 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
WingedBeast
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Dec 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 332 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 01:08 am |
|
Ronson wrote: emmylou wrote: Ronson,
England guarantees health care for all. Are you suggesting the Brits are communists?
No. What I said was (IOW): If you are going to argue that government should be augmented for the good of society, then that argument can be stretched to the point of communism. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." I don't see the difference, other than arbitrary lines being drawn.
Ronson, you're saying that the government should not be augmented for the good of society, because that could lead to communism, I'm going to say that you're a moron.
Government exists for the good of society. Of course it should be augmented for the good of society. And, we know that communism, as an economic system, doesn't work. So, augmenting it to communism wouldn't be for the good of society.
But, we also know that having the private sector handle every single service at all would be similarly stupid. At least I know that. I don't know if you're arguing for the privatization of law enforcement, military defense, and the closing down of the US postal service.
And, we know that an unregulated free market results in the friggin Depression.
So, it is possible to say that the government should be augmented for the good of society and not say we should make a change that has already proven to be bad for society.
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 04:44 am |
|
Ronson wrote: emmylou wrote: Ronson,
England guarantees health care for all. Are you suggesting the Brits are communists?
No. What I said was (IOW): If you are going to argue that government should be augmented for the good of society, then that argument can be stretched to the point of communism. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." I don't see the difference, other than arbitrary lines being drawn.
Does this ring a bell?
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I'd argue that creating a means for EVERY citizen to have access to health care does, in fact, promote the general welfare and definitely helps to secure the blessings of liberty.
Care to explain how it doesn't?
As to whether or not access to health care leads directly to communism, well, you'd have to show me exactly how the health care bill, as proposed even in its original form, does that. Until then, it's just a slippery slope argument.
-- A2SG, you'll note that, contrary to current republican thinking, the Constitution does not actually say our government is a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich....
|
emmylou
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Sun Aug 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1003 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 05:27 am |
|
| England's National Health Service has been providing Brits with publicly funded health care since 1948. That's over 60 years. At what point do you think they are in danger of becoming communist?
|
emmylou
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Sun Aug 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1003 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 05:27 am |
|
| England's National Health Service has been providing Brits with publicly funded health care since 1948. That's over 60 years. At what point do you think they are in danger of becoming communist?
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1499 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 03:28 pm |
|
WingedBeast wrote: I'm going to say that you're a moron...
The rest was ignored.
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1499 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 03:43 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: I'm not talking about anarchy, but rather about laissez-faire capitalism in its purest form. London in 1880 is emblematic of what happens when the government stays completely out of the economy: you get explosive economic growth, a ridiculously rich upper class, enormous, sprawling, filthy slums, a sanitation disaster, rampant crime, and pollution so thick people literally choke to death in it.
At some point, the government needs to step in and provide certain things, including environmental regulation, certain services, and social programs. And, yes, the most successful governments have always played "Robin Hood" to some extent. Laissez-faire capitalism by its nature opens up an enormous, insurmountable rich-poor gap. The most successful societies close that gap somewhat. Not all the way - that's socialism, and it fails - but somewhat.
Yes, there has to be a line, and yes, it has to be drawn in an arbitrary place. The existence of a fire department, or public schools, or a national highway system, are examples of "government should be augmented for the good of society."
Take that to its extreme, and you get communism. So you know what you do about that? Don't take it to its extreme.
I am not promoting anarchy. And unlike some ultra conservatives, I realize that the U.S. government of 1795 is not realistic in today's age.
Again, I am saying that an argument for government lifting up society can become extreme, so it's not a good basis to work from. When people are drawing their own personal lines about what is/isn't acceptable with this philosophy then you can no longer rely on it as an argument.
What you can do, however, is look at examples where any proposed government intervention has succeeded, either in the past or in foreign countries. The argument can then be made that "This has worked better before when government got involved this way" or "This appears to work better in xxx nation where government has gotten involved this way." The argument can then be made "If we don't do it this way we will fall behind other nations in efficiency, in pragmatic compassion, or in scientific advancement" (depending on the subject). This is an argument from competitiveness.
