quote:
Quote:
They don't realize that because it's not real.

Yes it is. Willing it not to be so does not work.

Cite any instance of a rise in minimum wage corresponding with an increase in inflation.

Quote:
Quote:
It caused them to be destitute. UHC would have prevented that. People don't get ruined by illness in GB or Canada or France, or any other first world nation (and a number of non-first-world nations). The US is exceptional when it comes to that.

Does UHC pay for your mortgage if you have a sickness and can't work? Does it pay the light bill? car note?
People don't get ruined in GB or Canada with illness. Sure as hell they do. Maybe they've got their medical expenses covered, but if you can't work due to illness, you're going to lose that house or car or whatever. UHC isn't the final answer.

Fine, they don't get ruined by medical bills. Feigned obtuseness is not becoming.

Quote:
Quote:
That's the point.

So your point was to make no sense? Thanks for the heads up. how many of your other points were suppossed to make no sense?

The point is that your position makes no sense.

Quote:
Quote:
So you're basically just advocating debt slavery. The creditor can just roll over that debt at an insane interest rate, making the debt effectively impossible to pay off, and you'd have the debtor as their slave, possibly for the rest of their life, because they made a mistake (or, as mentioned previously, fell on hard times).

No MITC, and if you keep misquoting me or making up shit that you think I advocate I won't bother to debate with you any longer. I'm a little sick of this right now.
No, what I said was that I have no sympathy for the guy who had to have the new Iphone, or the new CD or DVD or a 52 inch 1080p monitor, and found that he couldn't afford all the payments.
I don't think you should ever discharge a debt. You should always wiothout exception, pay for what you buy.
Now, I do believe there should be restructering available to those that are victims of unforseen circumstances, medical emergencies, or other disasters.
but discharging debt simply cause one were too stupid to porperly manage money isn't right or fair. And it was being abused terribly, hence the bankruptcy reform.

That's a load of horseshit. It's an outright lie to say that bankruptcy lawns were being abused; the lenders were profiting greatly, as always, and there was abundant credit available. What has changed since? Nothing, except for perhaps even greater profits for the lenders.

Quote:
Quote:
No, not really. Our system is set up so that it's almost impossible to avoid.

That could not be any more false. No one forces anyone into debt.

Not directly, but if you want the skills to get a better job, you'll probably have to take on debt. If you fall ill, you'll probably have to take on debt. If your job is outsourced, you'll probably have to take on debt. Etc., etc.

Quote:
Quote:
Of course you don't. If you had any sympathy for your fellow man, you wouldn't be a conservative.

I am not a conservative.
But sympathy doesn't make the world a better place.

Of course it does. What doesn't make the world a better place is sociopathy.

Quote:
Quote:
Exactly what I said. This country taxes wages and consumption primarily; to tax these two sides of the production coin while leaving economic rents largely untaxed is criminal, and the inevitable result is poverty.

In my opinion,. taxes should more of less reside strictly on consumption and employment. Taxing income to me is horrifying.

How do you figure? Taxes on consumption are even worse than taxes on income, and taxes on employment are effectively the same as taxes on income. At any rate, my point stands: it's nothing more than greed on the part of the wealthy that production is taxed, rather than economic rents.

Quote:
Quote:
You don't see how the money supply being comprised of debt keeps people in debt?

No, because public monetary policy and private financial decisions are independant.
you go into debt becasue you choose to buy now pay later, and the wisdom of that choice is dependant on what you buy and under what terms.

But there's not enough money to go around; for there to be enough money, there must be a ton of debt. Any given person might avoid debt, but many people must take on debt for our system to work. Note the fact that the government has been working on a "housing bill" that gives tax credits to would-be homeowners; the actual purpose of that bill is to allow more people to take out the necessary loans our system requires to function.

Quote:
Quote:
The fortunate very frequently claim anyone could have had their fortune.

To me, your point here confirmes my theory.
First, it's unfair that you call them "fortunate" rather than "successful" becuse it implies that they are successful because of some cosmic dice roll or something. They themselves say that anyone could have had their fortune implied that there was nothing special, no stellar allignment that opened doors for them. They were able to see opportunity, jump on it and succeed, and they firmly believe that anyone can do it. I agree. Listen to them, they're right.

No, they're not. It's not all luck, but it's not all hard work either. Identical twins growing up in Gary and Crown Point wouldn't have anything like the same chances of success. It's just arrogant to deny that.

Quote:
Quote:
Unsurprised to find you find their plight funny.

MITC this is yet another of your bullshit misquotes. If I see another of these eggregious misquotes we're done here.
No, what I find funny is that you seem to think that these folks can't get more than 15 miles from their front door.
You seem to think they're not capable of jumpin to the train to chicago to get a job there, or bike the 10 miles to the Crown to get work there. Is there some anchor keeping them in Gary? Why were some able to succeed and other not?

Some are luckier than others, some are smarter or harder working. The point is, people in Gary have to overcome obstacles just to get to the same level I was born at, and I'd have to overcome many obstacles to get to the level President Bush was born at. It's not equal opportunity at all. Christ, could there be any greater proof than President Bush? If this nation was a legitimate meritocracy, he'd be scrubbing floors somewhere.

Quote:
Quote:
Uh, ok. How you figure they can afford to move anywhere, especially an expensive place like Chicago, is beyond me.

WHAT??!! You think that everyone who lives in Chicago is making a ton of money?
There's no public housing in Chicago?
There's no section 8 available in chicago?
There's no low income rent in Chicago?
You're full of it on this one.

How is living in public housing in Chicago any better than living in Gary?

Quote:
Quote:
and that if the people didn't want to work in sweatshops 18 hours a day for $.25 per hour, they could just save more and get some skills and get a better job. Like you. If you did it, anyone could.

Can you tell me why it isn't possible to get training in some field and get a better job? there ios NOTHING holding anyone back.

Training takes money.

Quote:
Quote:
No. It should just be taken from everyone's pay, as part of a single-payer insurance program.

OK, you're willing to pay an additional 15-25% of your income to pay for people who cannot get health insurance because of both the inability to work and those that are too lazy to work? Why not start conrtibuting now? Why not take that 15% of your take home and get it to the health department in your county, start paying for some of those folks who don't want to or can't work.

Because that wouldn't do much good. The key is for there to be a single-payer system; anything else won't do much good.

Quote:
Quote:
Oh, we have freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. But Americans are subject to many injustices, and suffer reductions of freedoms so that some can have special privileges.

What injustices are we subject to.

The injustice of landowner privilege is probably the greatest. Another major one, particularly relevant at the moment, is the dangerous level of corporate influence in the government and media. The result of this influence has been to basically disenfranchise the masses, with predictable results at the polls; who cares to vote, when you're merely choosing between corporate shills?

