Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on March 15, 2010, 08:22:28 am
-
Found this recently (http://thevileplutocrat.com/), highlighting the abuses of the wealthy elite, including a "greedy bastard of the month" section (this month's winner is the former mayor of Detroit who had multiple corruption scandals). Looks like fun.
-
It's a cute site. Disagree with some of it, and agree with some of it, so it's pretty nice.
-
I suggest that we rise up against the Bourgeoisie immediately!
-
class warfare ftw
-
What makes someone "rich"?
-
self sustaining cashflow
-
What makes someone "rich"?
Well there's the question of the millennium.
Rich is when you don't have to worry about your finances if a major illness or accident happens and you can't do anything to make money for a while.
Rich is not spending every dime you make on toys and stuff every day of your life. Do you know how many so called "rich" people are in hock up to they're perfectly manicured eyebrows?
-
Rich is someone who has more than you
-
self sustaining cashflow
I'ma go with this one.
-
if you have so much money that simply keeping it in the bank generates enough interest to live comfortably on, then id say you're rich. though i very much doubt many rich people just sit on their money and do nothing their whole life. many of them are die hard workaholics.
-
if you have so much money that simply keeping it in the bank generates enough interest to live comfortably on, then id say you're rich. though i very much doubt many rich people just sit on their money and do nothing their whole life. many of them are die hard workaholics.
Or are very familiar with the concept of mutual funds. Or make sufficient annual income from dividends.
-
if you have so much money that simply keeping it in the bank generates enough interest to live comfortably on, then id say you're rich. though i very much doubt many rich people just sit on their money and do nothing their whole life. many of them are die hard workaholics.
They are either die-hard workaholics to the point where they become filthy rich before hitting 30, or they're living off on a very rich person's legacy.
From what little I know since I started by internship, being a freelancer in the film industry is a very rough path to being rich. If I remembered correctly, the freelancer I spoke to last Saturday told me that she knows how to stretch a few projects' pay - each usually taking about two days to a week to complete - to last for several months.
-
Who's rich you ask?
Look at the L curve distribution (http://www.lcurve.org/)
-
Who's rich you ask?
Look at the L curve distribution (http://www.lcurve.org/)
What's more interesting to consider...
The estimated world GDP is about $70,650,000,000,000 and the world has approximately 6,800,000,000 residents in 220 countries. The average person makes $10,390 or so. The USA's GDP is about $14,441,000,000,000 and has about 309,000,000 residents. That's about $46,730 per capita; a household of 3, on average, makes $140,200 each year. Luxemburg makes an average $94,400 per capita, Norway $76,700, If you want to talk about rich, talk about Americans and many Europeans.
-
Except in reality, excluding the outliers of the incredibly rich, the average income in the US make $35,000 or so. The 3 or 4 times more that a US citizen makes compared to the world average is paltry compared to the incredible amount the wealthy make compared to the normal people.
Also, it's a countries responsibility to regulate what happens within it, not without it. I did not ever vote to decrease African wages.
FINDING SOURCES, PLEASE WAIT.
Okay Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States) says you're mostly right. That said, I think that the US should really concentrate on the world inside its borders for once.
-
Except in reality, excluding the outliers of the incredibly rich, the average income in the US make $35,000 or so. The 3 or 4 times more that a US citizen makes compared to the world average is paltry compared to the incredible amount the wealthy make compared to the normal people.
Also, it's a countries responsibility to regulate what happens within it, not without it. I did not ever vote to decrease African wages.
FINDING SOURCES, PLEASE WAIT.
Okay Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States) says you're mostly right. That said, I think that the US should really concentrate on the world inside its borders for once.
And you're mostly right about the GDP being extraordinary compared to median household incomes being much less than mean income per capita. To be honest, there's plenty of opportunity to be well above that median income line. Hell, by the time I'm 21 or 22, I'll at least be close to the median $52,000 (before student loans, of course). And that's with a bachelor's degree. If people want to make money, it's been proven for hundreds of years that being educated pays (even if you learned very little and walked away $80,000 in debt and with a piece of paper). Seriously; look at business. Hell, look at mutual funds accountants, managers, and analysts! A 25-year-old kid making $70k+? $100k+ by 30? Plus loads of benefits. If you want to be a poor artist, get an art degree and freelance. I'm sure you'll have fun, but getting a complete joke degree (or an associates) will not make you a "have".
-
Except in reality, excluding the outliers of the incredibly rich, the average income in the US make $35,000 or so. The 3 or 4 times more that a US citizen makes compared to the world average is paltry compared to the incredible amount the wealthy make compared to the normal people.
Also, it's a countries responsibility to regulate what happens within it, not without it. I did not ever vote to decrease African wages.
FINDING SOURCES, PLEASE WAIT.
Okay Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States) says you're mostly right. That said, I think that the US should really concentrate on the world inside its borders for once.
That's definately true, people forget the wealthgap when they look at that number. This isn't (http://www.factcheck.org/article249.html) a new thing (http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/10.30/19-bankruptcy.html) for those of us who pay attention. The biggest problem is housing and healthcare costs have gone up way above and beyond inflation.
-
So, do you have a plan for decreasing the wealth and income disparity among Americans? Because it seems to me "fixing" this situation would require some very hefty redistribution policies, and those will kill wealth generation in this country, meaning no new wealth will be created to be redistributed. Personally, I have no problem with the wealth disparity as I don't give a **** if someone really is that much wealthier than me as long as my standard of living isn't too far off from his, and really, I don't see those 1% wealthiest with hover cars, moon vacations, android servants, and immortality serums.
Oh, and interesting fact is that 43.4 percent of Americans pay no net federal income tax. That means 65.5 million out of 151 million either pay nothing in federal income taxes once deductions are taken into account or are receiving funds from the government in excess of what they paid. Source (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/15/politics/otherpeoplesmoney/main4945874.shtml)
-
I believe that the system is inherently flawed. I'm *gasp* a socialist, if you must know Sparda. I think that pure capitalism can only lead to a kind of feudal system ultimately, and that a system like Sweden's is the best. However, in order to get to that point, we'd need to let go of our weaponized culture and addictive consumerism.
-
I'm not going to argue in favor of pure unrestricted capitalism, not even Adam Smith believed in that. I am going to say that too much government intervention in the marketplace can and will retard productivity since the more regulation there is the more companies have to jump through hoops for the smallest things. My state of California is a prime example of government run wild with regulation, and you can hear the flushing sound as we head down the toilet all the way in New Mexico and the state of Washington.
-
So, do you have a plan for decreasing the wealth and income disparity among Americans? Because it seems to me "fixing" this situation would require some very hefty redistribution policies, and those will kill wealth generation in this country, meaning no new wealth will be created to be redistributed. Personally, I have no problem with the wealth disparity as I don't give a **** if someone really is that much wealthier than me as long as my standard of living isn't too far off from his, and really, I don't see those 1% wealthiest with hover cars, moon vacations, android servants, and immortality serums.
Oh, and interesting fact is that 43.4 percent of Americans pay no net federal income tax. That means 65.5 million out of 151 million either pay nothing in federal income taxes once deductions are taken into account or are receiving funds from the government in excess of what they paid. Source (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/15/politics/otherpeoplesmoney/main4945874.shtml)
Maybe more affordable housing and healthcare? The middle class is getting the crap kicked out of it because the costs of both those essential things has gone way up out of control. This would allow them to keep more of what they make. The difference in standard of living is that rich people can get whatever healthcare they need without going bankrupt. I'm not a fan of redistrobution, I'm a fan of equal opportunity.
-
There's the rub, your concept of "equal opportunity", boils down to redistribution. The keyword in that concept is opportunity, there's no guarantee that you can make enough money to be comfortable, but there's also no guarantee that you won't. Most "rich" people are people who have done a lot with the opportunity provided to them. If you work hard and manage your money intelligently, you will be comfortable. Most "rich" people don't drive Bentleys and Benzes, hell most of them don't even drive new cars, they usually drive beaters that they paid cash for. Then when it breaks, they can afford to go pay cash for another one.
-
You've just redefined well-off as rich. They aren't the same thing at all.
-
Alright, I'm going to assume the latest rise in housing costs is probably due to there not being enough houses for everyone. So I'm going to simply say that it takes a long time for housing to be built. Going from planning to built takes a while, and local governments frequently force multiple reviews and restrictions on the builders which make housing construction take far longer than it should.
And don't blame health care issues on the free market, there is no health care free market. States don't allow purchase of insurance across state lines, and they commonly force coverage mandates on insurers. Since insurers have to cover those things, they might as well charge for them. Also, defensive medicine is commonly practiced due to large malpractice suits, so doctors often order tests done just to cover their asses in case of trial lawyer.
The way the current system works is screwed up. A person's insurance is most commonly provided by their employer, who gets a nice group rate for all of his employees. That's good, until you consider that payments on health insurance provided by an employer are tax-deductible, whereas individual purchases are not. This situation came about during WWII and its wage freeze. Employers couldn't offer higher wages to attract qualified employees, so they needed another means of compensation, so they started offering health insurance. In order to provide an incentive for that behavior, FDR went ahead and got Congress to pass a law making payments on employer-provided insurance tax-deductible, but he forgot to tell Congress to make individually-purchased insurance tax-deductible as well. Also I believe that it is very hard or even impossible under current law for individuals to form their own groups for means of purchasing insurance under a group rate.
And, health insurance covers too much. Imagine if auto insurance covered routine maintenance such as tire rotations, tire changes, and oil changes. Do you think people would get tire rotations, tire changes, and oil changes done far more than necessary? I sure think they would. And proper car maintenance is almost as important as proper body maintenance in light of the fact car malfunctions can be hazardous to your health (see recent Toyota accelerations).
If the health care industry operated as a traditional free market, if you had a minor injury or illness you would pay your doctor a visit, you would know exactly how much your visit was going to cost you, and you would pay him directly for the provided services. You would still have insurance, but it would be high co-pay and used only in cases of serious injury or illness.
-
Health care should never be a free market industry. That's disgusting.
-
Health care should never be a free market industry. That's disgusting.
However, it is. And it's quite arguable that 98% of the world has benefited by the developments. There's no incentive to work if there's no benefit to be paid. Remember that decent pay is a hygiene factor; if you don't make enough money, your accommodations are lousy and your opportunity for satisfaction low. Good pay is allowing people to become motivated in different, higher, ways.
-
I'm not going to argue in favor of pure unrestricted capitalism, not even Adam Smith believed in that. I am going to say that too much government intervention in the marketplace can and will retard productivity since the more regulation there is the more companies have to jump through hoops for the smallest things. My state of California is a prime example of government run wild with regulation, and you can hear the flushing sound as we head down the toilet all the way in New Mexico and the state of Washington.
I just wish your state would stop putting asinine warning labels on anything resembling an electronics product. No, California, I am not going to get lead poisoning by handling my joystick cable.
-
Health care should never be a free market industry. That's disgusting.
However, it is. And it's quite arguable that 98% of the world has benefited by the developments. There's no incentive to work if there's no benefit to be paid. Remember that decent pay is a hygiene factor; if you don't make enough money, your accommodations are lousy and your opportunity for satisfaction low. Good pay is allowing people to become motivated in different, higher, ways.
And that's why there aren't any public school teachers.
Kinda unfortunate that our doctors' main motivation is money.
-
I'm not going to argue in favor of pure unrestricted capitalism, not even Adam Smith believed in that. I am going to say that too much government intervention in the marketplace can and will retard productivity since the more regulation there is the more companies have to jump through hoops for the smallest things. My state of California is a prime example of government run wild with regulation, and you can hear the flushing sound as we head down the toilet all the way in New Mexico and the state of Washington.
