I can not believe that you find that wrong!! That is a great thing! Mandatory in this case is not for the women. They will not go to jail if they don't have the mammogram (!!). Read better. It only means what he said: "It requires that everybody be covered". And yes, I think we should have higher taxes to pay for programs like this.
Methinks you are responding too seriously to satire, BW.
But seriously, while we're making these laws, can we make No-Pants Friday an official holiday? I've been lobbying for years. If John Edwards can make it happen, then by God he has my vote.
There are so many dumb working people, BW, folks like you and I, who demand more and more "free stuff," that worker's PAYROLL TAXES should probably increase.
But NOT taxes on Capital Gains, on Dividends, not on INCOME TAXES paid by the self-employed....those folks (the investing class and the small business owners) are over-taxed!
Currently the top 50% of income earners pay over 95% of the income taxes and the top 10% of income earners pay over 70% of all income taxes.
With some tweaking of the PAYROLL TAX ledger we could "spread the pain around" a little more.
Get that bottom 50% kicking in something and the way to do that is via the PAYROLL TAX.
Another thing that should be made MANDATORY is work.
We could take a page from some of the other "command economies" around the world and force ALL people to do some kind of "work," (mostly involving physical labor) unless they are severely physically or mentally handicapped (as defined by statute).
I'd make a great over-seer. I have significant experience getting (how can I best put this?) "reluctant" people to work, and I am a rather convincing fellow - I've always had a gift for getting people to do what I want them to do.
That kind fo thing might well raise productivity a great deal and help pay for some of these programs so many of us want....and, of course, it would open up an entirely new career path for me....one which I believe I was born for.
Do the women who spend $200 a month on cigarettes, but "can't afford" a mammogram (or coverage) qualify for diagnosis and/or treatment to be paid for with my tax dollars? Give me a chance to vote on that.
How about The Most Preventable form of cancer (with early screenings and diagnosis)?? Why is J.E. not promoting coverage for everyone to get the 'ole Snake Up the Butt instead of mammograms? Here's why: the wifey pity vote. It ain't really about health care (wink). Elitists pandering with populism... what's new.
I'd say let's go for it. Make everything free for those below a certain income level, with no requirement that they participate in any kind of service or production. Then I'll quit my job and rejoin them (spent a good part of my life below what they consider "poor"), as will many of my overloaded middle-classed taxpaying mule friends. And we'll live on someone else's nickel. Whose? I dunno. "They". Brother Edwards will figure out a way.
"I'd say let's go for it. Make everything free for those below a certain income level, with no requirement that they participate in any kind of service or production. Then I'll quit my job and rejoin them (spent a good part of my life below what they consider "poor"), as will many of my overloaded middle-classed taxpaying mule friends. And we'll live on someone else's nickel. Whose? I dunno. "They". Brother Edwards will figure out a way." (Will)
That's exactly where this "house of cards" that is contemporary Liberalism falls apart, Will.
The top 25% of income earners drive the economy. They are professionals (physicians, attorneys, accountants, etc), small business owners, managers, etc. and when they're tax burden is increased they either defer more of their income &/or work...and produce less.
That's disastrous for the economy and it's why Keynesian economics ("government spending, especially social spending is GOOD") always fails...and fails miserably.
The idea that food, housing, healthcare, etc., are "rights" and should be provided to some people (let's call them "no-work mutha-f*ckers" to be kind) is predicated upon the belief that "All people are NOT equal."
That is, that some people (ie. farmers, doctors, and other producers) MUST work and produce all the "free stuff" that must be given to all those who do not work and do not produce.
But any view that values the non-productive so highly, ultimately makes slaves out of the most productive...and that is not only morally wrong, but it's economically unsound, as well.
The Edwards and Obama supporters and other extreme Liberals don't understand even that simple fact.
"...it would open up an entirely new career path for me....one which I believe I was born for." - JMK
What career path overseer?
I suppose you'd like us to reinstitute the old english system of debtors prisons as well?
How do you feel about trust fund babies who've never worked a day in their lives, instead just living off an inheritance?
I think your real point isn't that everyone should work - preferably physical labor, but just the poor. I don't believe the idle rich bother you much at all.
It's funny - I step away for awhile and it's like nothing changed at all. So very predictable.
Well, GZ, EVERY Socialist economy is predicated upon forced labor.
A part of me is very attracted to the order and structure of that - we eradicate poverty by eradicating poor people's "freedom" to avoid work.
Robert Rector (Heritage Foundation) recently concluded a decades long study on poverty in America and found that, among other things, "In both good and bad economic environments, the typical American poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year — the equivalent of 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year — the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year — nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty."
Forced labor (socialism) ISN'T a great idea (no socialist ideas ever are), but some people (lazy, dumb, addicted people) sure could benefit from that.
Another interesting fact was that the poor in America, on average, consume 40% more than they earn, implying that many of the "poor" work off-the-books, earning significantly above the poverty level, while paying no taxes on much of that income.
You seemed to miss my overall point, which is that EVERYONE who is NOT financially independent (anyone unable to live off their investments, trusts, inheritances etc.) SHOULD work...and NOT "preferably physical labor," THOSE who CAN, probably SHOULD engage in more productive and profitable pursuits - real estate sales, trading stocks, bonds, commodities, etc., can all be very lucrative pursuits.
Like yourself and most Americans, I believe in the absolute sanctity of private property, which means that whatever one owns in life BELONGS to that person and upon that person's death to their heirs.
Paris Hilton's parents hold the property rights to the fortune their parent's and grandparents earned.
According to America's Founders "We the people" have no right to violate OTHER people's property rights under any conditions.
It's also one of the reasons, so long as America remains free, we'll never see forced labor....or, for that matter, the eradication of poverty in America.
Free people have the right to avoid work and the right to fail to do well economically.
"Well, GZ, EVERY Socialist economy is predicated upon forced labor." -JMK
I suppose I'm a socialist? I think you know I wholeheartedly support capitalism, however I don't support pure market capitalism, I support a mixed econmomy the kind which we have today where government supports the capitalist system through control of the money supply and regulation of the market.
This system also allows us to fund certain "socialist" programs such as unemployment insurance, social security and welfare.
At best I support some socialist causes, but only at a minimum level to protect those who are unable to help themselves. I don't approve of freeloaders, however we both know that there will always be people trying to cheat the system, and while we should always attempt to purge the system of those abusing it we can't abandon it because of them. That means abandoning the people whom the programs were designed to help.
Of course these freeloaders could benefit from mandatory work - but as you said in a free country you can't make them do it. Which is refreshing to hear you say. I'm all for improving the system - but moreoften than not when your atypical conservative politician steps up to "reform the system" the real goal is to just abolish it.
As to your point I don't miss it at all. What I really was speaking to was your exuberance and enthusuasm regarding the job of overseer. I realize that the idle rich are entitled to their money and that you're issue is with those who aren't financially independant. But my point was more how gleeful you seemed about sticking it to the idle poor. I'm with you in that everyone should work if they can, everyone should be as productive as they can. The only difference between the idle rich and the idle poor is the resource they drain. The poor drain a little from all of us, the rich drain a lot from their own family or inheritance. Now of course I realize the difference - and I'm not suggesting that we force those who don't need to work to put in 8 hours a day at a regular job. I think it would just be refreshing to hear you rant about the idle rich once in awhile. I suspect you don't approve of them either. And you've already acknowledged that as much as you'd like to we can't force the poor to work as it would impose on their freedoms. It's just as true that the rich can't be forced to work for the same reason. So really it's all just ranting about what people SHOULD be doing to be productive contributing members of society. And really that's what everyone should be doing rich or poor. The capitalist system rewards you for those efforts - however it breaks down at both extremes. At the bottom, you get people either too poor to effectively enter the system, or unwilling to because they are slackers. At the top you get people who never produced a thing in their life living off the work of others. Both are bad for different reasons, yet both will always exist unless you change our economic to one of two extremes. One of pure market capitalism where the bottom end of the spectrum falls off because those unable or unwilling to work will eventually either die or be institutionalized while the idle rich at the top will increase, or a purely socialist system where there is no reward for performance because everyone gets the same no matter what they contribute. In that system the bottom end will swell with non-producers while the top end effectively vanishes because the idle rich suddenly become indistinguishable from the idle poor.
You know all of that. The system we have now is a balanced compromise between extremes, and it works.
YOU responded to THIS "We could take a page from some of the other "command economies" around the world and force ALL people to do some kind of "work," (mostly involving physical labor) unless they are severely physically or mentally handicapped (as defined by statute).
"I'd make a great over-seer. (JMK)
See? COMMAND ECONOMY = SOCIALISM....now, that's what you responded to WITH; "What career path overseer?....I think your real point isn't that everyone should work - preferably physical labor, but just the poor. I don't believe the idle rich bother you much at all." (GZ)
All I did was RIGHTLY respond that, "Well GZ, EVERY Socialist economy is predicated upon forced labor..." which, of course, is undeniable and THAT would create many, many over-seer jobs.
Maybe you feel guilty about defending that position, I don't know....but I combed through my entire response to you and couldn't find a single line that implied I believed you were a socialist....hmmmm, maybe you can help.
And I'm not at all "gleeful at sticking it to the idle poor."
In point of fact, there SHOULD BE no such thing as "the idle poor."
The "poor" can't afford to be idle!!!
Our economy is driven largely by the "work" of investors who often conclude their investing before most people finish their lunch hours.
They are, in effect, the "founders of our feast."
And a nation like ours predicated upon property rights, HAS TO hold private property rights inviolate, which means that the money grandpa Hilton, for instance, amassed is his and his alone...and upon his demise belongs to his rightful heirs and NOT the government, certainly NOT "all of us!"
Ergo, the likes of Paris Hilton can afford to be idle, although, I understand, she lives off the money she's made on her...uh-hem..."talents" as a "Reality TV star" and her fame for "being famous" - clothing and perfume lines and such.
A poor person has just as much right to idle away their lives as Paris Hilton does to idle away hers....but NEITHER has ANY right to complain, nor to ask that other hard working folks to kick more money for more "free stuff" for themselves.
THAT'S real "GREED." A person who works 40, 50 or 60 hours a week to "get ahead" should never be penalized to benefit "privileged" folks who are able to get by working only 16 hours per week, while remaining "poor."
If all those 16 hours of work per week "poor folks" would just work a full 40, they wouldn't be "poor" any more.
The system we have right now IS indeed a balanced compromise that works. THAT has always been my position, here and elsewhere, all along.
If you think I've argued for any appreciable changes (sure, I'd like even LOWER tax rates, which create even more tax revenues, and a change to a Consumption-based tax, or "Fair Tax"), you're gravely mistaken.
My EVERY disagreement with folks like BW is AGAINST the "disastrous changes" that THEY claim to support.
BW's position here is very clearly in favor of drastic changes; "It requires that everybody be covered. And yes, I think we should have higher taxes to pay for programs like this."
