Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Nobody here (or anywhere else) said that the right to something means it should be given to you. At least not in this context. I'm happy to pay for health insurance (within reason), but I don't have *access* to it. If someone makes $10,000 a year, and rent would cost $8000 a year (and good luck finding that place), I think they should have a *right* to someplace to live, paying what they're able to pay (which is something we've had for decades in America, btw). Nobody's asking for anything free here..
My comment on " shelter as right" comes from the comments in the original link.( It is hard to figure out what these people are demonstrating for or against .) I do not think it is practical to suggest that we have a right to shelter ( house or bed indoors) unless you are not ABLE to provide for yourself; these protesters seem to believe differently.
Nobody here (or anywhere else) said that the right to something means it should be given to you. At least not in this context. I'm happy to pay for health insurance (within reason), but I don't have *access* to it. If someone makes $10,000 a year, and rent would cost $8000 a year (and good luck finding that place), I think they should have a *right* to someplace to live, paying what they're able to pay (which is something we've had for decades in America, btw). Nobody's asking for anything free here..
My comment on " shelter as right" comes from the comments in the original link.( It is hard to figure out what these people are demonstrating for or against .) I do not think it is practical to suggest that we have a right to shelter ( house or bed indoors) unless you are not ABLE to provide for yourself; these protesters seem to believe differently.
I am sorry for my comment on idiot compassion. I was out of line.
Who in the USA is not provided basic needs? Is there some other country ( 50 million or more inhabitants) where these needs are better met?
Why not ask these folks? (in the first three minutes of this clip)
The sad thing is this is a third-world charity doing work in the one developed nation that is far behind the times.
These people are getting basic care... Perhaps a better system for cueing should be instituted. The charity is from the USA . To say it is " a third World Charity ", is misleading ( I did not say incorrect). Again, I do not have a problem with universal health care and the system will probably look much like this clip shows: warehouse medical. It will be impossible to provide all people with the same level of care that we enjoy today however. Nurses and nurse practitioners will handle much of the basic care . With 300 million people, this will be an interesting time in the health care field. The term " basic care" will be redefined.
Why would it have to be "warehouse medical"? It isn't "warehouse medical" in Canada or Australia or a whole host of other countries?
What is in this video (this organisation that normally goes to Africa!!!) is damage control. I see this all the time in the ER where I work: people come in for ailments that could have been prevented had they seen a GP. But since they can't, the medical condition festers until they have no choice but to run to the ER and we're left to fix the immediate problem arising from a much deeper issue. And so the problem is temporarily fixed until they come back again with the same problem. And these people can't pay. That's why several ERs across the country have shut down-- they can no longer maintain themselves under these conditions.
This is not "basic care." This is just very ineffective damage control. Which is why the healthcare dollars spent in the US relative to the GDP is so much bloody higher than any other developed nation.
Ironically, the US could have the most awesome healthcare system in the world. In terms of medical technology and experienced and knowledgable doctors and specialists, we've got it! The problem is, unless you're one of the beautiful people, you won't get to see any of those doctors.
Are the indigent unworthy of rights? In a society that's unable to provide universal employment, is there not a moral obligation to provide basic needs to those who can't find work?
Sandymorn has yet to address these questions.
First question is rhetorical. Who in the USA is not provided basic needs? Is there some other country ( 50 million or more inhabitants) where these needs are better met?
The first question isn't at all rhetorical in a thread where someone is challenging the correctness of providing food and shelter for free. Who in the USA isn't provided basic needs? Look around your town or any big city. There aren't enough shelters for all the homeless. Have you changed your position now, are you in favor of compassion for the homeless? :crazy: Sorry, maybe I missed something, but it looks like you're still opposed to free handouts.
Ironically, the US could have the most awesome healthcare system in the world. In terms of medical technology and experienced and knowledgable doctors and specialists, we've got it! The problem is, unless you're one of the beautiful people, you won't get to see any of those doctors.
The US has a very long way to go in providing care for chronic illness. US doctors aren't trained to get to the root cause of illness, they're trained to mask the symptoms with prescription drugs. The US med system is among the best in dealing with catastrophic illness, but ignores chronic illness. This is why the US ranks around 26th in the world, in quality of health care. According to the WHO, the US is just behind Costa Rica and one step ahead of Slovenia in quality of care.