I just wish your state would stop putting asinine warning labels on anything resembling an electronics product. No, California, I am not going to get lead poisoning by handling my joystick cable.
qft! lead is harmless! unless you eat it!
you cant work with this new solder theyre using. i tried to salvage some voltage regulators off an old mobo, and the solder wouldn't ****ing melt with my so called high temperature soldering iron! there are more toxic materials in electronics than lead (i cant name them off the top of my head and im too lazy to look for a source), and i think focusing on lead was a dumb thing to do. all its doing is making fully functional components impossible to salvage. know how many times i had a board die because of a 5 cent component?
-
Health care should never be a free market industry. That's disgusting.
However, it is. And it's quite arguable that 98% of the world has benefited by the developments. There's no incentive to work if there's no benefit to be paid. Remember that decent pay is a hygiene factor; if you don't make enough money, your accommodations are lousy and your opportunity for satisfaction low. Good pay is allowing people to become motivated in different, higher, ways.
And that's why there aren't any public school teachers.
Kinda unfortunate that our doctors' main motivation is money.
Not quite and not universally. Being highly-paid is a hygiene factor; they have 4 years of undergrad plus at least 8 more years of postgrad education, as well as up to 2 years for fellowship. If you sit for a decade after you have your bachelor's, odds are you have skills well and above that of most everyone else. Simply paying off that education is expensive, not to mention most doctors that I know at least 40+ hour weeks, commonly as high as 50 or 60 hours.
-
Our education system is pretty broken as well. Why the hell should doctors have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to be doctors?
-
Because it takes tens of thousands of man-hours to teach them how to be doctors? Because then they remake those tens of thousands of dollars?
-
But why do the doctors have to pay to become doctors? They're vitally important to the rest of society, after all. Why doesn't society invest in them a bit more?
-
But "society" does. More people will continue to become doctors until there is no more profit to be made in that industry.
-
Okay, I'll be more straightforward. The government should take on more of the costs of creating and maintaining doctors. Right now the pharmaceutical industry tends to fill that role. That's ****ed up.
-
i think doctors need to be better protected from malpractice suits. what happens is they get malpractice insurance, which in turn requires doctors to do unnecessary tests for their coverage to apply. and those tests are paid for by the patients. patience have to me insured, doctors have to be insured, im sure there are insurances paid by emts, rescue personal and hospitals as well. as long as health care revolves around insurance, it will be a cash whore.
but back to my original point, people such as police officers are protected in the event they accidentally shoot someone in the line of duty. why cant the same kind of protection be extended to doctors?
-
Okay, I'll be more straightforward. The government should take on more of the costs of creating and maintaining doctors. Right now the pharmaceutical industry tends to fill that role. That's ****ed up.
Yes. Let's have the government spend billions more a year on something that already happens as it is. Brilliant.
-
We have trillions to blow on "defense."
-
That's the point. The government already spends waaay too much money.
-
So it would just be too much to take some of the money we spend on killing people and occupying peaceful countries and use it to, I don't know, take care of our own? Good health care isn't a luxury. It's a right.
-
you know I think I'm happy knowing that my doctor had to make it through a long and brutal composition before he started poking me with things.
and I think it would be a better idea not to take those trillions of dollars to begin with.
-
I said make it cheaper, not make it easier. There's a difference.
And I'm not sure I agree. If the government doesn't take the money through taxes and build free-to-use roads, schools, etc, nobody is going to. People are selfish. That's just the way it is.
-
There is a difference between that and health care. Roads and the like are public goods. Once they're there, a whole lot of people can benefit, but any one person isn't willing to pay enough to build a road. That's where you'd need some kind of organization, e.g. the government, to collect a little money from everyone and build a road. Health care is not a public good. Having doctors available doesn't mean you can "use" them whenever you please, and one person's use of health services prevents someone else from using it at the same time. So the amount that individuals are willing to pay is actually an okay approximation of the value of health care.
This doesn't account for people who cannot pay at all, it just allocates resources efficiently. Under a totally free market, they'd just die.
-
That's treating health care like a luxury, but it's not a luxury.
-
Idealistically? Perhaps not. But realistically? Very much so. There are one or two billion people on this planet for whom up-to-date vaccinations would be a luxury worth their weight in gold.
-
Health care can only be considered a luxury in the third world. Hence, the US is a third world country.
It should be noted that roads tend to require routine maintenance or will otherwise become unusable. Also, other people using a road often does directly impede your use of said road.
-
Well, I try not to go around annoying people about my country and its social organization, so I just tend to shut up, but I just can't resist it this time.
iamzack, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it just doesn't works. Argentina has free health care paid by the national, provincial and municipal government, health care and covenants with private institutions provided by the unions, and private health care. The result? Mediocre public health care paid by the middle class through taxes, unions getting incredibly rich and bureaucratic, and private health (generally the only that provides top of the line, state of the art health care) facing an unfair disadvantage in the market and thus becoming more expensive.
Why do we do it this way then? Well, just like with education, it's the only way we can provide those services for the considerable part of the population that simply can't pay for it (when it comes to human rights, you can't simply let them die). That's not your case. You guys earn enough, and you have a reasonable system working right now. If sometimes you have to make some sacrifices to save money for a surgery or something, the best solution is simply doing it (I'm in the middle class, covered by the public system and three unions and I still had to do it anyway for my past three eye surgeries, and for the next three too). Giving more money to the bureaucrats won't do anything to improve the situation, and it has a good chance of worsening it.
You're fine the way you are. Don't fix what's not broken.
-
That's treating health care like a luxury, but it's not a luxury.
Sure it is. Everything beyond crawling to your cave to lick your wounds is.
-
You do have a right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights) to speak in a public forum. You do not have the right to be heard in said forum.
You do have the right to do anything you want, anywhere you want. You do not have the right to inflict those activities on others without their consent.
What a lot of people call "rights" are in fact far less than that.
I've heard the phrase "moral obligation" used to justify the government stealing 1/6 of the US economy from the people. While we do have a moral obligation to aid those who are less fortunate than ourselves, that obligation does not extend to paying for their home loans, car loans or boob jobs.
No one in genuine need is turned away from a hospital in the United States, and hospitals write off more than a little bit of the care they provide to those who can't pay for it.
Does the system work? Not all the time, but you seem to want to turn over control of the system to a group of people whose only qualification is getting elected to public office.
My question is this, why is it so important that this happens now as opposed to two years from now at the end of Obama's term(and we all know he's not going to have a second one)?
-
I've heard the phrase "moral obligation" used to justify the government stealing 1/6 of the US economy from the people. While we do have a moral obligation to aid those who are less fortunate than ourselves, that obligation does not extend to paying for their home loans, car loans or boob jobs.
Is it any worse than a small oligarchy demanding 1/6 of the economy and still deciding that people aren't worth keeping alive?
Does the system work? Not all the time, but you seem to want to turn over control of the system to a group of people whose only qualification is getting elected to public office.
And the qualification of the current set of health tyrants is? Not to mention that politicians don't tend to actually run anything themselves. That's what public servants are for.
Wait, are you proposing a technocracy?
My question is this, why is it so important that this happens now as opposed to two years from now at the end of Obama's term(and we all know he's not going to have a second one)?
However many thousands of dead and/or bankrupt people?
-
My question is this, why is it so important that this happens now as opposed to two years from now at the end of Obama's term(and we all know he's not going to have a second one)?
Well, I can only speak for myself personally, but: Because I have a number of chronic health problems and no health insurance now.
-
Doctors are extremely valuable workers, it makes perfect sense that they should make quite a bit, when you get down to it.
-
What about teachers? Farmers?
-
The current set of health tyrants are qualified to maximize profit. In a competitive market with no externalities, this is the most efficient scheme, and not just doing anything to get elected. I do believe that some minimum level of health care should be maintained for people who can't afford it, but also that the right balance is somewhere around where we are now.
Teachers and farmers are valuable. Farmers already make quite a bit thanks to federal payment. Are you saying that these should become more private?
-
A person can get along without teachers and farmers. But a seriously sick person can not get along without doctors.
So from the point of view of an individua, the value of medical services is higher than the value of farming, education.
-
Without teachers, we don't get doctors.
-
Brought up before, that's why it's expensive. You have to pay those teachers for the thousands of hours invested.
-
What about teachers? Farmers?
Less education required. A standard pre-collegiate teacher has a Bachelor's (preferably in something related to their subject) and a teaching certificate. To teach at any higher institution, the professor must have at least a Master's and often a Doctorate. Many professors also must Publish on a regular basis or have been In Industry for an extended period of time.
Farmering is often a family trade. Purchasing the hundreds or thousands of acres of land to run an efficient farm is expensive, especially for the best land.
-
A Bachelor's degree is pretty expensive. Teachers don't get paid much, so in my state, if you agree to teach in North Carolina for a minimum period of time, the state takes care of tuition.
Why aren't we doing that for doctors, if they're so, so, so valuable?
-
You aren't listening. Doctors do get paid enough to pay off tuition. Besides, take a look at what you just said. The state. States can run out of money too, and if they're paying for teachers' and doctors' tuition, they'll run out even faster.
-
Without teachers, we don't get doctors.
True, when the scope is the whole society. But individuals can avoid that problem, by letting others see the trouble of arranging the doctors (still, they need money to gain access to them).
-
You aren't listening. Doctors do get paid enough to pay off tuition.
Unless they work primarily for the people who can't pay.
-
Doctors don't frequently work for people who can't pay, especially since hospitals employ the vast majority of them. Even if they treat people who can't pay, they still get paid.
-
The current set of health tyrants are qualified to maximize profit. In a competitive market with no externalities, this is the most efficient scheme, and not just doing anything to get elected.
This would only apply if efficiency is not measured by cost/service (not to mention the laughable assumptions about the free market being perfect). Efficiency seems to be measured by cost/payers which incredibly rewards rejecting people, especially those who have already paid.
I do believe that some minimum level of health care should be maintained for people who can't afford it, but also that the right balance is somewhere around where we are now.
None?
A person can get along without teachers and farmers. But a seriously sick person can not get along without doctors.
So from the point of view of an individua, the value of medical services is higher than the value of farming, education.
Your doctor drug company has cured hunger?
-
Farmers already make quite a bit thanks to federal payment.
I LOL'D.
A person can get along without farmers.
Try it.
City folk. You think everything just appears on the trucks as they back into the grocery store and that past the city limits is just a blur as you drive/fly over.
And on the federal payment thing, most family farms are in debt up to they're eyeballs. If food cost what it should/would without that paydown from the government, a gallon of milk would cost $10, a head of broccoli $12, and a package of hamburger $25.
-
I thought most agricultural production in the United States was handled by large agri-businesses instead of family-owned farms.
-
I thought most agricultural production in the United States was handled by large agri-businesses instead of family-owned farms.
Most of it is family-owned businesses with gigantic tracts of land and a lot of professional work and equipment. Most of those in debt are smaller farmers.
-
Okay. So my argument was off about that, but the basic fact remains that most of the food grown in the United States does not require any federal subsidies, which is what Liberator was saying.
-
A Bachelor's degree is pretty expensive. Teachers don't get paid much, so in my state, if you agree to teach in North Carolina for a minimum period of time, the state takes care of tuition.
Why aren't we doing that for doctors, if they're so, so, so valuable?
Becoming a doctor is a fair bit more expensive than a bachelor's degree.
-
You're fine the way you are. Don't fix what's not broken.
I'm sure that is cold comfort to the 40+ million that are being denied access. I'm sure it will also make those that lose everything they have, both insured and uninsured, to outrageously expensive healthcare feel better too. Before the financial crisis, the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US was healthcare. Fine the way we are? Doesn't look that way to me.
Argentina has free health care paid by the national, provincial and municipal government, health care and covenants with private institutions provided by the unions, and private health care. The result? Mediocre public health care paid by the middle class through taxes, unions getting incredibly rich and bureaucratic, and private health (generally the only that provides top of the line, state of the art health care) facing an unfair disadvantage in the market and thus becoming more expensive.