I agreed with Will's position, which was, "Make everything free for those below a certain income level, with no requirement that they participate in any kind of service or production. Then I'll quit my job and rejoin them (spent a good part of my life below what they consider "poor"), as will many of my overloaded middle-classed taxpaying mule friends. And we'll live on someone else's nickel. Whose? I dunno. "They". Brother Edwards will figure out a way."
My overseer reference was a reference to exactly where the kind of changes BW supports would end up - COMMAND ECONOMIES (socialism) ALWAYS end up commanding or requiring work, especially from the unwilling.
If you support the current system and truly DON'T WANT higher tax rates, more redistribution and more misery and morass, then you're really staking out a position that agrees with ME and takes issue with the likes of BW.
And believe me, I'm very, VERY glad to hear that coming from you.
K, Edwards has clearly staked out a position that would (1) make ALL healthcare a "right" - in effect, a "free" commodity and (2) did indeed espouse MANDATING certain preventive procedures. That second position may sound sensible, but it takes control and freedom of choice from the individual or patient and puts that control in the hands of government.
BOTH those positions eschew INDIVIDUAL responsibility and FREEDOM of choice.
According to studies nearly 60% of the 15% (45 million) people without healthcare CAN afford it...many have opted out of employee health plans to take home more money.
My wife opted out of her employer's health plan because she's now covered under mine.
When I was much younger, I never had a health plan. I wouldn't pay the money for it. Yeah, considering that I was often involved in enhanced risk work activities (repossessing cars, and such) that was probably foolish, but youth is exuberant - you never figure you're oging to get hurt at that age.
"I combed through my entire response to you and couldn't find a single line that implied I believed you were a socialist" - JMK
Well my mistake, I think it's understandable from past experience that someone could easily make the mistake that you were calling them a socialist now isn't it?
"If all those 16 hours of work per week "poor folks" would just work a full 40, they wouldn't be "poor" any more." - JMK
I'm with you on the fact that a poor person who isn't working SHOULD be working. But the problem that I don't think you're addressing is the people who work 40 plus hours a week and still can't make enough to support themselves, or the people who can't find adequate work. I don't think there's a simple answer. What do you do with someone who for whatever reason doesn't have the basic skills to get a decent job? I don't think the answer is a handout but I don't think it's realistic not to take this into account in terms of motivation and practicality. I like you work to get the most benefit I can and I look towards improving that in the future. It's all well and good to say that everyone should do the same - but the fact is they don't. So what do you do about them?
"My overseer reference was a reference to exactly where the kind of changes BW supports would end up - COMMAND ECONOMIES (socialism) ALWAYS end up commanding or requiring work, especially from the unwilling." - JMK
I'm not sure you realize this - the main issue I had with your zeal to become an overseer was just that, your zeal, and again a bit of the old ego about how good a motivator you are. That's really what motivated me to comment.
"If you support the current system and truly DON'T WANT higher tax rates, more redistribution and more misery and morass, then you're really staking out a position that agrees with ME and takes issue with the likes of BW.
And believe me, I'm very, VERY glad to hear that coming from you." - JMK
I am, but as always we disagree on details I think. I've said it before overall I don't think we disagree on those types of issues so much - it's about presentation. IMO you tend to go a bit off the deep end at times and get carried away with your comments. For example the entire diatribe on being an overseer. The reality is that you actually agree that it would infringe on personal liberty - which is good to hear from you. Because (and I don't mean to start a whole new discussion) the way I see it you usually come off as very willing to abdicate certain liberties to the government in the name of things like the Patriot Act.
I DO consider the far Left in America (the Moore-Gore-Soros Axis and many of the "Netroots") rooted in an inane nostalgia for a sytem (socialism) that's proven unworkable whenever and where-ever it's been tried.
I don't consider you a Far Leftist.
I suppose I do consider BW that, given his affiliation with the Kos Kids and all, but that's another matter. My issue with BW is really not so much his views, but his unwillingness or inability to make actual affirmative arguments in their favor.
It SEEMS (and, of course, this is from my perspective) that you take issue more with my blunt and often harsh appraisals than with my actual views.
As an example, the "overseer diatribe" above was put forth as a cautionary tale as to exactly where the kind of "changes" BW espouses inevitably lead.
I don't have any zeal to "become an overseer," I wouldn't want to live in that kind of society, BUT freedom is predicated on individual choice and personal responsibility. People have a "right" in a free society to make bad choices, so long as they're able and willing to bear the costs - prison time in some instances, poverty, bad health, etc., in others.
That makes "freedom" or "Individual Liberty" a very tough system for the dysfunctional and those prone to making poor choices to live in. That's sort of the short answer to your question, "It's all well and good to say that everyone should do the same - but the fact is they don't. So what do you do about them?"
I'd say, not much more than we do now, in fact only "more" in terms of more incentives to work, get an education and produce (perhaps even performance based stipends, etc)....and I know full well that it's very difficult for the innately self-destructive to do that, as it's generally not in their natures to do so.
But the idea of forcing those who do choose wisely and avoid making bad decisions to subsidize those who don't is morally wrong (as it ultimately makes slaves out of the most productive) and economically stultifying (in that it creates an incentive for failure and dysfunction and a disncentive for productivity and prosperity).
The PROOF that America is at least "more on the right path" than say, France and Germany, is all around us!
Hugo Chavez' socialist experiment in Venezuela is faltering badly, despite a wealth of petro dollars coming in, and France & Germany, neither of which were "socialist economies," merely slightly more Liberal/Left than our own, have voted to move decidedly to the Right and toward where we are now.
In truth France and Germany are, even now, only slightly more to the Left than we are. They both have a 35 hour work week and an average of six weeks paid vacation per year, while we have a 40 hour work and an average of four weeks paid vacation. They have a somewhat more generous welfare system and an incredibly expensive government managed healthcare system....and they, like us, have a myriad of workplace rules that often make it difficult for companies to hire new workers. Again, their bureaucracy may be a bit more stifling, but ours is no bargain either.
AND yet BOTH those nations have voted en masse to move to a more open, more Americanist styled economy!
I'd offer that it can be argued (as I do) that even we are not as open an economy as we should be in this globalized world. Lower across the board tax rates, or even better, a switch to the Fair Tax would be a great first step in my view, but we haven't moved to that.
Still, the fact that both France & Germany are moving to more open (more "fend for yourself") economies would seem to indicate that America has been at least "on the right track," all along.
P.S. My views on the Patriot Act and other domestic aspects of the WoT are based on the view (controversial in some quarters) that "terrorism is NOT a criminal act and CANNOT be dealt with via the Criminal Justice system."
It is not so much a matter of "giving up certain civil liberties, from my perspective, but dealing with a military problem or dilemma within a civilian setting."
That certainly is a different topic altogether, but you can email me any time (jmk444@embarqmail.com) and I'd try to state a fuller case for that, with as much documentation as I can offer.
I think we need a president that will dramatically increase taxes :) Hopefully whoever gets elected will do so to cover for universal health care. Taxes are cool :)
"I think we need a president that will dramatically increase taxes....Taxes are cool" (BW)
Spoken like a petulant twelve year old who's a little mad at Dad.
Are ya?
Sadly, some form of Universal Healthcare (with its mammoth expenditures and healthcare rationing) is pretty much a "done deal," as EVERY major U.S.-based Corporation wants out from under the ponderous weight of covering virtually all of America's healthcare costs - over 85% of the nation is covered by employer plans and most of the rest could afford to participate in those plans but choose not to.
The government will absolutely respond to their corporate masters...and probably "rightfully so." It WILL make American industry more competitive on a global basis.
So long as any "new plan" allows for an alternate private market system of pay-as-you-go health providers/insurers (ie. GHI, HIP, etc) and they will, I'll try and deal with the extra costs to avoid the "free clinics" and rationed care.
Unlike yourself, I CARE for the working guy (the "Dad" above)....I've been one all my life and I KNOW how taxes hurt the working guy every time!
I don't care all that much that INCREASED tax rates = lowered tax revenues, that's the government's problem.
I CARE about working people, especially those making between $100,000/year to say $250,000/year in places like San Fran, LA and NYC getting hammered with higher tax rates, as those with higher incomes ($500K/yr and up) and more disposable cash, simply defer more of that income to avoid the tax bite, while decreasing those projected tax revenues in the process.
Perhaps worst of all, is the reality that there isn't a single government program that really "helps" the working people who pay for the bulk of them.
Tax increases are mercifully NOT aimed at the truly rich (the investor class, and the super-rich - the Kennedy's the Heinz's, the Romney's, the Edwards, etc), no they're aimed, as they must be, at those who earn between $70,000 and $250,000 per year...because that's where most of the money is.
That's right BW, taxes are pretty "cool," that is, until you grow up and have to pay them.
“The problem that I don't think you're addressing is the people who work 40 plus hours a week and still can't make enough to support themselves, or the people who can't find adequate work. I don't think there's a simple answer...” (GZ)
A fair point GZ, as America is currently plagued by “Structural Unemployment” – too few workers trained to do many specialized jobs that need to be filled, but according to Robert Rector’s report, the cases of poor Americans who work 40 hours per week are few and far between.
As he notes, “In both good and bad economic environments, the typical American poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year — the equivalent of 16 hours of work per week.”
That's an amazing stat!
And the picture is even more confounding when you look at the condition of America’s poor;
“46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
“80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
“Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.
“The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
“Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
“97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
“78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.
“62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
“89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
“As a group, America’s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100-percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, super-nourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.”
Moreover, Rector notes that the poor expend, on average, some 40% MORE than they claim to earn, which seems to indicate some form of unreported income, perhaps “off-the-books” work, etc.
Add to that the fact that America’s poverty rate has been fairly consistent. Under eight years of Bill Clinton it averaged 12.9%, at this point, as of nearly seven years of GW Bush it’s averaged 12.3%, though to be fair, under Clinton, the tax hike fueled recession resulting from Bush Sr.’s breaking his “No new tax pledge” started off his Presidency with a poverty rate near 14% and that was brought down to 11.5% during the smoke & mirrors “Tech Bubble of the late 1990s.
Regardless, it’s been remarkably consistent, to date.
So, what to do about those who use their freedom recklessly, irresponsibly and idle away their lives, often in self-destructive manners?
I don’t know if we can do much more than we are right now.
I can only hope you'd agree that the idea of forcing those who do choose wisely and avoid making bad decisions to subsidize those who don't is morally wrong (as it ultimately makes slaves out of the most productive) and economically stultifying (in that it creates an incentive for failure and dysfunction and a disincentive for productivity and prosperity).
It IS a problem and not one that seems all that amenable to “government programs” as any kind of "solution."
