by Alives
Mon Jan 3rd, 2011 1:22am
[score: 644,878 | approval: 94%]
Crackajack, iliketurtles, inzombiac, Matt92, Max-a-Million, Memout, oblio, oweff, room217, Wilcarlie 0 Revisions
Monday, January 3 |
|
| Alives submitted item to bordom.net with title | 1:22am |
| oweff added tag steven colbert | 3:48am |
| Keke added tag truth | 12:43pm |
| Item was promoted with 94% approval | 1:20pm |
Loading...
178 Comments
it says in the bible that the poor man who donates his only two pennies is more righteous than the rich man who donates $100 (not exact monetary figures, but the point of the phrase remains the same)
we may donate the most but that's mostly because we have, by far, the most total.
the Sweden donates nearly 5x more of their TOTAL income to charity, and they are no where near as wealthy as us.
If we are going biblical, "God" would be more pleased with those "socialists" than ourselves.
Thus we go back to Colbert's quote, we either shut the hell up about Christian values or we man up and admit you just don't care that much.
Jesus looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the offering box, and he saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins. And he said, “Truly, I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them. For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.” Luke 21:1-4
But I also stand by what I said about Americans:
It is such a FLIMSY argument
The lower income people who get the charity money, BENEFIT regardless of whether or not it was a voluntary charity or a nationalized social program.
Its ALL about helping people, and people who need help should get SOME form of aid from people who are well of.
Those who do volunteer to donate to charity, they get a nice big tax write-off
Selfish pricks on the other hand, should either be forced pay to insure Their neighbor doesn't suffer NEEDLESSLY
Or stop espousing biblical dogma
You guys have no argument, the US donates VERY LITTLE in regards to it's total income, and it's the total income that matters - to both myself and your god.
You know the ironic part? I am an atheist and I know your bible better most of its followers do.
He has donated to
Autism Speaks
Charity Folks
Collaboration Foundation
Comic Relief
Feeding America
First Book
Global Fund for Women
Parkinson Society Maritime Region
Save the Children
Yellow Ribbon Fund
You donate to any of the above or any organization at all Joejmz?
Let me try my hand at a Joejmzism:
"Liberals like Joejmz are interested in doing absolutely zero actual research, instead relying on their infamous 'gut' and or cherry picking facts that suit their needs like saying 'US donates the MOST MONEY EVER!!!' Ignoring the fact that in relative to total income, the US is the lowest contributor per capita in the G20, yet somehow remain immune to the actual truth that stares them in the face on a daily basis"
Secondly, the concept of wealth redistribution is misleading, as it focuses on what is being taken away without paying any attention as to how it got there. If the wealth of this nation were redistributed, YOU would stand to gain (I'm assuming you aren't actually already in possession of several million bucks that you want to keep a hold of?) There is already a vast system of wealth redistribution occurring in this country: money earned through the effort and ingenuity of actual workers is chiefly distributed into the coffers of someone other than the worker. This is compounded the further away from the peak of any organization you go: the lowest are paid the least. This may seem natural, however it is the degree of disparity between the least and the greatest which is both terrifying and utterly unnecessary.
The richest are getting richer at an alarming rate, while at the same time, many of those workers face stagnated wages, declining benefits, rising cost of living and health-care, and a very insecure future as to whether or not they will have a job at all. However, in the strangest twist of all, many of those same workers are too worried about losing what little they have left to share a little with their neighbor in a way that can benefit them both.
Universal healthcare benefits everyone, including those that don't need it. The health of others effects you, even if you don't realize it. From common colds to nationwide epidemics, to merely being able to get a broken limb fixed without incurring loads of debt. A healthy nation is a nation full of healthy workers. And in a nation with universal healthcare, it costs less, both up-front and after taxes to get treatment.
Unemployment benefits and other social safety-nets benefit everyone by taking the sting out of disaster. Germany and Sweden faired far better during the recent/current global depression than American and many others, because they, as a nation, set aside some of their wealth for times of hardship, and in those times, the nation could support the workers, just as the workers had supported the nation.
Our government and our society is something we should invest in, and in return we should receive a return on that investment: growth and support. The amount of time, money, effort and stress that individual Americans expend on securing their personal future in a cold, unsupportive nation, could easily be re-invested into a system wherein we are all cared for, because we are all caring for each other. It may seem sappy, but America is stupendously wealth, and yet we are incredibly stupid with what we do with that wealth.
I live in Sweden, and things are a lot easier here when it comes to healthcare and the like. You Americans (and by that I don't mean all Americans, of course) seem to make things a whole lot harder than it has to be, what with the whole insurance deal. Here in Sweden, it's simple: If you're a Swedish citizen, and you need healthcare, YOU GET FUCKING HEALTHCARE. I don't see how that is such a difficult concept to grasp for some people. It's great, because you don't have to worry about healthcare in the least. You know that you're taken care of, you know that if you get in an accident or get really sick, you won't be in a pinch just because you don't have money.
Something I've seen people (Mainly Americans and people from other countries without socialized/"universal" healthcare) complaining about is that people with serious injuries and diseases will die waiting in line and such because a lot more people will be getting healthcare... but I can tell you that this simply doesn't happen. Countries with socialized healthcare (or at least Sweden) have a policy that people with the more severe injuries and diseases GET PRIORITY. Once again, not that difficult of a concept to grasp, yet people seem to have trouble with it! If you've got a cold and you go to the hospital, then well, yeah, you can expect to have to wait in line for ages. But if you think you might have a deadly disease? You will get top priority and won't have to wait very long at all.
Also, please realize that the Democrats aren't all that left-wing. On a scale of 1-10 where 1 is extreme left and 10 is extreme right, I'd place the Democrats at around 6-7, and the Republicans at 8-9. Here in Sweden, one of our most right-wing parties, The Moderates, are also considered liberals... but the funny thing is that they're more left-wing than your Democrats, despite being our right-wing alternative :P
Really, all a lot of you need is some perspective!
I pay my medicare/medicaid taxes and, yet, when I get sick, I don't get to participate because...I had sufficient income to pay those taxes. God bless the USA!
Americans see boogy men everywhere. The most violent society to ever exist and yet it fears its own shadow. I don't believe you can call America one country anymore. The nation is breaking up and this deep down is what is troubling the population. War, the old reliable to rally all around the flag no longer works as a national common cause. The states are evolving radically different laws, the supreme court seeks to make policy not judge according to the law and you can't get rid of them by election. The federal system cannot bail out bankrupt states and yet you have yahoos wanting tax cuts as if somehow less money is the answer. The decline of America is inevitable.
Also America has been a socialist country for decades. No American could own a home without the entire mortage industry receiving Government guarantees. Every mortgage in the USA is a tax payer loan.
Stop simplifying difficult problems. It makes you look like a moron.....If you have the answer, do something about it. Posting on a blog of unknown is not doing something. If you are so smart, DO SOMETHING.....effing douchebags. Why not just quote some Nietzsche, and act like you have a brain.
Quick name the only country to ever use a nuke on another country/people...
Exactly.
This is a great country and that greatness has allowed people to become very prosperous. all we ask for in return, as a nation, is your support. We have these hypocrites that get rich of the fat of this nation then setup off shore corporations to avoid giving back to the very nation that allowed them to prosper. Companies take advantage patent offices, Transportation systems, the legal system etc. It's easy to see that the wealthy use these systems and benefit from them far more than the average middle class.
"I love it when "intellectuals" try to simplify things with "facts" that have no credence at all. Ninety percent of the comments here, are from people who have NO clue about anything except the picture on the front cover of the book. The other twenty nine point 3 percent read inside the front cover.
Stop simplifying difficult problems. It makes you look like a moron.....If you have the answer, do something about it. Posting on a blog of unknown is not doing something. If you are so smart, DO SOMETHING.....effing douchebags. Why not just quote some Nietzsche, and act like you have a brain."