"Sorry, maybe I missed something, but it looks like you're still opposed to free handouts. "
Dakini
Shelter for me is four walls with door and window and access to plumbing and electric. I am opposed to providing this universally . I am opposed because I believe you will destroy an able bodied ( not those truly in need) person's dignity if you give him ALL he needs to live . Moreover, you create generational poverty not only financially but spiritually as people have no reason to do anything but lounge about their humble, government provided, abodes.
It is a complete fallacy (proven time and again) that benefit programs eliminate the desire to work. Despite your cynical view, the vast majority of people actually want to work.
It is a complete fallacy (proven time and again) that benefit programs eliminate the desire to work. Despite your cynical view, the vast majority of people actually want to work.
Productivity numbers in communist countries contradict your belief. Cynicism is in the eye of the beholder.
Productivity numbers in communist countries contradict your belief. Cynicism is in the eye of the beholder.
In my opinion, simply assuming that low productivity in certain countries is due to the people's lack of desire to work is intellectually lazy, as well as complete nonsense. Let's take Russia, for example, (which isn't even communist anymore, by the way).
As a 2009 article in Businessweek points out, the current level of low productivity in Russia is caused by a myriad of factors such as outdated equipment, poor work organization, low levels of IT and automation, and bloated middle management (note that 'lack of desire to work on the part of the Russian people' isn't on list).
Moreover, after the 1917 Revolution and subsequent civil war, when Russia was arguably 'communist' in some sense, its productivity skyrocketed, propelling it from a mostly agrarian nation to an industrial and military powerhouse to rival any in the West despite resource and technological constraints.
And there's China, which isn't really communist either, but that argument aside, its productivity has more or less been continually on the rise since the 1949 revolution despite it being industrially backwards compared to the West; and as a 1997 article by the IMF points out, worker efficiency was the main driving force behind China's economic boom.
In fact, as the article notes, "During 1979-94 productivity gains accounted for more than 42 percent of China's growth and by the early 1990s had overtaken capital as the most significant source of that growth." In other words, almost half of China's growth between 1979-1994 was due to increases in worker productivity alone.
Of course, much of the growth in China during this period is attributed by the article to economic reforms and profit incentives offered to rural collectives; but it also suggests that it was due in large part to an economic shift from "traditional agriculture into higher-value-added manufacturing." Approximately 4/5 of the population worked in agriculture until 1994, when only 1/2 did (which is still a lot), meaning that China had a predominately agrarian economy for most of the last century.
All things considered, China's constant rate of growth over the past few decades has been impressive; and even though its numbers are low when compared to ours, its like comparing economic apples and oranges considering the fact that, like Russia, they had a much later industrial revolution than we did (1950s for China compared to mid-to-late 1800s for us).
Personally, I'd argue that none of what Russia and China have achieved in terms of industrialization and increased productivity would have been possible if the fledgling working-class in Russia and China were unwilling to work due to 'handouts,' when they were much more 'communist' than they are now, especially in such a relatively short amount of time.
As for Cuba, I'm convinced that, besides the oppressiveness of the Castro regime, a huge part of the reason for its low level of productivity is the 50 year embargo by the US, which has helped cut Cuba off from much of the industrialized world, not the laziness of the Cuban people.
Since you cite examples you admit are "not really communist "(except perhaps Cuba) I will insert Venezuela into the mix . Here is a country which is , with the urging and guidance of Chavez, is trying to be more communist . In spite of oil revenues, their productivity has dropped like a stone. While 15 years ago one of the biggest coffee producers, they now import. So too do they import their staple: black beans. Why produce when you can buy with oil money right?
Has our embargo on Cuba cut them off from world markets? No, Russian subsidies ( now dead like the dead geo-political reasons for the subsidies) drained any possible reason or incentive to create and left these poor hapless people tinkering with their 1950 Chevrolets. Yes Castro is a monster, but monsters are the glue that hold the communist system together. Chavez is next in this ascendency. Again, I want all to eat and there is no reason , mainly due to the West's productivity, that we cannot feed everyone. Universal health care, as an idea, but not an actuality, will carry the day without a protest from me. Line up and get your aspirin, but forget your hip replacement. I believe completing the triumvirate : shelter ,is a line not to be crossed or we will begin to need a guy like Chavez to hold us together , telling us how good and noble is our effort as we produce less and less- like Venezuela.