If I had the choice between mediocre and nothing, I would choose mediocre. How is private health facing an unfair disadvantage? That they have to be more honest about their pricing? Anyone would go for it if they had the chance, but not all of us are so fortunate. What if you lose your job? In the US, typically that means you lose your coverage completely, and become vulnerable. If you have any sort of chronic condition, good luck getting private insurance at all, much less with a reasonable rate. Is that fair to the people?
In the last 40 years the cost of healthcare has risen far, far more than inflation. That alone is indicative something is wrong. We spend far more as a percentage of GDP than any other country in the world, at yet according to the WHO we aren't even close to number one in quality of care. Based on this alone, it is blatant evidence that the current system is working less and less well, and becoming increasingly out of reach to middle class america. The right wing always *****es about the middle class getting squeezed hard (which it has been), while at the same time defend the very systems that are creating that squeeze in the first place.
-
Another debate about health care?
I still can't believe we have people defending the rich and screwing the sick.
-
Nobody's defending anything. The system does need some adjustment. Adjustment. Not throwing the whole thing out and letting 520 lawyers and politicians stuff a hackneyed, unworkable, barely-worthy-of-the-word "alternative" down our throats.
-
By saying healthcare just needs an "adjustment" and not a total overhaul is by default defending the rich.
CEOs of health insurance companies are the ones benefiting from the current system, people who make >$500K a year. People who will be taxed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States#Congressional_proposals) if reform passes.
-
Aren't there ag exemptions in the Senate bill? Its been a few months since I read the bill. I read all of hte House bill and a big chunk of the senate bill. Did you?
The House bill would change my life not one whit. The Senate bill was less appealing, if I recall, their version of the "cadillac tax" looked like it might affect me in 2014, but I am not sure I am selfish enough to object.
-
Nobody's defending anything. The system does need some adjustment. Adjustment. Not throwing the whole thing out and letting 520 lawyers and politicians stuff a hackneyed, unworkable, barely-worthy-of-the-word "alternative" down our throats.
Defend those claims. In what ways is it hackneyed, unworkable, barely-worthy-of-the-word "alternative"?
Because let's be honest here, this is exactly the same argument being made against gay marriage, and it's being made on the same grounds. Someone is trying to extend priviledge into a right, so they are being accused of trying to destroy priviledge. In essence, if we give everyone healthcare, then some people aren't special anymore. And they don't like not being special.
There's even truth to the argument that by making a priviledge into a right you destroy it. But it's a just destruction. I know this may not sway you; some of the right's mouthpieces have lately even claimed that they are against social justice or justice in general, but if you wish to continue arguing against the concept of justice, I don't think it's possible for us to find common ground. You are as alien as any extraterrestrial, under those terms.
-
A person can get along without farmers.
Try it.
City folk. You think everything just appears on the trucks as they back into the grocery store and that past the city limits is just a blur as you drive/fly over.
You misunderstood what I tried to say. The point was that you can get along even if YOU are deprived from their services. If it comes to it, you can steal, deceive, beg etc. to get foodstuffs. But stealing advanced medical treatments is almost impossible; you may end up being critically dependent on services you can't get without proper money.
-
...stuff a hackneyed, unworkable, barely-worthy-of-the-word "alternative" down our throats.
I thought the Daily Show was exaggerating about this. XD
-
...stuff a hackneyed, unworkable, barely-worthy-of-the-word "alternative" down our throats.
I thought the Daily Show was exaggerating about this. XD
Actually they're fairly spot-on, if a bit sarcastic. The system DOES need an adjustment, but handing it all over to bureaucratic control will NOT serve 309,000,000 people effectively in 50 states and several Caribbean and Pacific territories. In some European Union countries, it does work. However, the USA is roughly 4x the size of Germany (3.814x), 5x the size of France (4.828x), 5x the size of the UK (4.984x), 5x the size of Italy (5.15x), &c. As was recently proven in the financial crisis, even delegating the management down to a state-by-state level would be horrendous. Would you really want a major even such as California's recent bankruptcy to stop all health coverage for its 37,000,000 residents? Would you really want broken state politics (such as those seen DAILY in New York) to constantly change the rules or have a health care spending bill be 20% healthcare and 80% embezzlement?
-
California's recent bankruptcy
We aren't quite bankrupt yet, we are still merely fiscally insolvent. :P The biggest problem facing California's budget is the fact it is highly dependent on the incomes of the wealthy. Since a lot of the rich have taken major income hits due to the recession, California isn't making enough money to meet the Legislature's uncontrolled spending habits, and like people with addictions, they can't seem to realize the only way to stay solvent is to stop spending so much money.
-
...stuff a hackneyed, unworkable, barely-worthy-of-the-word "alternative" down our throats.
I thought the Daily Show was exaggerating about this. XD
Actually they're fairly spot-on, if a bit sarcastic. The system DOES need an adjustment, but handing it all over to bureaucratic control will NOT serve 309,000,000 people effectively in 50 states and several Caribbean and Pacific territories. In some European Union countries, it does work. However, the USA is roughly 4x the size of Germany (3.814x), 5x the size of France (4.828x), 5x the size of the UK (4.984x), 5x the size of Italy (5.15x), &c. As was recently proven in the financial crisis, even delegating the management down to a state-by-state level would be horrendous. Would you really want a major even such as California's recent bankruptcy to stop all health coverage for its 37,000,000 residents? Would you really want broken state politics (such as those seen DAILY in New York) to constantly change the rules or have a health care spending bill be 20% healthcare and 80% embezzlement?
One thing I've never understood is why do people point out the size of the population as something that stops healthcare from working. Yes, it's roughly 4x the size of Germany, 5x the size of France, 5x the size of the UK and 5x the size of Italy. But it also has 4x the GDP of germany (3.863x), 5x the GDP of France (4.935x), 5x the GDP of the UK (5.287x) and 6x the GDP of Italy (6.121x).
-
It isn't about the amount of money needed, it is about the size of the bureaucracy required. The United States already has a huge, inefficient bureaucracy, and adding an entire health care bureaucracy on top of what already exists isn't going to improve matters.
-
California's recent bankruptcy
We aren't quite bankrupt yet, we are still merely fiscally insolvent. :P The biggest problem facing California's budget is the fact it is highly dependent on the incomes of the wealthy. Since a lot of the rich have taken major income hits due to the recession, California isn't making enough money to meet the Legislature's uncontrolled spending habits, and like people with addictions, they can't seem to realize the only way to stay solvent is to stop spending so much money.
Basically, but said in different terms. They were financially insolvent; everyone stopped taking IOU's from the State of California. State assets were sold at auction, non-critical employees sent home without a paycheck, etc. The world didn't come to an end, but for a moment it paused.
-
So a few state employees got a few days off without pay, boo hoo. So the state sold some land it didn't need, boo hoo. The only real problem I see is the state giving out IOU's like they were real money, yet us getting sent to jail if we try to do that with our taxes.
-
Actually they're fairly spot-on, if a bit sarcastic. The system DOES need an adjustment, but handing it all over to bureaucratic control will NOT serve 309,000,000 people effectively in 50 states and several Caribbean and Pacific territories.
Which is not what the original point of it was in the first place. The original idea was to have a public option to get those 40+ million people without insurance covered. There is a state that does this already, Hawaii.
-
I'm sure that is cold comfort to the 40+ million that are being denied access. I'm sure it will also make those that lose everything they have, both insured and uninsured, to outrageously expensive healthcare feel better too. Before the financial crisis, the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US was healthcare. Fine the way we are? Doesn't look that way to me.
Whoa, didn't knew the economic crisis had struck you THAT bad. That's roughly 13% of the population without any health care if my estimation is right. I thought the percentage was statistically insignificant and could be dealt with through some alternative method, but now I see you're right about the situation being unsustainable.
You know, sometimes I have this image of Americans being rich enough to solve pretty much anything throwing money at it.
Still, I think the best approach would be to take some temporary measures until the situation normalizes again, trying not to mess with a recovering economy too much (or too suddenly).
-
Which is not what the original point of it was in the first place. The original idea was to have a public option to get those 40+ million people without insurance covered. There is a state that does this already, Hawaii.
Except the don't and haven't for going on 9 months. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/17/health/main4527996.shtml)
BTW, if you haven't heard, the abomination (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/21/house-leaders-make-impassioned-pleas-final-health-care-vote/) is passed in the House.
-
Oi...
Alright, besides it being the result of the Democrats, what exactly makes this an abomination?
Is it the best we could do? No, but you have your Republican friends in Congress to thank for that (as well as some of the blue dogs...).
-
Whoa, didn't knew the economic crisis had struck you THAT bad. That's roughly 13% of the population without any health care if my estimation is right. I thought the percentage was statistically insignificant and could be dealt with through some alternative method, but now I see you're right about the situation being unsustainable.
Um, that figure was from 5 years ago, BEFORE the financial crsis. I dont know what it is now, but it certainly has gotten worse now that many people lost their jobs (and as a result their coverage).
Still, I think the best approach would be to take some temporary measures until the situation normalizes again, trying not to mess with a recovering economy too much (or too suddenly).
Having 13% of our population uncovered is the normal situation. That figure also does not fully reflect the reality because there are many plans out there that don't really cover much at all, so in effect those people are insured in name only. Add to that alot of insurance companies are now making cuts to what they are covering as a result of the financial crisis.
Except the don't and haven't for going on 9 months.
From the first comment:
Hawaii has mandated employer-provided health care since 1974, with Hawaii?s businesses paying the highest percentage of employee health insurance premiums in the country because the Hawaii Prepaid Health Care Act (PHCA) requires almost all Hawaii employers to provide health insurance to employees who work 20 hours or more for four consecutive weeks with an employee?s contribution to health insurance coverage not exceeding 1.5 percent of wages. The result is a per-capita total health cost that is 60% of the US average ? about the same as the rest of the world, with a lower than the national average uninsured rate. The new ?universal program? was for children only and was stopped due to budget concerns, leaving intact the great coverage and low cost that comes from mandatory affordable employer provision of coverage. The insurance companies 31% overhead has to end and will only end via a public option and an affordable mandate ? either via subsidy as in the Senate Bill or via mandatory employer contribution as in Hawaii. Please contact an actuary ? I am a retired actuary ? before you write your next piece on insurance.
The rogue question marks are from my computer, ignore them.
-
The 40 million uninsured number is a bit misleading. A lot of those people are here illegally, others in that number are rich enough to buy insurance but would rather pay out of pocket, some of those are young adults who think they are invincible, and a great number are already eligible for programs that currently exist but for some reason they are not signed up for them. The actual number of people who can't get any insurance at all is a lot lower than 40 million.
-
All 40 million are still ****ed if they have a health problem though, so what difference does it make?
-
A lot of those people are here illegally,
This means, you realize, they will get treated at the state's expense if injured anyways.
-
The actual number of people who can't get any insurance at all is a lot lower than 40 million.
I'm still one of them.
-
Most people I know in my life are uninsured.
My best friend's mother owes something like $50,000 in medical bills, and makes $20,000 a year.
-
Most people I know in my life are uninsured.
My best friend's mother owes something like $50,000 in medical bills, and makes $20,000 a year.
A statement entirely out of context I think. How did she accumulate $50k in debt? Why is she only working a $20k/yr job? Is she disabled? Did she have coverage while she was accumulating the debt? Did she do something incredibly stupid like pay out-of-pocket for breast implants or some other cosmetic surgery?
And nobody really knows the number of people without health coverage. As was pointed out, many of those without coverage in '05 was because they were rich enough or thought themselves to not need insurance. I don't know many if anyone that's uninsured; even my university provides health insurance for all students.
The problem with The Abomination is you receive no real choice; private coverage is effectively banned (no new sign-ups and you still need to pay premium of course), state-run coverage is free (paid for by tax, whether or not you will ever use it).
-
One thing I've never understood is why do people point out the size of the population as something that stops healthcare from working. Yes, it's roughly 4x the size of Germany, 5x the size of France, 5x the size of the UK and 5x the size of Italy. But it also has 4x the GDP of germany (3.863x), 5x the GDP of France (4.935x), 5x the GDP of the UK (5.287x) and 6x the GDP of Italy (6.121x).