_________________
You can't see me because of internet.

The landowner effectively owns part shares in millions of part-time slaves called, "taxpayers." -Roy L
A Personal Relationship with Jesus?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sicko
PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:35 pm
Posts: 6248
Location: Crown Point, Indiana (obviously)
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
MattInTheCrown wrote:
That's quickly becoming less true, and I think this will become increasingly undeniable in the near term. Healthcare is just one of the serious problems our nation faces; but its an interesting one, because it demonstrates the hopelessness of our situation. The propaganda artists working for the insurance companies have successfully recruited armies to fight to the death to keep their crappy, over-priced healthcare, and have even managed to make a convert of the former UHC-crusading first lady.

Healthcare may have major problems now, but there are much better solutions than true UHC.

Such as what? I just don't see how it makes any sense to take something that is essentially a means of spreading risk, and making it a function of the market, on a for-profit basis. Not only does it not make sense to do that, but it leads to conflicts of interest; the insurance companies, like virtually all major publicly-traded companies, seek short term profits above all else. The inevitable result is that the insurance companies are all looking to screw you out of your benefits every chance they get.

Quote:
Every country that has a single payer healthcare system still faces a series of major problems but they are different.

And lesser.

Quote:
Maybe Hillary Clinton finally realized that true UHC isn't the best option, but a hybrid of both is.

She realized it wasn't the best option for getting elected. The Health insurance companies are some of the biggest campaign contributers going.

_________________
You can't see me because of internet.

The landowner effectively owns part shares in millions of part-time slaves called, "taxpayers." -Roy L
A Personal Relationship with Jesus?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sicko
PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:35 pm
Posts: 6248
Location: Crown Point, Indiana (obviously)
Albert Hofmann wrote:
Matt, Im not one of those "love it or leave it" people, but I would ask you in seriousness why you still live here if you dont think its the best or one of the best? Why not move to France or a different, better country? Just doesnt make sense to me. For the all the flaws Chicago has as a city, I love living here and if I didnt I would move somewhere else.

Well, there's actually a number of reasons. For one, I don't have the necessary knowledge to know which countries I might find more suitable, nor how much more suitable they are, and whether it'd be worth the investment in moving. Then there's the potential language barrier were I to choose a country with a different language. Then there's the fact that all my friends and family reside in the US. There's also the fact that I'm not in the financial position to be moving out of the US. I'd rather just have the US follow more sane social and economic policies, and away from the disastrous path its currently on; not just for my own personal well-being, but for the 300M Americans that also live here, and all the future generations that will presumably suffer from our folly.

_________________
You can't see me because of internet.

The landowner effectively owns part shares in millions of part-time slaves called, "taxpayers." -Roy L
A Personal Relationship with Jesus?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sicko
PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:35 pm
Posts: 6248
Location: Crown Point, Indiana (obviously)
Albert Hofmann wrote:
Quote:
This reasoning assumes that the market dictates wages commensurate with services rendered -an assumption proved false throughout history. I agree that, at some point, a rise in the minimum wage will cause prices to inflate; but we're not at that point now, and as far as economists can tell, we were never at that point in the past.

Utter bullshit. As a former restaurant manager for many years, I know first hand this is not true. When minimum wage raised, our prices did too. It's really not all that difficult to figure out why.

Well, you were evidently the exception, because believe me: if there was evidence of any large-scale rise in inflation following an increase in minimum wage, CATO would be all over that.

_________________
You can't see me because of internet.

The landowner effectively owns part shares in millions of part-time slaves called, "taxpayers." -Roy L
A Personal Relationship with Jesus?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sicko
PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:17 pm
Posts: 17678
Location: The Leviathan
pizza_Place: Frozen
All these quotes are making my butt itch...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sicko
PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:55 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 12:45 am
Posts: 13529
Location: People's Republic of Urbana
pizza_Place: Papa Dells
There's an obvious victim of propaganda and indoctrination in this thread and it ain't my guy Darkside.

_________________
We all have private ails. The troublemakers are they who need public cures for their private ails.- Eric Hoffer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sicko
PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 91883
Location: To the left of my post
MattInTheCrown wrote:
Such as what? I just don't see how it makes any sense to take something that is essentially a means of spreading risk, and making it a function of the market, on a for-profit basis. Not only does it not make sense to do that, but it leads to conflicts of interest; the insurance companies, like virtually all major publicly-traded companies, seek short term profits above all else. The inevitable result is that the insurance companies are all looking to screw you out of your benefits every chance they get.

Means of spreading risk? Using that logic, we would also have to make a single source for all auto insurance, homeowner's(even people who don't own a home) insurance, flood, life, and just about every other type of insurance. Those systems are all functions of the market. Add in things such as mutual funds which are also a way to spread risk and you start to see that your logic changes pretty much everything that this country has been built around economically for it's whole existence.

Now you are saying that insurance companies are looking to screw you out of your benefits every chance they get. Take a look at medicaid and how it screws over pretty much everyone with high premiums. Those denied benefit for service are passed on to the customers with insurance, who then get higher premiums.

I cannot think of why anyone would think the government could outperform private insurance companies when they already have a system of socialized medicine that is very much broken.

MattInTheCrown wrote:
Quote:
Every country that has a single payer healthcare system still faces a series of major problems but they are different.

And lesser.

The problems are only lesser if you currently don't have health insurance. For anyone who has it, you will still have a list of problems, but they will be different and higher taxes. I'm not even against that if it helps people who can't afford insurance, but I don't want to pay higher taxes to see my service get worse. Stories of waiting months to get basic tests done scare the hell out of me. If you think the current system results in the consumer getting screwed, I can only imagine what a government monopoly on healthcare would do. At least now there is competition.

MattInTheCrown wrote:
Quote:
Maybe Hillary Clinton finally realized that true UHC isn't the best option, but a hybrid of both is.

She realized it wasn't the best option for getting elected. The Health insurance companies are some of the biggest campaign contributers going.

If UHC was truly the magical bullet to solve all of our problems, the health insurance companies would lose out to the will of the people. The truth is that for every problem UHC solves, which I fully admit it solves some major problems, it causes a different one but with a guarantee of higher taxes.

I'm sure this won't change your mind, but tell me why you think that the government could efficiently create a healthcare plan for every American when they are unable to create a quality system for Medicaid which is virtually the same thing?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sicko
PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65731
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
Quote:
Look familiar? #1 on the best-sellers list, almost immediately. And Obama's hardly saying anything controversial; just being a Democrat is enough to get him propagandized as the next Satan. Lucky for him, he isn't fat! Can you imagine if he was fat? They'd have had a field day with that!