Blue, you know there is that little check box on your 1040 where you can elect to send *extra* money to Uncle Sam if that would make you feel better. :-)
"Blue, you know there is that little check box on your 1040 where you can elect to send *extra* money to Uncle Sam if that would make you feel better. :-)
Thanks for the suggestion, but I will pass. I think that we should ALL pay higher taxes. Not just me :-)
"As he notes, “In both good and bad economic environments, the typical American poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year — the equivalent of 16 hours of work per week.”" - JMK
I never read the source material, does the 800 hours of work reflect their own work, or is 800 hours of other people's work paid to the poor in the form of some type of welfare benefit? Only reason I ask is that the number means something different depending on whose work we're discussing.
If it is their own work then there are some potential mitigating factors I can see. Child care is one. I know daycare can be very expensive, so much so that I (and I'm sure you) know people who find it costs less to have a spouse stop working and stay home then to pay for daycare. That situation only gets worse if you're a single parent or at the bottom of the wage pool. Another possible issue that exists at the bottom of the wage pool is part time vs. full time employment. There are many (mostly retail) jobs where the managers intentionally limit the employees hours to part time to avoid paying benefit costs. In some cases they'll even hire additional people all part time rather than have a few less that are full time. That isn't an issue for you or me, but if the only jobs you can get are in that strata then you have a lot less leverage about your schedule. I'm not saying these are the only reasons - a lot of it is cetainly lethargy, but I'm sure these reasons are a factor to be considered as well.
As far as all the possessions go, it's true that the "poor" do have a number of luxury items - although some of the items on that list seem out of date such as color tv. I don't even know where you can buy a b/w tv anymore. VCR's and DVD players are dirt cheap now as well. So I don't so much consider them in the same class of luxury as say running the AC all summer - I don't do that myself. But it's all relative, if we're discussing an elderly person or even a young healthy person in certain climate conditions - air conditioning might be more than just a luxury in some situations. Look at all the people who died in France during that heat wave a few years ago.
Off-the books income is of course a problem. It's always going to be there, a business can always call cash expenditures whatever they wish, it's illegal - but it's done all the time and there's no way to effectively prevent it. Same problem for individuals you can't track cash. The only way you could prevent this is if we went to a completely "cash free" system where every transaction was done electronically. Then every purchase and every receipt would be recorded and become transparent. I don't see this happening anytime soon, I think we'll always have currency there even if we eventually move more and more towards a paperless system. Currency is a tangible backup and people like that.
"I can only hope you'd agree that the idea of forcing those who do choose wisely and avoid making bad decisions to subsidize those who don't is morally wrong"-JMK
Well I can't agree that it's morally wrong because that's what we do now on a small scale with Welfare/unemployment/social security/etc. I believe it's morally wrong when the subsidy isn't really needed (for example someone working off the books), or if the act of subsidizing someone else effects your own personal happiness. It's all a question of scale - same with taxes. We subsidize others all the time - property taxes for instance, if you have nochildren of your own you're subsidizing everyone else who does have them. That's inherently unfair. It's unfair that your neighbor can have ten children going to public schools and pay less in property taxes while you have one and pay more - just because your home is newer, or you had an addition put on etc. I agree that there's a lot that can be done to reform the tax code.
According to Robert Rector's report it's 800 hours per year (16 hours per week of their own work), GZ...which is, I'll acknowledge a start, but a full 75% of the children living in poverty would be lifted out of poverty according to that report if that parent worked a full 40 hours per week.
And yes, we live in a high standard of living economy, where many of the poor do have many luxury items, that the poor elsewhere do not have.
And "off-the-books" income is an illicit employer problem...and it CAN be stopped if government wanted to stop it by cracking down on illicit employers.
That seems to be the target of the "new crackdown on illegal immigration."
As to the last point, you're merely arguing over degree NOT the underlying morality.
Yes, we do subsidize many people - ironically, often the very rich - NYC does that with "Rent Control," where upwards of 80% of the rent controlled (NOT "rent stabilized," but "rent CONTROLLED) apartments are in the hands of the very wealthy, like Mia Farrow, Woody Allen, even Ed Koch had a rent controlled apartment through the 1990s and possibly still does today.
One of the most provocative books written in the 20th Century (in my view) was Nietzsche's The Anti-Christ, where he takes on the "moral code of Christianity," calling even voluntary charity (which even I consider a virtue) to be "the curse of Christ."
In HS I was both shocked and appaled at the book, as even though I'd renounced both Catholicism and the conventional moral code that sprang from Christianity or what Americans call the "Judeo-Christian ethic."
I've read through it several times since and it is always stunning and challenging. He is by far, the best writer, among the philosophers, the most accessible, so it is ironic that so many have misconstrued his ideas over the years.
He articulated many of the impulses and thoughts I once acted upon, and although I went much further in some regards, I believe that just as I went too far in my actions, he sometimes went a little overboard in his ideas.
My views have changed over time. While I once reviled all conventional morality as "a way for the weak to lord over the strong," and despised any form of charity towards others as a debasement of both giver and receiver, I have, over the last two decades come to accept that individual VOLUNTARY charity is INDEED a virtue, while any form of compulsory "charity" makes a mockery of virtue, as it elevates theft.
I'm closer to Olasky's view in his work, "The Tragedy of American Compassion than Neitzsche now-a-days.
Some basic assistance for the truly destitute is good, so long as it comes with a social contract - the recipient must engage in job training, work-fare, etc., as a good faith effort to become independent again, as only the independent/self-sustaining are really free.
And YES, there are many, MANY changes that would benefit the tax code - education shouldn't be covered by property taxes (it IS inherently unfair way to do that) and while I'd accept a "Flat Tax" plan, I'd much prefer the Fair Tax (the consumption based tax) that would tax all that off-the-books income and take a far larger bite from the truly "rich," who indeed and by far consume the most.
That's my primary problem with our current tax code, it focuses on taxing income/productivity and gives a pass to investors, trust funders and the super-rich, as well as to anyone engaged in the underground economy - the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer) would address all that, the Flat Tax wouldn't.
I'm still waiting for Edward to explain how he's going to pay for all these amazing new services...I think it can be said that Europe has definitely given the welfare state the old college try. It's not working there...why would it work here?
"I'm still waiting for Edward to explain how he's going to pay for all these amazing new services..." (Nathan Tabor)
He's been pretty clear on that Nathan - higher taxes, which will REDUCE tax revenues and generate LESS investment and LESS productivity = lower GDP growth.
And those tax increases will primarily impact the lower wage earners as those who earn over say, $200K/year will be able to defer more of their income to avoid the tax bite.
"Europe has definitely given the welfare state the old college try. It's not working there...why would it work here?"
Who said things are not working in europe. On the contrary. Look at France, they have a great health care system and at the same time a strong economy. And noone is uninsured there. Look at the Scandinavian countries. They have outstanding health care and great economies. Anyone can say the opposite and close their eyes to reality, but the fact is that in many parts of europe health care is much better than here.
"Look at France, they have a great health care system and at the same time a strong economy." (BW)
That's factually wrong on so many levels, as France suffers from a DOUBLE DIGIT unemployment rate.
Moreover, the fact is that neither France nor Germany are, even now, much further to the Left than we are. We are ALL Corporatist economies with private ownership of property/businesses, regulated economies, etc.
They both have a 35 hour work week and an average of six weeks paid vacation per year, while we have a 40 hour work and an average of four weeks paid vacation. They have a somewhat more generous welfare system and an incredibly expensive government managed healthcare system....and they, like us, have a myriad of workplace rules that often make it difficult for companies to hire new workers. Again, their bureaucracy may be a bit more stifling, but ours is no bargain either.
AND yet BOTH those nations have voted en masse to move to a more open, more Americanist styled economy!
The Frnch and Germans have overwhelmingly decided that their economic system is NOT as effective as America's....it's not, but even ours should be less regulated, more open and our tax system shoud be converted to a consumption rather.
One of the only truly "socialistic nation," Venazueala, is foundering badly despite a surfeit of petro dollars and about to devalue its currency yet again.
One of the only truly "socialistic nations," in our hemisphere,Venazueala, is foundering badly despite a surfeit of petro dollars and about to devalue its currency yet again.
One of the only truly "socialistic nations," in our hemisphere,Venazueala, is foundering badly despite a surfeit of petro dollars and about to devalue its currency yet again.
This is an example of how badly France’s “great healthcare system” works;
”Desperate to attract medical specialists to the hospital at Ambert, in the Puy de Dôme, the board bent the rules in time-honored French fashion. It is virtually impossible to attract specialists to remote areas where the nearest sizeable town is an hour's drive away because they are not allowed to set up a private practice to make up their income to reasonable levels. Unfortunately, the board members were a little casual and attracted the wrath of the Cour des Comptes, the nation's auditors. Payments were made for fictional extra duties regularly throughout the year, even when the doctor in question was on holiday...
“...Nine of the hospital's fifteen specialists and a former director risk prosecution for fraud. The maire of Ambert blames the government for not allowing enough doctors to qualify and then punishing the inevitable ensuing abuses. Now he says the hospital has to use temporary staff from agencies who cost far more than paying for these fictitious duties.”
"it's not, but even ours should be less regulated, more open and our tax system shoud be converted to a consumption tax system rather, rather than an income tax based one."
You're going to take issues with typos and mis-spellings?
Then please, at least accept the reality of your own factual errors;
(1) France does not have a "great healthcare system;" I gave you evidence as to why above.
(2) France does NOT have a "strong economy," what they have is an unemployment rate that has recently "improved" down to about 9%, a national debt of 65% of GDP (very close to our own) and a with an annual deficit of about $60 Billion (annual revenues $1.15 Trillion versus annual expenditures of $1.21 Trillion).
What's even more important is France, like Germany before it voted AGAINST "Euro-socialism"/American Liberalism. In fact, France just vote a "European Giuliani" (Nikolas Sarkozy) into office and then gave "Sarko the American" a working majority in Parliament.
France followed Germany's lead. Germany replaced the anti-American Schroeder regime with Angela Merckel and France replaced the anti-American Chirac regime with Sarkozy!
That's GOOD news for America and for the Western world as well, BW.
Neither of those nations would've voted for radical anti-Liberal, anti-Statist change if "things were better in those places."
(3) You've rooted for Chavez for months now, a tyrant who's turned Venezuela into an economic basketcase almost overnight, with many of the most productive Venezuelans leaving the country for greener pastures.
I'm not engaging in any "gotcha" kind of thing here, BW, it's only that I can't let such major factual errors go unchallenged.
Who rooted for Chavez? Why do you have this need to lie so much? Why do you need to fabricate things that do not exist? I hate to say but it appears that DBK was right.
You've absolutely supported (rooted for) Hugo Chavez, BW, and some of your favorite people (Soros, Sheehan, Moore and Moulitsas) strongly support that tyrant to this day.
Look, if you support socialism, or even considerably more government intervention, you SHOULD support Chavez and hope, that at the very least, his brand of socialism "can work."
Chavez has brought the first truly socialist economy to South America since Allende's....and with the same result - an unmitigated disaster.
And thank you for not disputing those facts about France's economy and healthcare system.