.. I love it when fucking morons try to stand up and talk with the big boys... 90%+ 29.3%= 119.3% .. Now guess what you freakin retard... these people ARE discussing a proposed solution but there are people who stand in the way who think this isn't a solution at all. That is the essence of a debate you uneducated baffoon. Two opposing sides of an issue argue and counter argue. You can't change the other persons mind EVER but what you CAN do is hopefully get the people listening in to agree with you more than they agree with the other person. Then your cause builds up a strong enough voice things get done. So I advise you to leave this to the intellectuals who know how these things really work and keep your simpleton mouth shut like a good boy.
What will happen when you have a population of people that cant fend for themselves because they have learned to rely on handouts from the government? Who will be the rich when there are no more rich to tax?
I believe in giving a hand up, but you cant bring down 100 to lift up 10.
I Have a Masters Degree in Social Sciences from Case Western, Currently working on completing my Phd. I guess not reading books has done well for me.
If you want to have an in depth discussion on the policies that have a detrimental effect everyday people in the interest of furthering the advancement of political cronies we can do that but I often fine the most elegant of ideas are the one that can be boiled down to the simplest of statements. Don't get your justifications confused with logic.
In the USA, it comes down to the centralization of power. The Founding Fathers were trying to form a system like the ancient Greek city-states where 90% of the laws are made at the local level. If California or Massachusetts want socialized medicine? Fine. Let them have their socialized medicine and leave the states that don't want it alone (never mind the arguments about people flocking to those states and crashing the system, because the same thing will happen to the entire country if we institute that system on a Federal level). The power of the US Federal government was designed to be minimal and limited. This is what the Tea Party movement is about, and it's something that leftists would understand if they knew anything about the founding of this country.
As for the topic at hand, Christians can and MUST give to the poor if they are able; and we do, generally speaking.
Now the question of charity comes up. If we didn't have substantial starvation and homelessness in our country, and if we didn't have millions of medically uninsured, I might buy the argument that we (Christians and others) donate enough. But, it is clear that we do not, so we have to make the decision as to whether we should compel people (through taxation) to contribute to the nation's bottom-line standard of living.
When was the last time you donated a round of chemotherapy?
btw, ill keep my own views on whether or not a social safety net is a good thing or not, im sure you guessed which side i take but all im doing is sticking your nose in the poop that is the "Christian Conservative" platform.
and lol @ you saying that intellectualism (intelligence) and facts (truth) for being menial - they are the driving force behind every historic age from stone to electronic
so mark, you think im a dick? a dick who poisons the minds of your youth and points the flaws of your bible? something like that i take it?
you're a christian right? - "forgive" me.
meanwhile ill go on promoting social equality and equitable education
however i would approach your argument with a modification of my own: id be in favor giving all these extra tax dollars directly to charity organizations instead of letting the government do it
so do you have a problem with the government taking from the rich to give to charity? because charity is still struggling to help those who do, as you say - need it.
so lets narrow the request - i submit aiding the "lazy" (those who have done little in the way of job searching) is a bad idea, and ill even say certain wealthy folks who have worked hard for their wealth should keep it. but theres still a 4th kind of person.
we've talked about the lazy poor, the hard working poor, and the hard working rich. well what about the lazy rich? we have a LOT of those.
im looking at you paris hilton. a far higher tax on passive income would go a long way at making this country better. yes better, because a nation is only as good as its lowest common denominator .
You make a million a year? You are still poor. Don't be so stupid. You make nothing. No natural resources are left on our lands. No factories on our shores. You better be ready to make some f@3klng concessions you spoiled little pricks. You live by the grace of those 'beneath' you who you rob for your very existence. A rice worker is more useful than your god damned middle management ass.
By what stretch of the imagination do you feel you are entitled to anything you have ever 'worked' for? Government, law and order are the hallmarks of society. Everything we have is from pooling our resources and dividing them by need. You sound like useless monarchy denying peasants the very food they grow in order to expand their ever growing desires for abstract pleasures they have since grown numb to.
Let me put this simply. The best thing for you to do is relinquish what ever you can in the vain hope that those less fortunate than yourself see this as an act of charity and overlook the fact that you are merely returning what is rightfully theirs.
In a world of such abundance, and with minds so bright as our own, the lack of mere empathy should not be for debate. Even dogs let others feast upon their gains once they are full.
What am I saying? Comparing the average capitalist to a dog is a poor thing to say of the noble canine. They are loving and kind, even if emotional and cognitively inferior. You are simply the latter.
I understand that if you take your heel of the neck your subjects you risk being torn asunder by their malice. Good. They grow, you shrink. It is how capitalism works. The rich get richer, the poor, poorer. Soon, you will be sorely out numbered, and people so desperate they will do anything for change.
Again, the best thing you can do, is to relinquish what you can, and thank the Lord, or the universe, or whatever you thank for fortune, that you live by the generosity of others. For you are the lecherous beggars, not those who you deny fair share.
Fuck that guy.
It wouldn't work in poorer countries since there's no resources, but we (most of europe and north america, australia, select asian countries) are the winners in this zero-sum game. I can't really see how you wouldn't be in favor of feeding people, because even if some people abuse the system, you (roughly all people who oppose wealth distribution) still have more than enough.
Go to gapminder.org. Here's a link for this particular graph: http://www.bit.ly/dUtKpY
The US giving is quite low compared to other western democracies. It's high point was during the Kennedy years and it's low point during Clinton's 2nd term.
do you know an ironic statement when you see one i wonder?
There's always some one poorer so presumably these liberals are happy to have the government take it from them and give it to some one further down the tree. Hmmm, I'm thinking no, it's different for them, they haven't earned, err, got much - those tall poppies up there in their big houses, you know, the ones that made something of themselves? They're the ones that should fork it out!
a poor man paying (arbitrary figures here) $1,000 and a wealthy man paying $1,000 is total bull and you know it. progressive tax makes perfect sense.
the crux of the matter is that you wealthy christian W.A.S.P's also need to shut the fuck up about being so selfless while we are fighting tooth and nail over this argument.
"The simple liberal argument - you have it, I don't. I want it so give it to me or someday I'll come and take it by force. "
No, that's your simple strawman.
1. What you have you did not personally earn. You may think you earned it, however you are deeply indebted to a system composed of millions of other people. If it were not for that system you wouldn't have any more than a few stone tools and some animal hides to cover your crotch. Your ability to even purchase something as high tech as an iPad, or as basic as water, is dependent upon the current and past efforts of the people of this nation. Our nation's aggressive foreign policy, numerous resources, and long history of innovation and industry permit an economy in which consumer goods and basic necessities are cheap and plentiful. This situation is not naturally the case, nor will it necessarily remain the case for much longer if current trends are allowed to continue.
2. Even though you may not wish to have what is "yours" taken away from you, and I would be somewhat upset as well, the issue is that what is "yours" is ALREADY being taken away from you and you receive very little in return. Many people complain about government taxes and about high consumer prices, but too few people criticize their employers. The profit from your labors goes largely to someone other than yourself. Your ideas earn more money for someone who paid you to think of them than they do for you.
3. What you can earn in return for your efforts is dependent upon where you are geographically, what you do, and how well you APPEAR to do it. There is no meritocracy. There is no recognition for actual productivity or ingenuity. People who are nearer the flow of money, be they bankers or waitresses will always earn more than those who produce but don't handle the profits.
Part of the "liberal" mindset is that we view the world and think, "that's fucked up. what can WE do to make it better?" When I talk about wealth redistribution, I don't want to just average the wealth of the entire world and give each person $14,588.32 and claim that everything is fixed. That would be idiotic. What I do want to fix is the idea that there should be an exponential difference between those at the very bottom and those at the top. This isn't merely some Marxist nuttery, it is essential to the preservation of a consumer economy AND a democracy that the citizenry be adequately compensated. We, the middle class, are being gradually reduced to the same state of poverty and helplessness that the lower class has always endured. However in our own selfish interests, we continually side with the interests of the wealthy, foolishly thinking that by doing so we will preserve our own rapidly shrinking station.