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1499 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 03:53 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Does this ring a bell?
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I'd argue that creating a means for EVERY citizen to have access to health care does, in fact, promote the general welfare and definitely helps to secure the blessings of liberty.
Care to explain how it doesn't?
First, the preamble is not a legal directive. It's a generality. Secondly, how does this prevent the government from robbing Peter to pay Paul? Some people who argue the position of government for the betterment of society often ignore some groups or even take advantage of them. So what is to stop someone from taking that preamble above and adding " ... so we will create a government health care option that will be paid for by people we consider to be too wealthy."
Again, you can also use the preamble to argue that government should guarantee every citizen a job. Wouldn't this too "promote the general welfare"?
As to whether or not access to health care leads directly to communism, well, you'd have to show me exactly how the health care bill, as proposed even in its original form, does that. Until then, it's just a slippery slope argument.
I really wasn't saying it's a slippery slope. I'm saying that it's a poor argument because a communist could use the say argument/philosophy for something you detest.
-- A2SG, you'll note that, contrary to current republican thinking, the Constitution does not actually say our government is a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich....
The Constitution does establish a relatively hands-off federal government.
|
yoki
Dialogue Facilitator
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 04:02 pm |
|
Ronson, whatever the government administers for the common good, could be viewed as a reflection of the values of the society for which the government governs.
If such is the case, then it would appear to me that American society values education over health.
____________________
____________________
When shit happens, God doesn't give one.
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 05:10 am |
|
Ronson wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Does this ring a bell?
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I'd argue that creating a means for EVERY citizen to have access to health care does, in fact, promote the general welfare and definitely helps to secure the blessings of liberty.
Care to explain how it doesn't?
First, the preamble is not a legal directive. It's a generality.
I'd go even further and say it's kinda like our mission statement, the ideals we'd like our goverment to live up to, when it can.
Secondly, how does this prevent the government from robbing Peter to pay Paul? Some people who argue the position of government for the betterment of society often ignore some groups or even take advantage of them.
For instance?
Since we're talking about ensuring that ALL CITIZENS have access to health care, I'm not sure who, exactly, are being taken advantage of here.
So what is to stop someone from taking that preamble above and adding " ... so we will create a government health care option that will be paid for by people we consider to be too wealthy.
Do you object to the idea that those who have many advantages in society have certain responsibilities to those others who helped them attain those advantages?
I'm curious: what is your objection, exactly? Is it that you feel the rich should have no responsibilities to society whatsoever, or that you feel the poor deserve their lowly status, and thus don't deserve health care?
If I've got it wrong, please, I implore you, explain it me, because I genuinely don't understand this mindset.
Again, you can also use the preamble to argue that government should guarantee every citizen a job. Wouldn't this too "promote the general welfare"?
I dunno about guaranteeing everyone a job, I don't know how that would work, but I've long been an advocate of the idea that we should reform the welfare system to be geared towards job training and placement and less toward simply handing out money. I"m a big fan of the "teach a man to fish" philosophy.
What's the problem with that?
As to whether or not access to health care leads directly to communism, well, you'd have to show me exactly how the health care bill, as proposed even in its original form, does that. Until then, it's just a slippery slope argument.
I really wasn't saying it's a slippery slope. I'm saying that it's a poor argument because a communist could use the say argument/philosophy for something you detest.
Sure, which was why I did not argue for communism.
I do, however, argue for the idea that everyone in the US should have access to health care. That alone does not create a communist government. The only way you can get there from what I said was through a slippery slope.
-- A2SG, you'll note that, contrary to current republican thinking, the Constitution does not actually say our government is a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich....
The Constitution does establish a relatively hands-off federal government.
And exactly how "relative" that is has been the subject of debate ever since.