Ok, the only reason I responded to you in my last post was because you lied. DBK and others have also noticed that you lie, and called you on that previously. I have not rooted or supported Chavez. If I had, you would have quoted a post, but you can not because it does not exist.
In any case, there is no point arguing with you. As I mentioned before, I find it boring. You are so far out from reality that you even called the liberal democrats in Daily Kos "maoists". There is no way to rationally communicate with you. So, no matter what lie you will say next time, I will not respond. However, try not to lie too much. Or if you do, use more convincing lies :-) Try the baiting with someone else who may engage in conversations with you. Good luck.
There may well be a few very naive Democrats posting there, but Moulitsas and company are avowed socialists ("Maoists is close enough, as well), who, like Sheehan, Soros, Moore, Kucinich and many others on America's faaaaar, kooky Left, strongly support Hugo Chavez, an anti-American tyrant who, like ALL socialists is inflicting a universal misery on that country via his misguided economic policies.
It's all too obvious that you've merely moved to this inane tack of dishonestly trying to re-direct the discussion to Chavez, since you can't argue with France's high unemployment, it's flawed healthcare delivery and the undeniable FACT that the voters in that country, not only gave Nikolas Sarkozy ("Sarko the American") a large electoral win, but a working majority in Paliament as well.
In this case, your moving away from your initial lauding of France's "strong economy" and "great healthcare system," is an indication that you've accepted the fallacy of those comments. Mere "baiting" wouldn't get you to move off and away from your initial assertions.
That's at least some small progess on your part, BW....and I do commend you for that, BW!
That's very true TG, but there are so many variables involved in things like suicide rates (Scandanavia has notoriously long winters and much of it has six months of 16 hours or more of darkness - both very depressing things)....as well as an overly interventionist State and an economy in which few people "can afford" to work more than six months.
The homofeneous Scandavian countries have long been bastions of economic interventionism by government, so it's natural that some, in Scandanavia would still support that, but odder still is that right here in the United States there are misinformed misanthropes like Jonathan Chait who, in this month's The New Republic (he's the editor) "recounts the founding of supply-side economics...which began as a fringe doctrine espoused by men like George Gilder, who believed among other things in the inferiority of women, the power of ESP, and the infinite potential of the stock-market tech boom."
Actually Jon Chait is either ignorant (to a moronic degree) OR is misguided by a pernicious Left-wing political agenda (I doubt that, as ignorance appears the far more likely a culprit) because the leaders of the Supply-Side school were Jude Wanniski and Arthur Laffer.
Ironically enough, both of them were trained economists, unlike J M Keynes and Karl Marx.
In fact, both Marx and Keynes have about the equivalent economic training as I have, which, I guess, makes me as much of a "pseudo-economist as are either Marx or Keynes.
Hmmm. So when the Republicans said, "Workfare! If you want welfare, you have to work!" you opposed that, right Barry? So when Edwards says, "The taxpayers will pay for your healthcare coverage, but you have to get regular checkups so that there can be early detection and treatment, you scream, "Forced mammograms! Bad bad bad!", right Barry?
That sort of misrepresentation of what Edwards said makes me lose a lot of respect for you.
I love JMK's postings. They are so free and loose, unencumbered as they are by facts or reality, that they can go on for hundreds of lines, leaving you unwilling or unable to read anymore because he's such a boor on so many levels.
"GDP growth averaged 2% between 1994 and 1998, with 3% recorded in 2000. Like other continental economies, France's real GDP growth has been relatively weak, the unemployment rate is relatively high, at nearly 7.3% (in 2007), and a rising trade deficit has characterised a malaise in the French economy since the global economic downturn in 2000. However, France's income inequality (measured by the Gini coefficient) has remained low compared to other economies where it has increased considerably (most notably in the United Kingdom and the United States). Moreover, France's poverty rate remains one of the lowest in the world, at 6% (compared to 15% in the UK and 18% in the US). Despite this, 10% of the people control 46% of the total patrimony (Euros 8 000 billions) [1]."
Now, JMK, your assignment is to bore anyone who cares to read your response (I won't be one of those reading it) with a few thousand poorly chosen and factually bereft words on why France is bad and the United States will only improve if we make the poor poorer and the rich richer.
Good heavens! Simply by responding to JMK's usual twaddle, I bored myself!
There is, of course, a clear distinction between "free citizens" and "wards of the state," there DBK.
And since no one's ever argued that point with me, I presume we all accept and understand that basic truth.
ALL those depndent upon the government for their basic sustenance (food, clothing, shelter, etc) ARE indeed "wards of the state" and NOT "free citizens."
Some of them are very OBVIOUSLY "unfree" as in incarcerated felons and the institutionalized mentally and physically handicapped, while others are less obviously unfree, such as those dependent upon public assistance, who can be drug tested against their wills and forced into job training, and various kinds of labor, or "workfare" and even limited to the amount of time they can be on public assistance.
Perhaps your point is, "Wouldn't we all be wards of the state once the government provided one of our basic needs (healthcare)?"
If THAT is your point, I commend you, because that's a very good question.
In my view, the answer is "To a very specific degree, YES."
That would mean that the government then could demand not only regular check-ups, but other preventive procedures - a regimine of prescribed exercise and in many cases, a prescribed diet...and of course those things would HAVE to come with some added intrusions into our everyday lives.
Whomever is PAYING for that healthcare (yeah, indirectly that would be us, BUT it would still be administered by government) would have the NATURAL RIGHT to hold down overall costs at the expense of the free will of those being "taken care of." That's the lot of "wards of the state," or "slaves to the government."
And it makes overall sense, as why should ALL Americans pay higher taxes when some (ie. the obese, smokers, people who take extreme recreational risks, etc) be allowed to engage in such high risk activities, when those things raise the overall costs of that healthcare?
A strict and MONITORED regimine of diet and exercise would keep far more Americans far healthier and make such a healthcare system much more cost effective.
So YES, we would all be "wards of the state" in regards to all healthcare issues and the government would have a vested interest and a basic right to monitor and control those lifestyle choices that might impact our health.
We just wouldn't be complete "wards of the state," just wards in relation to healthcare/lifestyle choices.
A even more interesting question, from my view, would be, "Given that some form of alternative private insurance will survive, would those who are either partly or fully self-insured still be "partial wards of the state," at least in regards to healthcare and lifestyle issues?
I'd say they wouldn't be, in so much as that greater autonomy = greater freedom/self-ownership.
When I saw my nick atthe top, I was going to respond, but fortunately I checked and saw it was old "blather on endlessly with more mouth than sense" writing (JMK, that is) and decided I didn't want to be bored with another three thousand lines that are stupider than a box of rocks and amount to boring bilge from a boor. He doesn't have an actual point or argument ever, just talking points which he recites for hours and hours. He must be rich, because he couldn't possibly work for a living with all the time he has to blither on and on here on CN.
Here, I commended you for very possibly stating a pretty good question, "Wouldn't we all be "wards of the state" once the government provided one of our basic needs (healthcare)," and you respond with insults and personal attacks???
I suppose that's typical, after all, I showed you (via articles) how Al Gore's "carbon off-sets" (actually investments in HIS OWN investment company) were a sham and a con game, and you responded by assailing me..."the mere messenger."
I know it may often seem like the only option if you're unable to make a clear counter-argument, but sometimes, it's better to ruminate on things and then either make a counter-argument or concede a given point, depending upon where your private ruminations lead.
You don't get it at all. You're a boor of the first order. You run on and on forever and it's so stultifying that I can't be bothered to find out what the hell you're jibbering about.
A recent survey among internet bloggers and readers shows that there is an overwhelming consensus that there are THREE fatal faux pas one can engage in over the internet.
The first, of course, is Godwin’s Law (comparing ANYthing in today’s world, especially anything in today's Democratic West to Hitler or the Third Reich).
The second is to respond with invective, and personal attack to a civil post that one disagrees with.
And the third is failing to make a complete argument or counter-argument to defend your position or views with dodges like, “It’s not worth the effort,” or “It would do no good to explain,” etc., etc.
The first (“Godwin’s Law”) is a discussion stopping bit of hyperbole, generally used by the far-Left, and is considered the verbal equivalent of yelling “Uncle!”
The second is considered the conceding of a point or disagreement – “Concession via meltdown,” they call it.
The third is seen as an all too obvious dodge, apparently to everyone but the dodger, an open admission that the person CANNOT make an argument or counter.
The interesting thing there is that in recent months DBK, you’ve been guilty of ALL THREE DBK!
A while back you “agreed with those who compared the current American administration to Hitler,” dodged making full arguments by complaining, in effect, that they require too many words, and in “Concession via Meltdown,” responding to civil posts (usually by me) with invective and personal attack.
Seriously, if you have that little respect for yourself, how can your views on anything be taken at all seriously?
(P.S. You've responded to EVERY ONE of my posts, putting us both in the same fix vis-a-vis work, laziness, etc.)
Comments
I can not believe that you find that wrong!! That is a great thing! Mandatory in this case is not for the women. They will not go to jail if they don't have the mammogram (!!). Read better. It only means what he said: "It requires that everybody be covered". And yes, I think we should have higher taxes to pay for programs like this.
Posted by: Blue Wind | September 3, 2007 09:30 AM
Methinks you are responding too seriously to satire, BW.
But seriously, while we're making these laws, can we make No-Pants Friday an official holiday? I've been lobbying for years. If John Edwards can make it happen, then by God he has my vote.
Posted by: Adam | September 3, 2007 10:43 AM
Higher PAYROLL taxes YES!
There are so many dumb working people, BW, folks like you and I, who demand more and more "free stuff," that worker's PAYROLL TAXES should probably increase.
But NOT taxes on Capital Gains, on Dividends, not on INCOME TAXES paid by the self-employed....those folks (the investing class and the small business owners) are over-taxed!
Currently the top 50% of income earners pay over 95% of the income taxes and the top 10% of income earners pay over 70% of all income taxes.
With some tweaking of the PAYROLL TAX ledger we could "spread the pain around" a little more.
Get that bottom 50% kicking in something and the way to do that is via the PAYROLL TAX.
Another thing that should be made MANDATORY is work.
We could take a page from some of the other "command economies" around the world and force ALL people to do some kind of "work," (mostly involving physical labor) unless they are severely physically or mentally handicapped (as defined by statute).
I'd make a great over-seer. I have significant experience getting (how can I best put this?) "reluctant" people to work, and I am a rather convincing fellow - I've always had a gift for getting people to do what I want them to do.
That kind fo thing might well raise productivity a great deal and help pay for some of these programs so many of us want....and, of course, it would open up an entirely new career path for me....one which I believe I was born for.
Posted by: JMK | September 3, 2007 10:44 AM
Methinks you are responding too seriously to satire, BW.
lol...you never know with Barry. I am sure he does not want to pay the taxes for something like that...
Posted by: Blue Wind | September 3, 2007 10:53 AM
Do the women who spend $200 a month on cigarettes, but "can't afford" a mammogram (or coverage) qualify for diagnosis and/or treatment to be paid for with my tax dollars? Give me a chance to vote on that.