There are many issues that this nation will face in the coming decade, and many of them are BEST solved by collective action. Health-care for example is less expensive for the individual if, instead of paying For-Profit insurance companies exorbitant rates AND paying hospitals for the myriad of fees and procedures that the insurance companies prefer not to cover, we were to take the money that we would ALREADY be paying, and use it for everyone's health-care. Sure, "your" money might be used to treat someone else, maybe even someone you don't like very much, but the same can be said of "their" money as well. By investing in others, you can invest in yourself as well. A healthy nation is a nation filled with healthy workers.
If it's wrong to enforce charity because it is a Christian ideal and should be voluntarily done, why do you seek to enforce Christian morality through banning same-sex marriage or abortion?
toomanymonkies is a moron but I dispute the fact that the money I earn isn't necessarily mine just because other people in the market place make it possible for me to earn it. If you make a contract with someone it is because both people feel it is a good idea to work together in order to reap certain benefits. My ability to add value is different than someone else's. People earn based on their ability to add value to society because people are willing to pay for services that either will improve their quality of life or help them be able to improve their quality of life. Everyone makes choices that benefit them. If you use your abilities to make it worth someone else's best interest to contract with you why does it matter what has happened in the past? People act individually and should be rewarded as such because not everyone contributes to societal systems. The way we determine how valuable each person is to society it is their monetary value. I would not agree with a basic safety net but I understand that the majority of people would support one and I think the US has a happy medium. Also, I believe that this nation was founded by deists not Christians who realized that it was important not to hold yourself as a slave to the system such as religion or its new replacement the welfare state. I strongly believe that my body is my own and the choices I make with it are mine and the consequences should also be mine and nobody else's.
^blow me up if you want but that's the truth.
The only reason universal health care is cheaper is because you more than triple the number of people covered. The choice made here is to either:
a) keep a higher price and offer everyone the same quality of healthcare
or
b) lower the price and provide everyone substantially lower quality healthcare
we chose b.
Are you from another country? Because we of the USA did not choose 'b.' And we didn't choose 'a' either. The healthcare bill which passed is not universal healthcare, it is universally mandated subscription to For-Profit insurance with far too many loopholes and too few restrictions on price inflation to do anything other than ensure that healthcare costs continue to rise.
America, by being on of the few countries that relies upon a For-Profit pricing structure, bears the brunt of the R&D cost for drugs and medical innovation, while other nations with universal healthcare are able to collectively bargain for lower prices. There are some trade-offs to a universal, such as non-essential care may take longer to receive, however you can still receive it at minimal cost. As it is, in America, many people forgo all but the most essential care which they MUST receive regardless of the cost, and consequently miss many opportunities to catch an issue at a more treatable stage.
What is the point of having word-class healthcare if almost no-one makes use of it because they can't afford it? Particularly when we could have something nearly as good which everyone could make use of.
Healthcare costs as much as it does in part because it consists of individuals receiving individualized care from other, highly trained individuals using high tech equipment. That is unavoidably costly. However, through education subsidies and restraining the cost of malpractice insurance, we can lower the gross salaries of doctors without proportionally decreasing their net pay. The other side of high medical prices is largely due to a hospital's ability to charge a dying man whatever he will pay, regardless of his ability to pay it. This creates a plentiful flow of money which allows the use of costly but otherwise unnecessary practices and technology, and supports a giant billing bureaucracy which would be otherwise utterly unnecessary.
Quality MUST be compromised to lower cost, ONLY if the present system is maintained. By restructuring, it is possible to maintain high standards of care while lowering total costs.
Only 17% of our nation is uninsured and the vast majority of that number is illegal immigrants, so I don't know where you are getting your statistics.
And only 32 nations in the world use any system of universal health care so I don't see how the United States is one of the "few" (162/194 officially recognized countries= 84% of the world).
I think the major issue comes down to choice; people want to be able to choose to have health care or not.
Another issue realated to quality is the longer waits associated with a universal health care system. Someone in need of cancer treatment may have to wait month's between visits to a specialist and that is valuable time that someone with cancer cannot afford
"it is because both people feel it is a good idea"
I think it's a good idea to pay you $11/hr to perform a job which three years ago you could have earned $25/hr. I am able to make you this offer because the job market is now flooded with highly qualified candidates desperate for work. You, running out of the meager amount of unemployment provided by your bankrupt state which is desperately slashing all safety nets because no-one has been willing to raise taxes for the last decade, are grudgingly willing to take this job.
or...
I am a manager of the sole real source of work in town. My employees don't have a union, partially because they find the very idea repulsive due to decades of anti-union propoganda. They like to think of themselves as rugged individualists who are valued for their product. I prefer to look at spreadsheets. My company is doing fine, however it could be doing better. If I could pay fewer people less to work harder, my profit margin would rise tremendously. So I fire the lot of them and hire back only a few who are desperate enough to take a significant cut in pay. Maybe I just cart in immigrant labor so I don't have to deal with people who think that they are entitled to a living wage. Any man who grows too tired to keep up the pace is fired and replaced with another fresh and desperate body. Many of my workers eventually turn to meth just to be able to keep up with the frenetic pace and grueling hours while the town turns to shambles (Welcome to small town America over the last half century)
"My ability to add value is different than someone else's. People earn based on their ability to add value to society because people are willing to pay for services that either will improve their quality of life or help them be able to improve their quality of life. "
I agree that your productivity and product differ from anothers. And I almost agree with the second line. However where we differ is how MUCH people are willing to pay. The trend for the American consumer in recent decades has focused on shoddy products at minimal cost. Similarly the American businessman, able to sacrifice quality for quantity, has been able to do the samething with his workforce. We are trapped in a downwards spiral. While our worker's/customer's wage has been shrinking compared to our nation's economic growth, their productivity has been rising. In short, people are NOT being paid based upon the value that they add to society. This very year company profits have skyrocketed while unemployment remains high (and it would be higher if plenty of people hadn't already lost hoped and stopped looking for work) and wages depressed below their already dismal levels.
"Everyone makes choices that benefit them. "
Everybody makes choices that they THINK benefits them. Similar to economists, you seem to be making the assumption that people are in fact relentlously rational. We are not. Even the brightest amongst us must deal with the distortions of the ego, the seamless stories that our mind weaves to join disparate facts, and the dizzying array of misinformation which we encounter on a daily basis. People are compulsive, irrational, emotionally driven, and continually lied to.
Currently our national diologue has shifted, again, away from fixing the unemployment situation, from regulating the financial sector, from ending the use of torture and indefinite detainment, from withdrawing form Iraq and Afghanistan, to taking a hatchet to Social Security. Many of the people who support this attack on "big government" and "wasteful spending" are old, newly impoverished, and about to retire. Their savings accounts are wiped out, and their prospects dire. And yet, based upon Principles manufactured in the best interests of the wealthy, they support the dismemberment of one of the few systems of support they have left. Is that rational? Does that benefit them?
"If you use your abilities to make it worth someone else's best interest to contract with you why does it matter what has happened in the past?"
It matters in part because we must also look to the future, and in part because it gives us a greater perspective than is presented from where we each stand. When I say that we are indebted, I do not mean that there is a specific quantity which we owe. Rather, we must recognize that we are each unable to achieve and maintain our current station, no matter how low or high it may be, without the support of others.
Americans have a grand tradition of honoring the rugged individualist, the lone explorer. This is completely ridiculous, as that lonely man was all too often an asocial nutjob wandering about in the wilderness trying desperately to survive (and frequently failing). Very few of them accomplished much of note. However we focus on the few that did, consequently skewing our perspective. The successes of our Westward expansion are found not among individuals but in group effort. We have a tendency to focus upon the exceptional individual in a mass of many. This is partly due to the impossibility of telling the story of many, so we select an archtypal hero and structure the story so that he single handedly saves the day.