Being the target of a political campaign is significantly different from an active propaganda campaign. I wonder if you know what propaganda really is. You don't seem to have a firm grasp on the concept.
Quote:
Right.

This quote was in reference to the "Moore is no victim" comment I made.
Sure. Fine. He is a victim. Feel better? sure, there is some great American conspiracy to discredit him. It is being lefd by people who saw his movies, noticed the "creative editing", noticed that he runs people down on their personal property and says "well, he wouldn't talk to me what's he hiding" shows up at people's offices without an appointment "ah we're making a movie won't he talk to us what's he hiding?". Most people with reaonable intellect can deduce that his work is not documentary as much as it is propaganda itself. You have fallen victim to his propaganda films. It's ok. Anyone can be a victim. You're not unique. You're just a victim.
Quote:
True enough, but I think it'd be nice if you had a factual basis for your opinions.

A factual basis for the feeling that America is the best place to be. Why not ask for factual basis that Bud Light is shit beer? What kind of factual basis is there that Cats are better pets than Dogs? Put away the canned answers, MITC. Sometimes they don't apply.
Quote:
Both are propaganda, and the notion that any media -particularly any TV media- is liberal is absolutely laughable. I suppose it's liberal when compared to the neo-feudal rightist radio

I'm coming to the reasonable conclusion that you don't really know what propaganda is. So all print media and radio is propaganda to you? That's downright laughable.
Quote:
You said "Also, I am no victim of propoganda. What program or newspaper do you seem to think I read that indoctrenated me with said propoganda? Just because I disagree with you, MITC, does not make me a mindless drone." Clearly, the implication is that only mindless drones are susceptible to propaganda

No. Clearly that was not my implication. You're running normal logic thru the junk that is between your ears. You're not going to get good milage putting premium unleaded into a Diesel engine.
Quote:
Our unemployment figures are figured differently than theirs are.

How do the French figure their unemployed?
Quote:
By this "reasoning" we've given up our sovereignty with every treaty we've ever made.

What the hell does that have to do with the French EU? Also, I fully understand that we're going to ruin our soverignity and our trade balance with NAFTA and CAFTA.
Quote:
So it's your argument that their productivity per capita is directly responsible for the greater rate of unemployment (to the extent that's even true)? Bit of a leap, don't you think? Their actual productivity per-hour per-capita is negligably lower, btw.

No that was not my point. Do horses wear socks? Is anybody listening to me?
Quote:
This reasoning assumes that the market dictates wages commensurate with services rendered -an assumption proved false throughout history. I agree that, at some point, a rise in the minimum wage will cause prices to inflate; but we're not at that point now, and as far as economists can tell, we were never at that point in the past.

The single highest cost of doing business is usually employees (sometime raw materials depending on the type of business).
When your costs go up, your profit goes down unless compensated on the front end by raising prices to offset higher labor cost. I don't think that's theory, that's pretty much fact.

Quote:
Cite any instance of a rise in minimum wage corresponding with an increase in inflation
.
Well inflation is at it's current highest rate in what 17 years and we've had an increase in minimum wages very recently (effective 2007... and again in July 2008). Is it related? In part sure. Why not?
Quote:
Fine, they don't get ruined by medical bills. Feigned obtuseness is not becoming.

It's not obtusiveness, it's reality MITC and you can't wish it away. If your health care bills are paid but you still are injured or can't work your injury or illness is still going to "ruin" you. Shit, man. Tell me that's wrong!
Quote:
The point is that your position makes no sense.

I'm sure to you it doesn't. That does not surprise me at all.
Quote:
That's a load of horseshit. It's an outright lie to say that bankruptcy lawns were being abused; the lenders were profiting greatly, as always, and there was abundant credit available. What has changed since? Nothing, except for perhaps even greater profits for the lenders.

WHAT!!!? It's a lie that bankruptcy laws were being abused??
You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
I don't know if I mentioned this before but while I was taking classes in Communication Technology (to give myself an opportunity) I was a bill collector making $8/hour (much harder work than mopping floors I assure you). I heard seriously thousands of stories and saw THOUSANDS of credit reports where people, immediately after consulting with Peter Francis Geraci or the like, would go out and get a CC at Sears, Kohls, Best Buy so on and so forth. They'd rack em, stack em up to the limit, then bring them to court to discharge them. Yeah the system was DEFINATELTY being abused. I saw thousands of cases of this in my work. I am sure that if you had to do this kind of work you would understand.
Quote:
Not directly, but if you want the skills to get a better job, you'll probably have to take on debt. If you fall ill, you'll probably have to take on debt. If your job is outsourced, you'll probably have to take on debt. Etc., etc.

I will admit I took out student loans to attend EIU, but when I went to trade school I paid thru my hard work at the fabulous Harris and Harris, the aforementioned collection agency. I worked 50 or so hours 6 days a week, then studied and took classes 20 hours a week paying wth my meager collections money.
Can my job be outsourced? not likely. Maybe. if so, I'll work my ass offf elsewhere and find a new skill.
Will I take on debt, who knows. Taking on debt isn't the real problem. It's when you take debt without paying for it. If you can't pay the debt, you shouldn't take it on.
It's something we like to call personal responsibility. Check into it, it is a fabulous concept.

Quote:
Of course it does. What doesn't make the world a better place is sociopathy.

Oh I see. Someone who doesn't agree with you is a sociopath. You're an arrogant man, MITC.
No sympathy doesn't do anything more than spreading the misery.
When you're on hard times, having someone sympathize with you doesn't do a goddamn thing to help you, it's just a simple means of guilt disassociation on behalf of the other person.
You feel guilt over your own success, so to deal with that you create this sympathy.
If you want to help, instead of feeling sympathy, which does nothing, give away your money or your time.
You sound like you have a good job, make decent money.
Why not go to the aforementioned destitute Gary, open up a free workshop and train some underoppertunitistic folks, and do something real instead of just feeling sympathy for them? do something real. Or you could just bitch about it all here and get nothing accomplished. But if you give your time or money, at least you won't be a hypocrite.

Quote:
How do you figure? Taxes on consumption are even worse than taxes on income, and taxes on employment are effectively the same as taxes on income. At any rate, my point stands: it's nothing more than greed on the part of the wealthy that production is taxed, rather than economic rents.

Ok, so taxes on income is bad. Tax on land is bad. Tax on consumption is bad.
What is your solution? How should the government fund it's defense of the American people. How would the government pay for your UHC if income tax and consumption and property are not reasonable taxes to you? Where does that money come from?