How about The Most Preventable form of cancer (with early screenings and diagnosis)?? Why is J.E. not promoting coverage for everyone to get the 'ole Snake Up the Butt instead of mammograms? Here's why: the wifey pity vote. It ain't really about health care (wink). Elitists pandering with populism... what's new.
I'd say let's go for it. Make everything free for those below a certain income level, with no requirement that they participate in any kind of service or production. Then I'll quit my job and rejoin them (spent a good part of my life below what they consider "poor"), as will many of my overloaded middle-classed taxpaying mule friends. And we'll live on someone else's nickel. Whose? I dunno. "They". Brother Edwards will figure out a way.
Posted by: Will | September 3, 2007 12:16 PM
"I'd say let's go for it. Make everything free for those below a certain income level, with no requirement that they participate in any kind of service or production. Then I'll quit my job and rejoin them (spent a good part of my life below what they consider "poor"), as will many of my overloaded middle-classed taxpaying mule friends. And we'll live on someone else's nickel. Whose? I dunno. "They". Brother Edwards will figure out a way." (Will)
That's exactly where this "house of cards" that is contemporary Liberalism falls apart, Will.
The top 25% of income earners drive the economy. They are professionals (physicians, attorneys, accountants, etc), small business owners, managers, etc. and when they're tax burden is increased they either defer more of their income &/or work...and produce less.
That's disastrous for the economy and it's why Keynesian economics ("government spending, especially social spending is GOOD") always fails...and fails miserably.
The idea that food, housing, healthcare, etc., are "rights" and should be provided to some people (let's call them "no-work mutha-f*ckers" to be kind) is predicated upon the belief that "All people are NOT equal."
That is, that some people (ie. farmers, doctors, and other producers) MUST work and produce all the "free stuff" that must be given to all those who do not work and do not produce.
But any view that values the non-productive so highly, ultimately makes slaves out of the most productive...and that is not only morally wrong, but it's economically unsound, as well.
The Edwards and Obama supporters and other extreme Liberals don't understand even that simple fact.
Posted by: JMK | September 3, 2007 12:43 PM
"...it would open up an entirely new career path for me....one which I believe I was born for." - JMK
What career path overseer?
I suppose you'd like us to reinstitute the old english system of debtors prisons as well?
How do you feel about trust fund babies who've never worked a day in their lives, instead just living off an inheritance?
I think your real point isn't that everyone should work - preferably physical labor, but just the poor. I don't believe the idle rich bother you much at all.
It's funny - I step away for awhile and it's like nothing changed at all. So very predictable.
Posted by: zilla | September 5, 2007 04:29 PM
Well, GZ, EVERY Socialist economy is predicated upon forced labor.
A part of me is very attracted to the order and structure of that - we eradicate poverty by eradicating poor people's "freedom" to avoid work.
Robert Rector (Heritage Foundation) recently concluded a decades long study on poverty in America and found that, among other things, "In both good and bad economic environments, the typical American poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year — the equivalent of 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year — the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year — nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty."
Forced labor (socialism) ISN'T a great idea (no socialist ideas ever are), but some people (lazy, dumb, addicted people) sure could benefit from that.
Another interesting fact was that the poor in America, on average, consume 40% more than they earn, implying that many of the "poor" work off-the-books, earning significantly above the poverty level, while paying no taxes on much of that income.
You seemed to miss my overall point, which is that EVERYONE who is NOT financially independent (anyone unable to live off their investments, trusts, inheritances etc.) SHOULD work...and NOT "preferably physical labor," THOSE who CAN, probably SHOULD engage in more productive and profitable pursuits - real estate sales, trading stocks, bonds, commodities, etc., can all be very lucrative pursuits.
Like yourself and most Americans, I believe in the absolute sanctity of private property, which means that whatever one owns in life BELONGS to that person and upon that person's death to their heirs.
Paris Hilton's parents hold the property rights to the fortune their parent's and grandparents earned.
According to America's Founders "We the people" have no right to violate OTHER people's property rights under any conditions.
It's also one of the reasons, so long as America remains free, we'll never see forced labor....or, for that matter, the eradication of poverty in America.
Free people have the right to avoid work and the right to fail to do well economically.
Posted by: JMK | September 5, 2007 05:31 PM
"Well, GZ, EVERY Socialist economy is predicated upon forced labor." -JMK
I suppose I'm a socialist? I think you know I wholeheartedly support capitalism, however I don't support pure market capitalism, I support a mixed econmomy the kind which we have today where government supports the capitalist system through control of the money supply and regulation of the market.
This system also allows us to fund certain "socialist" programs such as unemployment insurance, social security and welfare.
At best I support some socialist causes, but only at a minimum level to protect those who are unable to help themselves. I don't approve of freeloaders, however we both know that there will always be people trying to cheat the system, and while we should always attempt to purge the system of those abusing it we can't abandon it because of them. That means abandoning the people whom the programs were designed to help.
Of course these freeloaders could benefit from mandatory work - but as you said in a free country you can't make them do it. Which is refreshing to hear you say. I'm all for improving the system - but moreoften than not when your atypical conservative politician steps up to "reform the system" the real goal is to just abolish it.
As to your point I don't miss it at all. What I really was speaking to was your exuberance and enthusuasm regarding the job of overseer. I realize that the idle rich are entitled to their money and that you're issue is with those who aren't financially independant. But my point was more how gleeful you seemed about sticking it to the idle poor. I'm with you in that everyone should work if they can, everyone should be as productive as they can. The only difference between the idle rich and the idle poor is the resource they drain. The poor drain a little from all of us, the rich drain a lot from their own family or inheritance. Now of course I realize the difference - and I'm not suggesting that we force those who don't need to work to put in 8 hours a day at a regular job. I think it would just be refreshing to hear you rant about the idle rich once in awhile. I suspect you don't approve of them either. And you've already acknowledged that as much as you'd like to we can't force the poor to work as it would impose on their freedoms. It's just as true that the rich can't be forced to work for the same reason. So really it's all just ranting about what people SHOULD be doing to be productive contributing members of society. And really that's what everyone should be doing rich or poor. The capitalist system rewards you for those efforts - however it breaks down at both extremes. At the bottom, you get people either too poor to effectively enter the system, or unwilling to because they are slackers. At the top you get people who never produced a thing in their life living off the work of others. Both are bad for different reasons, yet both will always exist unless you change our economic to one of two extremes. One of pure market capitalism where the bottom end of the spectrum falls off because those unable or unwilling to work will eventually either die or be institutionalized while the idle rich at the top will increase, or a purely socialist system where there is no reward for performance because everyone gets the same no matter what they contribute. In that system the bottom end will swell with non-producers while the top end effectively vanishes because the idle rich suddenly become indistinguishable from the idle poor.
You know all of that. The system we have now is a balanced compromise between extremes, and it works.
Posted by: zilla | September 6, 2007 12:18 PM
Edwards did clarify that he meant that insurance companies pay for mammograms, by the way. Or are we off on another topic now?
Posted by: K | September 6, 2007 01:45 PM
What?! I'm not sure I understand your claim, GZ.
Let me refresh you;
YOU responded to THIS "We could take a page from some of the other "command economies" around the world and force ALL people to do some kind of "work," (mostly involving physical labor) unless they are severely physically or mentally handicapped (as defined by statute).
"I'd make a great over-seer. (JMK)
See? COMMAND ECONOMY = SOCIALISM....now, that's what you responded to WITH; "What career path overseer?....I think your real point isn't that everyone should work - preferably physical labor, but just the poor. I don't believe the idle rich bother you much at all." (GZ)
All I did was RIGHTLY respond that, "Well GZ, EVERY Socialist economy is predicated upon forced labor..." which, of course, is undeniable and THAT would create many, many over-seer jobs.
Maybe you feel guilty about defending that position, I don't know....but I combed through my entire response to you and couldn't find a single line that implied I believed you were a socialist....hmmmm, maybe you can help.
And I'm not at all "gleeful at sticking it to the idle poor."
In point of fact, there SHOULD BE no such thing as "the idle poor."
The "poor" can't afford to be idle!!!
Our economy is driven largely by the "work" of investors who often conclude their investing before most people finish their lunch hours.
They are, in effect, the "founders of our feast."
And a nation like ours predicated upon property rights, HAS TO hold private property rights inviolate, which means that the money grandpa Hilton, for instance, amassed is his and his alone...and upon his demise belongs to his rightful heirs and NOT the government, certainly NOT "all of us!"
Ergo, the likes of Paris Hilton can afford to be idle, although, I understand, she lives off the money she's made on her...uh-hem..."talents" as a "Reality TV star" and her fame for "being famous" - clothing and perfume lines and such.
A poor person has just as much right to idle away their lives as Paris Hilton does to idle away hers....but NEITHER has ANY right to complain, nor to ask that other hard working folks to kick more money for more "free stuff" for themselves.
THAT'S real "GREED." A person who works 40, 50 or 60 hours a week to "get ahead" should never be penalized to benefit "privileged" folks who are able to get by working only 16 hours per week, while remaining "poor."
If all those 16 hours of work per week "poor folks" would just work a full 40, they wouldn't be "poor" any more.
The system we have right now IS indeed a balanced compromise that works. THAT has always been my position, here and elsewhere, all along.
If you think I've argued for any appreciable changes (sure, I'd like even LOWER tax rates, which create even more tax revenues, and a change to a Consumption-based tax, or "Fair Tax"), you're gravely mistaken.
My EVERY disagreement with folks like BW is AGAINST the "disastrous changes" that THEY claim to support.
BW's position here is very clearly in favor of drastic changes; "It requires that everybody be covered. And yes, I think we should have higher taxes to pay for programs like this."
I agreed with Will's position, which was, "Make everything free for those below a certain income level, with no requirement that they participate in any kind of service or production. Then I'll quit my job and rejoin them (spent a good part of my life below what they consider "poor"), as will many of my overloaded middle-classed taxpaying mule friends. And we'll live on someone else's nickel. Whose? I dunno. "They". Brother Edwards will figure out a way."
My overseer reference was a reference to exactly where the kind of changes BW supports would end up - COMMAND ECONOMIES (socialism) ALWAYS end up commanding or requiring work, especially from the unwilling.
If you support the current system and truly DON'T WANT higher tax rates, more redistribution and more misery and morass, then you're really staking out a position that agrees with ME and takes issue with the likes of BW.
And believe me, I'm very, VERY glad to hear that coming from you.
Posted by: JMK | September 6, 2007 03:42 PM
K, Edwards has clearly staked out a position that would (1) make ALL healthcare a "right" - in effect, a "free" commodity and (2) did indeed espouse MANDATING certain preventive procedures. That second position may sound sensible, but it takes control and freedom of choice from the individual or patient and puts that control in the hands of government.
BOTH those positions eschew INDIVIDUAL responsibility and FREEDOM of choice.
