quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Let me reiterate: America is a socialist country.
I know it's like the sign of the apocalypse is that Americans might actually care enough to try helping each other out to the point that we damn ourselves by minimizing (dare I say eliminating) poverty.
God forbid. It's so.... ick *Christian*.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Obama's olive branch is working real well with North Korea, Iran and Somalian Pirates. Hey they haven't done that in 200 years.
First, do you not even notice when you try to change the subject?
Second, did you not even notice that pirate activity started increasing way back when Bush was in office, including attacks on American ships?
Not trying to change the subject. Responding to Oro's land of milk and honey. Can't we all just get along and share?
Sorry, first American taken hostage by a pirate in 200 years.
So what's your jackass answer, you supposed Christian- I'm an atheist, but you sound a lot more like the atheist stereotype your ilk derides. You've cut a very wide swath in this thread, from idly discussing your wish to disenfranchise the dispossessed and underprivileged, to "I don't see color," to "I'm more sensitive and caring about race than you'll ever be," to "I don't care about anyone but myself." Who and what are you, exactly? You're not anything like a patriot.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Still waiting for an example of something that costs less for the government to provide. (here's where you'll show your inconsistencies and IGNORE total cost) Please, convince me how the government is more efficient with our money than private industry......you can't. You can only deflect and state what you believe. You have no facts to back up anything.
That's just the thing, though, is that I've provided plenty of status, data, and example, and you've ignored it. I've had to reiterate these things a few times.
You don't even contest my successful examples, you just disclaim them, or ignore them entirely and then later claim that I 'havent' or that I 'can't' provide anything.
It's worse than disingenuous. It makes you look ridiculous.
This is more or less what you do with arguments you can't get or are not willing to accept. You contort around them and talk about something else. Hey, Sam's got me on that whole two and a half times the industrialized world's median. let's talk about pirates! Oh snap, the entire forum's got me on that 'there's no poverty in america' line, crap, I better talk about mooooon cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even when he was told three times that the cost of health care in America was 2.5 times greater per capita than health care in other industrialized country, while still producing inferior outcomes, he at first deliberately misread "per capita" and suggested that this was somehow different from "total cost." The total cost is an irrelevant number if you don't take into account the number of people receiving health care in America.
It happens that per person, America pays over two times the amount in health care costs in comparison with similarly industrialized nations, and sometimes more, and the outcomes are not as good from a public health perspective. Again, Mal, this is the total money spent, by everyone, for everything. And for all that money spent, by everyone, for anything, the outcomes are inferior. There is no answer to that. We lose in this regard to every other fully industrialized and modern nation in the world. Every single one. Hands down.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Since when are these things necessities to be considered non-poverty-stricken?
They're just indicators. Of course you can leave a sweet life without those things, but it leads one to wonder what someone *can* afford if they can't afford any of these things. TV and telecommunications, and to a somewhat lesser extent transportation availability has been used as an indicator of practical living standard for a long time- it works when you can't always look at relative incomes and the costs of more local goods and services- TV, telecom and transportation bears about the same cost everywhere.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
for the most part you can be dirt poor and have trouble feeding yourself or your kids and still have a tv with rabbit ears.
crt's getting phased out have slapped the cost down to a paltry sum, and they're getting traded around all over the place as hand-me-downs. I mean, it's illigitimate thought to use 'they gots a tv and a telley-phone' as an indication that someone's got no room to complain about the costs of, say, health coverage.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a TV that I bought for $50 in 1985. How does that apply to my ability to buy health insurance now?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apparently, under malanthronomics, it means you don't get to apply under the 'truly needy' bracket.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Apparently, under malanthronomics, it means you don't get to apply under the 'truly needy' bracket.
It goes even further than that. Only if you're in desperate, grinding, hopeless poverty like exists in many places in the Third World are you truly need.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
else, you get put in the single other category, which as far as I can tell is defined as 'fat lazy highshcool dropouts'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So which category does the hardworking student who subsequently got a debilitating non-preventable illness and is worried about underinsurance for the one medication that keeps her functional fit into? Hypothetically speaking, of course.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Even when he was told three times that the cost of health care in America was 2.5 times greater per capita than health care in other industrialized country, while still producing inferior outcomes, he at first deliberately misread "per capita" and suggested that this was somehow different from "total cost." The total cost is an irrelevant number if you don't take into account the number of people receiving health care in America.