China is turning on and off the capitalist spigot with great success. They know what competition does for MAN. They know that , practically speaking, competition and incentive ($) hike productivity and creates goods which would never be produced under their failed system. Figures for productivity in this large prison are measured from little to more than little: if we start with productivity which is negligible, any increase is a big percentage. (And ,as you noted, can be attributed to cash incentives not a spirit of brotherhood and caring fostered by the communist ideal)
Russia is a mess, filed with corrupt ex party members on the take. By the way, what exactly do you think " bloated middle management" means if not unproductive lay- abouts unwilling to earn their meager share of the deflating pie.
It is a complete fallacy (proven time and again) that benefit programs eliminate the desire to work. Despite your cynical view, the vast majority of people actually want to work.
Productivity numbers in communist countries contradict your belief. Cynicism is in the eye of the beholder.
Are we talking about the Soviet Union here? I was under the impression we were talking about something relevant.
Since you cite examples you admit are "not really communist "(except perhaps Cuba) I will insert Venezuela into the mix . Here is a country which is , with the urging and guidance of Chavez, is trying to be more communist . In spite of oil revenues, their productivity has dropped like a stone. While 15 years ago one of the biggest coffee producers, they now import. So too do they import their staple: black beans. Why produce when you can buy with oil money right?
Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. Just because Venezuela may have relatively low productivity right now doesn't mean that it's automatically because Venezuelans are lazy communists who have no desire to work. Do you happen to have any supporting data that rules other possibilities?
Also, the US imports a lot of things, too. That doesn't mean we're lazy any more than it means they are. It might be cheaper to import certain commodities than it is to produce them. Or they might just prefer them.
Has our embargo on Cuba cut them off from world markets? No, Russian subsidies ( now dead like the dead geo-political reasons for the subsidies) drained any possible reason or incentive to create and left these poor hapless people tinkering with their 1950 Chevrolets. Yes Castro is a monster, but monsters are the glue that hold the communist system together. Chavez is next in this ascendency.
Not completely, no. Nevertheless, it's an economic, commercial and financial embargo that, according a report by CBS News, "has caused the island over $93 billion in direct economic damage from its inception until the end of 2007." Combined that with the oppressiveness of the Castro regime along with all the indirect economic damage from the embargo, and it's no wonder the Cuban people are suffering.
Which brings up another point. I think you're confusing predominately authoritarian and militaristic political systems with an economic system characterized by collectively owned and democratically controlled production based on need rather than profit. The two aren't synonymous. It can just as easily be argued that the people want to work and be productive, but don't have the means or freedom to do so.
Again, I want all to eat and there is no reason , mainly due to the West's productivity, that we cannot feed everyone. Universal health care, as an idea, but not an actuality, will carry the day without a protest from me. Line up and get your aspirin, but forget your hip replacement. I believe completing the triumvirate : shelter ,is a line not to be crossed or we will begin to need a guy like Chavez to hold us together , telling us how good and noble is our effort as we produce less and less- like Venezuela.
So hungry people should be able to eat, but they shouldn't have somewhere to sleep at night or use the restroom because that will make them totally unproductive? I call shenanigans.
China is turning on and off the capitalist spigot with great success. They know what competition does for MAN. They know that , practically speaking, competition and incentive ($) hike productivity and creates goods which would never be produced under their failed system. Figures for productivity in this large prison are measured from little to more than little: if we start with productivity which is negligible, any increase is a big percentage. (And ,as you noted, can be attributed to cash incentives not a spirit of brotherhood and caring fostered by the communist ideal)
I think you should take another look at China's numbers and compare them to other nations, historically speaking, if you think its rapid industrialization and increases in productivity are 'little.' They're actually pretty impressive.
Russia is a mess, filed with corrupt ex party members on the take. By the way, what exactly do you think " bloated middle management" means if not unproductive lay- abouts unwilling to earn their meager share of the deflating pie.
Nobody's claiming that Russia is the greatest place on Earth; but again, just because Russia has a lot of corruption in its political system doesn't mean that the Russian people have no desire to work, especially the average Russians who do work exceptionally hard despite having guaranteed shelter (and that goes double for after the 1917 Revolution, when its productivity skyrocketed, propelling it from a mostly agrarian nation to an industrial and military powerhouse to rival any in the West despite resource and technological constraints).