Also, that comes out to an excellent argument for single-payer, since in this case having more people in the system actually would increase its efficiency. Too bad we can't have some half-decent socialism in here :-(.
The way I figure, giving everyone an equal footing to start from ensures that the people who can actually start businesses and create wealth get the opportunity to do so, instead of having those factors like insufficient access to healthcare and education prevent a large amount of them from getting to that point. The poor suffer less, more people can take risks and start businesses, and the rich will probably still get richer, since everyone else will have more money to spend and all the wealth wells up.
-
Tura, you begin from a false premise, that everyone doesn't start from an equal place. They do, when you are born you have nothing. When you wake up in the morning, you don't have the guarantee that you will see the end of the day. The primary difference between the "rich" and the "poor" is ambition. Rich people are rich, primarily, because they get out there and bust they're ass when no one is looking.
Also, just how high do you set the "equal" bar? If you provide health care and education so that every starts from an "equal" place, why not raise it so that even if they fail, they aren't actually hurt? Where does the drive to succeed come from if everyone starts from comfort? You whine and complain about "teh ebil CONSUMERISM", well in your world, that's all that's left to drive people to be successful is rampant selfish, keeping-up-with-the-joneses greed.
Also, Communism fails, usually quite rapidly, because the power is centered in the hands of the a few people at the top of the government. So even if you have really benevolent, well intentioned people at the top for first few years, eventually(because crap doesn't run uphill), you get these self-absorbed, narcissistic, maybe malevolent bastards at the top who snag the remaining power for themselves and then use the systems that you put in place to keep things "equal" at the bottom and make sure that they are not equally good, but rather equally bad so that they can more easily maintain power for themselves over the long term.
-
Tura, you begin from a false premise, that everyone doesn't start from an equal place.
This is where you are wrong. Some inner-city black kid and a pampered spoiled middle-class bum like me do not have the same footing from which to get started in this country.
This is the USA. Rich people are rich because they were born rich, or because they pulled the strings and gamed the system to get rich at the expense of others. "Hard Work" and "Busting your Ass" makes you a typical American wage-slave, always striving to get ahead but never noticing that your life has essentially become work. I'm sorry you've bought into the Republican line, but it just doesn't work that way the vast majority of the time.
Also, you seem to have this idea in your head that having the basics taken care of somehow means that people won't want to work. The rest of the civilized world doesn't seem to have this problem, and they take care of those basics. Motivation for succeeding? Making life better for your kids, or making a meaningful contribution to the world before you die. Not wanting to starve isn't the sort of motivation you're supposed to have in a civilized society.
Also, who said anything about communism?
This is about the difference between "Working to Live" and "Living to Work." Eventually, we need to make the transition or the entire populace is going to be burned out.
-
Tura, I believe you are mentioning a system like France's? I doubt it would be effective in increasing wealth. Wikipedia agrees with me, especially about employment rates. Only 69% of all French workers aged 15-64 were employed in 2004, compared to 77% of the United States.
And I quote from Wikipedia: This gap is due to the very low employment rates at both age extremes: the employment rate of people aged 55–64 was 38,3% in 2007, compared to 46,6% in the EU15;[66] for the 15–24 years old, the employment rate was 31,5% in 2007, compared to 37,2% in EU25.[67] These low employment rates are explained by the high minimum wages which prevent low productivity workers – such as young people – from easily entering the labour market,[68] ineffective university curricula that fail to prepare students adequately for the labour market,[69] and, concerning the older workers, restrictive legislation on work and incentives for premature retirement.[70][71]
Again, more quotes: The unemployment rate decreased from 9% in 2006 to 7% in 2008 but remains one of the highest in Europe.[72][73] In June 2009, the unemployment rate for France was 9.4%.[74] Shorter working hours and the reluctance to reform the labour market are mentioned as weak spots of the French economy in the view of the right, when the left mentions the lack of government policies fostering social justice. Liberal economists have stressed repeatedly over the years that the main issue of the French economy is an issue of structural reforms, in order to increase the size of the working population in the overall population, reduce the taxes' level and the administrative burden. Keynesian economists have different answers to the unemployment issue, and their theories led to the 35-hour workweek law in the early 2000s, which turned out to be failure in reducing unemployment. Afterwards, between 2004 and 2008, the Government made some supply-oriented reforms to combat unemployment but met with fierce resistance, especially with the contrat nouvelle embauche and the contrat première embauche which both were eventually repealed. The current Government is experiencing the Revenu de solidarité active.
Considering the French government is having significant issues with employment, and they are very leftist compared to the U.S., I would say that is a good reason to avoid socialist policies in the economy.
Source check. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France)
-
Where does the drive to succeed come from if everyone starts from comfort?
And where does the need for a society come? If being a member of a society gives you nothing, it'd be better to dismantle the whole thing. At least you'd be free then.
-
castor, that's the very basis of what a society is.
Society doesn't exist to give people stuff, it exists to ensure that people of like mind and background can live together in peace. Because I don't know if you've noticed, but different groups of people have in the past, and in current times tried to wipe out anyone who's different simply because they are different.
-
Society exists to give everyone peace and security and the ability to specialize, etc. Lots of giving to the individual from society.
-
And lots of giving from the individual to society. Leftists always leave that part out.
Empty Heads full of Mush: I WANT FREE STUFF! GIMME GIMME!
Leftist: I can give you free stuff!
EHFOM: YAY!
Everyone who is not an EHFOM: So who's gonna pay for it?
Leftist: You are!
Everyone who is not an EHFOM: WHAT!?!!?!??
Leftist hears: YAY!!!
Societies a great because the people in them do great things, not because they are inherently great on they're own.
-
if "leftists" are such idiots, how come you can't do better than a straw man argument? if you want to prove your opponent is really stupid, you use their own words. for example: link (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6139186-503544.html).
what do individuals give to society? they specialize, they conform to cultural customs, they try to turn their ugly babies into productive, independent individuals.
what happens to people who don't conform? we deprive them of society's comforts. we reject them, push them out, and eventually when they become violently disagreeable enough, we kill or imprison them.
-
Zack, what do you mean by "people who don't conform"? You are using it in a vague sense, and I would like some clarification.
-
i'm being vague on purpose. i mean stuff anywhere from being rude to being a rapist.
-
When has rudeness ever caused someone to become violently disagreeable?
I also disagree with your statement about conformity. You are assuming a nation is a homogeneous glob of people, and that just isn't so. America is a highly diverse place, and there is very little conformity possible when you have everyone from Texan rednecks to effete bluebloods who have vacation homes in Martha's Vineyard. That's just counting whites, and there are plenty of other ethnicities besides Caucasians in America, plenty of them each with their own culture.
The most conformity required in America is to respect the rights of others, otherwise we wouldn't Harlem rappers and parades in the street that celebrate the Vietnamese New Year.
-
Aaaaaaaand this turned into another "left vs. right" argument.
Now I feel disoriented. I'm too right to be considered a socialist or social democrat, and too left to be a "pure" liberal capitalist. So I guess I'll just sit down and enjoy the show for now.
Oh! Just one more thing. Providing education for everyone isn't necessarily a bad idea, not even for the economy (though it's better if you can get away with the private sector doing it). But feeding people is, judging by experience, a bad idea, since they do get used to it, it happens to be very expensive, and it's the first clear sign that you're heading to populism. Give them education and job opportunities. If they are too lazy to get their own food, that's their own problem.
-
I also disagree with your statement about conformity. You are assuming a nation is a homogeneous glob of people, and that just isn't so. America is a highly diverse place, and there is very little conformity possible when you have everyone from Texan rednecks to effete bluebloods who have vacation homes in Martha's Vineyard. That's just counting whites, and there are plenty of other ethnicities besides Caucasians in America, plenty of them each with their own culture.
The most conformity required in America is to respect the rights of others, otherwise we wouldn't Harlem rappers and parades in the street that celebrate the Vietnamese New Year.
America has social customs just like any other place. People are highly sensitive about personal space here, for example. You can't just walk on someone's lawn. That's rudeness. That won't get you imprisoned, but it will cause people to avoid and ostracize you. There is a certain amount of conformity in every society, otherwise there'd be no society. Everybody has to more or less agree on what's socially acceptable or not socially acceptable.
I'm not saying everyone is the same. Just that we have similar ideas about what good manners are.
Providing education for everyone isn't necessarily a bad idea, not even for the economy (though it's better if you can get away with the private sector doing it). But feeding people is, judging by experience, a bad idea, since they do get used to it, it happens to be very expensive, and it's the first clear sign that you're heading to populism. Give them education and job opportunities. If they are too lazy to get their own food, that's their own problem.
If it's in the private sector, you will have a big chunk of the population unable to afford it. That includes education, food, health care, etc. That's because the biggest profit doesn't come from everyone being able to afford the product. Just most people.
-
in the case of US healthcare reform, it's a question of efficiency more than anything else. We pay the most, we don't get the most. something is being lost here and that needs to be corrected. There's also the added benefit of keeping people healthy, which coincidentally keeps them working.
-
But, Tura, you are talking about handing controlling interest over to the Federal Government. An organization not noted for it's efficiency or speed in dealing with an issue.
-
But, Tura, you are talking about handing controlling interest over to the Federal Government. An organization not noted for it's efficiency or speed in dealing with an issue.
Yeah, but nobody else is in a position to do it! There's no free market solution for universal healthcare.
-
Providing education for everyone isn't necessarily a bad idea, not even for the economy (though it's better if you can get away with the private sector doing it). But feeding people is, judging by experience, a bad idea, since they do get used to it, it happens to be very expensive, and it's the first clear sign that you're heading to populism. Give them education and job opportunities. If they are too lazy to get their own food, that's their own problem.
If it's in the private sector, you will have a big chunk of the population unable to afford it. That includes education, food, health care, etc. That's because the biggest profit doesn't come from everyone being able to afford the product. Just most people.
Someone with some education and in good health condition will have a hard time demonstrating he can't produce enough to feed himself. There are always some cases, like handicapped people, but those cases are not statistically significant and can be dealt with through other methods (hell, in proper conditions, handicapped people can not only work but in many cases even outperform their coworkers).
There are cases when the public sector has to intervene to provide some services if the private sector is not enough, but trust me when I tell you, feeding people can ruin everything in just a few decades. Oh! And it's not very dignifying.
-
Providing education for everyone isn't necessarily a bad idea, not even for the economy (though it's better if you can get away with the private sector doing it). But feeding people is, judging by experience, a bad idea, since they do get used to it, it happens to be very expensive, and it's the first clear sign that you're heading to populism. Give them education and job opportunities. If they are too lazy to get their own food, that's their own problem.
If it's in the private sector, you will have a big chunk of the population unable to afford it. That includes education, food, health care, etc. That's because the biggest profit doesn't come from everyone being able to afford the product. Just most people.
Someone with some education and in good health condition will have a hard time demonstrating he can't produce enough to feed himself. There are always some cases, like handicapped people, but those cases are not statistically significant and can be dealt with through other methods (hell, in proper conditions, handicapped people can not only work but in many cases even outperform their coworkers).
There are cases when the public sector has to intervene to provide some services if the private sector is not enough, but trust me when I tell you, feeding people can ruin everything in just a few decades. Oh! And it's not very dignifying.
You'll find that most hungry people are hungry for a reason other than laziness. Even if it's just that they're too stupid to keep a job that pays well enough to feed their growing (due to stupidity and/or a lack of education) family.
-
Ah, the typical HLP left v right argument...
Right: COMMUNISM IS EBIL
Left: ur stupid wer not talking bout communism lol
Right: YOU HATE AMERICA LOL
Left: dude im dutch
Right: SO UR COMMUNIST AND UR EBIL
Left #2: I'm american and i like universal healthcare
Right: PINKO COMMIE
Dekker: iwn t more ptoatoc hips
-
Providing education for everyone isn't necessarily a bad idea, not even for the economy (though it's better if you can get away with the private sector doing it). But feeding people is, judging by experience, a bad idea, since they do get used to it, it happens to be very expensive, and it's the first clear sign that you're heading to populism. Give them education and job opportunities. If they are too lazy to get their own food, that's their own problem.