Quote:
But there's not enough money to go around; for there to be enough money, there must be a ton of debt. Any given person might avoid debt, but many people must take on debt for our system to work. Note the fact that the government has been working on a "housing bill" that gives tax credits to would-be homeowners; the actual purpose of that bill is to allow more people to take out the necessary loans our system requires to function

You are right. There's not enough money to go around. So how does that jive with your wealth redistribution plan you seem to have? That we all should be destitute? What is your vision of America rin right?
Quote:
No, they're not. It's not all luck, but it's not all hard work either. Identical twins growing up in Gary and Crown Point wouldn't have anything like the same chances of success. It's just arrogant to deny that

No what is arrogant is to think for some reason there is some magical barrier keeping people inside Gary. That these folks can't commute. Or can't move. That there is no hope in Gary. It's all over there. They're all going to fail each and every one. You have no faith in the Human factor. I think you thing you're alot smarter than everyone else. You seem like an egocentrist.
Quote:
How is living in public housing in Chicago any better than living in Gary?

I didn't say it was better did I? No. I said it's ludacris to say
MITC wrote:
How you figure they can afford to move anywhere, especially an expensive place like Chicago, is beyond me.

They can afford to live in chicago. There's subsidized rents. There's public housing. So I counter your point that they can't move to an "Expensive city like Chicago", because that is the silliest most ridiculous thing I've seen you write and I felt you needed to be called on it.
Quote:
Training takes money.
yet I managed to work 50 hours a week, and pay for training and pay for rent and pay for food and my own health care. How did I manage that? Why can't ANYONE? I lived in a single room apartment at the time. I had to pay for my own way in life (with student loans mind you). I had barely enough to eat most of the time, but I worked hard, paid for my training and here I am.
I didn't come from money. my parents were not rich. In fact, they had to sell the house and I had to be on my own at 20. I did this all on my own. And... I'm not special. Anyone can do it.
Quote:
Because that wouldn't do much good. The key is for there to be a single-payer system; anything else won't do much good

Please detail how this is going to be funded. I don't get you yet.
Quote:
The injustice of landowner privilege is probably the greatest. Another major one, particularly relevant at the moment, is the dangerous level of corporate influence in the government and media. The result of this influence has been to basically disenfranchise the masses, with predictable results at the polls; who cares to vote, when you're merely choosing between corporate shills?

What injustice of landowner privilege is that?

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sicko
PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:35 pm
Posts: 6248
Location: Crown Point, Indiana (obviously)
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
MattInTheCrown wrote:
Such as what? I just don't see how it makes any sense to take something that is essentially a means of spreading risk, and making it a function of the market, on a for-profit basis. Not only does it not make sense to do that, but it leads to conflicts of interest; the insurance companies, like virtually all major publicly-traded companies, seek short term profits above all else. The inevitable result is that the insurance companies are all looking to screw you out of your benefits every chance they get.

Means of spreading risk? Using that logic, we would also have to make a single source for all auto insurance, homeowner's(even people who don't own a home) insurance, flood, life, and just about every other type of insurance. Those systems are all functions of the market. Add in things such as mutual funds which are also a way to spread risk and you start to see that your logic changes pretty much everything that this country has been built around economically for it's whole existence.

Except for, in the case of healthcare, its not just a personal risk, but a public risk. Not only does disease put all of society at risk, but there's the fact that society is ultimately on the hook for medical care that individuals cannot afford.

But, yes, any insurance program could theoretically benefit from having one big pool of funds, and no profit.

Quote:
Now you are saying that insurance companies are looking to screw you out of your benefits every chance they get. Take a look at medicaid and how it screws over pretty much everyone with high premiums. Those denied benefit for service are passed on to the customers with insurance, who then get higher premiums.

I cannot think of why anyone would think the government could outperform private insurance companies when they already have a system of socialized medicine that is very much broken.

Uh, perhaps because it does in virtually every first-world nation outside of the US.

Quote:
MattInTheCrown wrote:
Quote:
Every country that has a single payer healthcare system still faces a series of major problems but they are different.

And lesser.

The problems are only lesser if you currently don't have health insurance.

No, they're lesser in an absolute sense. Like, as in aggregate problems.

Quote:
For anyone who has it, you will still have a list of problems, but they will be different and higher taxes. I'm not even against that if it helps people who can't afford insurance, but I don't want to pay higher taxes to see my service get worse. Stories of waiting months to get basic tests done scare the hell out of me. If you think the current system results in the consumer getting screwed, I can only imagine what a government monopoly on healthcare would do. At least now there is competition.

Competition doesn't help in the healthcare insurance market; it hurts. With a single-payer system, the bargaining power is much better, and the redundancy of bureaucracy is eliminated. You get more care for less money. And of course the horror stories scare you: that's what they're designed to do. The whole idea is to paralyze you with horror stories, so you continue to vote against your own interests, despite the myriad of statistics that clearly show that UHC systems in other Western nations is both cheaper and superior to the healthcare in the US.

Quote:
MattInTheCrown wrote:
Quote:
Maybe Hillary Clinton finally realized that true UHC isn't the best option, but a hybrid of both is.

She realized it wasn't the best option for getting elected. The Health insurance companies are some of the biggest campaign contributers going.

If UHC was truly the magical bullet to solve all of our problems, the health insurance companies would lose out to the will of the people.

Right. Our electorate is so well informed and motivated.

Did you forget that we made George W. Bush President twice?

Quote:
The truth is that for every problem UHC solves, which I fully admit it solves some major problems, it causes a different one but with a guarantee of higher taxes.

Who cares that the taxes are higher, when the costs of insurance are reduced by more than that amount?

Quote:
I'm sure this won't change your mind, but tell me why you think that the government could efficiently create a healthcare plan for every American when they are unable to create a quality system for Medicaid which is virtually the same thing?

Because it's easier to have one unified system that a bastardized hybrid of a system that we have now.

_________________
You can't see me because of internet.

The landowner effectively owns part shares in millions of part-time slaves called, "taxpayers." -Roy L
A Personal Relationship with Jesus?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sicko
PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 91883
Location: To the left of my post
MattInTheCrown wrote:
Except for, in the case of healthcare, its not just a personal risk, but a public risk. Not only does disease put all of society at risk, but there's the fact that society is ultimately on the hook for medical care that individuals cannot afford.

But, yes, any insurance program could theoretically benefit from having one big pool of funds, and no profit.

Auto insurance is a public risk. Uninsured drivers are a major problem.
Flood insurance is a public risk. The aftermath of Katrina was paid for with lots of public funds.
Life insurance is a public risk. Children can go on welfare quite easily with the loss of a parent.

The point is that there are lots of risk avoidance programs in the private sector. The logic that healthcare insurance is somehow different doesn't make sense. Insurance, by definition, is risk avoidance.

MattInTheCrown wrote:
Uh, perhaps because it does in virtually every first-world nation outside of the US.