Basically, I think there are a number of possible reasons for low productivity in any given county, especially ones that have had relatively recent industrial revolutions and other socio-economic setbacks; and I just feel that assuming its all due to people's lack of desire to work, without more evidence to support this, is a bit much.
In the Soviet Union, there was a saying: "The government pretends to pay us, so we pretend to work." That's why there was low productivity. People didn't seem to take into account that they received a free education all the way through university, even through the PhD level, if they qualified; they received free housing, including free utilities, and what passed for free medicine. They even got all-expenses paid vacations. But they only saw that they received a very low paycheck as compared to their peers in other countries, especially developed countries.
Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, workers had no understanding that Westerners spend most of their paycheck on necessities, unless they're highly paid professionals. And highly trained professionals in the SU got paid pretty much the same as low-skilled labor, which many resented. Their reward was their status as academics, Party officials, and so on. People didn't feel fairly compensated, so they rebelled by slacking off.
Furthermore, laborers, like construction workers, were paid by the job. So if they could complete the job in a fraction of the allotted time, they were allowed to take the rest of the time off, meaning--they were required to show up at the workplace but they didn't have to work, because they'd completed the assignment or the quota.
This kind of thing destroyed any work ethic there ever may have been.
This Occupy Wall Street movement has taken off as a concept. People are demonstrating in other cities now, too. It got covered in the Sunday NY Times, again. Seems very well organized.
This Occupy Wall Street movement has taken off as a concept. People are demonstrating in other cities now, too. It got covered in the Sunday NY Times, again. Seems very well organized.
This Occupy Wall Street movement has taken off as a concept. People are demonstrating in other cities now, too. It got covered in the Sunday NY Times, again. Seems very well organized.
What do they hope to accomplish?
If they accomplish no more than providing a focal point for the fear and uncertainty that Washington and its politicians seem unable or unwilling to address, then I think they have accomplished something important in expressing an unwillingness to simply sit on our pervasively-helpless hands.
Whether it will evolve into something concrete and fruitful is anyone's guess.
This Occupy Wall Street movement has taken off as a concept. People are demonstrating in other cities now, too. It got covered in the Sunday NY Times, again. Seems very well organized.
What do they hope to accomplish?
They're hoping to get people to exercise their right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.
At least somebody's kicking up a fuss about the way politicians seem content to let this country go down the tubes! This is long overdue, if you ask me. If the tens of thousands of unemployed join them, and other concerned citizens make their voices heard, maybe there's hope to turn this mess around before it's entirely too late to pull of an economic recovery.
BTW, has anyone noticed that the US is the only country with a significant percentage of retired people who can't afford to live in the US? You don't see Germans, French, Canadians and Scandinavians moving to 3rd World countries in order to be able to survive off meager pensions/social security.
At least somebody's kicking up a fuss about the way politicians seem content to let this country go down the tubes! This is long overdue, if you ask me. If the tens of thousands of unemployed join them, and other concerned citizens make their voices heard, maybe there's hope to turn this mess around before it's entirely too late to pull of an economic recovery.
BTW, has anyone noticed that the US is the only country with a significant percentage of retired people who can't afford to live in the US? You don't see Germans, French, Canadians and Scandinavians moving to 3rd World countries in order to be able to survive off meager pensions/social security.
Well, actually in Thailand the majority of expats who retire there are European.
Quite a bit, although I wouldn't say they congregate into particular neighborhoods. Unfortunately, a lot of them are there for the free and easy sex and the bar scene...which can be pretty pathetic. I would say out of every 10 expats I met there, 7 were from Europe. Of course, Europe is closer to Thailand than is the U.S.
Huh? You can't figure out what it is they're protesting!?!?!? For heaven's sake... It's not hard at all for me to understand what they're protesting. Corporate profits are running at historical all-time highs. Had a look at the annual statements for any major oil company, pharmaceutical company, or big bank recently? It's obscene. Yet, the average person's real wages have been in steady decline for over 35 years. Rates of poverty (by every measure) are on the rise, and are at levels we haven't seen since our grandparents' generation (or before for many people). Child poverty in particular, for the "richest nation on earth" is shamefully, pathetically high. Every health indicator is on the decline, yet the 'health' insurance industry and the for-profit medical industry are making money hand over fist. What's wrong with that picture?
Shall I go on? And you can't figure out what they're protesting? You need to have a really long, hard, deep look at your level of compassion if you can't.