I can see this perspective in your response. You think that you can take on the world alone. You're welcome to try. The issue is that almost everyone thinks this and they don't realize how wrong they are. The economy isn't a shootout at OK Corral. And its not a neat and tidy Libertarian wet dream either. The negotiating power of an individual relies as much upon his skill and presence during negotiating as it does as upon what he has to offer and who is on the other side of the negotiation. In a nation as large as ours, very few people have much to offer that cannot easily be provided by another, consequently they individually are low-balled, and collectively experience a declining wage, whereas if they collectively negotiated, they would have far more power to protect their individual rights and wage.
"People act individually and should be rewarded as such because not everyone contributes to societal systems. "
Did Goldman Sachs contribute a sufficient amount of wealth to the economy (which they played a key role in destroying) to earn 15.3 billion dollars in bonuses in addition to their already ludicrous salaries? What people earn has far more to do with their ability to divert the flow of money to themselves than with their actual product. The world is not a Just place (please see the Just World fallacy). People are not scum to be cast aside if they contribute little, nor are they supermen if they roll up in a Bentley.
The purpose of Universal societal systems is to benefit everybody. As a consequence everybody benefits. That may seem non-sensical, but let me explain. The Romans built great baths for their citizens, in which even the poor could bathe. By providing for everyone, even those who did not contribute in some way to the project, the entirety of the community benefited by increasing the health of all of its individuals. You might think, "but I'm already healthy, why should I contribute so that someone else can take a bath," and indeed it may seem difficult to personally perceive the actual difference. However if your community experiences less illness then you also will be sick less. Today we do the same thing with vaccinations.
Another example might be education. Those damn children don't contribute a thing to society. But one day they will. By investing in EVERYONE's children, we create a future workforce which is capable of handling complex tasks and powering an ever growing and innovating economy. However the American education system is experiencing horrible difficulties precisely because people think like you do. Because schools are funded primarily by property taxes, some school districts are fantastically wealthy and continually produce children that are destined to attend graduate school and produce more children who will attend similarly excellent schools. However in districts which are sometimes no more than a mile away, districts which may be defined precisely so that the poor people don't receive a share of the wealthy's tax revenue, the schools may struggle to even find enough paper to print lessons on, while the children, raised by parents who are payed too little to survive and consequently work long hours, have never known the attentions of an interested and observant parent. Consequently their discipline and grades suffer and the school system, already low on resources, must attempt to educate innattentive students who collectively don't understand that education is the only way out of the cycle of poverty. Many of these children will live a difficult life. They might go to jail (your tax dollars at work), they may rely upon public services because by their own titanic, but inneffective efforts they cannot survive (your tax dollars at work), and they will have children who will suffer the same fate.
The fate of the poor and downtrodden may be easier to look away from than to do something about, particularly when you hold to a philosophy which cuts all societal ties, however their fate does effect you. If these last few years should have demonstrated anything to the American people, it should have been that you too can find yourself in that situation, and a helping hand should be extended. If there are parts of your city where you don't go, if there are people that cause you to lock your doors or clutch your wallet/purse, then perhaps they do effect you. You may blame them for their situation, but it didn't have to be that way, and it all begins with how we distribute our wealth.
"all caps"
I use caps as there isn't a way to italicize in this basic text editor. Perhaps if I use wordpad? Nope.
"Only 17% of our nation is uninsured and the vast majority of that number is illegal immigrants, so I don't know where you are getting your statistics. *
While I am definitely guilty of using loaded adjectives and imprecise terminology I'm not sure where I might have argued that most of our nation is uninsured. I did speak of people not utilizing the healthcare system due to its cost until they are forced to by a dire issue.
"And only 32 nations in the world use any system of universal health care so I don't see how the United States is one of the "few" (162/194 officially recognized countries= 84% of the world)."
My apologies, when I wrote that I wasn't thinking of Somalia's health system. I should have been more precise. I was thinking in terms of the main first world Western powers that are commonly trotted out in such discussions. Though your point is nevertheless quite appropriate.
"I think the major issue comes down to choice; people want to be able to choose to have health care or not."
Rather, they want to not have to pay for it when they aren't making use of it. When they actually need it, no one actually wants to be faced with the choice of whether or not they can afford it. This is why we pay for insurance. However, by paying insurance we are already paying for health-care even when we're not using it, and that money is already a pooled resource.
"Another issue related to quality is the longer waits associated with a universal health care system. Someone in need of cancer treatment may have to wait month's between visits to a specialist and that is valuable time that someone with cancer cannot afford"
Yes, this is an issue. But is it a solvable issue? I think so.
due to the length of your response I am not going to break down every sentence. However the one point that seems to sum your whole arguement is the idea of the "Libertarian wet dream" (that I in fact do have every night when I sleep but that is another issue Freudian in nature that I do not wish to delve into) that we cannot face the world alone. However that is the point of choice that I am arguing you can choose not to face the world "alone". I can choose to collaborate with other people to help benefit me. This freedom has proven to work time and time again. Yes, people are rational but sometimes make wrong decisions and I don't know how having a few thousand people running a country of 300 million deciding what the healthcare should be supplied how much interest rates should be and so on and so forth is any better than having individuals make decisions in their own lives and make minor mistakes rather than ones that require trillion dollar bailouts. In various situations freedom from coercion and aggression in the economic and (although it doesn't pertain) the social sector has improved the quality of life in the world of millions of people. Funny you should bring up Somalia in a separate post, but Somalia has grown exponentially and done far better than other african nations from the fall of the socialist government in 1993? until 2006 when bush decided it was a good idea to run their and look for the "terrorists". If society is not benefiting from a certain business scheme the scheme will fail and people will buy something else especially in the age of the internet. The american economy is always used as an example of free market capitalism but its not. The government has countless regulations coercing people to buy certain products and hold up out of date business models and that may give the impression that large scary corporations hold all the wealth in a free market system and we are just slaves to their whim, but the recent economic crisis shows that even government coercion(low interest rates, fannie and freddie) is susceptible to market principles.
"Did Goldman Sachs contribute a sufficient amount of wealth to the economy (which they played a key role in destroying) to earn 15.3 billion dollars in bonuses in addition to their already ludicrous salaries? What people earn has far more to do with their ability to divert the flow of money to themselves than with their actual product. The world is not a Just place (please see the Just World fallacy). People are not scum to be cast aside if they contribute little, nor are they supermen if they roll up in a Bentley."
This type of class warfare stuff gets under my skin. The government made the rules Goldman Sachs was just playing the game. The government made it so Goldman Sachs was immune to market effects and those people knew it. I am not saying the world is a "just" place. Because people do get screwed but to simply say that this is a reason to forget freedom and make the government the deciding factor in moral issues is no better than having an all powerful being living in the sky telling humans what to do. I just simply don't care what happens to other people as much as you do. I live in north philadelphia and it is literally absurd what is going on here. I wake up every morning to ride my bike to work at 7 and people are standing on the street corner with their steele reserves ready to start their day. I'm not sure there has been many other places in America that have received such heavy funding from the federal and state governments to help out those people. The Philadelphia Housing Authority is the largest in the country and the city has been run by the democrats since the 1960's. The people in this neighborhood are good people. I talk to them all the time. I do not think theyre lazy. There aren't any jobs in the city and the people in the city constantly spew rhetoric citing how their being screwed buy this group and that group but in reality these people need to work with these different groups to help them get where they need to be going. A common target is temple university and the other city colleges, but those colleges drive housing prices up create jobs provide increased police presence through private police forces. I have a different outlook on the world than you and I know you wont agree with me but I do not think demonizing different groups of people is a good way to look at the world.
I agree we shouldn't spend money like that on the military. Bush was a liberal too.
lol :D
"Yes, people are rational but sometimes make wrong decisions "
A nitpick: no, people are irrational but sometimes manage to make the right decision.
"I don't know how having a few thousand people running a country of 300 million deciding what the healthcare should be supplied how much interest rates should be and so on and so forth"
But there are already a few thousand people making those exact decisions. However they work for the insurance agencies and have been very actively seeking ways to return as little of the money that they receive as possible. There is a stereotype that all government employees except for the CIA are inept, inefficient buffoons who simply can't make it in the real, cut-throat, super-competent real world, the real world is just as littered with idiots and inefficiency, free market forces be damned.