In certain metrics yes it does, it others, it does not. Waiting lists are quite common for countries with UHC. Call it a scare tactic or whatever you want, but it's also true.

I already know you'll discount this as some sort of scare tactic, but it does go to show that it's not the magical solution that you claim.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/international/americas/26canada.html
MattInTheCrown wrote:
No, they're lesser in an absolute sense. Like, as in aggregate problems.

Care to back this statement up? If you take out the problem of uninsured people, UHC causes as many problems as it solves and can result in a downgrade in service(wait times, poor service)

MattInTheCrown wrote:
Competition doesn't help in the healthcare insurance market; it hurts. With a single-payer system, the bargaining power is much better, and the redundancy of bureaucracy is eliminated. You get more care for less money. And of course the horror stories scare you: that's what they're designed to do. The whole idea is to paralyze you with horror stories, so you continue to vote against your own interests, despite the myriad of statistics that clearly show that UHC systems in other Western nations is both cheaper and superior to the healthcare in the US.

I have found very few areas of economics where competition doesn't drive down prices. Government is much more inefficient than private business. I'll ask once again the question that you seem to ignore. Why would you expect the government to adequately manage a nationwide healthcare system when they mismanage a smaller version of that exact system in Medicaid? We have a test version of UHC now, and it's called Medicaid. It's not more efficient. It's not better for patients(but is better than no coverage), and it screws over doctors and hospitals with the cost being passed on to others. If they first fixed Medicaid, and showed that it can operate efficiently I would buy your argument on how great UHC would be, but until then I don't buy it.
MattInTheCrown wrote:
Who cares that the taxes are higher, when the costs of insurance are reduced by more than that amount?

Let me see if you follow. I pay taxes now, and I pay for medical insurance. Now, let's say that UHC is put into place. I now pay higher taxes, but less or nothing for medical insurance. Medicaid would be a downgrade of my current coverage. Now add in that I'm also contributing to the medical insurance of the millions of uninsured people now. That money has to come from somewhere. It is logical to think that I will pay more with UHC than I do now simply because I am contributing to a larger pool of insured people. Now, I have no problem with that if it helps more people. My problem is that I would be paying more and moving to a lower level of service. I'd hate to be paying extra money, and then get put on a waiting list for a month to get a CAT scan. My biggest concern is the fact that I would basically be forced to use Medicaid, which I have no faith in.

MattInTheCrown wrote:
Because it's easier to have one unified system that a bastardized hybrid of a system that we have now.

Easy is not the goal. A good system should be the goal that doesn't result in me getting a lower level of medical service. The easiest thing would be to have no medical coverage provided by the government, but that's clearly not the best solution either.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sicko
PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 2:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:35 pm
Posts: 6248
Location: Crown Point, Indiana (obviously)
Darkside wrote:
Quote:
Look familiar? #1 on the best-sellers list, almost immediately. And Obama's hardly saying anything controversial; just being a Democrat is enough to get him propagandized as the next Satan. Lucky for him, he isn't fat! Can you imagine if he was fat? They'd have had a field day with that!

Being the target of a political campaign is significantly different from an active propaganda campaign. I wonder if you know what propaganda really is. You don't seem to have a firm grasp on the concept.

?? That book is not a product of a political campaign; it's a product of a rightist propaganda-artist. You sure have nerve to throw around the accusation that I don't know what propaganda is.

Quote:
Quote:
Right.

This quote was in reference to the "Moore is no victim" comment I made.
Sure. Fine. He is a victim. Feel better? sure, there is some great American conspiracy to discredit him. It is being lefd by people who saw his movies, noticed the "creative editing", noticed that he runs people down on their personal property and says "well, he wouldn't talk to me what's he hiding" shows up at people's offices without an appointment "ah we're making a movie won't he talk to us what's he hiding?". Most people with reaonable intellect can deduce that his work is not documentary as much as it is propaganda itself. You have fallen victim to his propaganda films. It's ok. Anyone can be a victim. You're not unique. You're just a victim.

Uh huh. The fact is, people like Roger Smith won't be giving interviews to Michael Moore.

Quote:
Quote:
True enough, but I think it'd be nice if you had a factual basis for your opinions.

A factual basis for the feeling that America is the best place to be. Why not ask for factual basis that Bud Light is shit beer? What kind of factual basis is there that Cats are better pets than Dogs? Put away the canned answers, MITC. Sometimes they don't apply.

A factual basis for the belief that Moore hates America.

Quote:
Quote:
Both are propaganda, and the notion that any media -particularly any TV media- is liberal is absolutely laughable. I suppose it's liberal when compared to the neo-feudal rightist radio

I'm coming to the reasonable conclusion that you don't really know what propaganda is. So all print media and radio is propaganda to you? That's downright laughable.

Not all of it, but both mediums are rife with it. There's very little serious reporting; much of what you get on TV news shows are cannned media releases.

Quote:
Quote:
You said "Also, I am no victim of propoganda. What program or newspaper do you seem to think I read that indoctrenated me with said propoganda? Just because I disagree with you, MITC, does not make me a mindless drone." Clearly, the implication is that only mindless drones are susceptible to propaganda

No. Clearly that was not my implication. You're running normal logic thru the junk that is between your ears. You're not going to get good milage putting premium unleaded into a Diesel engine.

Good rebuttal: when your own words clearly show that my interpretation of what you said is sound, just insult me.

Quote:
Quote:
Our unemployment figures are figured differently than theirs are.

How do the French figure their unemployed?

I'll have to get back to you on that. That's harder to find than you'd think, and I'm at work.

Quote:
Quote:
By this "reasoning" we've given up our sovereignty with every treaty we've ever made.

What the hell does that have to do with the French EU? Also, I fully understand that we're going to ruin our soverignity and our trade balance with NAFTA and CAFTA.

Well, you adhere to a bizarre definition of sovereignty.

Quote:
Quote:
So it's your argument that their productivity per capita is directly responsible for the greater rate of unemployment (to the extent that's even true)? Bit of a leap, don't you think? Their actual productivity per-hour per-capita is negligably lower, btw.

No that was not my point. Do horses wear socks? Is anybody listening to me?

That was clearly your point. Why lie? Let's just have a look at what led up to this exchange:
Me: "But the bottom line is that workers in the US don't benefit from the relative superiority of their productivity."

You: "The hell they don't. US workers benefit from higher productivity by keeping their companies in business, and keeping their jobs, and keeping the economy flowing. We all benefit, as evidenced by the aforementioned significant difference in our unemployment rates."

Clearly, your implication is that the lower French productivity is responsible for their lower employment rate.