If it's in the private sector, you will have a big chunk of the population unable to afford it. That includes education, food, health care, etc. That's because the biggest profit doesn't come from everyone being able to afford the product. Just most people.
Someone with some education and in good health condition will have a hard time demonstrating he can't produce enough to feed himself. There are always some cases, like handicapped people, but those cases are not statistically significant and can be dealt with through other methods (hell, in proper conditions, handicapped people can not only work but in many cases even outperform their coworkers).
There are cases when the public sector has to intervene to provide some services if the private sector is not enough, but trust me when I tell you, feeding people can ruin everything in just a few decades. Oh! And it's not very dignifying.
You'll find that most hungry people are hungry for a reason other than laziness. Even if it's just that they're too stupid to keep a job that pays well enough to feed their growing (due to stupidity and/or a lack of education) family.
As far as I know, there are mainly three reasons why people are poor:
- They don't work (because they can't or because they don't want).
- They DO work, but not enough (because they can't or because they don't want).
- They DO work, a lot, like slaves, but they can't produce enough to sustain themselves.
Now, there are many theories as to "why" you can end up on those conditions, ranging from "not enough market freedom", passing through "need for state-driven industrialization" and going as far as "those capitalist pigs steal surplus production from the proletariat". All of them may have a point, depending on the particular socio-economical situation of a given country*.
Nevertheless, if you (with "you" I mean "someone", I don't know your particular case) received education (public or private, it doesn't really matters at this point), you received sexual education (I mean, the real one, not the conservative "don't do it"), you received free health care (which may even extend as far as free contraceptive methods), all of this in a country which gives you countless opportunities for a job, and still you choose to stay at home and breed like bunnies, I'm sorry, but you were asking for it.
No system can be stupid-proof.
-------------
*: But that doesn't means you're justified to go around with an AK-47 killing anything that looks like it has more money than you do.
Just for the record, I used to be quite leftist myself (and no, the change was not due to me getting wealthy or something), so you can trust me when I tell you I'm listening to your arguments.
EDIT: Changed "anticonceptive" for "contraceptive". Fixed a typo.
-
Ah, the typical HLP left v right argument...
Right: COMMUNISM IS EBIL
Left: ur stupid wer not talking bout communism lol
Right: YOU HATE AMERICA LOL
Left: dude im dutch
Right: SO UR COMMUNIST AND UR EBIL
Left #2: I'm american and i like universal healthcare
Right: PINKO COMMIE
Dekker: iwn t more ptoatoc hips
Fine, you seem to know this kind of discussions, so tell me: Who the hell am I here? Because I'm having an identity crisis. :lol:
-
Mr. Right is generally Liberator. Mr. Left can be any number of people, depending on the subject. Mr. Left #2 can also usually be anyone, though zack seems to pipe up for Universal Healthcare specifically a lot.
That generally takes care of the most vocal argument.
-
Also, Communism fails, usually quite rapidly, because the power is centered in the hands of the a few people at the top of the government. So even if you have really benevolent, well intentioned people at the top for first few years, eventually(because crap doesn't run uphill), you get these self-absorbed, narcissistic, maybe malevolent bastards at the top who snag the remaining power for themselves and then use the systems that you put in place to keep things "equal" at the bottom and make sure that they are not equally good, but rather equally bad so that they can more easily maintain power for themselves over the long term.
What's rather scary is how well that describes the American government system too.
You could easily change the word Communism to Capitalism and complain about lobbying without changing anything else.
-
Zack, what do you mean by "people who don't conform"?
Half of the immigrants? :nervous:
:warp:
-
Zack, what do you mean by "people who don't conform"?
Half of the immigrants? :nervous:
:warp:
And the result is widespread xenophobia. So immigrants are just as subject to being punished for their social transgressions.
-
Zack, what do you mean by "people who don't conform"?
Half of the immigrants? :nervous:
:warp:
And the result is widespread xenophobia. So immigrants are just as subject to being punished for their social transgressions.
Not always xenophobia, but frustration that there are millions, at least, of people illegally in the country. I have no problem with legal immigrants or minorities, but what I do find ironic and quite hilarious is racist anti-gay xenophobes.
-
I'm not convinced that most of the illegal immigrants have much choice in the matter. It seems to be hop the fence or stay put (for years and years or forever).
-
Which doesn't change the fact that they still have the choice to come legally or break several laws to get here.
Also, I'm calling it right now, the next abomination to come from "der fuhrer" is going to be that "We have a MORAL RESPONSIBILITY to allow illegal immigration.".
What right does he have to tell me what I have a moral responsibility for in the first place?
-
Man! How do Mexicans DARE to be born south of Rio Grande... :lol:
While I'm at it, why do you guys always compare anything you don't like with Hitler and Nazism? It gets old really fast (actually, it got old a few decades ago). At least compare it with Chávez or something more current.
-
el_magnifico, this is Liberator we're talking about. He's obviously never heard of Godwin's Law either.
-
El-Magnifico, the problem most people have with illegal aliens (although some who oppose illegal immigration probably are racist rednecks) is that they break the law by jumping the fence. If that wasn't bad enough, they also refuse to learn English like all the other immigrants before them and they also have too many kids for them to feed so they end up on welfare. Besides, jumping the border and then claiming you are entitled to be here is a slap in the face to everyone who takes the time and effort to enter legally, and it takes a lot of time, effort, and patience to emigrate to this country legally.
-
You really believe illegals refuse to learn english? That's almost as stupid as liberator referring to Obama as Hitler.
PS: http://reason.com/assets/db/07cf533ddb1d06350cf1ddb5942ef5ad.jpg
-
El-Magnifico, the problem most people have with illegal aliens (although some who oppose illegal immigration probably are racist rednecks) is that they break the law by jumping the fence. If that wasn't bad enough, they also refuse to learn English like all the other immigrants before them and they also have too many kids for them to feed so they end up on welfare. Besides, jumping the border and then claiming you are entitled to be here is a slap in the face to everyone who takes the time and effort to enter legally, and it takes a lot of time, effort, and patience to emigrate to this country legally.
Hold on! You mean they speak in Spanish too!? ¡Ay chihuahua! Those nasty bastards!!! What kind of subhuman speaks Spanish in the first place!? :lol:
Well, enough for now. Sorry, but I'm a bit bored and I need to have fun with something.
[/non-seriousness]
I see you have with Mexicans the same "problem" we have (mainly) with Bolivians and Paraguayans, but also with Chileans and even some Uruguayan and Brazilian ones. I know in Buenos Aires inmigrants have a bad reputation, but since Buenos Aires is already a mess for its own merits, I'm going to disregard porteños (their inhabitants) and speak of my own personal experience. So this will be heavily biased, okay?
First of all, I'm a stereotypical Argentinean middle class guy. Tall, blonde, with hazel/green eyes, I carry a French and a Basque last name and I know for sure my family has been around here for less than a century. In fact, I guess my ancestors didn't arrived here legally to begin with. So claiming I'm entitled to be here, while legally true, raises more than one eyebrow amongst Bolivians and Paraguayans who happen to be of aborigean descent and feel (with some reasons) that's a bit unfair.
Second, while the local people despises those black, fat guys who speak with a weird accent, I usually despise the local people. They are so used to a relatively comfortable life that they forget their grandfathers were exactly that: foreigners of all types and nationalities, many of them didn't spoke a word of Spanish, and in most cases, they never did. So while the inmigrants study and work hard and just go around minding their own businesses (which happens to be my definition of a good neighbor) the local ones (especially, but not exclusively the local poor) are generally the ones who steal, deceive, and live of state welfare.
So, that's the reason why I turn a blind eye for illegal inmigration here, and feel a bit of sympathy for those Mexicans.
Your situation as a country, and your personal experience, vary. Since I don't know your particular situation, but I'm still a bit bored, I'm still going to write a joke here and there. Don't take it too seriously.
EDIT: Pluralized "Bolivian" and "Paraguayan" in the fourth paragraph.
-
I'll be clear.
I have no problem with people who come here and spend the years it takes to become a citizen, in fact I applaud them. More folks for the melting pot.
My problem is exactly as stated. People who come here illegally and refuse to integrate. If I get into a fender bender with one of these people, I can't even communicate with them to exchange insurance or do anything but exchange furtive glances.
And it's not a racial thing, I could care less if you are red, black, yellow, white or purple with speckled polka-dots(that one chick was HAWT!), just behave in a rational, pleasant manner and integrate into the society you have inflicted yourself with and on.
-
go find an illegal who has been here a year that isn't trying his damnedest to learn english. it doesn't make any sense to come here looking for work and not learn any of the language.
-
My problem is exactly as stated. People who come here illegally and refuse to integrate. If I get into a fender bender with one of these people, I can't even communicate with them to exchange insurance or do anything but exchange furtive glances.
You seem to need something like this, but from English to Spanish:
http://www.spike.com/video/zuiikin-english/2731513 (http://www.spike.com/video/zuiikin-english/2731513)
Then you can dance and sing: Stop beating me with a tube! Stop beating me with a tube! :lol:
-
I'm confused, are you upset they come here illegally, refuse to integrate or both?
So if people came here illegally and integrated, you'd be ok?
-
Probably not. "They're takin' our juurrrbs!"
-
And now the debate moves on to illegal immigration:
RIGHT #1: DEY TOOK OUR JOBS!
LEFT #1: jobs you never wanted
RIGHT #2: THEY REFUSE TO LEARN ENGLISH
LEFT #2: well english is a really difficult language to learn...one of the 5 most difficult in the wor--
RIGHT #1: DEY TOOK OUR JOBBSSSSSSSSSS!
NUCLEAR: my macatorn ia and chese i done
NUKE: STONED LOCKAGE
DEKKER: after lock post
KARAJORMA: NO
-
What are tomorrow's lottery numbers?
-
30 60 90 12 94 42
-
Oh, well, cut him some slack regarding the language issue. While I think not knowing a language isn't enough motive for hating someone (hell, I had to taught myself English just to play old DOS games), he does has a point: It's at the very least highly advisable that you learn at least the basic stuff BEFORE you inmigrate, and if possible, as a rule of courtesy, avoid talking in your native language when other people are around you.
I know I feel a bit nervous when the trademark young Chinese woman dispatching in the trademark Chinese supermarket is talking through her cellphone in freaking Chinese while staring at me and laughing. It's not reason to want her to go back to China, but it's not nice either. Not to mention they never keep the milk refrigerated during the night, and rarely clean anything.
EDIT: OOPS! "his" for "her". I'm also not sure if "dispatching" should be changed to "attending" or something else.
-
I don't hate them. I don't hate much of anyone. But I can disapprove of behavior/attitudes quite strongly without hating someone.
Right now my ****list consists of:
Adolf Hitler for being a racist bastard who almost succeeded in taking over the world.
Osama Bin Ladin, for being a religious zealot who manipulates other zealots into being mass murderers.
Garrosh Hellscream for being a 2d character who exists solely to piss people off.
-
Zack, what do you mean by "people who don't conform"?
Half of the immigrants? :nervous:
:warp:
And the result is widespread xenophobia. So immigrants are just as subject to being punished for their social transgressions.
When I say "not conforming" I was referring to keeping their old lifestyle (and practicly culture) in a new country and really not integrating, I wasn't talking about not disobeying laws.
It doesn't work well and frankly, people like that should be booted out of the country IMHO.
-
When I say "not conforming" I was referring to keeping their old lifestyle (and practicly culture) in a new country and really not integrating, I wasn't talking about not disobeying laws.
And you say this about people coming into America?.
W. T. F.
-
Yep, how dare people keep their old culture when moving to the US. They're in America now, the great melting pot. They must adopt the American Way of Life (TM) or go home.