" is any better than having individuals make decisions in their own lives and make minor mistakes rather than ones that require trillion dollar bailouts."
B-b-but the trillion dollar bailouts where made after the market bubbled then crashed due to a few thousand bankers, accountants, and lawmakers making some very big mistakes and a few hundred million regular Joes making lots of much smaller mistakes right along with them. Simply taking everything down to an individual level with mutually agreed upon contracts does not negate the effect of millions of people behaving in an undirected, unrestrained manner.
"In various situations freedom from coercion and aggression in the economic and (although it doesn't pertain) the social sector has improved the quality of life in the world of millions of people."
I won't disagree with that, however you and I interpret that sentence very differently. We, despite a decidedly anti-socialist, highly-individualistic mindset, are already faced with a great deal of coercion and aggression from the economic, social, and political sectors. What I am advocating is that we trade the existing hostile system for one that actually benefits us. I'm fine with not having a choice between 5 different health insurance providers and their 5 different plans, none of which are actually that different from their competitors, if I actually am able to receive health care at an affordable rate.
"If society is not benefiting from a certain business scheme the scheme will fail and people will buy something else especially in the age of the internet."
Unfortunately the situation is far more complex than this concept allows for. As you mention just afterwards, America is not a free market, and we have many subsidies, tariffs, restrictions, and incentives in place to direct the economy and the consumer. Even if we were talking about a purely conceptual free market, it is perfectly possible for a business scheme to arise which is highly detrimental to one portion of society if it is sufficiently beneficial to another, even if the former portion comprises the majority of society.
What I so often hear from free market proponents is an idealizing of how wonderful it would be if only the rarified laws of supply and demand were the unfettered driving force of the economy, as if it were a physics simulation reaching perfect equilibrium. But they do not seem to realize that people are involved. Silly, stupid, aggressive, greedy, and gullible people who make it utterly impossible for a free market to function and remain free for any length of time. In order to ensure the continued freedom of the free market you must actually restrain the behavior of the participants otherwise there will swiftly arise the same unbalanced structures and lopsided that already typify human societies, because those are the results of aggregate human nature interacting over time.
Your reliance upon contracts adopted at an individual level, while it makes for an interesting thought experiment, is not actually that much different from the existing situation. If we think of nations, states, districts, etc. as each represent a hierarchy of contracts, then there emerges a structure which is very similar to what would arise in a libertopia. You have not been asked which one you would like to participate in or the particular terms, but for those who are not actively involved in the initial drafting of a libertopia, this would effectivley be the case anyway. At least in America, provided you have the means, you can switch contracts by moving to another town, another state, or even another nation if it is more agreeable with your idiology. And yet we continue to have issues. Because the contracts which we must live with, even if attractive in one aspect are often flawed in another. Because the people we elect to negotiate on our behalf are rarely aligned with our own interestes and can easily be persuaded to act on behalf of another. Because the contracts, even those enacted directly by the people are not neccessarily in our long term interests. And because the people, fickle and foolish as we may be, are easily convinced to act against our own interests.
So if it pleases you to look at America in this manner let me rephrase: I would greatly enjoy it if the total voting population of American individuals were to use their collectively obtained contractual rights to vote for a new, simpler, universal contract which provides each of them with basic to advanced healthcare, with some trade-offs necessary to ensure that each member is able to receive care according to his or her need. If additional or more rapid care is desired, those who are able to afford it may continue to seek supplementary independent care.
The government sectors which pertain to Goldman Sachs and other financial firms are either heavily lobbied by or often staffed by ex-Goldman Sachs employees who have continued to act on behalf of the financial sector rather than the interests of America as a whole. Given that t he American government is supposedly a government for and by the people, I find it difficult to simply say "don't hate the player, hate the game." I understand why they did it, and I don't foam at the mouth (too often) about vengeance, but one of the root problems isn't the idea of government but rather its adulterous relationship with the wealthy which lead to deregulation and ineffective enforcement.
"Because people do get screwed but to simply say that this is a reason to forget freedom and make the government the deciding factor in moral issues is no better than having an all powerful being living in the sky telling humans what to do."
I'm confused here. I really haven't been advocating people's freedom being taken away. If anything I've been suggesting that people have misunderstood the issue greatly. I'm actually advocating that it would be better if they were to utilize their freedom and ability to vote differently. It may mean that they need to use some of their potential freedom and actually commit to a decision, after which they and their descendants will no longer be as free to choose otherwise, but frankly that's just committing to a contract that doesn't have a withdrawal agreement.
My own system of thought is perhaps not as well laid out as yours, but that doesn't particularly disturb me. I don't think the world's ills should or can be solved through the extension of a single set of core principles. Regarding the people of Philadelphia and charity in general, I do have some thoughts which run counter to some of what I have been advocating just now. Namely that I believe charity itself is a short term, ill-fitted solution to a problem. As much as I may advocate collective action and argue against the rugged individual (and I do so because of the strong polarity of views in this nation), I do believe that the best solution is a group of self-actualized individuals acting in mutually beneficial self-interest. Socialism in its most severe form can take away the self-actualization, thereby destroying society's ability to innovate and respond to change, but pure self interest also takes away society's ability to actually behave in a cohesive manner and attain results which are greater than a lone individual can achieve. Charity and social safety nets provide a critical service by helping individuals stop the cycle of debt and disaster which drives them downward. However they can also become permanent solutions if an attainable route to recovery is unavailable (e.g. Haiti). In our desire to be charitable, we often try to pave the way with money when they would be better served by our removing the obstacles that drive the cycle of poverty. Imo, it all starts with paying a living wage.
"I agree we shouldn't spend money like that on the military. Bush was a liberal too. "
Lol, in what alternate universe was anything that Bush did liberal? Spending too much on the military while decrying governmental was and slashing social programs is a hallmark of conservative Republican behavior
Wars mask maximum spending because they generate income by increasing industry, especially one fueled by "patriotism" like the Iraqi conflict. Look at any country, any war, and they have generated more industry.
Also, government spending in America is suddenly a problem now because of this:
erb
Please tell me how this is a solvable issue with universal health care. Please. The rest of the countries that use it would like to know too.
I'm not saying its an easy issue, as it's one of the proper allotment of limited resources (and I would point out that our existing health-care system already faces this issue) which is something which can be optimized and drive the direction of medical innovation.
There are many interesting and cost effective solutions out there. From dogs that can sniff out bowel cancer with greater diagnostic success than a doctor to computers which are able to batch scan a sample for most known bacteria (including ones which are typically not associated with a medical issue) in one pass, reducing the need for repeated tests and expanding the possible net of identifiable causes.
India, a nation with less resources and greater population is faced with restrictions which our capital rich medical industry does not face, and as a consequence, many of the solutions which arise from that nation are cost conscious. e.g.
I cant find another article which I'm thinking of, but from what I recall, several points it made included:
-advanced infrastructure allowing for more efficient tracking of patients with less overhead. America's health-care system has developed in parallel with innovations in computing. As a consequence we have many legacy databases and systems dependent upon ancient technology and almost-dead programming languages which not only holds back progress but also requires continued effort to maintain. Reducing future costs requires replacing these legacy systems with a modern, upgradeable system.
-In American medicine cost is no objective. The actual costs of a procedure are obscured until after it has been performed, and what a patient cannot pay is covered through insurance or loans. Even those who wish to shop around for the best care/cost ratio struggle to do so because of this. In India, this information is available, holding hospitals accountable to market forces (in a universal system, the system itself must be responsible for controlling the cost) while in America, only insurance agencies have this kind of negotiating power.
-because cost is no objective, often we do not consider whether or not certain aspects of a procedure are necessary. An example was an Indian doctor who started performing open heart surgeries with the patients awake and without anything more than local anesthetic. The results included faster recovery time as well as lower costs.
I think for cost effectiveness and innovation to be maintained, the actual universal healthcare fund must be decoupled from the application of health care. Innovation can be encouraged through funding of universities and giving research grants to promising doctors, while the hospitals themselves are paid based upon fixed costs to provide a contracted level of service. If the patients wish to receive an additional level of care, they can purchase more benefits, however the basic level of care should be sufficient that doing so is not a necessity.