The "the richest nation on Earth" is becoming a hollow epithet. The Soviet regime used to tell its citizens they lived in the best country on Earth. What's really alarming is the degree to which politicians don't seem to care. Where is FDR when you need him?
So, vinlyn, it sounds like the Europeans are retiring to Thailand not due to pension issues, but for other reasons.
Huh? You can't figure out what it is they're protesting!?!?!? For heaven's sake... It's not hard at all for me to understand what they're protesting. Corporate profits are running at historical all-time highs. Had a look at the annual statements for any major oil company, pharmaceutical company, or big bank recently? It's obscene. Yet, the average person's real wages have been in steady decline for over 35 years. Rates of poverty (by every measure) are on the rise, and are at levels we haven't seen since our grandparents' generation (or before for many people). Child poverty in particular, for the "richest nation on earth" is shamefully, pathetically high. Every health indicator is on the decline, yet the 'health' insurance industry and the for-profit medical industry are making money hand over fist. What's wrong with that picture?
All of that! :clap:
But something more, too, at least in my view. For this kind of activity, there's usually some specific trigger, and I think that was and is the inability of our politicians to put political squabbling aside and make our government actually work. If I had done my job the way the Congressmen and Senators are, I would have gotten fired!
So, vinlyn, it sounds like the Europeans are retiring to Thailand not due to pension issues, but for other reasons.
Thank god...another FDR fan! :clap:
Well, some of the expats in Thailand are there for financial reasons, but I would say more it's the other factors. The sad thing is that when some of them get themselves into problems, they can't scrape together the funds to even buy a ticket back home.
I have a steel plate engraving of FDR hanging in my living room, along with a reproduction of the du Plessis portrait of Benjamin Franklin
FDR saved this country from a rapid descent into anarchy. He wasn't perfect by any means, but without him there wouldn't be a United States of America today. Of that I'm firmly convinced.
Huh? You can't figure out what it is they're protesting!?!?!? For heaven's sake... It's not hard at all for me to understand what they're protesting. Corporate profits are running at historical all-time highs. Had a look at the annual statements for any major oil company, pharmaceutical company, or big bank recently? It's obscene. Yet, the average person's real wages have been in steady decline for over 35 years. Rates of poverty (by every measure) are on the rise, and are at levels we haven't seen since our grandparents' generation (or before for many people). Child poverty in particular, for the "richest nation on earth" is shamefully, pathetically high. Every health indicator is on the decline, yet the 'health' insurance industry and the for-profit medical industry are making money hand over fist. What's wrong with that picture?
Shall I go on? And you can't figure out what they're protesting? You need to have a really long, hard, deep look at your level of compassion if you can't.
I can understand what they are protesting, I wonder what they hope to accomplish and more specifically, how. I do not lack compassion for their plight; but I do not want to see communist values supplant our capitalist system. I do not believe communism is a viable system. I do believe many of these protesters would like to see such a system ( they will call it socialism ) instituted. I fear for my country. If MOST people are greedy and self absorbed ( including most of these occupiers) then neither socialism nor communism will work. In my opinion ( and I believe it is a compassionate one) capitalism is the only viable system, and to completely undermine it is to threaten millions in the USA with true poverty ( third world stuff) .
By the way, if it should come to it, I'll take my free food, shelter, and healthcare on Kauai, please.
How/why did communism enter the discussion? All that needs to be done is to restore the regulations for the banks and other financial institutions that FDR enacted. Those were rolled back by Reagan, one (or both) Bushes (I'm not sure), and Clinton. That has nothing to do with communism. That's taking the thread off-topic.
I bet most of the protesters don't really know much about fiscal, taxation, and regulatory policy, so they're not advocating communism, just a remedy to the situation so the country can get back on track. Don't put words in their mouths.
I guess we should take a poll to find out if everyone is greedy and self-absorbed. I don't believe they are. Have you read Lee Iaccoca's "Where Have All The Leaders Gone?" Now there's one guy who, in spite of being a wealthy corporate type, is not greedy and self-absorbed. A Republican all for raising taxes on the rich. The book is very informative, and hilarious--very entertaining.
snymorn, you're reminding me a little of our member, Chiisai, who sees life very bleakly. It can't be that bad, can it? Maybe you should try looking out a window, instead of looking in the mirror.
