Is Englang on the verge of full socialism/communism
- Thread starter Mike375
- Start date
I think it is human nature to want to work, be productive, and contribute to society, and I absolutely think everyone should do their best to be self sufficient. I also think that as a nation, we fail when we place the good of the individual above the good of the country, which is what is happening right now. This undermines us AS A NATION. When millions of children grow up without adequate nutrition, adequate health care, and adquate educational opportunities, this undermines our competative edge in the global economy.
To say that the parents of those children don't deserve our help, because they haven't "worked" for it, completely misses the point that our destiny is interconnected with theirs, that our success depends on theirs. Yes you have paid into medicare all your working life. But unless I pay into medicare when you retire, you won't see the benefit of what you have paid in. Your future depends on mine, and to argue that I don't deserve your help is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/
Any one of these 5 examples would be an improvement over what we have now.
KenHigg
Registered User
- Local time
- Today, 06:24
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2004
- Messages
- 13,327
I knew you'd avoid the questions...
Although each of those have their own concerns (long lines, operating in the red, etc.) I agree that they may offer an improvement over our current.
What I disgree with is and would like to see the comparison factoring in geographic dispersion. I argue that in smaller land areas, it is easier to facilitate the provisioning of health care. America is very spread out in rural and urban centers do not expect that the delivery system is the same as those mentioned.
I state this because of my previous work with EHS and HS programs. Different models required adoption of different service models. The effect was that some areas suffered from services or totally ignored because the delivery model was much more expensive.
The VA has a travel compensation for service connected veterans to encourage and enable them to seek out medical care. I haven't looked at any of their reports in a couple of years to see how this has worked out.
I would also argue that several models have been proposed throughout many administrations and were shot down for one reason or another (probably more political than anthing). This stems from putting the individual first (the politician or party that wouldn't get credit because they didn't propose it so voted against it) to putting country first. So I place value on what is best for the nation and if everyone could be self-less in that aspect, the individual would benefit ... although the limiting factor here is from a utilitarian perspective.
So then it goes back to the Republic system so that communities will look after themselves and the power is given back to the community and let the federales subsidize those poorer communities. The government cannot solve everything. Let the Republic principles we were founded on work the way it should, then the States and communities will be empowered to ensure the individual is looked after.
-dK
What I disgree with is and would like to see the comparison factoring in geographic dispersion. I argue that in smaller land areas, it is easier to facilitate the provisioning of health care. America is very spread out in rural and urban centers do not expect that the delivery system is the same as those mentioned.
I state this because of my previous work with EHS and HS programs. Different models required adoption of different service models. The effect was that some areas suffered from services or totally ignored because the delivery model was much more expensive.
The VA has a travel compensation for service connected veterans to encourage and enable them to seek out medical care. I haven't looked at any of their reports in a couple of years to see how this has worked out.
I would also argue that several models have been proposed throughout many administrations and were shot down for one reason or another (probably more political than anthing). This stems from putting the individual first (the politician or party that wouldn't get credit because they didn't propose it so voted against it) to putting country first. So I place value on what is best for the nation and if everyone could be self-less in that aspect, the individual would benefit ... although the limiting factor here is from a utilitarian perspective.
So then it goes back to the Republic system so that communities will look after themselves and the power is given back to the community and let the federales subsidize those poorer communities. The government cannot solve everything. Let the Republic principles we were founded on work the way it should, then the States and communities will be empowered to ensure the individual is looked after.
-dK
What, am I a liberal? That's a pretty silly question, don't you think?
What republican system are you talking about? The system where the government subsidizes wealthy corporations, but removes regulations that protect consumers?
That was the one that I answered in the first post. If you wanted a one word answer, I am sorry to dissappoint you, but that subject is too complex for a simple yes or no.
Per yer post calling me a "deregulator" and comparing me to McCain.
I believe the federal government should just do their jobs. It was the government regulation that gave out subprime loans. No bank would have risked such a loan if people out there like Obama hadn't been sueing them to take on those loans and risk based upon the regulating law that made them.
I believe the federal government should only regulate where necessary (monopolies, etc). I believe they should deregulate when it comes to States and let the States do their jobs. I believe that States ought to deregulate and let counties (and parishes) do their jobs.
If that is your definition of a great deregulator, then yes, I am a great deregulator.
-dK
I should point out there is a difference in deregulating and providing oversight to look out for my best interest.
I believe the federal government should just do their jobs. It was the government regulation that gave out subprime loans. No bank would have risked such a loan if people out there like Obama hadn't been sueing them to take on those loans and risk based upon the regulating law that made them.
I believe the federal government should only regulate where necessary (monopolies, etc). I believe they should deregulate when it comes to States and let the States do their jobs. I believe that States ought to deregulate and let counties (and parishes) do their jobs.
If that is your definition of a great deregulator, then yes, I am a great deregulator.
-dK
I should point out there is a difference in deregulating and providing oversight to look out for my best interest.
It is not regulation that got us in the mess, it is lack of regulation.
Will the entire world have to go up in flames before you realize this? Even McCain has recently made statements to the effect that MORE regulation is needed.
georgedwilkinson
AWF VIP
- Local time
- Today, 05:24
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Messages
- 3,856
He said "Republic" not republican.
The US is a "Republic". That is what he was referring to.
IF the government had passed such a law, then yes. But that's not what happened.
I see that now, funny how two little letters can make such a big difference.
KenHigg
Registered User
- Local time
- Today, 06:24
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2004
- Messages
- 13,327
In other words you don't want to try and identify anything actionable that can be fixed you just want rhetoric because once you commit to a tangible proposition you'll have to labor to refine it...
Huh?
I absolutely want something to be done - did you miss the post where I provided a link to several potential alternative systems? What good is rhetoric if at the end of the day, my kids still can't go to the doctor?
Oh, then everyone is making up that there was a law called the "Community Reinvestment Act"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
An the enforcement of it?
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_dangerous_pals_131216.htm?page=0
Who's blind waiting on the world to go up in flames?
-dK
This "regulation" of taking on subprimes didn't have "regulation" to provide oversight of the "regulation".
The oversight that has been going around about Dodd, Schumer, and Reid as well as admitted to by Bill Clinton as we all know was shunned by the Dem's in '04.
Thats the call for "more regulation." To regulate the bad idea regulation when the government started mucking with the free hand of the market to begin with.
-dK
The oversight that has been going around about Dodd, Schumer, and Reid as well as admitted to by Bill Clinton as we all know was shunned by the Dem's in '04.
Thats the call for "more regulation." To regulate the bad idea regulation when the government started mucking with the free hand of the market to begin with.
-dK
The act was to prevent lenders from discriminating against qualified borrowers. Nowhere in there does it say, you must lend money to people that cannot afford to repay it. Nowhere in there does it say, you must come up with whacked loan products that create negative am. Nowhere in there does it say, you must approve people for three times the amount they can afford.
It is just like Americans to place the blame on poor people. God forbid we place the blame where it belongs, on the corporations who actually benefited from these illegitamate loans.