You CLAIM socialised medicine means not getting things like chemo when you need them. What a load of BS.
I live in Australia and our system works great. I have had a brain tumour. Soon as it was discovered I was in with one of the best brain surgeons in the world and got fixed. Total cost out of pocket $68. That is why we have a medicare levy.
Oh wait, we don't have to use the public system if we don't want. We pay for insurance, which costs a fraction of USA medical insurance, and we use the private system. Simple really.
And contrary to what you believe America has not borne the cost of medical innovations and drugs. American drug companies, and those around the world for that matter, have made a fortune from inventing new drugs and treatments.
The Bush being a liberal comments stem from the fact that Bush spent large amounts of money more so than any other president since LBJ. His medicare part D is one of the biggest increases in entitlement spending that have ever graced the nation. The military issue to me is also a very liberal aspect of his presidency. It shows that he is not a traditional conservative but rather a neoconservative which in my opinion does not differ too much from a neoliberal. In the gran scheme of the nation Bill Clinton and George W. Bush don't seem to be all that different.
The comment about freedom is about the increase in taxes. I do not view economic freedom any different than any other freedom. Redistributing wealth from a minority to the majority (as in higher taxes) or from the majority to the minority(through government policy as was the case with Goldman Sachs and others in the banking industry) is an aggression on the individual. Everyone has lobbies in DC and they will get whatever the politicians allow them to. If those politicians were to adhere to a policy of not intervening in the lives of people regardless of what group they belong to, I believe the world would be better off. I feel that every time congress decides to grant a new power over the economy for a social good that power becomes exploited for political purposes.
everyone else: Your bantering has me loling.
Lemme put it this way. the rich are rich right? those top 1 percent, they're damned good at being rich. better than anyone else i would presume. now, these people, they either hit it huge and simply cannot spend their moneys fast enough, or they are greedy fucker who will use the power that comes along with a bottomless bucket of wealth in order to keep that bucket bottomless.
Let me think liberally... the problem is that the richest hoard the money and rape the system right? well there are a couple issues with trying to get them to pay tax's in order to redistribute.
1) they have power.
2) they have more power than most people
3) they know that simply having power ain't shit. so they need a following right? here's where the fun part is. If i were filthy rich i would convince as many people as i can to support what i am doing, the general idea being that i simply run them in circles and get them to at least somewhat blindly support ways to keep my bucket bottomless, but maybe thats just me. uhh yeah that's exactly what i would do with my money.
4) it is damned near impossible to spread that wealth, is it not mostly liquid? I am an undergrad so please correct me, but the moneys they play with in order to keep making more moneys is large bulk, it cannot be spent. Or at least will not be spent, if you spend what you have on the open market, it cannot then be used to make more moneys.
Yes i am saying moneys.
Trying to force these people to pay outrageous tax's may not be the most effective route. (if i had that much money, i would know the guys that are making the rules, and guess what they do.) (define outrageous)
the biggest problem i see are the rich being witty enough to stay that way, and the liberals trying to fight the public instead of directly attacking the humans in power.
we have two systems of power and authority in the US, do we not? 'capitalism' supports the rich, and 'democracy' supports the popular.
They may not be so different, only it is public information who makes some rules and not public information who makes the rest of the rules. I just want to know what's going on with those guys that we don't elect, because as far as i can see, they make the rules, and they (almost) always win.
after all, this big economic bust, i think these rich bastards made it out scot free, with a ridiculously high wage, and more money than they started with. The bubble worked, the public went for it, then we helped them stay in business for raping our economy. i mean come on....
Now the connection, one way or the other that mislead public happens to largely be christians. so i beg of you, the followers of a very old story, please listen to the stories and do what they say.
the..
fuck...
tl;dr
Colbert is spot on though. You guys really have no idea what you are talking about if you disagree. Its simple really, and can easily be fixed!!
You are lucky to be very rich, not everyone is as fortunate as you.
BTW, you don't "give money to people with mental illnesses". You give money to programs that will help them help themselves.
Or, you can spend the money on bailing out banks and oil companies. It all depends on your value system.
If this was already pointed out, my apologies, but this was just way too much to read in the 5 minutes I had.
Both are great takes on a working class, anti-intellectual, redneck culture that has been convinced to consistently vote against their own best interests.
I listen to my own father, who has been the victim of layoffs from corporate merger after merger, who's had his retirement fucked, who's lost money on wall street - he's done everything he was 'supposed' to do. He joined the military, went to college, had 2 kids, bought the house, invested & saved his money, worked his fucking ass off all his life & he still has squat to show for it. Now as a man well into his 60s he's feeling the wrath of age discrimination, he's finding his skills becoming outdated & his pay & benefits today (for the last 10 years) are lower than what they've been in the last 30 for him. Living the american life he finds his health failing as he's a lifetime smoker with a growing waistline. He's the prototypical uncultured, red-blooded american male. He slathers his steak in ketchup, votes conservatives down the line, and wants the good old days before the women, blacks and fags took over. He's a flag waver, supports his troops, and fends for himself.
He's always bitching about how much money corporations have to spend bc of regulation & about how the upper class need a tax cut. Nothing in the world makes him angrier than "socialism" & the so-called welfare state. Working people getting needed services bothers him tremendously because a few extreme token examples get painted as degenerate leeches by the likes of AM Radio & Fox News.
ANd then he'll turn right around & support corporate subsidy for just about anything from corn to oil - b/c it "stimulates jobs" and it "trickles down". He refuses to recognize that we as a nation spend more money at the beckoning of corporate America than we even begin to touch what we spend on our own citizenry through what he claims is "welfare" or infrastructure.
He's a working class guy who's been fucked by the system all his life. He still puts his suit on with a kind of sad pride, every day, & goes to work downtown to phone-monkey job nowadays. He's doing a job any body could do but he likes to pretend all his education & experience has gotten him somewhere. He's deluded about what America's exceptional way of life has brought him personally as he is deluded about what the world is like at large.
So he denies global warming, blames the unions, blames teachers & other government workers, blames regulation, blames the EPA & the FDA, blames those struggling to make it in this world, blames the blacks, blames the immigrants, blames everyone & anyone but those at the top. He'd rather blame fellow working people trying to grab a piece of the pie, rather than blame the crooks who deprive us all. Because somehow - be it by gender identity, racial identity, national identity, he thinks his class, his type belongs at the top. He's the top dog! But he's not. He's a nigger, i'm a nigger, muslims are niggers and mexicans are niggers, teachers and steel workers, and farmers too. To people like the Koch Brothers, we're all niggers and my dad can't see that. This is an us vs them game and people like my father are fucking deluded as to what side they're on or can be on one day.
This is a little off in left field - but when the 14th Amendment passed in this country it was intended to free slaves. We hail this constitutional amendment as a shining moment in American history, it's a moment we made real social and civil progress. We no longer considered people slaves - legally. People could not be property. But you see - this is also the Amendment that created corporate person-hood. 300+ cases were brought to the Supreme court under this amendment not far after it had passed. Only and handful of these cases, less than 10 of them were brought to the courts by actual black people. The other 300 some odd cases? Brought by corporate lawyers. You see, back then corporations weren't allow to buy and sell each other. They also weren't allowed to operate indefinitely. They had a charter that stated what their purpose was - like building a bridge for instance, and once that goal was accomplished the corporation disbanded usually. But the courts interpreted this bill that a corporation, as an entity, was entitled to act and behave like a person and to be treated with a quasi-human status under our Constitution with all the rights thereof. Nevermind corporations were made up of people all who had these rights themselves, the entity itself needed freedom of speech, the ability to collect capital indefinitely, etc. and thus the day the slaves were freed the upper class made a move that would essentially create a wealth divide to the likes which the world has never seen. B/c slavery amongst the elites isn't about hatred, it was about control, it's about power over people. And all of a sudden, there was a lot more people. Eventually these people would want to read, and then vote! They'd be competing for capital! So started the trend of giving corporations the rights of a person and as time has continued on corporations have obtained more rights and privileges than any person in this nation ever will alone. They have more pull in our democracy and republic than any other sole human being. Under the law - they are more human than human - and as I have stated already, we're all niggers.