It happens that per person, America pays over two times the amount in health care costs in comparison with similarly industrialized nations, and sometimes more, and the outcomes are not as good from a public health perspective. Again, Mal, this is the total money spent, by everyone, for everything. And for all that money spent, by everyone, for anything, the outcomes are inferior. There is no answer to that. We lose in this regard to every other fully industrialized and modern nation in the world. Every single one. Hands down.
You make absolutely no sense.
Per Capita = total cost per individual from all sources. I agree.
49% of all medical expenses are for 5% of the population. We spend a great deal more on the elderly than other nations. Here they have equal access to treatment and aren't prioritized by age and cost according to some universal health care cost vs benefit formula. The vast majority of health care expenses incurred in one's lifetime happen in their final six months.
The per capita cost for just about evertything in this country is higher than the rest of the world. Might have something to do with the fact that we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. Hospitals are corporations.
"Currently, the average combined federal and state corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 39.3 percent, second among OECD countries to Japan's combined rate of 39.5 percent.1 Lowering the federal rate to 30.5 percent would only lower the U.S.'s ranking to fifth highest among industrialized countries"
"24 U.S. states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than top-ranked Japan. 32 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than third-ranked Germany. 46 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than fourth-ranked Canada. All 50 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than fifth-ranked France."
Taking 40% of a corporations earnings has no impact on costs to the consumer or contribute to a failing economy in a globally competative market??????????
Until you can demonstrate that the largest US Social programs are a success you will not convince me instituting another bigger one is a good idea.
Maybe "OTHER" nations have lower costs because we have the best medical schools in the world. We have the best doctors in the world. We do most the research and development for the world. Our doctors have rediculous insurance premiums due to the Dems other favorite, lawyers. We lead the world in this industry. They benefit from our innovation without cost to them. Sit back and wait for the next great American Innovation to save their stagnant socialist asses.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are times when the Amero-centrism of the board gets to me. This is one of those times. Although to be honest, it's not "the board," it's "people whining about how healthcare is so oppressive and unfair." Props to the rest of you.
How the heck does your brain ignore the rest of the ***** developed world? How? This drives me utterly insane.
So here's something from a Canadian currently residing in England (both developed countries, both with health care). Grow up. Just grow up. Your system is broken. It fails. It is the laughingstock of oppressed and unfair (but healthy) nations. I pay a fortune to do my degree in England because I flat-out refuse to go live in a country so backwards and uncaring as the US. A place where someone with a heart condition just has to give up and die, or bankrupt themself, is never a place I want to live. It is shameful. All of you whiners who impede the implementation of a comprehensive health system should be ashamed.
We mock you. We pity you. We grieve the people who die for lack of simple care. People die like that in undeveloped nations. Not the first world. What the hell allows you to wake up in the morning and make these arguments with a clean conscience?
This is a rant. I'm not interested in arguing, especially because it seems like the "arguments" in this thread have been pretty much made (and ignored). I'm just mad on general principle and on personal circumstance.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe "OTHER" nations have lower costs because we have the best medical schools in the world.
Not really, no. The lower cost of social-model healthcare pretty much can be directly traced to improvements in the efficiency and preventative nature of their systems. Less money wasted on paperwork, less expensive care due to financially caused health neglect, and so, so many other things.
The long and short of it is that the actuarial model doesn't pay doctors to keep people healthy. It pays them to perform procedures. You can't make money being a nutritional advisor to patients with diabetes; so no structure exists to promote that. Then, later on, the taxpayers or immediate relatives have to eat it when diabetes turns into expensive amputations. Our system creates and maintains perverse incentives which cost us more as a whole.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Diabetes is on the rise due to the increase in obesity in the fattest nation on the planet. Maybe the government should tax unhealthy foods and dictate one's diet.
Here's CIA data for you on worldwide life expectancy.
Macau, Andorra, Japa, Singapore, and San Marino have it going on. They must have great social healthcare programs, or maybe it's just genetics.
Wow, pitiful United States Comes in 50th (holy cow ahead of the Czech Republic) with a whole 2 year shorter lifespan than France. I'd rather live in America for 78 years than France for 80. There's a cost to living. We eat bacon and fight your wars for you.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm quite satisfied with my health care. In fact, the average per family cost is quite low in this country. We enjoy lower unemployment rates than you while you wait in line to see the doctor or pull your own teeth out.
Pity us? I pity your muslim populations. Pull the beam out of your eye.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
And it's a response to your argument in general. If you want to criticize cherrypicking, you would do well to look at your own posts first!
quote:Diabetes is on the rise due to the increase in obesity in the fattest nation on the planet
Look, here's a perfect example of that whole reading comprehension problem you have. Right here in this very thread you have someone clarifying for you the very important point that America is not the fattest nation in the world.