I don't think anyone is talking about Communism, and nobody who understands the meaning of the word (which is nobody I've met who is a Republican or a teabagger) is talking about socialism. They're talking about the fact - and it is a fact - that the status quo isn't working, and the rate at which its dysfunction is growing is exponential. The status quo is an ever-steepening spiral into an abyss we've never experienced before in the history of our country.
Does anyone have *the* answer? Not remotely. But regardless of that, what we have now simply isn't working. Is it better to leave it alone and watch ourselves flushed down the toilet, or do *something* and see if it works? I'd go with the latter over the former. "They" aren't any smarter than you or me. "They" don't have the answer. And "they" are the problem.
How/why did communism enter the discussion? All that needs to be done is to restore the regulations for the banks and other financial institutions that FDR enacted. Those were rolled back by Reagan, one (or both) Bushes (I'm not sure), and Clinton. That has nothing to do with communism. That's taking the thread off-topic.
I bet most of the protesters don't really know much about fiscal, taxation, and regulatory policy, so they're not advocating communism, just a remedy to the situation so the country can get back on track. Don't put words in their mouths.
...
snymorn, you're reminding me a little of our member, Chiisai, who sees life very bleakly. It can't be that bad, can it? Maybe you should try looking out a window, instead of looking in the mirror.
I quite agree.
And I particularly tire of the anti-FDR tirades of the radical right. When they begin down that road, it become clear that they don't believe in democracy. Who was it that was resoundingly elected by American citizens four times? Apparently Americans overwhelmingly favored the Democratic answer to the problems of the Great Depression...probably because the Republicans had no answer at the time. I don't begrudge Ronald Reagan's presidency. He was who the citizenry democratically elected at that time.
And I agree also that everything that isn't dripping with conservative philosophy is communism, or even socialism. But what if Americans did vote for socialism? Would the Republicans turn their backs on democracy? Is democracy only good when they have their way?
Now I don't believe that booing a gay soldier or cheering on death penalty cases means that all Republicans are not compassionate. But I am slowly coming to the conclusion that the Republican party (and I used to be a Republican) is mean spirited. Republicans have turned their backs on their own party' heritage. Lincoln, Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and the first George Bush -- none of them could be nominated for the presidency in today's Republican party...not to mention any of the founding fathers.
You haven't heard the original organizers called " neo- communists?"
When we speak of redistributing the wealth, as many in this movement do, what would you call them? If you insist that you are owed someone's ( insert evil rich here) money because your labor earned it for the rich guy, what is that? If you believe food , shelter , and health care are human rights, what is that?
FDR , as good a dude as he was, did not live to see globalization. When he spoke we (USA) had NO competition. Today is a very different world. I AGREE with many of the complaints issued by the occupier folks, I just do not see a practical solution. Obama has tried , much like the new deal, poring money into public works but he is using credit like it was real money. FDR was playing on a much smaller field.
Whether or not I am a pessimist is really irrelevant and has taken the status of name calling... you bunch of cock-eyed optimists.
When we speak of redistributing the wealth, as many in this movement do, what would you call them? Obama has tried , much like the new deal, poring money into public works but he is using credit like it was real money. FDR was playing on a much smaller field.
"Redistributing wealth"? So the tax structure that the US had, between the New Deal and the Reagan administration, you would call "communism"? The liberal proposal isn't even about returning to those tax rates, but about closing loopholes, and instituting a faint resemblance to the tax structure of the middle decades of the last century. That was the era of improvements in infrastructure, exponential growth of the middle class, abundant social services for those who needed them, quality universities, and other hallmarks of a prosperous society. Communism should have it so good.
Whose fault is it that Obama has had to run the country on debt? Who started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that we couldn't afford? Who instituted tax cuts for the rich that the country couldn't afford? ("Thanks, but I don't need the extra money", says the tells-it-like-it-is Iaccocca.) Yes, FDR began with a debt-free budget. He was also a real leader who could get things done, convince a reluctant Congress, use the "bully pulpit" when necessary. They accused him of communism, too.
People who label an equitable tax structure "communism" don't know what communism is.
@Dakini...absolutely. The same people who talk about what the Founding Fathers wanted...totally unaware that the founding fathers had widely varying opinions about virtually every topic you could think of. But these catch phrases, uttered repeatedly over the years makes them believe those catch phrases...end result, Sarah Palin types.