Somewhere deep down inside, he admires those at the top - he wants to be them & even though he knows he'll never be one of them, he likes to pretend.
He goes to his Applebee's, Red Lobster & Outback & bitches about all the blacks there. I think this is important to note - it's indicative of his whole perspective. He is the same CLASS of people as these folks, he's spending roughly the same amount on dinner as them, but thinks things are going to hell because they are there. He doesn't get that he IS THEM. He's the same fucking class, in the same fucking boat. He's got relatively the same education level, roughly the same pay checks, living roughly the same way of life. But he's been convinced to fight, to hate, to dislike his own class of people & to admire & defend the class that basically owns & controls his life & all our lives. He has been perfectly trained to rail against the 'other'. Against feminists, environmentalists, labor movements, racial minorities, immigrants, public sector workers, union members. These people aren't HIS brothers & sisters - they are his enemy. He's so busy hating "otherness" that he doesn't realize he is them - and we're all getting fucked by the same small group of people at the top.
This is the same thing as him blaming unions & the welfare state. He has been indoctrinated through the years to fight amongst, to disagree with, to blame, & sometimes to outright hate people in the same boat as him. Surely - he's not on welfare but when you look at his salary and then I look at the income of people laid off for the last 8 months who can't find work and are in need of assistance - you can't help but notice - He is more like them, than the class and wealth that he worships and will never be a part of. Ever. And it's funny - this old man, he's always talking about 'having class', he talks about those stupid "yankees" who "have no class or decency". He would scold me as a child for acting up "have some class!" But the reality is he is a tactless guy, farts at the dinner table and blames in on the dog, has the most difficult time understanding his audience - makes crude and offensive jokes in front of people he barely knows. He dips out of the most important and formal events of his life to 'catch the game'. He did so while my mother was in labor, he did so at my fucking wedding. I could only imagine him at a cocktail party amongst these rich assholes he worships and the stares, gawking, and gasps that would be produced b/c of the shit that pops out of his mouth and the way he acts. He knows nothing of wine, different types of silverware on the table, and has never been able to wrap his head around a multi-coursed meal. He spent the only time socializing at my wedding's reception asking people "what's that, and what's that, and what's that" b/c none of the food looked like chain restaurant fried appetizers. He'd rather just have a big well done steak with some french fries, ketchup - lots of ketchup. I know this all sounds like a cheap shot but the man has no culture to him, and little 'class'. He's a grown up 'good old boy' from a small town with a mediocre education who knows suburban American life and that's all he knows. Yet somehow he worships the class above him and to think, these people wouldn't be caught dead eating where he eats, or even eating what he eats when they go out. These people would whisper to each other about his uncouth behavior. His broken English when he says "waRshington" or "waRsh", "y'all", "irregardless" and large portion of the English language that he mispronounces or flat out makes up. These people would not be caught dead with my father. So I fail to see why they get such lavish praise from him. Not only does he kiss the ass of, but actively defend & fight on behalf of those who would take everything away from him, his wife & his family if they could make a buck on it - because he believes in an American dream & a way of life that simply doesn't exist. He's a peasant, a 'working class hero', he's a pawn, a worker-bee, a nigger, a wage slave. He's not them, he'll never be them. And "their" policies directly spit right in his face, in my face, in all our faces.
He talks of freedom of those who have all the capital, but he doesn't worry about his own freedom. Liberty and freedom, when you don't have money, is just a word. It is meaningless drivel when you can't afford healthcare, education, shelter, retirement, and food. Look at Latin America - they were told (or forced) to give up on "socialism" in many nations - they were told privatizing water, electricity and other utilities would increase efficiency and that they would have LIBERTY! Instead - rich people who had no ties to their culture took over the utilities, raised the prices to the point most of these things became unaffordable luxuries. But you know -- they finally had "freedom!", they had "liberty!" That's capitalism baby!
And it's no different here. If you cannot find somekind of financial stability for necessities - you aren't free. It's that simple. In this regard, he doesn't worry about the freedom of his neighbors, of his children, or himself. All he see's as those liberal that take away rich people's money are the same people telling him where he can & cannot smoke and that he should put his seatbelt on - so liberals must "hate freedom!". Those damned reading elitist liberal communists!
He has been convinced, as have many Americans - to hate their own & to defend their masters. To squabble over our petty & even cosmetic differences, rather than to unite on our common interests to fight for proper pay, benefits, rights as a consumer & as a worker, & for a clean environment.
This is what happens when you have a class of people who were never taught to think for themselves, who act like reading is for fags, who are more willing to listen to hot heads like Beck & Limbaugh than to read any kind of political theorists, scientists, or economists. This is what happens when you close your mind & you become one who's always looking for that "other" to hate & to blame for your problems rather than to look at yourself or open your eyes to the bigger picture.
People like my dad are willing to accept AM radio, Fox News talk shows, & even Fwd chain emails as official sources, & then single-handedly ignore any material the talking heads on these shows didn't point him to. Because you can't trust anyone but them!
The ability to critically think, verify, discern the credibility of sources, to do the damned research yourself, is completely lost on these folks. That's what these fucking Tea Party & GOP talking heads hope for. They hope to god that their lies they spew get echoed in the public sphere so often that it becomes reality. That people are too dumb or too lazy to verify what they spout. This makes it so that people who are trying to get real shit done have to waste our time correcting mis-truths & disinformation just to garnish the slightest bit of public support to make progress anywhere.
People don't realize how dangerous this shit is. Right now the economy is & had been in the shitter. People are scared. People have lost their jobs & they're angry. They have organized & mobilized into this populist "tea party". They even think it's a real grassroots org & dismissing the fact that they're being led by billionaires & a corporate media. These are the angry masses that will eat up any scapegoat that their "leaders" feed them. We've seen this in history before.
I'm not trying to evoke Godwins Law or anything but i see a lot of correlations between the right-wing disenfranchised populist uprising here in America & a lot of what people experience in Wiemar Germany. There was a lot of angry people, scared about the loss of their jobs & an economy in bad shape. Those angry, uneducated people were looking for someone to blame. They didn't care if they sided with a political party that would be responsible for fucking them over & destroying their democracy, not to mention the massive harm they would do to other groups.
No, all that mattered was they found leaders who pretended to have answers. People like quick & simple answers & fixes, certainty & shared anger. That's what the Nazi Party gave them. That's what the Tea Party/Fox News/AM Radio & portions of the GOP are giving this right wing uprising too.
Anything intellectual is ignored or met with disinformation & a general air an superior anti-intellectualism. Everywhere I go: home to my parents, at work in the break room, flip on the tv, browse the internet - i see the same message: "My opinion is better than your facts". This approach is rooted deeply in ignorance & anger most of the time. When the populace stops listening to those with brains & ignores factual information, & opts for those that shout opinions, we got a problem.
The Tea Party would be an extremely powerful force if they had a politician that was worth a damn. Every time they have someone who is charismatic, they're an obvious idiot or crook. If somebody comes along who is charismatic & honest the US is in trouble bc of the frustration, disillusionment, justified anger & the absence of any coherent response from liberals. What are people supposed to think if someone says ‘I have got an answer, we have an enemy’? There it was the Jews. Here it will be the illegal immigrants from Mexico, the Muslims, teachers, unions, Planned Parenthood, NPR, & blacks (you can toss in atheists, homosexuals & liberals too).
We will be told that WASPy private sector males are a persecuted minority. We will be told we have to defend ourselves & the honor of the nation. instead of fixing problems that truly affect the all of the working class, the nation will be convinced to support legislation that will further protect & consolidate power for the corporate elite. All those privacy rights, the voice we have in our government, & due process checks & balances that protect us all? Those things just get in the way of security & stability. The right-wing that supports these parties & leaders get hurt too, just in a more subtle way - they give away their rights & are too stupid to realize what they've done to themselves.