By taking note of that, you could have avoided this gaffe.
The fatter nations, like the UK and Australia, do not have the same problems that we do with diabetes. It's because that despite the fact they have more fat people than we do, their system is better at treating them and everyone!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm quite satisfied with my health care. In fact, the average per family cost is quite low in this country. We enjoy lower unemployment rates than you while you wait in line to see the doctor or pull your own teeth out.
Pity us? I pity your muslim populations. Pull the beam out of your eye.
What?
Our banks are more stable. What's your point? I see no connection between unemployment rates and the social healthcare issue. I see my doctors promptly and while England needs more dentists, I've never had a problem at home.
And what the heck do you mean about our Muslim populations? What does that have to do with anything marginally related to healthcare?
And I believe The Rabbit, Samprimary, and others have amply addressed the "cost per family" issue.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certain racial groups have higher rates of diabetes, obesity and shorter lifespans. Whe happen to have more of them who are both fat and live here. Your lilly white enlightened European nations haven't quite figure out how to desegregate yet.
I suppose you'll argue it isn't segregation as long as it's governmnent provided housing right?
I tend to view the EU as a nation. You have one currency and have less independence plus our states are larger than may of your "nations".
Australia: many overweight indiginous people who suffer in misery under Australian social welfare programs. I've been there many times, reminded me of 1950's America. Talk about racial intolerance. They give them welfare checks and shove em out into the desert. I was in a bar in Melbourne when an indiginous made the mistake of coming in, he was beat down and herded out.
Your lilly white islands are no basis for comparison to this nation. California alone is more of a nation in terms of GDP and diversity than the UK or Au.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apparently you don't read very thoroughly, or you'd have picked up on the part where I said I am Canadian.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Economic strength, IE unemployment, is impacted significantly by government taxation. While European nations have had larger social welfare programs, they have also had higher tax and unemployment rates.
Muslim populations? In America they are second only to Asian's in terms of income. How are they doing in Europe? Sure, they have healthcare but here they can achieve. I used them to illustrate how European nations are far from enlightened and "evolved". You are less tolerant than the US and we don't want your pity.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm quite satisfied with my health care. In fact, the average per family cost is quite low in this country. We enjoy lower unemployment rates than you while you wait in line to see the doctor or pull your own teeth out.
Pity us? I pity your muslim populations. Pull the beam out of your eye.
In case you were wondering mal, that was an opportune time to apply "turn the other cheek." But by all means keep going, I can only speak for myself, but watching you beat your head against the wall is moderately entertaining.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry but, statistics aside, are nations "more" nation-y when they have a higher GDP or higher diversity?
I agree that Australia appears to be pretty tragically racist*, and Britain has, perhaps, even more problems of its own. But this is a discussion about socialist health care: I'll take the quote, "Sure, they have healthcare" as an admission that the British health care system does work.
You do not mention Canada. Canada may not be quite as populace, rich or (I'm not sure about this) diverse as certain parts of the US--so it may in your definition, not count as an nation--, but it does have a level of socialised health care (successful), higher tolerance of minorities, and (I believe) at least an equal success of minorities.
*
quote:many overweight indiginous people who suffer in misery under Australian social welfare programs.
Am I mistaken in saying that in America (and Canada) many indigenous people also suffer living below the poverty line? They may not be beaten in bars, but their situation isn't, as far as I know, all that much better.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure it is. And it does get tiresome trying to go up against the Borg proletariat.
The administration had better hurry up and pass their programs because they will lose the congress in a year and a half.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I'm sorry but, statistics aside, are nations "more" nation-y when they have a higher GDP or higher diversity?
I agree that Australia appears to be pretty tragically racist*, and Britain has, perhaps, even more problems of its own. But this is a discussion about socialist health care: I'll take the quote, "Sure, they have healthcare" as an admission that the British health care system does work.
You do not mention Canada. Canada may not be quite as populace, rich or (I'm not sure about this) diverse as certain parts of the US--so it may in your definition, not count as an nation--, but it does have a level of socialised health care (successful), higher tolerance of minorities, and (I believe) at least an equal success of minorities.
*
quote:many overweight indiginous people who suffer in misery under Australian social welfare programs.
Am I mistaken in saying that in America (and Canada) many indigenous people also suffer living below the poverty line? They may not be beaten in bars, but their situation isn't, as far as I know, all that much better.