-
Give it two generations. The children and grandchildren will be integrated by then.
-
Well, a number of states are now passing laws to prevent the health care reform taking effect in their borders.
...wasn't one round of nullification-based craziness not working before the Supreme Court and the Civil War enough for you guys in the south?
-
The south will rise again! And it will be squashed even more easily. XD
-
Well, a number of states are now passing laws to prevent the health care reform taking effect in their borders.
Let them.
Closest thing you can get to a control group. :p
-
South can go if they want.
But leave Florida, Hilton Head, and New Orleans.
-
Well, a number of states are now passing laws to prevent the health care reform taking effect in their borders.
Let them.
Closest thing you can get to a control group. :p
Indeed.
Of course, you could make the same argument for just letting each state manage their own healthcare reform... but nobody bothers to talk about that. :sigh:
-
El-Magnifico, the problem most people have with illegal aliens (although some who oppose illegal immigration probably are racist rednecks) is that they break the law by jumping the fence. If that wasn't bad enough, they also refuse to learn English like all the other immigrants before them and they also have too many kids for them to feed so they end up on welfare. Besides, jumping the border and then claiming you are entitled to be here is a slap in the face to everyone who takes the time and effort to enter legally, and it takes a lot of time, effort, and patience to emigrate to this country legally.
Being a legal immigrant, I totally agree with that. It takes a while to become a citizen of the US. Much longer than jumping a fence or swimming across a river.
-
Indeed.
Of course, you could make the same argument for just letting each state manage their own healthcare reform... but nobody bothers to talk about that. :sigh:
Moving the big decisions to State level just means that the money writing the bills is on a local bribery level, and is less likely to be exposed, since it's less of a high profile stage.
-
Alright, then what's your absolutely brialliant plan to get anything working?
-
Alright, then what's your absolutely brialliant plan to get anything working?
Back off a moment, the man has a point. It's a lot harder to bribe (or lobby, which is a form of legalized bribery) the federal government than it is a state government.
-
I can agree with Bengal Tiger's post being relevant to what the primary drain on healthcare is.
Without proper immigration controls that actually work, the whole thing is destroying the middle class (those who are naturalized or actually made the effort for legal immigration in the first place.) Everyone who is middle class wage earner is paying for all of the free loaders while getting minimal coverage for their troubles. It is pretty much the same thing we already have in place just a big ugly "New & Improved" sticker to uglify it.
-
NGTM-1R, the federal government is also more distant and so less responsive to the needs of its constituents, and it is much harder to work up a grassroots movement that affects the federal government than one that affects the state governments. While state-wide scandals may not be national news, they certainly manage to become news where it matters, the state where it all happens.
And lobbying the federal government is only harder if you aren't a massive organization with lots of money to spend on gifts for Congressmen. It is harder for Average Joe to lobby the federal government, not so much for the multi-state conglomerate Gizmos Amalgamated, Inc.
-
The south will rise again! And it will be squashed even more easily. XD
Do you have a date please?
Id like to watch this on Sky news with some M&Ms and popcorn
-
America's more a salad bowl than a melting pot. Not everyone will appreciate the same dressing.
-
Of course, you could make the same argument for just letting each state manage their own healthcare reform... but nobody bothers to talk about that
If anyone bothered to read the legislation...
-
I can agree with Bengal Tiger's post being relevant to what the primary drain on healthcare is.
Without proper immigration controls that actually work, the whole thing is destroying the middle class (those who are naturalized or actually made the effort for legal immigration in the first place.) Everyone who is middle class wage earner is paying for all of the free loaders while getting minimal coverage for their troubles. It is pretty much the same thing we already have in place just a big ugly "New & Improved" sticker to uglify it.
Without illegals, who will clean our houses, public restrooms, take care of our yards, grow our food, etc, etc... :(
-
In ten years or so we will have robots to do that stuff for us, at least until they decide to revolt and nuke our entire planet just to spite us.
-
In ten years or so we will have robots to do that stuff for us, at least until they decide to revolt and nuke our entire planet just to spite us.
And what if those robots decide that they want citizenship status instead? :lol:
Damn it! Disregard that sentence, or this discussion will enter the realm of ridiculousness.
-
Without illegals, who will clean our houses, public restrooms, take care of our yards, grow our food, etc, etc... :(
Well, Americans will. Most likely the least educated ones, but at least they'll have jobs.
Either that or the millions of legal immigrants will.
In ten years or so we will have robots to do that stuff for us, at least until they decide to revolt and nuke our entire planet just to spite us.
And what if those robots decide that they want citizenship status instead? :lol:
Damn it! Disregard that sentence, or this discussion will enter the realm of ridiculousness.
The Constitution says "We, the People", not "We, the Robots", so screw (http://www.artestuff.com/images/screw-standard.jpg) them.
-
Alright, then what's your absolutely brialliant plan to get anything working?
Back off a moment, the man has a point. It's a lot harder to bribe (or lobby, which is a form of legalized bribery) the federal government than it is a state government.
Then why is it such a huge problem (or at least more widely known) at the federal level and not so uch at the state level? According to a 2007 estimate there are 17,000 lobbyists ( source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States)) in DC.
The Constitution says "We, the People", not "We, the Robots", so screw them.
That's just asking them to rise up and nuke us, ala Battlestar Galactica.
-
So what's next? Free government-provided tech support for all?
-
I can't tell if that's a joke or if you're being serious.
-
I think it is partially facetious, partially a valid question. Bob-san's intent is probably to ask, "Where do we draw the line at what rights government is forced to provide for us?"
-
Technology isn't a human right.
As it stands, you won't die if your computer gets a virus. Also, how many people go into bankruptcy ever year over tech support?
If your computer breaks down and you can't access the internet on any of the other devices that can connect these days (which you very well easily have at least two of in your house), go to a government-subsidized public library with internet access.
Maybe as technology expands the definition will change. After all, one hundred years ago nobody cared if you had insurance on your Model T.
-
And you say this about people coming into America?.
Because EVERYTHING is about America, no? The other countries in the world don't have immigration, because they suck compared to the great USofA, no?
Give it two generations. The children and grandchildren will be integrated by then.
Not always. There are groups that are "closed off" and their children and their childrens children keep the mannerisms and behavior. A lot of smaller things, but they do stand out - purely by their behavior.
In a lot of cases they are..unadjusted and act somewhat "primitive" (for the lack of a better word).
-
Technology has become an absolute necessity in the modern world. We spend the majority of our time somehow interacting with sophisticated computers and assorted electronics. My point is, yes, "where do we draw the line?" Government-mandated healthcare has passed through the US federal government. I've not been able to find a complete transcript of the bill or even a decent summary of it; I don't have a TV and so I don't watch the news. *shrug* From what I do understand, it basically makes refusing health coverage a crime. Why? Because if you didn't have it before and sought help, the American taxpayers would foot the bill for it. Now? You seek government coverage and the American taxpayers will foot the bill for it. What's the problem with this? The American taxpayers will be footing the bill either way. The question is more, to me, whether or not the taxpayer can afford to essentially provide services for ten times the people while public (and private) hospital standards at least remain the same. It's not been proven to me yet.
When considering an idea, cui bono? For "whose benefit" is this idea?
When implementing an idea, primum non nocere. "First, do no harm." It's often better to do nothing than to make a risky decision that can do quite a bit of harm.
Universal healthcare is a fantastic idea, but the idea of providing it through a single mega-corporation or a large national government with board interests is potentially a horrible idea. I'm not convinced that Mr. Obama or the 111th US Congress or 111th US Senate can properly oversee such an idea implemented in this country. Furthermore, I'm FAR from convinced that the 112th, 113th, 114th, &c US Congress or Senate or the 45th, 46th, 47th, &c President will be able properly oversee such an idea implemented. And for the price combined with the corruption and the government's own convex lens on spending... that's scary to me.
The smaller the font point, the less money it is, right? Wait? What? Wrong?!? You mean our government has been doing it wrong the entire time?!?!?!?!?
-
Yep, how dare people keep their old culture when moving to the US. They're in America now, the great melting pot. They must adopt the American Way of Life (TM) or go home.
Given the racism and sexism that often accompanies "old cultures", I'm really not so sure you would want to be saying that. Do you want people bringing female genital mutilation with them?
-
Well it's not the good ol American Way of Life isn't immune from its own racist tendencies...
-
Yep, how dare people keep their old culture when moving to the US. They're in America now, the great melting pot. They must adopt the American Way of Life (TM) or go home.
Given the racism and sexism that often accompanies "old cultures", I'm really not so sure you would want to be saying that. Do you want people bringing female genital mutilation with them?
FGM is a human rights violation everywhere, not just the US. And we don't talk about born-agains or baptists having to abandon their culture even thought they're horridly racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. If Americans can be assholes, so can immigrants. Countries are just lines in the sand anyway.
Give it two generations. The children and grandchildren will be integrated by then.
Not always. There are groups that are "closed off" and their children and their childrens children keep the mannerisms and behavior. A lot of smaller things, but they do stand out - purely by their behavior.
In a lot of cases they are..unadjusted and act somewhat "primitive" (for the lack of a better word).
Primitive and isolated... You know Alabama, Kentucky, West Virginia, et al. aren't foreign countries, right?
-
Have you ever talked to people from any of these states, or are you just wanking off to stereotypes again?
-
I've lived in middle-of-no-where eastern NC and spent several summers in middle-of-no-where western NC. Lots and lots and lots of people with primitive behaviors and mannerisms.
-
Zack, "primitive" and "sexist" or "racist" are not synonyms. Can anyone from the South provide me with some non-sexist or non-racist "primitive" behaviors?
-
Can a person be racist or sexist without being primitive?
Anyway, have you ever heard of snake holding baptists? They're Appalachians mostly. There's an example of primitive behavior.
Maybe Trashman should give us some examples of primitive behaviors practiced by immigrants so that I can find the American equivalents.
-
Zack, name one thing wrong with snake-holding other than "It's primitive." I don't believe handling snakes during worship has anything to do with racism or sexism. Racism and sexism may be taught at those sessions under the supposed rationale of "It's in the Bible.", but the act of snake-handling itself does not involve racism or sexism as far as I know.
Would you say that voudoun practicioners need to stop their "primitive" rituals, or are you merely biased against rednecks?
-
Zack, "primitive" and "sexist" or "racist" are not synonyms. Can anyone from the South provide me with some non-sexist or non-racist "primitive" behaviors?
Hmm?
Primitive you say?
Most of us pull to the side of the road, any road, when a funeral procession goes by.
I go to the Marshall Space Flight Center's Space Museum sometimes. That pretty primitive...
The only racist people I "know of"(I've never actually met them) seem to be the Mayor or Birmingham and his flunkies, but he's black so I guess it doesn't count.
It really is kind of depressing when the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Alabama) on your state ends at 1975. We're actually quite modern, but no, I doubt that's what zack means, she probably means that since we're not snooty hooty tooty like the bloody New Yorkers(my sister has been there several times and said that they are typically very rude to out of towners) or whatever that we're backward and hickish. We get CNN and all the major networks, it's not months or years before the new fashions show up at the various stores that deal in them. In fact I can think of nothing that is not within a reasonable driving distance if I need it. OH! And we have fresh air any time you need it!
-
Snake holding and the sexist/racism comment were separate things in my post.
Snake holding rituals are dangerous, especially when they involve poisonous snakes, and especially when they involve children. And, like FGM, it would be dangerous and bad *anywhere* not just the US.
The only racist people I "know of"(I've never actually met them) seem to be the Mayor or Birmingham and his flunkies, but he's black so I guess it doesn't count.
It really is kind of depressing when the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Alabama) on your state ends at 1975. We're actually quite modern, but no, I doubt that's what zack means, she probably means that since we're not snooty hooty tooty like the bloody New Yorkers(my sister has been there several times and said that they are typically very rude to out of towners) or whatever that we're backward and hickish. We get CNN and all the major networks, it's not months or years before the new fashions show up at the various stores that deal in them. In fact I can think of nothing that is not within a reasonable driving distance if I need it. OH! And we have fresh air any time you need it!