Deal with it.
let the lazy starve!
I think you must be reading from the book of Limbaugh....
Those who do not carry their own weight...are dead weight...
Paul is admonishing these people to go back to work, and telling others not to encourage them in their ignorance, "That if any would not work, neither should he eat". (King James)
This is a far cry from saying that one should not be charitable to those in need.
That is incredibly callous of you. Colbert was talking about the poor and needy. Why do you automatically assume that they are lazy grifters? Do you seriously think that people are poor because they don't work hard enough, or long enough? There are people barely making ends meet despite holding several jobs, working themselves to the bone. How could they be poor if they work so hard? Because they're paid the absolute bare minimum that the employer can get away with. And why do they accept such low wages? Surely there are better jobs out there! They do because they must, BECAUSE not working means not eating.
Social services, be they charity or government support contribute to a more just, fair nation by giving the destitute and downtrodden support, without which they are nothing more than wage slaves.
Its odd that so many Christians seem to have turned upon charitable acts performed by any organization which isn't a church. I don't care if my tax dollars are used to help the needy. Why do you?
People are in bad situations, because of bad decisions. And I care that my tax dollars are used to "help" the "needy" because they didnt EARN it, they aren't DESERVING of my hard earned money. The government has no business distributing charity.
I spent many years in college working at a luxury jewelery store...I saw many very expensive items being purchased with welfare money....Yea i'm SOO glad i work hard to help them buy their diamond bezel watches!
Of course the poor didn't EARN charity! That's the point! They can't. Due to their social/economic station, they cannot earn enough to "DESERVE" your charity, and it has nothing to do with how hard they work, and everything to do with how little other people are willing to pay them for the work that they do. Similarly, what YOU "earn" is awarded to you based upon what others are willing to pay you, not because of some intrinsic value. Do you think that working behind a jewelry display is in some way more important or difficult than working register at a McDonalds? Yet it undoubtedly pays more and only certain “kinds” of people are eligible to work there (ie. Someone who has at least middle class manners, a classy, professional, expensive wardrobe, and a manner of speaking which doesn’t remind the shopper of a trailer park or ghetto. In other words, if born poor, you must hide any sign of your origins. Also, being white or Asian helps immensely, as does being pretty, neither of which are the result of a “good” choice on anyone’s part)
This is a difficult world to live in. Often, the optimal, perfect choice isn't easily apparent, or even possible to the brightest or wisest. Sometimes life sidelines a person in a way that they couldn't predict or couldn't stop even if they could see it coming. Everyone makes bad, foolish decisions, regardless of their station in life. And some of us begin life so far down that even making good decisions doesn't change anything.
What you are doing is taking an entire group of people and defining them by the bad examples you personally encountered. There will always be abuses, no matter what the system, because some people just plain suck. However the idiots buying jewelry do not change the fact that there are people in need of food, and shelter, education and kindness. In order to do some good in this world, we must accept that someone, somewhere, will take advantage of it, and we must do it ANYWAY, because we believe it to be good. To deny a hundred aid because a few will behave irresponsibly is cruel. To use it as an excuse to keep your money for yourself is selfish.
Charity and Social Aid exist not to judge and punish people for their own idiocy, but to help them recover and rebuild. Even if you condemn every impoverished adult to wallow in their mistakes, they do have children who will be born into the same cycle of instability, poor education, and desperation that ensures they will repeat their parents mistakes. If you despise the poor that much, surely ensuring their children don’t grow up with the same faults is a good cause.
There are a lot of people in Alabama right now who need help. Many of them are very hard-working people who are not in trouble because of "bad decisions", but because of an act of nature. The State and Federal governments are providing humanitarian help to those suddenly without food, clothes, water or shelter. Is it your opinion that we should withdraw that aid, that these people should suffer and starve? Do you think that the five-year old girl who died "deserved" it? Are all the good folks flocking to their aid suckers?
Even people as selfish and arrogant as you will need help someday. If there is such a thing as Karma, I wonder how it will treat you when that day comes?
hmm and i guess a bleeding heart like you is writing this post from the disaster area?
The moral of the story wasnt that bad things dont happen to good people. Its that anyone with half a brain in their head cant be poor in america. Your house gets blown away by a tornado toto? Lets hope you had good insurance and an emergency kit stashed away. Lose your job due to lay offs? Good thing you have your savings to fall back on, and the experience and education to find another one quickly.
and to those who thought that nothing bad would ever happen? Guess your SOL...oh no wait...not with the current legislation...Dont worry folks...the Government will bail you out.
Speaking of natural disasters I also witnessed people from Louisiana purchase jewelry with their FEMA money.
I do buy into the idea that what goes around comes around. And i have no doubt that when Karma comes to me i'll b just fine regardless of the fact that i'm no bleeding heart.
At least I dont enable the stupid and the lazy to be so buy bailing them out. Er I wouldnt if it werent mandated by the idiots that run this country.
After the Vietnam War, a large portion of the soldiers that came back from fighting for their country were denied compensation for Agent Orange exposure. They were hated, treated like the lowest of the low, denied jobs, tried everything they could to return into society, but they were hated. That war ruined their life, and some of them are still feeling repercussions from it today, not to mention they were denied money from the GI bill to go back to college, which they were promised upon entering the military, some of them made that their plan.
You're telling me that they deserved how they were treated? That a majority of the troops that fought in Nam had less than half a brain?
You're statement "Anyone with half a brain can't be poor in America" (sorry, I corrected your grammar for sanity reasons) really troubles me. For two reasons. 1. My mom has a PhD in Psychology, and Child Development, and she's having trouble supporting my family, (I'd say that's more than half a brain) and 2. Being smart doesn't get you a job. I got a 29 on my ACT, which is significantly higher than the national average, and they're taking people who can afford to dress nicer than me instead of me for positions. I'd be considered lower middle class, but the rich kids still get the jobs.
So why don't you try living on very low annual income, support 3 kids, and a husband, whose job got outsourced, and have your husband try to find a job, when the nicest thing you can afford is a polo and some jeans. From the thrift store. Do you research before you say serious bullshit stuff like that. Also, you're living proof that someone with less than have a brain "can not be poor" in the United States of America. Because that's the actual name of our country... Not America, the United States of America. Bitch.
I agree with most of your morality, but I do not feel that I need to worship this belief of yours in order to live my life fairly and in balance with the rest of humanity. I don't feel it is necessary for it to be shoved down my throat as if it were the only option. I appreciate that you believe it is correct, but consider if you had learned of scientology at an early age instead. You would most likely have become a practicing scientologist instead. To me, religion was necessary to answer many of our questions. These questions have mostly been answered by science. This is why you are seeing church attendance and religious census information on the decline in recent years. It really serves no purpose. We no longer need the fairy tales. We don't need these archaic rules to operate as a society. I agree that greed ruins it all, but religion is not going to fix that. No one is afraid of the consequences because there are none within their lifetime. The solution is not church or the teachings of jesus. The solution is to show these people the reality of what they are doing. They do not care about jesus. Many people do not. This is ok, you don't need to be afraid of this.
What I find the most difficult to understand is how the poor people are so caught up in the American conservative propaganda machine. They knowingly give up their money to the rich and fully support it. Its like the church has morphed into a full-on political party with the same tricks and the same greed. They even rigged it so that their news outlets can blatantly tell lies. Its fool proof, you can't lose!
(Its Erb idiot)
Addressing poverty is not just charity. It is an exercise in helping oneself. Even the wealthiest are nothing at all without society.
Enriching those that are already wealthy at the expense of all others is immoral. EVERYBODY knows it. anyone who says otherwise has no ethical leg to stand on.
Besides, Obama is providing healthcare for people who otherwise would not have it. Don't bring that charity bullshit in here.
Keep sucking the propaganda machine's dick dude.
Add Comment | See Formatting Tips for adding photos or other goodies.
If you were logged in, we wouldn't have to ask all of this.