Rabbie
Super Moderator
- Local time
- Today, 17:58
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2007
- Messages
- 5,906
If it was a truly free market then they wouldn't have baled out AIG.
However the chaos that would have caused justifies the intervention IMHO.
Any Americans want to sign this? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Alisa
- Start date
However the chaos that would have caused justifies the intervention IMHO.
But that would indicate that the market is sick and can barely hold up its own weight,no?
When it becomes possible for the market to be destroyed by one company's failings, something is horribly wrong with market, IMNSHO.
Rabbie
Super Moderator
- Local time
- Today, 17:58
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2007
- Messages
- 5,906
Agreed. That's why I am not a great fan of the free market. We just need to find a better system.
Perhaps the West chuckled too soon at the collapse of communism. Capitalism isn't looking too good at the moment
If you read the interview with someone in the NHS, he actually says he doesn't recommend that anyone adopt that system. I think the consensus from other countries that have tried to ensure that everyone has health care is that you can't have a system that is completely run by the government (like the public schools for instance), but you also can't have a private system based on the profit motive. You have to have some free-market principles in place (but NOT the profit motive), and also sufficient regulation to make sure that the care offered is available to everyone, and that the prices don't get out of control. I don't pretend to have the solution, but I think that doing nothing about the crisis (as we have done for the last 30 years) is absolutely criminal. I wish the subject could be discussed rationally, without people asserting that I just want a handout, or I am a communist, or whatever (that last part is not directed towards you Banana).
Good point. Just to add on, do you know that if everyone in America actually tried to consume the recommended 5 servings of fruit and vegetables each day, there wouldn't be nearly enough to go around? Why? Because fruit and vegetable farmers aren't subsidized like corn and wheat farmers. Thank you agribusiness lobbyists!
Judging by his most recent posts, it didn't work, but good effort!
Well we are well on our way to 200 posts now
What other countries have you been to?
We have been over this before, the constitution does NOT say, you are an American citizen if you are born here, but your citizenship is revoked if you don't think America is the best country in the world.
Why do you think America is the best country? Our health care system is ranked 37th in the world, our education system is ranked 20th or lower depending on the measure, we have a comparitively high infant mortality rate, our life expectancy AND our social mobility is lower here than in many other industrialized countries. I thought "best" meant number 1? Not 37th or 20th? But maybe you have a different definition?
But the veterans wouldn't even have the "real" story to tell if we hadn't sent them over there in the first place. You are still completely missing the point of the question, WHY were they sent over there in the first place? (Maybe I should use a bigger font?)
And I don't know where you get the worshipping thing from. That is complete hogwash. I think Obama is by far the better candidate in this election. How does that constitute worship?
This is so infuriating to me. If they are going to use MY tax dollars to bail out companies that made unwise investments, then I should have the right to oversee what those companies are doing, or prevent them from getting so big in the first place.
I think we can definitively say that the "free market" has failed us, and it is time to start looking at other models.
Agreed. That's why I am not a great fan of the free market. We just need to find a better system.
Perhaps the West chuckled too soon at the collapse of communism. Capitalism isn't looking too good at the moment
Well, as I alluded to earlier, we have not had *actual* free market for quite long time and what get passed around as "free market" is actually more like corporatism. Not too removed from Fascism, where we had government supporting corporations.
Yes, and while you can clearly see that I have my idea of what would work, I do believe that regardless what we do, it shouldn't be at national level. Drop it a bit lower and boom, we now have 50 labs (or more, if we care to go lower than states) to experiment with what model works best. I'm sure some would adopt a more socialistic policy while other would leave it in private interests, with full stop for-profit motives. But we get to measure and copy the successful model. Also, if it's kept small, it's easy to measure and assess, and we can always fine tune for a particular locality needs.
But all the along, the debate has been at national level, and this is probably why we got nothing done. Too bad people are so conditioned to look to Federal Government first for any help on anything. Also, the fact that Feds already has butted in with their policies to date (e.g. tax breaks to employers who give out healthcare but not to self-employed) will make it difficult if not impractical until they abolish those laws & regulations. We definitely do need more of Barry Goldwaters in the Congress, IMO.
I think the key to whatever we do is having a single risk pool. Without a single risk pool, whoever needs more medical care will get pushed out.
The idea of doing it at a state level is nice in theory, but it doesn't seem to work out too well. For instance, in CO, we have been trying for YEARS to do a single risk pool system, but there is all sorts of hand wringing about whether it will cause businesses to leave CO for other states, or whether it will cause illegal immigrants to flock here, blah blah blah. Look at what happened in Massachussetts - they have implemented a system that does not work at all, and now they are stuck with it because their legislature is not doing anything about it.
I think that in order to change things that are very entrenched, you almost HAVE to do it at the federal level - it is like a great big ship trying to turn the other direction, and unless we all do it together, our puny individual efforts will never be sufficient to change the momentum.
Well, if the system couldn't stand up to scrutiny, then it may not be the system we want.
More importantly, the system has to succeed even with external pressures. If Colorado can't move onto single payer system without losing business and attracting illegal immigration, then who's to say that same won't happen to Federal Government, and this is my point of doing it at state level (actually lower than that would be even better); we get to try out what works best and put it to test and copy what succeed. Furthermore, the result is easier to measure because we're dealing with a smaller datasets and people involved are more directly affected than if it was implemented everywhere.