-- A2SG, which, I think, was exactly what Jefferson, et al, intended.....
Last edited on Tue Nov 10th, 2009 05:28 am by Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1499 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 04:21 pm |
|
yoki wrote: Ronson, whatever the government administers for the common good, could be viewed as a reflection of the values of the society for which the government governs.
If such is the case, then it would appear to me that American society values education over health.
Really? It seems we are falling behind other western nations in education. I'm not exactly sure why.
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1499 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 05:12 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: I'd go even further and say it's kinda like our mission statement, the ideals we'd like our goverment to live up to, when it can.
"Mission statement" is probably more accurate. Still, the devil is in the details - and the interpretations.
For instance?
Making one group pay for another group. Like the Social Security payments I've made all my life that went to people who retired between 1979 and 2009. I doubt I'll ever see a penny of Social Security when I reach retirement age.
Since we're talking about ensuring that ALL CITIZENS have access to health care, I'm not sure who, exactly, are being taken advantage of here.
Whoever is paying for someone else. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Do you object to the idea that those who have many advantages in society have certain responsibilities to those others who helped them attain those advantages?
Helped? I didn't help the Rockefeller family. Why should they pay for my health care?
I'm curious: what is your objection, exactly?
Again (and again), my objection is to the argument. The purpose of the federal government is not to even out the playing field, or to improve society. It's primary purpose is to protect the country from external enemies. It can also function in those areas where individual states cannot (like setting rules for interstate commerce). Remember the 10th Amendment.
Is it that you feel the rich should have no responsibilities to society whatsoever, or that you feel the poor deserve their lowly status, and thus don't deserve health care?
Is it that you feel the government should enact monstrous federal programs and force certain segments of society to pay for them? And require other segments of society to access them or be penalized?
If I've got it wrong, please, I implore you, explain it me, because I genuinely don't understand this mindset.
And I don't understand yours. Judging from your statements here, the Peters got wealthy on the backs of the Pauls, so the Peters owe it to them to pay extra for their retirement (federally-government managed), for their health care (federally-government managed), and probably to insure their employment at some future date (also to be federally-government managed). The Pauls will probably need babysitters while they are working, so we'll creep Peter's federal taxes up to 55% to pay for them. Of course all Paul's should be guaranteed a home too (also to be federally-government managed). Let's creep Peter's federal taxes up to 64% to pay for that. Oh wait a minute! Most of the Peters have suddenly left the country and placed their money in foreign bank accounts. Hmmm... I guess they didn't appreciate being taxed out of existence. The middle class is the next in line to pay for programs for the impoverished. Eventually everybody will be impoverished - but at least they'll be "equal" in the sight of the government.
Arguing for a centralized government to force "fairness" in society through mandates is socialism at least, and communism at worst. It is a bad argument and is based on Marxist philosophy. This is my mindset.
I dunno about guaranteeing everyone a job,
Why not? Those people were thrown out into the street by callous industrialists with tons of money who simply want to make bigger profits. We should force the rich to employ these people. The rich do not need to get richer.
I don't know how that would work, but I've long been an advocate of the idea that we should reform the welfare system to be geared towards job training and placement and less toward simply handing out money. I"m a big fan of the "teach a man to fish" philosophy. What's the problem with that? As to whether or not access to health care leads directly to communism, well, you'd have to show me exactly how the health care bill, as proposed even in its original form, does that. Until then, it's just a slippery slope argument.
I've decided to latch onto your slippery slope argument. If we are going to argue for the rich assisting the poor through government programs and mandates, we might as well take it to its logical extreme.
Sure, which was why I did not argue for communism. I do, however, argue for the idea that everyone in the US should have access to health care. That alone does not create a communist government. The only way you can get there from what I said was through a slippery slope.