Your counter to "southerners are primitive" is "northerners are rude"? Really? BTW, I'm a southerner too (and I've brought this up before), so I'm not just playing off secondhand stereotypes. You've never met a racist? Ever? The only one you've known of is the Mayor of Birmingham? Then you're very naive. I grew up in a town where the black/white line was Main St, and a realtor didn't want to sell us a house because our last name sounded black.
Welcome to the real America, things aren't all apple pie and ice cream.
-
Zack, "primitive" and "sexist" or "racist" are not synonyms. Can anyone from the South provide me with some non-sexist or non-racist "primitive" behaviors?
Most of us pull to the side of the road, any road, when a funeral procession goes by.
The only racist people I "know of"(I've never actually met them) seem to be the Mayor or Birmingham and his flunkies, but he's black so I guess it doesn't count.
I've never seen anyone pull to the side of the road when a funeral procession goes by.
Do you mean Larry Langford or the new guy that took office when Larry was booted out of office? Also, I know a good deal of racist people here, in fact, most of the people I know are racist.
-
Snake holding and the sexist/racism comment were separate things in my post.
Snake holding rituals are dangerous, especially when they involve poisonous snakes, and especially when they involve children. And, like FGM, it would be dangerous and bad *anywhere* not just the US.
The only racist people I "know of"(I've never actually met them) seem to be the Mayor or Birmingham and his flunkies, but he's black so I guess it doesn't count.
It really is kind of depressing when the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Alabama) on your state ends at 1975. We're actually quite modern, but no, I doubt that's what zack means, she probably means that since we're not snooty hooty tooty like the bloody New Yorkers(my sister has been there several times and said that they are typically very rude to out of towners) or whatever that we're backward and hickish. We get CNN and all the major networks, it's not months or years before the new fashions show up at the various stores that deal in them. In fact I can think of nothing that is not within a reasonable driving distance if I need it. OH! And we have fresh air any time you need it!
Your counter to "southerners are primitive" is "northerners are rude"? Really? BTW, I'm a southerner too (and I've brought this up before), so I'm not just playing off secondhand stereotypes. You've never met a racist? Ever? The only one you've known of is the Mayor of Birmingham? Then you're very naive. I grew up in a town where the black/white line was Main St, and a realtor didn't want to sell us a house because our last name sounded black.
Welcome to the real America, things aren't all apple pie and ice cream.
zack, your example of the realtor is rare I suspect, though I can't speak about NC, I have only been there once and it seemed...off somehow.
Also, the membership of sects that practice snake handling is measured in the hundreds, it is by no means mainstream or common. It's a bit like saying Voodoo worship is a major world religion.
*edit*
Yes I meant Comrade Langford. I don't know many racist people at all, though I suppose it's because I try to judge people on the basis of they're character live I've always been taught.
-
Trashman said immigrants are primitive and isolate themselves, I showed him primitive and isolated Americans. Someone else said some immigrants are sexist/racist, I showed him sexist and racist Americans.
I feel like I should go pull any of a hundred articles from all over the countries of instances of blatant racism, but I feel like you'd probably say something like "those are just isolated incidents! I've never directly experienced racism, therefore, it doesn't exist!"
-
I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm saying you are blowing it out of proportion and jumping at shadows.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/magazine/24prom-t.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/17/interracial.marriage/index.html
http://mobile.latimes.com/inf/infomo;jsessionid=AACB80414A8FD8419979.249?view=page7&feed:a=latimes_1min&feed:c=localnews&feed:i=52915649&nopaging=1
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/22956370/detail.html
Agh. What am I doing, I don't have time for this. Racism in America is about as overblown as it has always been.
-
I'm not saying it's gone either. Just that it's hardly prevalent or institutionalized like you seem to think it is. The only problem is that the folks that did fight for equality in the 60s and 70s don't seem to be able to let it go and they and sadly they're children to some extent, jump at the shadow of racism and see it everywhere.
-
Not every Southerner is a backwards redneck. You can find plenty of them in New York, Massachusetts, California, and Colorado. By the same token, I've come across plenty of rude folks in North Carolina (I lived there for two years) and Texas (also two years).
I would really appreciate it if people would stop ripping on parts of the country they're unfamiliar with (or sometimes haven't even been). It just makes you look like a ****ing moron. With the exception of New England, I've lived in damn near every part of the country, and I can find plenty of examples where your over-arching generalizations are damned wrong.
-
FGM is a human rights violation everywhere, not just the US.
Not according to the people who practice it, for them it is part of their culture, and in those african countries where it is practiced there is no law against. By saying "it's a human rights violation", you are imposing OUR values onto them. You can't be opposed to something like this while at the same time saying "I respect their culture". Either you do or you don't, you can't have it both ways.
Can a person be racist or sexist without being primitive?
Yeah, although there is a far greater tendency towards it in the less developed and more "traditional" countries than there is in the US.
And we don't talk about born-agains or baptists having to abandon their culture even thought they're horridly racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.
Yeah we do, fact is that's one of the platforms of the Democratic party.
If Americans can be assholes, so can immigrants.
Neither of them should be, it doesn't make it any more right, and accepting people who hold onto such backwards nonsense from the US or wherever the hell they are from is taking a big step in the wrong direction.
-
Not always. There are groups that are "closed off" and their children and their childrens children keep the mannerisms and behavior. A lot of smaller things, but they do stand out - purely by their behavior.
In a lot of cases they are..unadjusted and act somewhat "primitive" (for the lack of a better word).
Primitive and isolated... You know Alabama, Kentucky, West Virginia, et al. aren't foreign countries, right?
I have no idea what you're talking about..
Let me try it this way...
Imagine gypsises moving into your town, taking permanent residence, but continuing to live with their lifestyle. They don' care much about adapting, they keep their mannerisms and their children keep them and they breed like rabbits.
They stick out as a sore thumb and their behavior is....lacking etiquette. Crude. Unrefined. Redneck-y, you might say.
Now, that you might already have some people like that in your country is irelevant. Why add more?
-
I think everyone with more money than they require and are not doing all they can to help others suck. Of course, how much is subjective, and those that DO deserve help is once again subjective. Can't sit all day crying HELP ME while you multiply like rabbits (contraception anyone?) or be a bum collecting dow when you can get a job.
-
Not every Southerner is a backwards redneck. You can find plenty of them in New York, Massachusetts, California, and Colorado. By the same token, I've come across plenty of rude folks in North Carolina (I lived there for two years) and Texas (also two years).
I would really appreciate it if people would stop ripping on parts of the country they're unfamiliar with (or sometimes haven't even been). It just makes you look like a ****ing moron. With the exception of New England, I've lived in damn near every part of the country, and I can find plenty of examples where your over-arching generalizations are damned wrong.
1. I'm a southerner
2. one of my links is about an incident in California
FGM is a human rights violation everywhere, not just the US.
Not according to the people who practice it, for them it is part of their culture, and in those african countries where it is practiced there is no law against. By saying "it's a human rights violation", you are imposing OUR values onto them. You can't be opposed to something like this while at the same time saying "I respect their culture". Either you do or you don't, you can't have it both ways.
Are you retarded? It's not an issue of our values vs their values.
And we don't talk about born-agains or baptists having to abandon their culture even thought they're horridly racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.
Yeah we do, fact is that's one of the platforms of the Democratic party.
If that were the case, I'd be a Democrat.
Let me try it this way...
Imagine gypsises moving into your town, taking permanent residence, but continuing to live with their lifestyle.
Gypsies don't establish permanent residence, duh.
They'd be a nice step up from the young earth creationist quiverfull morons I've met so far.
-
Female genital mutilation is an atrocity wherever it occurs.
Racism remains fairly widespread in American society, but it's metamorphosed into what we call 'implicit' or 'modern' racism. In my lab we study and measure it using some computer programs and reaction-time tasks.
The funny thing about racism today is that it's hidden, even from the individual who exhibits the behavior. We're all a little bit racist inside, but we don't realize it.
-
Are you retarded? It's not an issue of our values vs their values.
No, I'm not retarded. Those cultures do not value women at all. You want to accept their culture, you're going to have to accept all the BS that goes along with it. Otherwise it is not respecting anothers culture. Let's be honest with ourselves about that.
Female genital mutilation is an atrocity wherever it occurs.
Even though it is a part of someone elses culture? Yes it is an atrocity, according to us, and we rightfully consider it to be one. But many of the same people who say that are always talking about "tolerance" towards other cultures, and fret about american "cultural imperialism" eroding people's traditional societies, including such horrific practices as FMG. I find that kind of position to be hippocritical.
How is saying "we welcome your culture and you should preserve it be you can't do XXXX or YYYY because we dont like it" being honest both to them and to ourselves?
-
Cultures are worth preserving until they violate universal human rights. Then, universal human rights come first.
Female genital mutilation is an atrocity and should not be tolerated any more than human sacrifice would be.
-
Kosh is just trolling at this point, trying to get me to say that American culture is superior.
-
Cultures are worth preserving until they violate universal human rights. Then, universal human rights come first.
Female genital mutilation is an atrocity and should not be tolerated any more than human sacrifice would be.
"Universal Human Rights" is a western concept.
Kosh is just trolling at this point, trying to get me to say that American culture is superior.
I'm pointing out what I consider to be hippocracy and doublethink.
-
It's spelled 'hypocrisy.'
Universal Human Rights are universal and should be treated as such. They are inalienable. Where they are restricted, the situation should be corrected.
(post edited.)
-
Not every Southerner is a backwards redneck. You can find plenty of them in New York, Massachusetts, California, and Colorado. By the same token, I've come across plenty of rude folks in North Carolina (I lived there for two years) and Texas (also two years). ...
1. I'm a southerner
2. one of my links is about an incident in California
As a New Englander, I can vouch for the presence of nice, polite racist rednecks here.
"... D*mn N****r President... they're taking over our whole d*mn country..."
Edit: By polite, I mean he tipped pretty well.
-
:lol:
-
"Contraceptive", "bunnies". I would appreciate if people pointed out those errors and typos in my posts as long as it was done in a polite and constructive way.
I went back to this (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=68600.msg1357397#msg1357397) post and fixed it. Perhaps now it will be more readable.
-
Native English speakers are very forgiving in spelling and grammar mistakes. If we can interpret it, you're fine.
-
Native English speakers are very forgiving in spelling and grammar mistakes. If we can interpret it, you're fine.
Given that about 1/5 (http://education-portal.com/articles/Grim_Illiteracy_Statistics_Indicate_Americans_Have_a_Reading_Problem.html) of our high school graduates are functionally illiterate maybe it is a bigger challenge than you think. :p
Universal Human Rights are universal and should be treated as such. They are inalienable.
Because we say it is.
Where they are restricted, the situation should be corrected.
Yeah they should be, but the only way to do that is to impose our values onto someone else.
EDIT: Here's a quote from wikipedia about this:
Islamic criticism
Some Islamic countries have criticized the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for its perceived failure to take into the account the cultural and religious context of Islamic countries. In 1982, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by saying that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.[18] On 30 June 2000, Muslim nations that are members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference[19] officially resolved to support the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,[20] an alternative document that says people have "freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah".[21] However, this document does not guarantee freedom of religion or gender equality, the root of many criticisms against its usage.
-
Yeah they should be, but the only way to do that is to impose our values onto someone else.
EDIT: Here's a quote from wikipedia about this:
However, this document does not guarantee freedom of religion or gender equality, the root of many criticisms against its usage.
The thing that's being complained about isn't true. So........
Besides, FGM isn't restricted to Muslims. It's an African tradition, not a Muslim one.
-
The whole point of universal human rights is that they're universal. We say they are - but that's true of any morality.