Quote:
Quote:
This reasoning assumes that the market dictates wages commensurate with services rendered -an assumption proved false throughout history. I agree that, at some point, a rise in the minimum wage will cause prices to inflate; but we're not at that point now, and as far as economists can tell, we were never at that point in the past.

The single highest cost of doing business is usually employees (sometime raw materials depending on the type of business).
When your costs go up, your profit goes down unless compensated on the front end by raising prices to offset higher labor cost. I don't think that's theory, that's pretty much fact.

Well, where's the empirical data?

Quote:
Quote:
Cite any instance of a rise in minimum wage corresponding with an increase in inflation
.
Well inflation is at it's current highest rate in what 17 years and we've had an increase in minimum wages very recently (effective 2007... and again in July 2008). Is it related? In part sure. Why not?

I can't prove it's not, of course, but unless you can prove it is, this is a pointless claim. The fact is, there is no conclusive studies showing a correlation between a rise in minimum wages, and inflation. And theory dictates that there shouldn't be inflation until wages reach their true value.

Quote:
Quote:
Fine, they don't get ruined by medical bills. Feigned obtuseness is not becoming.

It's not obtusiveness, it's reality MITC and you can't wish it away. If your health care bills are paid but you still are injured or can't work your injury or illness is still going to "ruin" you. Shit, man. Tell me that's wrong!

You know very well I was talking about being ruined by medical bills. There's little that can be done for someone who's incapable of work; but, on the other hand, the very point of insurance is to spread risk so that when some person incurs high medical costs, he's not indebted for life. Our system fails in this regard.

Quote:
Quote:
That's a load of horseshit. It's an outright lie to say that bankruptcy lawns were being abused; the lenders were profiting greatly, as always, and there was abundant credit available. What has changed since? Nothing, except for perhaps even greater profits for the lenders.

WHAT!!!? It's a lie that bankruptcy laws were being abused??
You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
I don't know if I mentioned this before but while I was taking classes in Communication Technology (to give myself an opportunity) I was a bill collector making $8/hour (much harder work than mopping floors I assure you). I heard seriously thousands of stories and saw THOUSANDS of credit reports where people, immediately after consulting with Peter Francis Geraci or the like, would go out and get a CC at Sears, Kohls, Best Buy so on and so forth. They'd rack em, stack em up to the limit, then bring them to court to discharge them. Yeah the system was DEFINATELTY being abused. I saw thousands of cases of this in my work. I am sure that if you had to do this kind of work you would understand.

As a whole, it was working. The creditors were very profitable, and there was no shortage of credit available. You wanna bitch about these people "abusing" the system, but totally absolve the negligence on the part of the creditors. In fact, negligence isn't even the right word: the credit card companies intentionally target people they believe are likely to run up debt and be unable to pay it off. Go to a college campus and see their work first hand. The credit card companies were behind the change in Ch. 13 law; they wanted to weld the escape hatch shut, and be able to dupe hapless people into debt-slavery for life.

As far back as Biblical times people recognized this, and Biblical code dictated there be a Jubilee every 50 years, with total debt forgiveness. Interestingly, the Jews also voided all land titles during the Jubilee, as they recognized that the earth was something which was the providence of all mankind, and thus it is wrong to sell land in perpetuity.

The Right in this nation ignores history, and operate exclusively from deduction; thus they enact policies which have devastating results to society, such as allowing creditors to make virtual slaves of debtors.

Quote:
Quote:
Not directly, but if you want the skills to get a better job, you'll probably have to take on debt. If you fall ill, you'll probably have to take on debt. If your job is outsourced, you'll probably have to take on debt. Etc., etc.

I will admit I took out student loans to attend EIU, but when I went to trade school I paid thru my hard work at the fabulous Harris and Harris, the aforementioned collection agency. I worked 50 or so hours 6 days a week, then studied and took classes 20 hours a week paying wth my meager collections money.
Can my job be outsourced? not likely. Maybe. if so, I'll work my ass offf elsewhere and find a new skill.
Will I take on debt, who knows. Taking on debt isn't the real problem. It's when you take debt without paying for it. If you can't pay the debt, you shouldn't take it on.

Few people are psychic, unfortunately.

Quote:
It's something we like to call personal responsibility. Check into it, it is a fabulous concept.

No, it's a hollow slogan used to strip away social awareness.

Quote:
Quote:
Of course it does. What doesn't make the world a better place is sociopathy.

Oh I see. Someone who doesn't agree with you is a sociopath. You're an arrogant man, MITC.

That's not what I said, nor implied.

Quote:
No sympathy doesn't do anything more than spreading the misery.
When you're on hard times, having someone sympathize with you doesn't do a goddamn thing to help you, it's just a simple means of guilt disassociation on behalf of the other person.
You feel guilt over your own success, so to deal with that you create this sympathy.
If you want to help, instead of feeling sympathy, which does nothing, give away your money or your time.

Obviously, sympathy is why one wants to help. Humans evolved sympathy for a reason: it is the social sense that makes societies possible.

If humans were not social creatures, they wouldn't have evolved sympathy, and an individualistic philosophy based on 'personal responsibility' might make sense. But alas, we are social creatures.

Quote:
You sound like you have a good job, make decent money.
Why not go to the aforementioned destitute Gary, open up a free workshop and train some underoppertunitistic folks, and do something real instead of just feeling sympathy for them? do something real. Or you could just bitch about it all here and get nothing accomplished. But if you give your time or money, at least you won't be a hypocrite.

Or, I could try to convince my fellow citizens to arrange the structure of our society in such a way that real change is possible. The sort of program you're talking about, while certainly laudable, is ultimately insufficient: people have run such charities for thousands of years with little lasting success. We need to stop treating the symptoms and address the disease, and that can only happen when we're willing to look at the core issues.

Quote:
Quote:
How do you figure? Taxes on consumption are even worse than taxes on income, and taxes on employment are effectively the same as taxes on income. At any rate, my point stands: it's nothing more than greed on the part of the wealthy that production is taxed, rather than economic rents.

Ok, so taxes on income is bad. Tax on land is bad. Tax on consumption is bad.

No, tax on land: good.

Quote:
What is your solution? How should the government fund it's defense of the American people. How would the government pay for your UHC if income tax and consumption and property are not reasonable taxes to you? Where does that money come from?

Like I said, economic rents. The primary economic rent is land value. Also, there's things like the rent owing to spectrum rights, things like taxi medallions, and mineral rights.

Perhaps all these rents are insufficient; at that point, you may have to tax production. But to tax production before exhausting those rents is just wrong; it's an injustice at a basic level that systematically results in poverty and suffering.