But why should we draw the line where you believe it is acceptable? Your arguments above are just as valid for people who want to draw the line further to left. What will you say to them when they want guaranteed employment and housing?
|
yoki
Dialogue Facilitator
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 07:45 pm |
|
Ronson wrote: yoki wrote: Ronson, whatever the government administers for the common good, could be viewed as a reflection of the values of the society for which the government governs.
If such is the case, then it would appear to me that American society values education over health.
Really? It seems we are falling behind other western nations in education. I'm not exactly sure why.
You knew my point.
____________________
____________________
When shit happens, God doesn't give one.
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 09:10 pm |
|
Ronson wrote: yoki wrote: Ronson, whatever the government administers for the common good, could be viewed as a reflection of the values of the society for which the government governs.
If such is the case, then it would appear to me that American society values education over health.
Really? It seems we are falling behind other western nations in education. I'm not exactly sure why.
That's kind of the trillion-dollar question, isn't it? I think there are two fundamental reasons for this:
1. The rich-poor gap. In the U.S., schools are funded primarily through property taxes, and special programs tend to be funded through the community: donations, business tie-ins, even bake sales. The result is an education system where wealthy students have everything they need - often, far more than they need - while inner city schools are cramped, and often lack even basic supplies. Not only that, but low-income schools draw from students who are suffering through poverty and often rank school as a low priority in their lives.
2. The culture. I think education has been a casualty of the partisan wars over here. And I think both ideologies are to blame. Liberals tend to favor experimental programs that tackle whatever issue is in fashion today: sometimes these are worthwhile, but often they're utter time-wasters. Conservatives, on the other hand, have a tendency insist on "nothing but the three R's," which, frankly, gives our students an education that might have been useful in 1940 but is painfully useless today. And, finally, there's the cultural element of capitalism: America is probably the most mercenary country in the world, and students have a "What can this do for me" attitude. If they see a path to wealth that doesn't involve education, they're quick to drop out.
An interesting side effect of that attitude is that it's often the men who are eager to drop out and pursue another path to wealth, making this pretty much the first time and place in human history where it's a general rule that women are better-educated than men and thus, at least in theory, more employable. Right now, the unemployment rate is far higher (I think twice as high) among men as women, and the social stigma of a wife making more money than her husband is quickly fading.
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1499 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 09:50 pm |
|
I agree with the culture factor, but I would add another reason to that. In the past 20 years or so it has become "hip" or trendy to be stupid in America; the ultimate de-evolution. I see this with my adult stepkids and their friends and it is frightening. When I was 20 years old, absolutely everyone I knew could name the vice president of the U.S. None of these adult stepkids can (in ages from 18 to 23).
Spike Lee noticed this trend and railed against it back in the mid 1990s, saying it was destroying the next generation of black Americans. I say it is destroying America for all future generations. It is a cancer.
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 10:08 pm |
|
Ronson wrote: I agree with the culture factor, but I would add another reason to that. In the past 20 years or so it has become "hip" or trendy to be stupid in America; the ultimate de-evolution. I see this with my adult stepkids and their friends and it is frightening. When I was 20 years old, absolutely everyone I knew could name the vice president of the U.S. None of these adult stepkids can (in ages from 18 to 23).
Spike Lee noticed this trend and railed against it back in the mid 1990s, saying it was destroying the next generation of black Americans. I say it is destroying America for all future generations. It is a cancer.
I absolutely agree with you that anti-intellectualism is a problem. The question is: where does it come from? I think I'd reject the assertion that it's a random fad that appeared basically out of nowhere, like wearing flannel.
Basically, I think you've got powerful forces in America that undermine education. And they're coming from all directions.
But I think the two strongest undermining voices are from the poor, and from the right.
From the poor, you've got hip-hop culture, which basically teaches that you can't learn "street smarts" in a classroom and anyone who's paying attention in class is wasting their time when the real game is out on the streets. And I think that's a direct consequence of the rich-poor gap.
And from the right, you've got general suspicion of intellectuals. You've got Reagan with his "Liberals... know so much that isn't so." You've got Karl Rove with his "As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing."