According to studies nearly 60% of the 15% (45 million) people without healthcare CAN afford it...many have opted out of employee health plans to take home more money.
My wife opted out of her employer's health plan because she's now covered under mine.
When I was much younger, I never had a health plan. I wouldn't pay the money for it. Yeah, considering that I was often involved in enhanced risk work activities (repossessing cars, and such) that was probably foolish, but youth is exuberant - you never figure you're oging to get hurt at that age.
For anyone truly interested in the costs of "free" healthcare, just take a look at Wisconsin's proposed system; http://workingclassconservative.blogspot.com/2007/08/wisconsins-universal-healthcare-plan.html
Posted by: JMK | September 6, 2007 03:56 PM
"I combed through my entire response to you and couldn't find a single line that implied I believed you were a socialist" - JMK
Well my mistake, I think it's understandable from past experience that someone could easily make the mistake that you were calling them a socialist now isn't it?
"If all those 16 hours of work per week "poor folks" would just work a full 40, they wouldn't be "poor" any more." - JMK
I'm with you on the fact that a poor person who isn't working SHOULD be working. But the problem that I don't think you're addressing is the people who work 40 plus hours a week and still can't make enough to support themselves, or the people who can't find adequate work. I don't think there's a simple answer. What do you do with someone who for whatever reason doesn't have the basic skills to get a decent job? I don't think the answer is a handout but I don't think it's realistic not to take this into account in terms of motivation and practicality. I like you work to get the most benefit I can and I look towards improving that in the future. It's all well and good to say that everyone should do the same - but the fact is they don't. So what do you do about them?
"My overseer reference was a reference to exactly where the kind of changes BW supports would end up - COMMAND ECONOMIES (socialism) ALWAYS end up commanding or requiring work, especially from the unwilling." - JMK
I'm not sure you realize this - the main issue I had with your zeal to become an overseer was just that, your zeal, and again a bit of the old ego about how good a motivator you are. That's really what motivated me to comment.
"If you support the current system and truly DON'T WANT higher tax rates, more redistribution and more misery and morass, then you're really staking out a position that agrees with ME and takes issue with the likes of BW.
And believe me, I'm very, VERY glad to hear that coming from you." - JMK
I am, but as always we disagree on details I think. I've said it before overall I don't think we disagree on those types of issues so much - it's about presentation. IMO you tend to go a bit off the deep end at times and get carried away with your comments. For example the entire diatribe on being an overseer. The reality is that you actually agree that it would infringe on personal liberty - which is good to hear from you. Because (and I don't mean to start a whole new discussion) the way I see it you usually come off as very willing to abdicate certain liberties to the government in the name of things like the Patriot Act.
Posted by: zilla | September 6, 2007 05:13 PM
I don't consider YOU a socialist GZ, never have.
I DO consider the far Left in America (the Moore-Gore-Soros Axis and many of the "Netroots") rooted in an inane nostalgia for a sytem (socialism) that's proven unworkable whenever and where-ever it's been tried.
I don't consider you a Far Leftist.
I suppose I do consider BW that, given his affiliation with the Kos Kids and all, but that's another matter. My issue with BW is really not so much his views, but his unwillingness or inability to make actual affirmative arguments in their favor.
It SEEMS (and, of course, this is from my perspective) that you take issue more with my blunt and often harsh appraisals than with my actual views.
As an example, the "overseer diatribe" above was put forth as a cautionary tale as to exactly where the kind of "changes" BW espouses inevitably lead.
I don't have any zeal to "become an overseer," I wouldn't want to live in that kind of society, BUT freedom is predicated on individual choice and personal responsibility. People have a "right" in a free society to make bad choices, so long as they're able and willing to bear the costs - prison time in some instances, poverty, bad health, etc., in others.
That makes "freedom" or "Individual Liberty" a very tough system for the dysfunctional and those prone to making poor choices to live in. That's sort of the short answer to your question, "It's all well and good to say that everyone should do the same - but the fact is they don't. So what do you do about them?"
I'd say, not much more than we do now, in fact only "more" in terms of more incentives to work, get an education and produce (perhaps even performance based stipends, etc)....and I know full well that it's very difficult for the innately self-destructive to do that, as it's generally not in their natures to do so.
But the idea of forcing those who do choose wisely and avoid making bad decisions to subsidize those who don't is morally wrong (as it ultimately makes slaves out of the most productive) and economically stultifying (in that it creates an incentive for failure and dysfunction and a disncentive for productivity and prosperity).
The PROOF that America is at least "more on the right path" than say, France and Germany, is all around us!
Hugo Chavez' socialist experiment in Venezuela is faltering badly, despite a wealth of petro dollars coming in, and France & Germany, neither of which were "socialist economies," merely slightly more Liberal/Left than our own, have voted to move decidedly to the Right and toward where we are now.
In truth France and Germany are, even now, only slightly more to the Left than we are. They both have a 35 hour work week and an average of six weeks paid vacation per year, while we have a 40 hour work and an average of four weeks paid vacation. They have a somewhat more generous welfare system and an incredibly expensive government managed healthcare system....and they, like us, have a myriad of workplace rules that often make it difficult for companies to hire new workers. Again, their bureaucracy may be a bit more stifling, but ours is no bargain either.
AND yet BOTH those nations have voted en masse to move to a more open, more Americanist styled economy!
I'd offer that it can be argued (as I do) that even we are not as open an economy as we should be in this globalized world. Lower across the board tax rates, or even better, a switch to the Fair Tax would be a great first step in my view, but we haven't moved to that.
Still, the fact that both France & Germany are moving to more open (more "fend for yourself") economies would seem to indicate that America has been at least "on the right track," all along.
P.S. My views on the Patriot Act and other domestic aspects of the WoT are based on the view (controversial in some quarters) that "terrorism is NOT a criminal act and CANNOT be dealt with via the Criminal Justice system."
It is not so much a matter of "giving up certain civil liberties, from my perspective, but dealing with a military problem or dilemma within a civilian setting."
That certainly is a different topic altogether, but you can email me any time (jmk444@embarqmail.com) and I'd try to state a fuller case for that, with as much documentation as I can offer.
Posted by: JMK | September 6, 2007 06:35 PM
I think we need a president that will dramatically increase taxes :) Hopefully whoever gets elected will do so to cover for universal health care. Taxes are cool :)
Posted by: Blue Wind | September 6, 2007 07:03 PM
"I think we need a president that will dramatically increase taxes....Taxes are cool" (BW)
Spoken like a petulant twelve year old who's a little mad at Dad.
Are ya?
Sadly, some form of Universal Healthcare (with its mammoth expenditures and healthcare rationing) is pretty much a "done deal," as EVERY major U.S.-based Corporation wants out from under the ponderous weight of covering virtually all of America's healthcare costs - over 85% of the nation is covered by employer plans and most of the rest could afford to participate in those plans but choose not to.
The government will absolutely respond to their corporate masters...and probably "rightfully so." It WILL make American industry more competitive on a global basis.
So long as any "new plan" allows for an alternate private market system of pay-as-you-go health providers/insurers (ie. GHI, HIP, etc) and they will, I'll try and deal with the extra costs to avoid the "free clinics" and rationed care.
Unlike yourself, I CARE for the working guy (the "Dad" above)....I've been one all my life and I KNOW how taxes hurt the working guy every time!
I don't care all that much that INCREASED tax rates = lowered tax revenues, that's the government's problem.
I CARE about working people, especially those making between $100,000/year to say $250,000/year in places like San Fran, LA and NYC getting hammered with higher tax rates, as those with higher incomes ($500K/yr and up) and more disposable cash, simply defer more of that income to avoid the tax bite, while decreasing those projected tax revenues in the process.
Perhaps worst of all, is the reality that there isn't a single government program that really "helps" the working people who pay for the bulk of them.
Tax increases are mercifully NOT aimed at the truly rich (the investor class, and the super-rich - the Kennedy's the Heinz's, the Romney's, the Edwards, etc), no they're aimed, as they must be, at those who earn between $70,000 and $250,000 per year...because that's where most of the money is.
That's right BW, taxes are pretty "cool," that is, until you grow up and have to pay them.
Posted by: JMK | September 6, 2007 07:46 PM
“The problem that I don't think you're addressing is the people who work 40 plus hours a week and still can't make enough to support themselves, or the people who can't find adequate work. I don't think there's a simple answer...” (GZ)
A fair point GZ, as America is currently plagued by “Structural Unemployment” – too few workers trained to do many specialized jobs that need to be filled, but according to Robert Rector’s report, the cases of poor Americans who work 40 hours per week are few and far between.
As he notes, “In both good and bad economic environments, the typical American poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year — the equivalent of 16 hours of work per week.”
That's an amazing stat!
And the picture is even more confounding when you look at the condition of America’s poor;
“46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
“80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
“Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.
“The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
“Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
“97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
“78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.
“62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
“89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
“As a group, America’s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100-percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, super-nourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.”
SEE: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjE3NTA4Yjc0NjQxMDA4ZjhlZjczMWM0YWNlM2JhOTg=
Moreover, Rector notes that the poor expend, on average, some 40% MORE than they claim to earn, which seems to indicate some form of unreported income, perhaps “off-the-books” work, etc.
Add to that the fact that America’s poverty rate has been fairly consistent. Under eight years of Bill Clinton it averaged 12.9%, at this point, as of nearly seven years of GW Bush it’s averaged 12.3%, though to be fair, under Clinton, the tax hike fueled recession resulting from Bush Sr.’s breaking his “No new tax pledge” started off his Presidency with a poverty rate near 14% and that was brought down to 11.5% during the smoke & mirrors “Tech Bubble of the late 1990s.
Regardless, it’s been remarkably consistent, to date.
So, what to do about those who use their freedom recklessly, irresponsibly and idle away their lives, often in self-destructive manners?
I don’t know if we can do much more than we are right now.
I can only hope you'd agree that the idea of forcing those who do choose wisely and avoid making bad decisions to subsidize those who don't is morally wrong (as it ultimately makes slaves out of the most productive) and economically stultifying (in that it creates an incentive for failure and dysfunction and a disincentive for productivity and prosperity).
It IS a problem and not one that seems all that amenable to “government programs” as any kind of "solution."
Posted by: JMK | September 6, 2007 10:46 PM
I think we all need higher taxes. I am tired of paying such low rates :) I will feel better when I pay more after 2008 :)
Posted by: Blue Wind | September 7, 2007 08:01 AM
Blue, you know there is that little check box on your 1040 where you can elect to send *extra* money to Uncle Sam if that would make you feel better. :-)
Posted by: BNJ | September 7, 2007 08:51 AM
"Blue, you know there is that little check box on your 1040 where you can elect to send *extra* money to Uncle Sam if that would make you feel better. :-)
Thanks for the suggestion, but I will pass. I think that we should ALL pay higher taxes. Not just me :-)
Posted by: Blue Wind | September 7, 2007 10:19 AM
"As he notes, “In both good and bad economic environments, the typical American poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year — the equivalent of 16 hours of work per week.”" - JMK
I never read the source material, does the 800 hours of work reflect their own work, or is 800 hours of other people's work paid to the poor in the form of some type of welfare benefit? Only reason I ask is that the number means something different depending on whose work we're discussing.