Canada still has higher unemployment (8%). America should send Canada a bill for not needing a real military. If we had an adjoining country willing to protect us we could probably afford socialized medicine as well. The UN should pay us for our military aid. We are overextending ourselves in the world for the interest of other nations.
Last time I checked, native americans are doing pretty well. Florida is busy trying to figure out how to tax them as well.
Stating that a country has socialized medicine is not an admission that it works. It may work but only at the expense of other things, taxation, unemployment, lines, rationing, etc. They've argued that Social Security works, so long as we lower benefits, increase the age and increase taxes. If you define a system working by any means of self preservation of the system, you are right. The system survives, at any and all cost.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
malanthrop: While you are right that the unemployment rate has traditionally been higher in Canada than in the US, as far as I can tell, the Canadian unemployment rate sits, at this moment, presently just under or around the American rate. This is likely because the American economy has been hit much harder in the recession.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It may work but only at the expense of other things, taxation, unemployment, lines, rationing,
I've said elsewhere in this thread that higher taxes doesn't actually destroy a country. The poor would rather wait in a line and get treatment than die without it: it's only the rich who can afford other care who mind. I'm not sure how having more bureaucracy affects unemployment. I assume you mean rationing of resources--that may be the case but again (as with lines) the poor would rather have a hope at getting what they need than no chance at all.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
malanthrop: It's obvious to at least me that we live in a fantastic country. In many ways it leads the world, but even you noted that the US is ranked 50th in terms of life expectancy. You then proceeded to bash France. Why does your patriotism come hand in hand with disdain for other countries? America is not an original creation, it started as a conglomeration of great ideas from many different places. Sure we've got all sorts of original ideas that we came up with that other countries have taken. We don't lose face for saying, "Hey they're doing it better in Sri Lanka why aren't we doing it?"
George Washington once said, "As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."
Why shouldn't all those who work hard and remain citizens in good standing not have the protection of their health? Of what good is any of my rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights if I am not alive to enjoy them?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: malanthrop: While you are right that the unemployment rate has traditionally been higher in Canada than in the US, as far as I can tell, the Canadian unemployment rate sits, at this moment, presently just under or around the American rate. This is likely because the American economy has been hit much harder in the recession.
It's a world wide economic down turn. It only makes sense that the largest economy in the world would be impacted at a very high rate. Looking at long term unemployment rates, the US is way ahead of most European nations.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Certain racial groups have higher rates of diabetes, obesity and shorter lifespans. Whe happen to have more of them who are both fat and live here. Your lilly white enlightened European nations haven't quite figure out how to desegregate yet.
You're beaching your argument again.
Australia is not a European nation and — by gum, they seem to have these folks over there called 'aboriginals' covered under the spectre of their health care structure.
Australia's healthcare system got butchered under John Howard and it's still better than ours Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry if anyone got the impression that I don't like the US. I don't want to live there (for healthcare and other reasons), but I like the vast majority of Americans I know, and I like the ideals of the country. I like the ideal of democracy and equality that's held so dearly south of the border. Living in the UK (which has its own flaws, HELLO CCTV), I often find myself in the position of defending the US. It's part of why the healthcare issue upsets me so much. You've got a great country, on the whole. Why this one glaring failure? It's one of the richest and most powerful countries on earth, yet people are still dying from lack of care. All those lofty ideals aren't being lived up to.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, then it's unfair to quote the present Canadian rate against some nebulous lower US rate.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: malanthrop: It's obvious to at least me that we live in a fantastic country. In many ways it leads the world, but even you noted that the US is ranked 50th in terms of life expectancy. You then proceeded to bash France. Why does your patriotism come hand in hand with disdain for other countries? America is not an original creation, it started as a conglomeration of great ideas from many different places. Sure we've got all sorts of original ideas that we came up with that other countries have taken. We don't lose face for saying, "Hey they're doing it better in Sri Lanka why aren't we doing it?"
George Washington once said, "As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."
Why shouldn't all those who work hard and remain citizens in good standing not have the protection of their health? Of what good is any of my rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights if I am not alive to enjoy them?