The college professor is one of the archetypal bogeymen to the right. And you've got the perception that scientists are part of a global conspiracy to enslave the American people and destroy Christianity, what with their fancy theories about evolution and climate change.
So, yeah, we have a strong culture of anti-intellectualism - but what can you do about it? Every time anyone tries to teach anything to anyone else around here, they're accused of propagandizing and trying to push an agenda.
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11th, 2009 05:21 am |
|
Ronson wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: I'd go even further and say it's kinda like our mission statement, the ideals we'd like our goverment to live up to, when it can.
"Mission statement" is probably more accurate. Still, the devil is in the details - and the interpretations.
Not just the devil...I like to think those details have helped us try to achieve the lofty goals set at our founding. As goals go, not a bad one, I'd say.
For instance?
Making one group pay for another group. Like the Social Security payments I've made all my life that went to people who retired between 1979 and 2009. I doubt I'll ever see a penny of Social Security when I reach retirement age.
Interestingly enough, I remember my father saying that very thing thirty years ago. Still, for many, Social Security is all they have, and I, for one, don't begrudge that when I pay my FICA taxes.
Since we're talking about ensuring that ALL CITIZENS have access to health care, I'm not sure who, exactly, are being taken advantage of here.
Whoever is paying for someone else. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
True enough, but don't you think that for too long, too many people have died unnecessarily due to lack of access to health care? Or do you subscribe the the theory that the poor should just die off and "decrease the surplus population"?
Do you object to the idea that those who have many advantages in society have certain responsibilities to those others who helped them attain those advantages?
Helped? I didn't help the Rockefeller family. Why should they pay for my health care?
I'll bet you did. John D. Rockefeller owned an oil company, so if you bought gas for your car, you helped him, or others like him, make their money.
See, the rich didn't make their money out of thin air. They provided products people bought or services people paid for, and were successful at it. If it weren't for those people, ol' John D. would have just been sitting at his gas station with nothing to do but play solitaire.
Don't you feel they have some degree of responsiblity to their consumer base, out of self-interest if no other reason?
I'm curious: what is your objection, exactly?
Again (and again), my objection is to the argument. The purpose of the federal government is not to even out the playing field, or to improve society.
The preamble seems to disagree.
It's primary purpose is to protect the country from external enemies.
I'm curious...why do you say that's the "primary purpose"? In the Constitution, "provide for the common defense" comes fourth. Would the first thing mentioned, "form a more perfect union" be the primary purpose?
Further, isn't that pretty much the same thing as improving society?
It can also function in those areas where individual states cannot (like setting rules for interstate commerce). Remember the 10th Amendment.
True enough. And, while certain states do what they can to provide health care to their citizens (we have a pretty good program for that here in Massachusetts, in fact), but since most states do not, or cannot, it's felt that the federal government needed to step in. And, in one way, wouldn't it be easier to spread the cost for such a program over the entire US rather than for each state to bear the burden alone?
If, on the other hand, each state tried to ensure access to health care for all of its citizens, and the federal government were interfering with that effort, I'd see your point. But, if that is the case, I have yet to hear of anyone saying so.
Is it that you feel the rich should have no responsibilities to society whatsoever, or that you feel the poor deserve their lowly status, and thus don't deserve health care?
Is it that you feel the government should enact monstrous federal programs and force certain segments of society to pay for them?
Uh, yeah. That's it's job, to provide services for the citizens of the US. And part of how it pays for all of those services is to "force" society to pay for it, eg through taxes.
If your sole objection is to the fact that this plan tries to make the more financially able pay for the less financially able, well, that's just being practical. For too long now, the poor have paid so that the rich can be, well, rich, so why not?
Unless you're trying to say that the rich have no responsibilities to society whatsoever, which seems to be your argument even if you don't explicitly admit it.
And require other segments of society to access them or be penalized?