If it is their own work then there are some potential mitigating factors I can see. Child care is one. I know daycare can be very expensive, so much so that I (and I'm sure you) know people who find it costs less to have a spouse stop working and stay home then to pay for daycare. That situation only gets worse if you're a single parent or at the bottom of the wage pool. Another possible issue that exists at the bottom of the wage pool is part time vs. full time employment. There are many (mostly retail) jobs where the managers intentionally limit the employees hours to part time to avoid paying benefit costs. In some cases they'll even hire additional people all part time rather than have a few less that are full time. That isn't an issue for you or me, but if the only jobs you can get are in that strata then you have a lot less leverage about your schedule. I'm not saying these are the only reasons - a lot of it is cetainly lethargy, but I'm sure these reasons are a factor to be considered as well.
As far as all the possessions go, it's true that the "poor" do have a number of luxury items - although some of the items on that list seem out of date such as color tv. I don't even know where you can buy a b/w tv anymore. VCR's and DVD players are dirt cheap now as well. So I don't so much consider them in the same class of luxury as say running the AC all summer - I don't do that myself. But it's all relative, if we're discussing an elderly person or even a young healthy person in certain climate conditions - air conditioning might be more than just a luxury in some situations. Look at all the people who died in France during that heat wave a few years ago.
Off-the books income is of course a problem. It's always going to be there, a business can always call cash expenditures whatever they wish, it's illegal - but it's done all the time and there's no way to effectively prevent it. Same problem for individuals you can't track cash. The only way you could prevent this is if we went to a completely "cash free" system where every transaction was done electronically. Then every purchase and every receipt would be recorded and become transparent. I don't see this happening anytime soon, I think we'll always have currency there even if we eventually move more and more towards a paperless system. Currency is a tangible backup and people like that.
"I can only hope you'd agree that the idea of forcing those who do choose wisely and avoid making bad decisions to subsidize those who don't is morally wrong"-JMK
Well I can't agree that it's morally wrong because that's what we do now on a small scale with Welfare/unemployment/social security/etc. I believe it's morally wrong when the subsidy isn't really needed (for example someone working off the books), or if the act of subsidizing someone else effects your own personal happiness. It's all a question of scale - same with taxes. We subsidize others all the time - property taxes for instance, if you have nochildren of your own you're subsidizing everyone else who does have them. That's inherently unfair. It's unfair that your neighbor can have ten children going to public schools and pay less in property taxes while you have one and pay more - just because your home is newer, or you had an addition put on etc. I agree that there's a lot that can be done to reform the tax code.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 7, 2007 11:25 AM
Anonymous was me - forgot to add the sig
Posted by: zilla | September 7, 2007 11:27 AM
According to Robert Rector's report it's 800 hours per year (16 hours per week of their own work), GZ...which is, I'll acknowledge a start, but a full 75% of the children living in poverty would be lifted out of poverty according to that report if that parent worked a full 40 hours per week.
And yes, we live in a high standard of living economy, where many of the poor do have many luxury items, that the poor elsewhere do not have.
And "off-the-books" income is an illicit employer problem...and it CAN be stopped if government wanted to stop it by cracking down on illicit employers.
That seems to be the target of the "new crackdown on illegal immigration."
As to the last point, you're merely arguing over degree NOT the underlying morality.
Yes, we do subsidize many people - ironically, often the very rich - NYC does that with "Rent Control," where upwards of 80% of the rent controlled (NOT "rent stabilized," but "rent CONTROLLED) apartments are in the hands of the very wealthy, like Mia Farrow, Woody Allen, even Ed Koch had a rent controlled apartment through the 1990s and possibly still does today.
One of the most provocative books written in the 20th Century (in my view) was Nietzsche's The Anti-Christ, where he takes on the "moral code of Christianity," calling even voluntary charity (which even I consider a virtue) to be "the curse of Christ."
In HS I was both shocked and appaled at the book, as even though I'd renounced both Catholicism and the conventional moral code that sprang from Christianity or what Americans call the "Judeo-Christian ethic."
I've read through it several times since and it is always stunning and challenging. He is by far, the best writer, among the philosophers, the most accessible, so it is ironic that so many have misconstrued his ideas over the years.
He articulated many of the impulses and thoughts I once acted upon, and although I went much further in some regards, I believe that just as I went too far in my actions, he sometimes went a little overboard in his ideas.
My views have changed over time. While I once reviled all conventional morality as "a way for the weak to lord over the strong," and despised any form of charity towards others as a debasement of both giver and receiver, I have, over the last two decades come to accept that individual VOLUNTARY charity is INDEED a virtue, while any form of compulsory "charity" makes a mockery of virtue, as it elevates theft.
I'm closer to Olasky's view in his work, "The Tragedy of American Compassion than Neitzsche now-a-days.
Some basic assistance for the truly destitute is good, so long as it comes with a social contract - the recipient must engage in job training, work-fare, etc., as a good faith effort to become independent again, as only the independent/self-sustaining are really free.
And YES, there are many, MANY changes that would benefit the tax code - education shouldn't be covered by property taxes (it IS inherently unfair way to do that) and while I'd accept a "Flat Tax" plan, I'd much prefer the Fair Tax (the consumption based tax) that would tax all that off-the-books income and take a far larger bite from the truly "rich," who indeed and by far consume the most.
That's my primary problem with our current tax code, it focuses on taxing income/productivity and gives a pass to investors, trust funders and the super-rich, as well as to anyone engaged in the underground economy - the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer) would address all that, the Flat Tax wouldn't.
Posted by: JMK | September 7, 2007 10:58 PM
I'm still waiting for Edward to explain how he's going to pay for all these amazing new services...I think it can be said that Europe has definitely given the welfare state the old college try. It's not working there...why would it work here?
Posted by: Nathan Tabor | September 8, 2007 03:20 AM
"I'm still waiting for Edward to explain how he's going to pay for all these amazing new services..." (Nathan Tabor)
He's been pretty clear on that Nathan - higher taxes, which will REDUCE tax revenues and generate LESS investment and LESS productivity = lower GDP growth.
And those tax increases will primarily impact the lower wage earners as those who earn over say, $200K/year will be able to defer more of their income to avoid the tax bite.
Posted by: JMK | September 9, 2007 12:11 PM
"Europe has definitely given the welfare state the old college try. It's not working there...why would it work here?"
Who said things are not working in europe. On the contrary. Look at France, they have a great health care system and at the same time a strong economy. And noone is uninsured there. Look at the Scandinavian countries. They have outstanding health care and great economies. Anyone can say the opposite and close their eyes to reality, but the fact is that in many parts of europe health care is much better than here.
Posted by: Blue Wind | September 9, 2007 03:49 PM
"Look at France, they have a great health care system and at the same time a strong economy." (BW)
That's factually wrong on so many levels, as France suffers from a DOUBLE DIGIT unemployment rate.
Moreover, the fact is that neither France nor Germany are, even now, much further to the Left than we are. We are ALL Corporatist economies with private ownership of property/businesses, regulated economies, etc.
They both have a 35 hour work week and an average of six weeks paid vacation per year, while we have a 40 hour work and an average of four weeks paid vacation. They have a somewhat more generous welfare system and an incredibly expensive government managed healthcare system....and they, like us, have a myriad of workplace rules that often make it difficult for companies to hire new workers. Again, their bureaucracy may be a bit more stifling, but ours is no bargain either.
AND yet BOTH those nations have voted en masse to move to a more open, more Americanist styled economy!
The Frnch and Germans have overwhelmingly decided that their economic system is NOT as effective as America's....it's not, but even ours should be less regulated, more open and our tax system shoud be converted to a consumption rather.
One of the only truly "socialistic nation," Venazueala, is foundering badly despite a surfeit of petro dollars and about to devalue its currency yet again.
Posted by: JMK | September 9, 2007 05:00 PM
CORRECTION:
One of the only truly "socialistic nations," in our hemisphere,Venazueala, is foundering badly despite a surfeit of petro dollars and about to devalue its currency yet again.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2007 05:02 PM
CORRECTION:
One of the only truly "socialistic nations," in our hemisphere,Venazueala, is foundering badly despite a surfeit of petro dollars and about to devalue its currency yet again.
Posted by: JMK | September 9, 2007 05:02 PM
This is an example of how badly France’s “great healthcare system” works;
”Desperate to attract medical specialists to the hospital at Ambert, in the Puy de Dôme, the board bent the rules in time-honored French fashion. It is virtually impossible to attract specialists to remote areas where the nearest sizeable town is an hour's drive away because they are not allowed to set up a private practice to make up their income to reasonable levels. Unfortunately, the board members were a little casual and attracted the wrath of the Cour des Comptes, the nation's auditors. Payments were made for fictional extra duties regularly throughout the year, even when the doctor in question was on holiday...
“...Nine of the hospital's fifteen specialists and a former director risk prosecution for fraud. The maire of Ambert blames the government for not allowing enough doctors to qualify and then punishing the inevitable ensuing abuses. Now he says the hospital has to use temporary staff from agencies who cost far more than paying for these fictitious duties.”
http://www.french-news.com/frenchnews.htm
Health care rationing, restrictions on vistis and procedures and excessive costs are indemic to EVERY government run healthcare system in existence.
Posted by: JMK | September 9, 2007 05:08 PM
ANOTHER CORRECTION:
"it's not, but even ours should be less regulated, more open and our tax system shoud be converted to a consumption tax system rather, rather than an income tax based one."
Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2007 05:12 PM
Barry,
I think the blog needs your input. Have you ever heard of a country called "Venazueala"?!
Is that a new nation?
Posted by: Blue Wind | September 9, 2007 06:50 PM
You're going to take issues with typos and mis-spellings?
Then please, at least accept the reality of your own factual errors;
(1) France does not have a "great healthcare system;" I gave you evidence as to why above.
(2) France does NOT have a "strong economy," what they have is an unemployment rate that has recently "improved" down to about 9%, a national debt of 65% of GDP (very close to our own) and a with an annual deficit of about $60 Billion (annual revenues $1.15 Trillion versus annual expenditures of $1.21 Trillion).
What's even more important is France, like Germany before it voted AGAINST "Euro-socialism"/American Liberalism. In fact, France just vote a "European Giuliani" (Nikolas Sarkozy) into office and then gave "Sarko the American" a working majority in Parliament.
France followed Germany's lead. Germany replaced the anti-American Schroeder regime with Angela Merckel and France replaced the anti-American Chirac regime with Sarkozy!
That's GOOD news for America and for the Western world as well, BW.
Neither of those nations would've voted for radical anti-Liberal, anti-Statist change if "things were better in those places."