When we speak of redistributing the wealth, as many in this movement do, what would you call them? Obama has tried , much like the new deal, poring money into public works but he is using credit like it was real money. FDR was playing on a much smaller field.
"Redistributing wealth"? So the tax structure that the US had, between the New Deal and the Reagan administration, you would call "communism"? The liberal proposal isn't even about returning to those tax rates, but about closing loopholes, and instituting a faint resemblance to the tax structure of the middle decades of the last century. That was the era of improvements in infrastructure, exponential growth of the middle class, abundant social services for those who needed them, quality universities, and other hallmarks of a prosperous society. Communism should have it so good.
Whose fault is it that Obama has had to run the country on debt? Who started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that we couldn't afford? Who instituted tax cuts for the rich that the country couldn't afford? ("Thanks, but I don't need the extra money", says the tells-it-like-it-is Iaccocca.) Yes, FDR began with a debt-free budget. He was also a real leader who could get things done, convince a reluctant Congress, use the "bully pulpit" when necessary. They accused him of communism, too.
People who label an equitable tax structure "communism" don't know what communism is.
I do not argue that there is a lot of good suggestions and ideas in this movement. I say that the core is subversive and dangerous. I say that the "fix it " notions like loop hole closing while good on the surface will not produce the income needed to change our employment picture. When people figure this out they will get angry and , as many in this bunch already believe, decide to advocate confiscating businesses a la Venezuela. Obama is so far over his head , as are the democrats , and until we all realize how different the world is today from that of 70 years ago (FDR), we will not be able to figure a way out. We need smart people and new industries here in the USA to turn this thing around. Let's not think spending money on massive public works projects is a solution: it is a band aid, just like the feel good sloganeering of the "neo-coms" (yes , this label is coming). Speaking of Obama, why are we in more conflicts now than when he took office? He knew , I assume, our problems with money. Why is he so reckless? Where will he meddle next? By the way, any rich person (Iacocca, Walton,Gates, et al) can simply give the money back. Why must they wait for tax laws? This sort of logic does not ring true for me .
And now for my optimistic moment: I believe we are on the verge of a new era in this country, partially impelled by these "occupiers" which will bring new prosperity. I do believe this though from where specifically I am not sure. I know there are people tinkering in their garages ( yes, probably some of them just want to be rich) right now who will bring forth ideas which will be the start of our American Renaissance. Let's help our neighbors for now but do not destroy what makes us great. I will not buy you a house or get you an apartment because you are poor (small babies and idiots excepted). @vinlyn: same to you but more of it
You haven't heard the original organizers called " neo- communists?"
Not ever, even once, in any context. Where did you? I'm guessing it was Fox "News".
If you believe food , shelter , and health care are human rights, what is that?
compassion [kuhm-pash-uhn]
noun
1. a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering.
FDR , as good a dude as he was, did not live to see globalization. When he spoke we (USA) had NO competition. Today is a very different world.
I'm not really sure exactly how in your mind globalization (whose merits we could discuss in an entirely different thread) impacts the fact that things are spiraling down the drain here. Does that mean we should just let the status quo be? The fact that globalized corporations (which existed in the 1930s, btw) are making insane, obscene levels of profit on the backs of people who are getting poorer by the minute... that doesn't bother you in the least?
I AGREE with many of the complaints issued by the occupier folks, I just do not see a practical solution. Obama has tried , much like the new deal, poring money into public works but he is using credit like it was real money. FDR was playing on a much smaller field.
You need to do some more reading. The British Empire made it through most of the 20th Century with a national debt at or above 100% of GDP. "Debt" is not synonymous with "bad" if you know anything about economics. It's *far* too complicated to get into here, but I maintain that had we (not Obama) not passed the stimulus when we did, we would all be in *FAR* worse shape right now than we are. The right assumes that all public spending is bad as a matter of principle, but economists and social scientists to a person will disagree with them (except the ones employed by the Heritage Foundation, but they don't believe in global climate change or evolution either).
Whether or not I am a pessimist is really irrelevant and has taken the status of name calling... you bunch of cock-eyed optimists. :nyah:
Well that's very helpful to the discussion. Do you see that this kind of attitude is the problem with political discourse in America? Nobody is calling anybody names (except you). It's called "discussion". As soon as someone disagrees with you, you circle the wagons and start making accusations. That's not discussion.