Not sure what you mean here. Could you elaborate?
If I've got it wrong, please, I implore you, explain it me, because I genuinely don't understand this mindset.
And I don't understand yours. Judging from your statements here, the Peters got wealthy on the backs of the Pauls, so the Peters owe it to them to pay extra for their retirement (federally-government managed), for their health care (federally-government managed),
Not exactly.
What I did say was that the rich didn't get rich out of thin air. They attained success and fortune because of our society, so I do feel they owe that society a certain degree of responsibility. Many successful people agree with this idea, and do many things to give back to society, philanthropy and such, on their own. But, even for those who don't (and there are many who don't), they earn more money, so I don't see how it isn't fair that they pay more money in taxes. Why not?
Let's not forget that philanthropy is tax deductible, after all.
Now that I've explained my mindset here, care to explain yours?
To repeat: what is your objection, exactly? Is it that you feel the rich should have no responsibilities to society whatsoever, or that you feel the poor deserve their lowly status, and thus don't deserve health care?
and probably to insure their employment at some future date (also to be federally-government managed). ...
Where did you get this one from? Nothing in the current health-care bill suggests this.
If you want to argue against government offered job training and placement, I'm more than willing to do so, but that'd be another subject, and we'd probably be better off creating a new thread for that.
I'll leave that to you, if you wish
Arguing for a centralized government to force "fairness" in society through mandates is socialism at least, and communism at worst. It is a bad argument and is based on Marxist philosophy. This is my mindset.
I guess it would depend on how far those mandates go. I don't believe ensuring health care for all Americans ensures that the US will suddenly become marxist, so your concerns seem unfounded in this case.
It's a slippery slope, and the health care bill won't put us on it, no more than allowing same-sex marriage makes incest or child abuse legal.
I dunno about guaranteeing everyone a job,
Why not?
As I said, I don't know how that would work. Is it even practical?
Those people were thrown out into the street by callous industrialists with tons of money who simply want to make bigger profits. We should force the rich to employ these people. The rich do not need to get richer.
I'm not sure who you're arguing with here, since I never said that. Perhaps you should take it up with whoever advocated that idea.
I don't know how that would work, but I've long been an advocate of the idea that we should reform the welfare system to be geared towards job training and placement and less toward simply handing out money. I"m a big fan of the "teach a man to fish" philosophy.
What's the problem with that? As to whether or not access to health care leads directly to communism, well, you'd have to show me exactly how the health care bill, as proposed even in its original form, does that. Until then, it's just a slippery slope argument.
I've decided to latch onto your slippery slope argument. If we are going to argue for the rich assisting the poor through government programs and mandates, we might as well take it to its logical extreme.
And that is where the slippery slope begins.
Sure, which was why I did not argue for communism. I do, however, argue for the idea that everyone in the US should have access to health care. That alone does not create a communist government. The only way you can get there from what I said was through a slippery slope.
But why should we draw the line where you believe it is acceptable?
We didn't. The writers of the health care bill drew they line where they felt it needed to be drawn, then redrew it in committee, which is what happens with pretty muche every bill in congress. But that line has always ended with health care, it never went beyond that.
See, contrary to what you seem to believe, the health care bill was designed to reform health care, not to create a communist government. If Obama wanted to do that, he'd have to create a different bill.
Your arguments above are just as valid for people who want to draw the line further to left. What will you say to them when they want guaranteed employment and housing?
I'd have to see their arguments first. But there is nothing in the current health care bill, or in any previous version, that says a single thing about guaranteed employment or housing, so this bill won't help them.
I'd say that the basic argument behind this bill is that health care should be a right, available to all. It's an idea that several other socities have adopted without becoming communist countries, so it is workable within our system of government.
If you feel the argument goes beyond that, you'll have to show me where in the bill that idea came from, because I don't see it.
-- A2SG, seems to me your fears are for something other than the health care bill...so perhaps you should address whatever that is instead of this.....