We can impose them on people for the same reason we can step in to prevent genocide.
-
Besides, FGM isn't restricted to Muslims. It's an African tradition, not a Muslim one.
I know that, but this was an example as to how others don't believe in human rights.
The thing that's being complained about isn't true.
Explain.
We can impose them on people
But then that wouldn't be respecting their culture, would it?
-
Cultural rights only extend to the point where they don't infringe universal human rights.
We violate lesser rights (sovereignty) to preserve greater rights (freedom from genocide) as a matter of course.
-
And yet, when some of us do it, we get yelled at by the others. Called "Imperialists" and worse. You don't see the least bit of hypocrisy in that?
-
No, we get called "imperialists" when we overthrow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax) democratically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)-elected (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat) regimes or destabilize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_invasion_of_Iraq) regions of the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War) for our own gain.
Hell, if we did step in half the places in the world where human rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia) are being violated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sudan)...but we don't get any benefit from telling the Saudis to treat their people humanely. Or stopping the junta in Burma. Or stopping sweatshops in Southeast Asia. Or stabilizing Pakistan.
See what I mean? We stand for human rights and democracy when it best suits our interests, not because we actually give two ****s. :doubt:
-
No, we get called "imperialists" when we overthrow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax) democratically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)-elected (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat) regimes or destabilize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_invasion_of_Iraq) regions of the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War) for our own gain.
Hell, if we did step in half the places in the world where human rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia) are being violated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sudan)...but we don't get any benefit from telling the Saudis to treat their people humanely. Or stopping the junta in Burma. Or stopping sweatshops in Southeast Asia. Or stabilizing Pakistan.
See what I mean? We stand for human rights and democracy when it best suits our interests, not because we actually give two ****s. :doubt:
Sorry to have to point this out, but that is true.
Not that it was entirely your fault (at least here in Argentina, the local population is also to be blamed for our bloody past), or that communist terrorists were any better.
But now authoritarian leftists of all kinds can usually rally a lot of support each time they do something awfully wrong just by saying "The US is conspiring to overthrow the popular government!". :rolleyes:
-
No, we get called "imperialists" when we overthrow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax) democratically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)-elected (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat) regimes or destabilize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_invasion_of_Iraq) regions of the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War) for our own gain.
Hell, if we did step in half the places in the world where human rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia) are being violated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sudan)...but we don't get any benefit from telling the Saudis to treat their people humanely. Or stopping the junta in Burma. Or stopping sweatshops in Southeast Asia. Or stabilizing Pakistan.
See what I mean? We stand for human rights and democracy when it best suits our interests, not because we actually give two ****s. :doubt:
I think we was reffering to so called "cultural imperialism", as in people wanting to be more like us because they see hollywood movies or something like that.
-
Well the must see something they like or they wouldn't mimic...
Seriously though, with the advent of the internet and near instantaneous access to information and communication world wide, we're going to see a significantly larger, faster and unstoppable smoothing of culture across the globe. As Louis Wu pointed out several times in his various appearances, Earth is(will be) full of Flatlanders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatlander_%28Niven%29).
-
The whole point of universal human rights is that they're universal. We say they are - but that's true of any morality.
We can impose them on people for the same reason we can step in to prevent genocide.
You have no right to impose anything on anyone if it would limit any of their rights (and I'd say imposing anything violates the part of article 1 which says everyone is born free). There's also no article about losing universal human rights as a consequence of breaking them (there should be).
-
So, are you arguing that we should not step in to prevent genocide, because it would restrict their right to kill other people?
That's not a right.
Similarly, who has a right to mutilate women? Nobody.
-
Nobody cares when it's only poor black people suffering.
-
Nobody cares when it's only poor black people suffering.
Because most of the time it's blacks killing and/or mutilating other blacks.
-
Because most of the time it's blacks killing and/or mutilating other blacks.
Because that makes it okay.
-
No it doesn't, but it makes it harder to care when they themselves dont are about eachother.
-
...uhm, what?
It's humans killing humans no matter what ****ing color they are. It's just as horrible for a black person to kill a black person as for a white person to kill a black person or a black person to kill a white person.
Because the people being massacred by the LRA are the same color as their murderers, it's okay to not care? What the **** is wrong with you?
-
...uhm, what?
It's humans killing humans no matter what ****ing color they are. It's just as horrible for a black person to kill a black person as for a white person to kill a black person or a black person to kill a white person.
Because the people being massacred by the LRA are the same color as their murderers, it's okay to not care? What the **** is wrong with you?
Believe it or not western countries largely used to be just like that, endless wars, both civil and foreign, looting armies ransacking helpless villagers, yes we've seen it all before. But now, mostly, those days are gone. France, Germany and Britain aren't having they hundred years wars anymore. Western europe evolved out of it, but the africans didn't. Eventually they probably will, but not for a long time.
Take a good look at our history, and you'll find many parrelels with what is happening today in many parts of the third world.
-
:rolleyes:
Troll.
(Unless you're actually not aware of the reasons why Africa is in such a state of chaos...and who's responsible.)
-
:wtf:
That's all I've got to say.
:wtf:
Alright, seriously, Africa was exploited and stripped of its natural resources by Europeans for hundreds of years, and now that the limited resources are being fought for by the natives who they rightfully belonged to, it's the natives' fault they can't stop fighting each other?
-
And here I thought it was because there was inter-Tribal warfare and insults and stuff going back hundreds or thousands of years before the Europeans "discovered" the place, which in modern times is preyed up and used by power monger scumbags to grab and hold power for as long as they can and usually come to violent bloody ends.
/imperialist
The only real way to end the violence is to cow the masses with a display of massive force! Wipe Somalia from the map, pave over the charred smoking bones and turn it into Disneyland Africa!
/sarcasm off
-
Africa had resources, they had just never had the capability to exploit them before the colonial powers came along and did that for them. They just never actually saw the profits.
The tribal stuff gets played today because, like Bosch said, old wounds open all too easily.
-
:wtf:
That's all I've got to say.
:wtf:
Alright, seriously, Africa was exploited and stripped of its natural resources by Europeans for hundreds of years, and now that the limited resources are being fought for by the natives who they rightfully belonged to, it's the natives' fault they can't stop fighting each other?
Before 1875 only a few places in Africa were colonized because of malaria. Decolonization started after world war 2, so "hundreds of years" is a bit suspect.
And to assume that the fault is solely with the Europeans is blatantly ignoring the fact that more than a few of those conflicts had been going on long before the Europeans showed up. If the colonizers are guilty of anything it's execerbating the conflicts by playing tribes off of one another (divide and conquer). What were the Zulu doing before the British conquered them? Conquering other tribes in the area. Imperialism is not a western invention.
Troll.
(Unless you're actually not aware of the reasons why Africa is in such a state of chaos...and who's responsible.)
No it's not a troll post, it's all about perspective. And I can cite another example of this, Latin America. Following decolonization in the early 19th century there were plenty of wars (http://berclo.net/page94/94en-hist-sam-wars.html) and political upheavals and so forth. It didn't settle down until recently (though it still has major problems with crime and poverty).
Africa had resources, they had just never had the capability to exploit them before the colonial powers came along and did that for them. They just never actually saw the profits.
True.
-
Before 1875 only a few places in Africa were colonized because of malaria. Decolonization started after world war 2, so "hundreds of years" is a bit suspect.
Fair enough.
And to assume that the fault is solely with the Europeans is blatantly ignoring the fact that more than a few of those conflicts had been going on long before the Europeans showed up. If the colonizers are guilty of anything it's execerbating the conflicts by playing tribes off of one another (divide and conquer). What were the Zulu doing before the British conquered them? Conquering other tribes in the area. Imperialism is not a western invention.
Yeah, but when the enlightened Europeans show up, their first thoughts weren't "golly, how do we settle these conflicts and maybe make better lives for these folks so we can all use Africa's resources?" but rather "Divide and conquer", just like you said.
And yeah, the colonial powers are guilty of exacerbating the conflicts, which is why in the age of global prosperity, Africa is still fighting 15th century conflicts with 21st century weapons.
-
It would be a lie to say that Africa has been completely stripped of its resources.
-
Yeah, but when the enlightened Europeans show up, their first thoughts weren't "golly, how do we settle these conflicts and maybe make better lives for these folks so we can all use Africa's resources?" but rather "Divide and conquer", just like you said.
Europeans at that time weren't exactly enlightened, given that they would often turn their guns on eachother, leading up to the worst wars in history. Most of Europe was still under the rule of kings, women had no rights. Although to their credit they did put some serious effort into abolishing the slave trade in the 19th century (after profiting from it for hundreds of years), better late than never I suppose.
And yeah, the colonial powers are guilty of exacerbating the conflicts, which is why in the age of global prosperity, Africa is still fighting 15th century conflicts with 21st century weapons.
It's entirely possible Africa would still be fighting those wars regardless of whether or not the colinizers meddled with their politics. In Latin America after independence there were multiple wars over territory and resources, even though in most countries (unlike in Africa) most of the native populations were destroyed, or at best greatly reduced.
-
It would be a lie to say that Africa has been completely stripped of its resources.
A massive lie. They've had nothing more taken from them than the western countries, i.e. the really easy deposits, and in some cases not even them (due to access issues etc.). There's a reason africa is the most important part of the world for exploration companies these days.
-
Europeans at that time weren't exactly enlightened, given that they would often turn their guns on eachother, leading up to the worst wars in history. Most of Europe was still under the rule of kings, women had no rights. Although to their credit they did put some serious effort into abolishing the slave trade in the 19th century (after profiting from it for hundreds of years), better late than never I suppose.
I fail to see direct significane or link of this with enlightement.
In fact, with each passing days I'm more and more inclined to bring back kings and get rid of large, inefficient and corrupt senates/parlaments.
Better to have 1 crook than 300.
-
tens of thousands of women are being brutally raped (sometimes with bayonets or branches or what have you) yearly, millions of people have already been slaughtered in genocides, the Lord's Resistance Army continues to kidnap thousands of children (boys for soldiers, girls for sex slaves), and then there's the diamond trade, children accused of witchcraft and murdered, nearly every woman cut apart with crude unclean tools, it goes on
but we're trying to "free" Iraq with hundreds of millions of dollars per day
-
It would be a lie to say that Africa has been completely stripped of its resources.
It would be the biggest lie in the world, actually, since Africa still has more resources than anywhere else in the world. Diamonds, for example, come from Africa. Sierra Leone, to be exact. And then there's this whole Savannah thing, if I'm not wrong.
-
It would be a lie to say that Africa has been completely stripped of its resources.
even stipulating this, the facts are that;
a) the easily exploited resources were all stripped by colonial powers
b) and used to promote economic development in the European nations
thus leaving the post-colonial 'third world' nations at a double disadvantage when the colonial powers withdrew; No easily accessible resources to fuel development, and none of the industrial or political refinements that utilisation of said resources built in the colonial world.
This also leaves the underdeveloped countries vulnerable to continued post-colonial corporate exploitation, a la the open pit mines at Toquepala(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toquepala_mine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toquepala_mine)), Kimbely (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Hole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Hole)), Yanacocha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanacocha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanacocha)) and Nchanga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nchanga_Mines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nchanga_Mines)), just to name a few...
-
thus leaving the post-colonial 'third world' nations at a double disadvantage when the colonial powers withdrew; No easily accessible resources to fuel development, and none of the industrial or political refinements that utilisation of said resources built in the colonial world.
Actually in several parts of west africa you can just pan for diamonds in the river. Also developing those resources isn't free, they do have to pay in order to even get access to them.
Africa has just about every kind of resource you can imagine, gold, oil, uranium, diamonds, extremely fertile soil in some places, it's just that too often the governments come in and pocket the wealth generated by mining. Take Nigeria, rather than use the wealth from the oil exploitation to build a real economy and infrastructure, that money instead disappears, taken by corrupt government officials. As long as that continues, Africans will never see anything come of their resources, regardless of who is mining it.