The difference between 50th and 7th (first european) is only 2 years. I was pointing out the diversity of the US contributes to the decline in this statistic. Afican American males have a much lower life expectancy that has little to do with medical care. Various ethnic groups have different life expectancies. Go back to the list. The top 5 are relatively obscure nations, primarilly asian. Their lifespan has more to do with genetics and diet. White people live longer. European nations that are primarilly white will have longer life expectancies than other nations with large minority populations. The European diet is well suited to white people and not indiginous. Native American in Arizona have the highest obesity and diabetec rate in America. Their ancestors lived in the desert on meager amounts of food for thousands of years. Now they have European quantities and types of food. Asians tend to be lactose intolerant, etc. It may be up PC to point out the differences in people but there are many factors that contribute to life expectancy, I would argue more so than universal health care.
"Why shouldn't all those who work hard and remain citizens in good standing not have the protection of their health? "
I absolutely agree. If you fail to work hard and remain a citizen in good standing, the one who does, does not owe you anything. The hard working citizens should not supplement the others. There are choices in life. Hard work does not include one's daily labor but lifelong labor. You may not have graduated from high school and you work hard shovelling sand but your income is still based upon your choices in life.
I seriously doubt that Washingtons interpretation of "liberal" was the same as we see it today.
George Washington once said, "As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."
He was discussing tolerance. Liberal minded to understand a Muslim who is a good citizen would be recognized on an equal level with the Christian. The African American who "conducts himself as worthy member" of the community are entitle to equal protections. IMO a worthy member of society contributes as a productive member of society.
"equally entitled to the protections of civil government" This exhists. Equality of opportunity not of outcome. A government that takes from one to give to another is not protecting rather victimizing one for the sake of the other.
Justice: the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
- You get what you deserve or suffer the consequences.
Liberality: 1. generosity 2. the quality of being broad-minded
American's are the most generous people on the face of the earth. Government taxation is not generosity, if it were Obama wouldn't attempt to limit tax deductions on charitible contributions. We are more inculsive within our society than most other nations.
You succeed or fail on your own merits.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Welllllllllllll we have other glaring failures but on the whole they're more 'trivial' or at least less impacting towards our quality of life. Stuff like how we screwed up our telecom systems, various energy crises, mismanagement of our own vehicle regulation, missteps in land management, credit default swap nonregulation, torture, etc.
I mean, the health care issue is interesting because it is, more or less, an accident of history, according to Malcolm Gladwell. Had things gone just a little bit differently during a fantastic quantity of points during our country's past, we would not have our healthcare system and therefore nobody on earth would manage health in a developed country with an actuarial model. It would not even be considered.
There is pretty much a single large reason why the UHC debate is continued so fiercely to this day and age. CATO, a VERY entrenched, ideological think tank, pretty much outlined the reason why very sufficiently.
They analyzed places like Great Britain and other similar G8 nations that switched to a social healthcare model and they realized that:
quote:A "single payer" national health system -- known as "socialized medicine" in the rest of the developed world -- should be an essential part of the change that the core constituencies which elected Obama desperately need. Britain serves as an important political lesson for strategists. After the Labor Party established the National Health Service after World War II, supposedly conservative workers and low-income people under religious and other influences who tended to support the Conservatives were much more likely to vote for the Labor Party...
And in a parallel conclusion, James Pethokoukis, at U.S. News and World Report noted:
quote:The GOP strategist had been joking about the upcoming presidential election and giving his humorous assessments of the candidates. Then he suddenly cut out the schtick and got scary serious. "Let me tell you something, if Democrats take the White House and pass a big-government healthcare plan, that's it. Game over. Government will dominate the economy like it does in Europe. Conservatives will spend the rest of their lives trying to turn things around and they will fail...
Translation: this is something of an eleventh hour situation for the GOP. They know — they know — that once we go UHC we ain't never goin' back, and they will suffer tremendously for it.
If UHC gets implemented, they are boned.
The success of UHC could, to use some Dramatic Postulative Imagery, could doom the party.
They HAVE to stop it. If you are a tactician for the GOP, you could realize that UHC is better for the people, better for our financial health, better for the country, better by every reasonable metric, and you would still have to invest a crazy amount of money and energy trying desperately to keep people seeded with hate and distrust for the notion of converting to UHC, because if you let it happen, your party is dicked.
They are forced to defend a nearly indefensible system and put out a furious quantity of agitprop to keep the malanthrops of the world dogmatically entrenched against it.
It is a SERIOUS issue.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute, who first found that wonderful Markowitz quote, puts it succinctly in a recent blog post: "Blocking Obama's health plan is key to the GOP's survival."
posted
It is very fascinating. No better whay to get and maintain power than to have your voters dependent upon you. I would wager 95% of welfare recipients vote Democrat. I'll give you another one, amnesty. Obama and Pelosi give amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens, that alone will tip the scales of power forever.