Or we could just shrink our focus and look to local governance first and go our separate ways and see who's better off and copy the succeeding model. Of course that would require that we all agree that Feds has to get their big, hairy and smelly ass off our face.
It appears that there are also quite a few Americans who are beginning to question it, despite being every bit as patriotic as Joe.
So if you felt the current president - whoever he was - had somehow cheated in an election, you'd refuse to serve him?
Surely, that just shows it's not considered the worst and it's relatively easy to get into? It certainly doesn't say that it's the greatest.
RE the whole immigration issue, I can tell you for a fact that many many people who immigrate here absolutely hate it here. They come for two reasons, one is that the reputation of America in many third world countries is still the land of milk and honey. The second reason is that the economic/foreign policies of the so-called first world have made it very difficult for the economies of their homelands to thrive. The fact that people still immigrate here to find economic opportunities that they can't find at home only means that our economy is better than the economies of many third world countries. I hardly think that is anything to brag about.
Thats a tough straw to split because one serves the office. However, if there was a clear and definitive evidence to cheating - then I wouldn't have to worry about making a decision; I have faith in my fellow Americans to root it out. I hope you aren't making this out for an argument about the '04 election, it is about as tiring as poking my eyes out with a hot poker iron. Besides, it was Gore that took it to the Supreme Court and opened that door.
Per the immigration, even if its just rumor its more than the immigrants have at home - hence, they come here. If everyone immigrates to a particular place, then it must be the greatest place to immigrate to or they would go somewhere else. And if they are immigrants, they could leave - but the don't.
How about saying something positive about the US? I am sick of the Dem's never having anything good to say, it's almost like if you have nothing good to say, then dig up more and yell it out louder. The Dem's themselves helped create the problem but will never admit it; just look at the way they omitted to admit passage of the Jim Crowe laws by their party from their website.
Greatest quote I ever heard went something along the lines of .. 'there will never be a statue for a critic' ... or 'there has never been a statue raised for a critic'.
-dK
Wasn't asking you to 'split' anything. Your earlier post outlined the importance of following a leader, regardless of where or not you agree with them. This latest post implied that some judgment should eb used. I was just looking for clarifcation.
I wasn't doing that (note I specifically said any president) and I imagine you'd find having your eyes poked out a tad worse than 'boring'.
Not true. There are plenty of people, for example, who come from eastern Europe and want to stay in France. The French police have in the past come down very heavy-handed on these immigrants, so they keep moving and end up in other countries that are seen as a softer touch e.g. the UK. There may well be plenty who see the UK as a great place, but some are there because the place is better than where they come from and easier to stay in than where they want to be.
Plenty of people say how it's too easy for foreigners to get into the US (I especially hear it said about the Mexicans). Anyone who thinks that the only reason so many people from South of the border come to the US is because it's the greatest place on Earth, as opposed to being better than what they have, geographically close, and relatively easy to enter would appear to be overlooking a few factors.
I like some of the TV shows?
I'm not a Democrat. I take issue with some of the things they say. At the moment, I'm disagreeing with some of statements being made by Republicans. At other times, it's their opponents I'd argue with.
I used the term as a lack of having the words to express my opinion to follow or not to follow. Yes, I stand behind my previous and the example I used was Clinton. I was originally from Arkansas and knew his (well, their) politics and did not agree with him (them); but yet since the majority of the country was behind him, as a service member, I performed by duty. The judgment portion in my opinion is a scenario that is outright cheating to attain the position and then asked my to perform my duty in service of my country. In that instance, I am not performing for my country, but for that person since I have do not have a clear indication of the majority. I knew people that got out (after contract expiry) after the '04 election because their service wasn't clear in their hearts. I knew others that resumed service after the ruling. I am not claiming this is par for the course, I am just saying in my small circle of friendship that I knew some.
My immigration opinion is based on my thoughts of the diversity of people that come here and the numbers at which they came. I haven't seen a verified document that normalizes these into some per capita population and factor in geographic region. There was always publicity of busts on the west coast where like many orientals were stow aways in cramped quarters on boats. What I do see is that our immigration numbers are alot higher than the numbers that are migrating.
hehehe ... Unless its historical or scientific in nature, I rarely watch. I appreciate British comedy more.
I am a registered Independant. My horse didn't make the run but I have issues over the negative campaign in our country. McCain came out and said something about the infrastructure of our economy is sound to which the Dem's naysaid and then became more negative. I am not an economist (and plenty have weighed in both ways) but I would think that if our economy wasn't fundamentally sound; it would have already been crushed prior to any bail out - as if those have made a difference.
Even though Obama hasn't came out with a formal statement on the AIG bit, I think the Dem's have made the situation worse by instigating more fear into the American mind. I just abhor fear-based politics which stems from a constant stream of negativity and preying on victimization. The term "playing politics" should have never been invented and those that did should have been waylaid in a back alley. It's not a race by definition anymore because both sides, well all sides, do this - it just depends to what degree. There isn't a race anymore because sometimes the best man doesn't win - whoever that is because we never get straight information.
-dK