Quote:
Quote:
But there's not enough money to go around; for there to be enough money, there must be a ton of debt. Any given person might avoid debt, but many people must take on debt for our system to work. Note the fact that the government has been working on a "housing bill" that gives tax credits to would-be homeowners; the actual purpose of that bill is to allow more people to take out the necessary loans our system requires to function

You are right. There's not enough money to go around. So how does that jive with your wealth redistribution plan you seem to have? That we all should be destitute? What is your vision of America rin right?

You seem to be confusing money and wealth. The problem is, for wealth to be produced, there needs to be enough money to grease the proverbial skids.

Quote:
Quote:
No, they're not. It's not all luck, but it's not all hard work either. Identical twins growing up in Gary and Crown Point wouldn't have anything like the same chances of success. It's just arrogant to deny that

No what is arrogant is to think for some reason there is some magical barrier keeping people inside Gary. That these folks can't commute. Or can't move. That there is no hope in Gary. It's all over there. They're all going to fail each and every one. You have no faith in the Human factor.

No, I'm just willing to acknowledge reality. If it was so easy to get out of Gary, no one would live there. You seem to be under the impression that the residents of the Gary slums are just masochists, who could move away any time they liked, but would rather live in rat-infested shit holes. I think that the problem is that their opportunities are severely limited, so only the relatively well-equipped and fortunate individuals have a realistic chance of escaping their situation.

Quote:
I think you thing you're alot smarter than everyone else. You seem like an egocentrist.

Mirror time.

Quote:
Quote:
How is living in public housing in Chicago any better than living in Gary?

I didn't say it was better did I? No. I said it's ludacris

Image
I wanna, li-li-li-lick you from your head to your toes..

Quote:
to say
MITC wrote:
How you figure they can afford to move anywhere, especially an expensive place like Chicago, is beyond me.

They can afford to live in chicago. There's subsidized rents. There's public housing. So I counter your point that they can't move to an "Expensive city like Chicago", because that is the silliest most ridiculous thing I've seen you write and I felt you needed to be called on it.

Well, obviously I wasn't including the slums, because they'd be no better off in the slums in Chicago.

Quote:
Quote:
Training takes money.
yet I managed to work 50 hours a week, and pay for training and pay for rent and pay for food and my own health care. How did I manage that? Why can't ANYONE? I lived in a single room apartment at the time. I had to pay for my own way in life (with student loans mind you). I had barely enough to eat most of the time, but I worked hard, paid for my training and here I am.
I didn't come from money. my parents were not rich. In fact, they had to sell the house and I had to be on my own at 20. I did this all on my own. And... I'm not special. Anyone can do it.

Any one can, every one can't.

Quote:
Quote:
Because that wouldn't do much good. The key is for there to be a single-payer system; anything else won't do much good

Please detail how this is going to be funded. I don't get you yet.

I don't get how the specifics on funding are particularly important; if you disagree with UHC in the first place, what relevance is funding?

Quote:
Quote:
The injustice of landowner privilege is probably the greatest. Another major one, particularly relevant at the moment, is the dangerous level of corporate influence in the government and media. The result of this influence has been to basically disenfranchise the masses, with predictable results at the polls; who cares to vote, when you're merely choosing between corporate shills?

What injustice of landowner privilege is that?

The private collection of land rents. Back in the agrarian days, this manifested itself as share-cropping; today, it is much less visible and obvious, but hundreds of billions of dollars flow from producers to landowners annually.

_________________
You can't see me because of internet.

The landowner effectively owns part shares in millions of part-time slaves called, "taxpayers." -Roy L
A Personal Relationship with Jesus?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sicko
PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65731
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
Quote:
?? That book is not a product of a political campaign; it's a product of a rightist propaganda-artist. You sure have nerve to throw around the accusation that I don't know what propaganda is.

I sure do have nerve, how about that?
Further, I was never talking about that book.

Quote:
Uh huh. The fact is, people like Roger Smith won't be giving interviews to Michael Moore.

So you think he should drop everything that was on his agenda, and take an interview with a (at the time) nobody with a video camera who has no appointment? Would you do that? I doubt it.
Next!

Quote:
A factual basis for the belief that Moore hates America.

Well, once again, I said that was my impression of him after seeing his mockumentaries. I'm not alone either.
That is my OPINION. thank you, come again.

Quote:
Not all of it, but both mediums are rife with it. There's very little serious reporting; much of what you get on TV news shows are cannned media releases.

Well at least we have you to sort the wheat from the chaff. Thank god.

Quote:
Good rebuttal: when your own words clearly show that my interpretation of what you said is sound, just insult me.

No. My words did not clearly show what you typed. And you have been insulting me with your misquotes and you "interpertations" of what I said, and your "logical conclusions" from my arguments, missing the point each time.

Quote:
I'll have to get back to you on that. That's harder to find than you'd think, and I'm at work.

So what you're really trying to say is that you don't know how France figures their unemployment, but you somehow know however that is that it is different from the way we do it.
Ok.

Quote:
Well, you adhere to a bizarre definition of sovereignty.

The two definations I'm going off of are :
supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community
and supreme; preeminent; indisputable: a sovereign right.
So the EU has power over France's economic matters.
Please stop discussing this one, we're going in circles and you're wrong. And I'm sick of proving it.

Quote:
That was clearly your point. Why lie? Let's just have a look at what led up to this exchange:
Me: "But the bottom line is that workers in the US don't benefit from the relative superiority of their productivity."

You: "The hell they don't. US workers benefit from higher productivity by keeping their companies in business, and keeping their jobs, and keeping the economy flowing. We all benefit, as evidenced by the aforementioned significant difference in our unemployment rates."

Clearly, your implication is that the lower French productivity is responsible for their lower employment rate.

No. No.
While the U.S. workers do benefit from their increased productivity, I said absolutely nothing about the cause of French unemployment at all.
This was not my statement, nor was it my intention.
This is yet another misquote.

Quote:
Well, where's the empirical data?

Where's yours?
Obviously it depends on the business, as I said, different businesses run differently. But generally, it's fairly well accepted that the highest cost of doing business is the labor costs and associated taxes. running a google search I found hundreds of articles that support that statement.
From Medical Economics:
Quote:
The basics

For most primary care practices, the largest cost—and the biggest source of deductions, in my experience—is employee expenses. You can write off salaries for physicians and staff as well as employer-paid taxes


there's many more. But I do believe that was the accepted wisdom back in business school.
Generally speaking, payroll and benefits, including taxes is about 35%-40% of a normal average business (of course service based business have higher payroll costs over manufacturing, and factories with the excption of GM have higher costs of raw materials)
Quote:
I can't prove it's not, of course, but unless you can prove it is, this is a pointless claim. The fact is, there is no conclusive studies showing a correlation between a rise in minimum wages, and inflation. And theory dictates that there shouldn't be inflation until wages reach their true value

So you can't prove it but here you are yammering on like it is a fact that higher wages don't make prices higher.
Dude, that is easily the silliest thing I have EVER heard. it's hard to take yous seriously when you say things like that.
Oh, and what does theory have to do with the real world? Theory is just a guess until enough data comes in that would disprove it or force you to alter your postulation. And policy should't ever be dictated by theory.