Maybe we should study the downfall of Rome. You'll vote for the guy who gives you free bread. This was a much earlier question. Is it appropriate to promise so much in return for a vote. We all know from elementary school, promising ice cream for a vote is wrong. Instead we get, I'll tax the rich and give you their money, I'll give you free health care, I'll give you free college,etc etc.
You are absolutely right. American people want hand outs and there are those in power who want power. What is in the best interest of the nation as a whole comes second. When the rich begin to diminish and can no longer support the people with their hands out to the goverment we'll see the result of killing the spirit of individualism and personal responsibility.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or, instead of thinking of it as bribery, you can think of it as a successful experiment which the majority of voters see as beneficial to the nation as a whole. Of course we vote for people whose plans and idea we agree with. People of ALL party loyalties do this. And if healthcare was implemented (by a democratically elected president, don't forget), and people realised it doesn't actually lead to darkest soviet-style communism, perhaps they would switch to vote that way. That's not bribery, that's a successful and healthy democracy.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: It is very fascinating. No better whay to get and maintain power than to have your voters dependent upon you.
lawl. More like "no better way (sp) to get and maintain power than to fix broken systems and improve and maintain the quality of life"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would wager 95% of welfare recipients vote Democrat.
You'd be wrong. Most welfare recipients don't vote.
I'd also like to point out, that welfare is a very small portion of government handouts. The people getting the most handouts from the government are the very wealthy who benefit from corporate welfare. People getting the largest government handouts, largely vote republican. They are the only segment of society that consistently votes to line their own pocket books.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Sixty-six percent of Americans approve of the job President Obama is now doing, and that is a new high for his presidency," said Sarah Dutton, who directs surveys for CBS News. "Twenty-four percent disapprove."
wait
wait for it
okay, back up to frame two
HOLD IT
okay, now highlight the top portion of the quote with bold tags
quote:"Sixty-six percent of Americans approve of the job President Obama is now doing, and that is a new high for his presidency," said Sarah Dutton, who directs surveys for CBS News. "Twenty-four percent disapprove."
My god johnson! Are we seeing this right!
Enhance!
quote:"Sixty-six percent of Americans approve of the job President Obama is now doing, and that is a new high for his presidency," said Sarah Dutton, who directs surveys for CBS News.
Enhance!
quote:Sixty-six percent of Americans approve of the job President Obama is now doing
Shift frame over to the second part!
quote:a new high for his presidency
MY GOD, ENGINEERING, GET A TIMESTAMP ON THAT QUOTE
quote:07 April 2009
*stunned disbelief*
Get the president on the phone. We're in bizarro world. The higher Obama's support is, the more malanthrop knows he would lose in a hypothetical election.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Certain racial groups have higher rates of diabetes, obesity and shorter lifespans. Whe happen to have more of them who are both fat and live here. Your lilly white enlightened European nations haven't quite figure out how to desegregate yet.
:snort:
"I don't see race."
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, Sam. That was weird. I half deleted my post and then tried to delete it but yours must have perfectly replaced it and it kept giving me a "you can only delete your own posts" message. Straaange.
quote:posted April 10, 2009 01:11 AM CDT
posted April 10, 2009 03:24 AM
posted April 10, 2009 06:15 AM
posted April 10, 2009 08:29 AM
posted April 10, 2009 08:45 AM
posted April 10, 2009 08:50 AM
posted April 10, 2009 08:53 AM
posted April 10, 2009 09:05 AM
Sleep 9:30-4:00 (7 hours)
posted April 10, 2009 04:25 PM
posted April 10, 2009 04:53 PM
posted April 10, 2009 04:56 PM
posted April 10, 2009 05:22 PM
posted April 10, 2009 05:28 PM
posted April 10, 2009 05:48 PM
posted April 10, 2009 05:52 PM
posted April 10, 2009 06:20 PM
posted April 10, 2009 06:48 PM
posted April 10, 2009 07:24 PM
posted April 10, 2009 07:41 PM
For someone who works hard, malanthrop sure posts a lot.
Unless he took today off, I guess, and normally works the night shift so he didn't want to throw off his sleeping groove.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A few pages back mal, you claimed that you were overpaid for short term government contracts. Can you explain the difference between being overpaid by the government and getting a government handout?
I bet the percent of the budget that goes to overpaid contractors (like you claim to be) is far higher than the percent that goes to welfare recipients.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
But thanks, it's also food for thought.