(3) You've rooted for Chavez for months now, a tyrant who's turned Venezuela into an economic basketcase almost overnight, with many of the most productive Venezuelans leaving the country for greener pastures.
I'm not engaging in any "gotcha" kind of thing here, BW, it's only that I can't let such major factual errors go unchallenged.
Posted by: JMK | September 9, 2007 09:05 PM
Who rooted for Chavez? Why do you have this need to lie so much? Why do you need to fabricate things that do not exist? I hate to say but it appears that DBK was right.
Posted by: Blue Wind | September 9, 2007 09:44 PM
You've absolutely supported (rooted for) Hugo Chavez, BW, and some of your favorite people (Soros, Sheehan, Moore and Moulitsas) strongly support that tyrant to this day.
Look, if you support socialism, or even considerably more government intervention, you SHOULD support Chavez and hope, that at the very least, his brand of socialism "can work."
Chavez has brought the first truly socialist economy to South America since Allende's....and with the same result - an unmitigated disaster.
And thank you for not disputing those facts about France's economy and healthcare system.
It's important that we acknowledge the truth.
Posted by: JMK | September 9, 2007 10:27 PM
Ok, the only reason I responded to you in my last post was because you lied. DBK and others have also noticed that you lie, and called you on that previously. I have not rooted or supported Chavez. If I had, you would have quoted a post, but you can not because it does not exist.
In any case, there is no point arguing with you. As I mentioned before, I find it boring. You are so far out from reality that you even called the liberal democrats in Daily Kos "maoists". There is no way to rationally communicate with you. So, no matter what lie you will say next time, I will not respond. However, try not to lie too much. Or if you do, use more convincing lies :-) Try the baiting with someone else who may engage in conversations with you. Good luck.
Posted by: Blue Wind | September 9, 2007 10:44 PM
The Kos-kids are NOT "Democrats."
There may well be a few very naive Democrats posting there, but Moulitsas and company are avowed socialists ("Maoists is close enough, as well), who, like Sheehan, Soros, Moore, Kucinich and many others on America's faaaaar, kooky Left, strongly support Hugo Chavez, an anti-American tyrant who, like ALL socialists is inflicting a universal misery on that country via his misguided economic policies.
It's all too obvious that you've merely moved to this inane tack of dishonestly trying to re-direct the discussion to Chavez, since you can't argue with France's high unemployment, it's flawed healthcare delivery and the undeniable FACT that the voters in that country, not only gave Nikolas Sarkozy ("Sarko the American") a large electoral win, but a working majority in Paliament as well.
In this case, your moving away from your initial lauding of France's "strong economy" and "great healthcare system," is an indication that you've accepted the fallacy of those comments. Mere "baiting" wouldn't get you to move off and away from your initial assertions.
That's at least some small progess on your part, BW....and I do commend you for that, BW!
Posted by: JMK | September 9, 2007 10:59 PM
Is anyone else gonna comment on how some of the world's highest suicide and depression rates outside of Japan are in Scandanavian countries?
Posted by: That Guy | September 10, 2007 04:10 PM
That's very true TG, but there are so many variables involved in things like suicide rates (Scandanavia has notoriously long winters and much of it has six months of 16 hours or more of darkness - both very depressing things)....as well as an overly interventionist State and an economy in which few people "can afford" to work more than six months.
The homofeneous Scandavian countries have long been bastions of economic interventionism by government, so it's natural that some, in Scandanavia would still support that, but odder still is that right here in the United States there are misinformed misanthropes like Jonathan Chait who, in this month's The New Republic (he's the editor) "recounts the founding of supply-side economics...which began as a fringe doctrine espoused by men like George Gilder, who believed among other things in the inferiority of women, the power of ESP, and the infinite potential of the stock-market tech boom."
Actually Jon Chait is either ignorant (to a moronic degree) OR is misguided by a pernicious Left-wing political agenda (I doubt that, as ignorance appears the far more likely a culprit) because the leaders of the Supply-Side school were Jude Wanniski and Arthur Laffer.
Ironically enough, both of them were trained economists, unlike J M Keynes and Karl Marx.
In fact, both Marx and Keynes have about the equivalent economic training as I have, which, I guess, makes me as much of a "pseudo-economist as are either Marx or Keynes.
I never get tired of pointing such things out.
Posted by: JMK | September 12, 2007 09:40 AM
Hmmm. So when the Republicans said, "Workfare! If you want welfare, you have to work!" you opposed that, right Barry? So when Edwards says, "The taxpayers will pay for your healthcare coverage, but you have to get regular checkups so that there can be early detection and treatment, you scream, "Forced mammograms! Bad bad bad!", right Barry?
That sort of misrepresentation of what Edwards said makes me lose a lot of respect for you.
Posted by: DBK | September 26, 2007 09:20 AM
I love JMK's postings. They are so free and loose, unencumbered as they are by facts or reality, that they can go on for hundreds of lines, leaving you unwilling or unable to read anymore because he's such a boor on so many levels.
"GDP growth averaged 2% between 1994 and 1998, with 3% recorded in 2000. Like other continental economies, France's real GDP growth has been relatively weak, the unemployment rate is relatively high, at nearly 7.3% (in 2007), and a rising trade deficit has characterised a malaise in the French economy since the global economic downturn in 2000. However, France's income inequality (measured by the Gini coefficient) has remained low compared to other economies where it has increased considerably (most notably in the United Kingdom and the United States). Moreover, France's poverty rate remains one of the lowest in the world, at 6% (compared to 15% in the UK and 18% in the US). Despite this, 10% of the people control 46% of the total patrimony (Euros 8 000 billions) [1]."
Now, JMK, your assignment is to bore anyone who cares to read your response (I won't be one of those reading it) with a few thousand poorly chosen and factually bereft words on why France is bad and the United States will only improve if we make the poor poorer and the rich richer.
Good heavens! Simply by responding to JMK's usual twaddle, I bored myself!
Posted by: DBK | September 26, 2007 09:35 AM
There is, of course, a clear distinction between "free citizens" and "wards of the state," there DBK.
And since no one's ever argued that point with me, I presume we all accept and understand that basic truth.
ALL those depndent upon the government for their basic sustenance (food, clothing, shelter, etc) ARE indeed "wards of the state" and NOT "free citizens."
Some of them are very OBVIOUSLY "unfree" as in incarcerated felons and the institutionalized mentally and physically handicapped, while others are less obviously unfree, such as those dependent upon public assistance, who can be drug tested against their wills and forced into job training, and various kinds of labor, or "workfare" and even limited to the amount of time they can be on public assistance.
Perhaps your point is, "Wouldn't we all be wards of the state once the government provided one of our basic needs (healthcare)?"
If THAT is your point, I commend you, because that's a very good question.
In my view, the answer is "To a very specific degree, YES."
That would mean that the government then could demand not only regular check-ups, but other preventive procedures - a regimine of prescribed exercise and in many cases, a prescribed diet...and of course those things would HAVE to come with some added intrusions into our everyday lives.
Whomever is PAYING for that healthcare (yeah, indirectly that would be us, BUT it would still be administered by government) would have the NATURAL RIGHT to hold down overall costs at the expense of the free will of those being "taken care of." That's the lot of "wards of the state," or "slaves to the government."
And it makes overall sense, as why should ALL Americans pay higher taxes when some (ie. the obese, smokers, people who take extreme recreational risks, etc) be allowed to engage in such high risk activities, when those things raise the overall costs of that healthcare?
A strict and MONITORED regimine of diet and exercise would keep far more Americans far healthier and make such a healthcare system much more cost effective.
So YES, we would all be "wards of the state" in regards to all healthcare issues and the government would have a vested interest and a basic right to monitor and control those lifestyle choices that might impact our health.
We just wouldn't be complete "wards of the state," just wards in relation to healthcare/lifestyle choices.
A even more interesting question, from my view, would be, "Given that some form of alternative private insurance will survive, would those who are either partly or fully self-insured still be "partial wards of the state," at least in regards to healthcare and lifestyle issues?
I'd say they wouldn't be, in so much as that greater autonomy = greater freedom/self-ownership.
Posted by: JMK | September 27, 2007 12:51 PM
When I saw my nick atthe top, I was going to respond, but fortunately I checked and saw it was old "blather on endlessly with more mouth than sense" writing (JMK, that is) and decided I didn't want to be bored with another three thousand lines that are stupider than a box of rocks and amount to boring bilge from a boor. He doesn't have an actual point or argument ever, just talking points which he recites for hours and hours. He must be rich, because he couldn't possibly work for a living with all the time he has to blither on and on here on CN.
JMK, you really are a boor's boor.
Posted by: DBK | September 27, 2007 01:54 PM
Is that Barely....or DBK?
Here, I commended you for very possibly stating a pretty good question, "Wouldn't we all be "wards of the state" once the government provided one of our basic needs (healthcare)," and you respond with insults and personal attacks???
I suppose that's typical, after all, I showed you (via articles) how Al Gore's "carbon off-sets" (actually investments in HIS OWN investment company) were a sham and a con game, and you responded by assailing me..."the mere messenger."
I know it may often seem like the only option if you're unable to make a clear counter-argument, but sometimes, it's better to ruminate on things and then either make a counter-argument or concede a given point, depending upon where your private ruminations lead.
Posted by: JMK | September 27, 2007 03:20 PM
Is that monkey still jibbering?
You don't get it at all. You're a boor of the first order. You run on and on forever and it's so stultifying that I can't be bothered to find out what the hell you're jibbering about.
Get a job, ya lazy dunce.
Posted by: DBK | September 27, 2007 05:13 PM
A recent survey among internet bloggers and readers shows that there is an overwhelming consensus that there are THREE fatal faux pas one can engage in over the internet.
The first, of course, is Godwin’s Law (comparing ANYthing in today’s world, especially anything in today's Democratic West to Hitler or the Third Reich).
The second is to respond with invective, and personal attack to a civil post that one disagrees with.
And the third is failing to make a complete argument or counter-argument to defend your position or views with dodges like, “It’s not worth the effort,” or “It would do no good to explain,” etc., etc.
The first (“Godwin’s Law”) is a discussion stopping bit of hyperbole, generally used by the far-Left, and is considered the verbal equivalent of yelling “Uncle!”
The second is considered the conceding of a point or disagreement – “Concession via meltdown,” they call it.
The third is seen as an all too obvious dodge, apparently to everyone but the dodger, an open admission that the person CANNOT make an argument or counter.
The interesting thing there is that in recent months DBK, you’ve been guilty of ALL THREE DBK!
A while back you “agreed with those who compared the current American administration to Hitler,” dodged making full arguments by complaining, in effect, that they require too many words, and in “Concession via Meltdown,” responding to civil posts (usually by me) with invective and personal attack.
Seriously, if you have that little respect for yourself, how can your views on anything be taken at all seriously?
(P.S. You've responded to EVERY ONE of my posts, putting us both in the same fix vis-a-vis work, laziness, etc.)
Or didn't you think of that?
Posted by: JMK | September 27, 2007 05:29 PM