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1499 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11th, 2009 04:15 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: I absolutely agree with you that anti-intellectualism is a problem. The question is: where does it come from? I think I'd reject the assertion that it's a random fad that appeared basically out of nowhere, like wearing flannel.
Basically, I think you've got powerful forces in America that undermine education. And they're coming from all directions.
But I think the two strongest undermining voices are from the poor, and from the right.
From the poor, you've got hip-hop culture, which basically teaches that you can't learn "street smarts" in a classroom and anyone who's paying attention in class is wasting their time when the real game is out on the streets. And I think that's a direct consequence of the rich-poor gap.
This is the one I am seeing with my stepkids and their friends. But it isn't simply a matter of "wasting their time." Knowledge is actually frowned upon by this group. They act like having knowledge is geeky and uncool, that it is hip to be uneducated. I find it astounding, and scary.
And from the right, you've got general suspicion of intellectuals. You've got Reagan with his "Liberals... know so much that isn't so." You've got Karl Rove with his "As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing."
The college professor is one of the archetypal bogeymen to the right. And you've got the perception that scientists are part of a global conspiracy to enslave the American people and destroy Christianity, what with their fancy theories about evolution and climate change.
So, yeah, we have a strong culture of anti-intellectualism - but what can you do about it? Every time anyone tries to teach anything to anyone else around here, they're accused of propagandizing and trying to push an agenda.
This is a little bit different. Sure, there are some theists on the right who absolutely reject any inkling of evolution on the sole basis of dogma (there's a guy named Supersport on C*RM who blows my mind on this subject). But I wouldn't lump global warming in with this. I am always open to seeing the evidence to support this phenomena, or (if proven) to support mankind's contribution toward it, but all I hear is a lot of platitudes from both sides and no real data.
So like there are "a-theists" in the world, I am an "a-global warming-ist." I lack belief in it until someone can show me some good evidence.
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1499 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11th, 2009 04:27 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: (... a whole heckuva lot ...)
I know you and Stiggy used to get into these long arguments with gigantic posts, but my Internet time during the day is rather hit-and-miss and I don't have adequate time to deal with posts that just keep getting larger and larger.
I have to go to a meeting right now but later I will dissect your latest post and respond to it in segments.
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1499 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11th, 2009 05:37 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Not just the devil...I like to think those details have helped us try to achieve the lofty goals set at our founding. As goals go, not a bad one, I'd say.
Interestingly enough, I remember my father saying that very thing thirty years ago. Still, for many, Social Security is all they have, and I, for one, don't begrudge that when I pay my FICA taxes.
True enough, but don't you think that for too long, too many people have died unnecessarily due to lack of access to health care? Or do you subscribe the the theory that the poor should just die off and "decrease the surplus population"?
You obviously have a very Dickensian view of the world.
Can you cite how many people have died in the U.S. due to a lack of health care? Are there any statistics to indicate how big a problem this is? And if so, can we compare these staistics to any of the European systems that are being advocated?
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1499 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11th, 2009 05:43 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: I'll bet you did. John D. Rockefeller owned an oil company, so if you bought gas for your car, you helped him, or others like him, make their money.
If you wish to look at it that way, they also helped me with a product or a service. I consider that a wash. They don't owe me anything.
See, the rich didn't make their money out of thin air. They provided products people bought or services people paid for, and were successful at it. If it weren't for those people, ol' John D. would have just been sitting at his gas station with nothing to do but play solitaire.
Don't you feel they have some degree of responsiblity to their consumer base, out of self-interest if no other reason?
Yes, they do have a responsibility to their consumer base, and that responsibility was fulfilled through guarantees for their products or services, and if they were adequate and functioned as advertised. I bought a 1966 Ford Rambler in 1977. Does this mean Ford should now owe me free health care for life?
|
Current time is 03:44 am | Page:   1 2 3 4   |
|
|
|
|