Quote:
ou know very well I was talking about being ruined by medical bills. There's little that can be done for someone who's incapable of work; but, on the other hand, the very point of insurance is to spread risk so that when some person incurs high medical costs, he's not indebted for life. Our system fails in this regard.

Ok, so instead the entire population of the United States should be indebted to someone elses medical bills? Some fatass that smoked his whole life should get his heart surgery and lung transplant on my dime and I should have to be burdened with higher tax expenses over his poor life decisions?

Quote:
As a whole, it was working. The creditors were very profitable, and there was no shortage of credit available. You wanna bitch about these people "abusing" the system, but totally absolve the negligence on the part of the creditors. In fact, negligence isn't even the right word: the credit card companies intentionally target people they believe are likely to run up debt and be unable to pay it off. Go to a college campus and see their work first hand. The credit card companies were behind the change in Ch. 13 law; they wanted to weld the escape hatch shut, and be able to dupe hapless people into debt-slavery for life.

I never said that the creditors were acting properly either. personally, I think an educated consumer cannot be touched by these slimy credit card practices. These practices are slowly being outlawed, and I think things like the "credit card summary box" is an excellent example of the evolution of the lending industry.
You want to know something, the credit card companies have NOTHING on the payday loan system. Those companies are straight up evil.
But again, an educated consumer is almost immune from these problems.
if parents spent time teaching their kids these things, Credit card companies wouldn't have this problem.
But targeted or not, the borrower is ultimately responsible for his borrowing. That's all I can say, personal responsibility.

Quote:
Few people are psychic, unfortunately.

Two things:
One, no one is psychic.
Two, what? What does that have to do with anything?

Quote:
No, it's a hollow slogan used to strip away social awareness.

No, social awareness is how people who are afraid to be responsible for themselves project their risk on the population as a whole.

Quote:
That's not what I said, nor implied.

Well, it sure sounds like you implied I was a sociopath to say the least. You should meet me, MITC, I think you'd actually like me in person.

Quote:
Obviously, sympathy is why one wants to help. Humans evolved sympathy for a reason: it is the social sense that makes societies possible.

If humans were not social creatures, they wouldn't have evolved sympathy, and an individualistic philosophy based on 'personal responsibility' might make sense. But alas, we are social creatures.

ok great. So you donating your money and time to Gary's underprivelidged youth since you feel this sympathetic need to help your society?

Quote:
Or, I could try to convince my fellow citizens to arrange the structure of our society in such a way that real change is possible. The sort of program you're talking about, while certainly laudable, is ultimately insufficient: people have run such charities for thousands of years with little lasting success. We need to stop treating the symptoms and address the disease, and that can only happen when we're willing to look at the core issues

The bold section is evidence of something that we learned in Biblical times and it holds true to this very day, that you give a man a fish and he eats for a day... This is a good lesson. It has implications in your socio-economic view.

Quote:
No, tax on land: good.

Were you denied a mortgage or something? Why so much dislike in you for home ownership? I don't get it.
So in your opinion, all taxes should be on land? One of the three most important things human beings need is shelter. Why would you tax it to that proportion?

Quote:
Like I said, economic rents. The primary economic rent is land value. Also, there's things like the rent owing to spectrum rights, things like taxi medallions, and mineral rights.

Perhaps all these rents are insufficient; at that point, you may have to tax production. But to tax production before exhausting those rents is just wrong; it's an injustice at a basic level that systematically results in poverty and suffering

Hmm, Maybe America isn't quite the place for you. You don't seem to like what we are all about here. Chasing the American Dream...??? Not for you?
Don't you get it? All tax always, no matter who you tax or how, ends up coming down on the "little people". They end up paying it all in the end.

Quote:
You seem to be confusing money and wealth. The problem is, for wealth to be produced, there needs to be enough money to grease the proverbial skids.

I guess I just can't believe that. My life certainly didn't turn out like that.
Wealth, my friend, is something each of the members of this board has. No one here is hungry, living in a cardboard box like in the Dominican, or living under 50% income taxes like in France.

Quote:
No, I'm just willing to acknowledge reality. If it was so easy to get out of Gary, no one would live there. You seem to be under the impression that the residents of the Gary slums are just masochists, who could move away any time they liked, but would rather live in rat-infested shit holes. I think that the problem is that their opportunities are severely limited, so only the relatively well-equipped and fortunate individuals have a realistic chance of escaping their situation.

I could not agree with you any less than I do, and I am sick as fuck talking about this shit.
I think that the underadvantaged of Gary are less masochists, more lazy and or willing to take the handouts they have. I also know there's online classes and things they could done on their own to improve their situation, and I do not believe for a minute that a Gary resident has less opportunity than a fresh off the boat Pole who speaks no english and has not a possession to their name in 1946 New York. And those grandparents turned out just fine.

Quote:
Mirror time


You think so? So be it.

Quote:
Well, obviously I wasn't including the slums, because they'd be no better off in the slums in Chicago.

Right, because there is not one available job nor public transportation in the City of Chicago, is there?

Quote:
Any one can, every one can't.

Wrong. Every one can. Don't you have any faith in your fellow Americans? It just takes hard work.

Quote:
I don't get how the specifics on funding are particularly important; if you disagree with UHC in the first place, what relevance is funding?

You don't get how the funding on UHC is important? JESUS man, that's the CENTRAL argument AGAINST UHC! The problem is everyone wants this free health care that is hardly free at all, an no one can tell you how they'd pay for it. That's why so many people disagree with it!

Quote:
The private collection of land rents. Back in the agrarian days, this manifested itself as share-cropping; today, it is much less visible and obvious, but hundreds of billions of dollars flow from producers to landowners annually

Ain't a cent of that billions of dollard flowing into this landowner. Must be other land owners cashing those big checks.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sicko
PostPosted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:50 pm
Posts: 1530
Location: Montgomery
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/ap_ ... _hour_week


Quote:
PARIS - It's being called the coup de grace for France's decade-long experiment with a 35-hour work week — a policy that inspired both envy and ridicule in Europe and the U.S., and even some copycats.

_________________
Paws Up


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sicko
PostPosted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:37 pm
Posts: 414
Interesting point.

Quote:
But even though polls show purchasing power is voters' top concern, only 25 percent of French want to work more to earn more, according to a recent survey by the CSA polling firm.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sicko
PostPosted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65731
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
But France is a worker paradise!

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group