Comments
The sad thing is this is a third-world charity doing work in the one developed nation that is far behind the times.
The charity is from the USA . To say it is " a third World Charity ", is misleading ( I did not say incorrect).
Again, I do not have a problem with universal health care and the system will probably look much like this clip shows: warehouse medical. It will be impossible to provide all people with the same level of care that we enjoy today however.
Nurses and nurse practitioners will handle much of the basic care .
With 300 million people, this will be an interesting time in the health care field. The term " basic care" will be redefined.
What is in this video (this organisation that normally goes to Africa!!!) is damage control. I see this all the time in the ER where I work: people come in for ailments that could have been prevented had they seen a GP. But since they can't, the medical condition festers until they have no choice but to run to the ER and we're left to fix the immediate problem arising from a much deeper issue. And so the problem is temporarily fixed until they come back again with the same problem. And these people can't pay. That's why several ERs across the country have shut down-- they can no longer maintain themselves under these conditions.
This is not "basic care." This is just very ineffective damage control. Which is why the healthcare dollars spent in the US relative to the GDP is so much bloody higher than any other developed nation.
Graph here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%_GDP.png/800px-International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%_GDP.png
Ironically, the US could have the most awesome healthcare system in the world. In terms of medical technology and experienced and knowledgable doctors and specialists, we've got it! The problem is, unless you're one of the beautiful people, you won't get to see any of those doctors.
Who in the USA isn't provided basic needs? Look around your town or any big city. There aren't enough shelters for all the homeless. Have you changed your position now, are you in favor of compassion for the homeless? :crazy: Sorry, maybe I missed something, but it looks like you're still opposed to free handouts.
Dakini
Shelter for me is four walls with door and window and access to plumbing and electric. I am opposed to providing this universally .
I am opposed because I believe you will destroy an able bodied ( not those truly in need) person's dignity if you give him ALL he needs to live .
Moreover, you create generational poverty not only financially but spiritually as people have no reason to do anything but lounge about their humble, government provided, abodes.
Productivity numbers in communist countries contradict your belief. Cynicism is in the eye of the beholder.
As a 2009 article in Businessweek points out, the current level of low productivity in Russia is caused by a myriad of factors such as outdated equipment, poor work organization, low levels of IT and automation, and bloated middle management (note that 'lack of desire to work on the part of the Russian people' isn't on list).
Moreover, after the 1917 Revolution and subsequent civil war, when Russia was arguably 'communist' in some sense, its productivity skyrocketed, propelling it from a mostly agrarian nation to an industrial and military powerhouse to rival any in the West despite resource and technological constraints.
And there's China, which isn't really communist either, but that argument aside, its productivity has more or less been continually on the rise since the 1949 revolution despite it being industrially backwards compared to the West; and as a 1997 article by the IMF points out, worker efficiency was the main driving force behind China's economic boom.
In fact, as the article notes, "During 1979-94 productivity gains accounted for more than 42 percent of China's growth and by the early 1990s had overtaken capital as the most significant source of that growth." In other words, almost half of China's growth between 1979-1994 was due to increases in worker productivity alone.
Of course, much of the growth in China during this period is attributed by the article to economic reforms and profit incentives offered to rural collectives; but it also suggests that it was due in large part to an economic shift from "traditional agriculture into higher-value-added manufacturing." Approximately 4/5 of the population worked in agriculture until 1994, when only 1/2 did (which is still a lot), meaning that China had a predominately agrarian economy for most of the last century.
All things considered, China's constant rate of growth over the past few decades has been impressive; and even though its numbers are low when compared to ours, its like comparing economic apples and oranges considering the fact that, like Russia, they had a much later industrial revolution than we did (1950s for China compared to mid-to-late 1800s for us).
Personally, I'd argue that none of what Russia and China have achieved in terms of industrialization and increased productivity would have been possible if the fledgling working-class in Russia and China were unwilling to work due to 'handouts,' when they were much more 'communist' than they are now, especially in such a relatively short amount of time.
As for Cuba, I'm convinced that, besides the oppressiveness of the Castro regime, a huge part of the reason for its low level of productivity is the 50 year embargo by the US, which has helped cut Cuba off from much of the industrialized world, not the laziness of the Cuban people.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, however.
Has our embargo on Cuba cut them off from world markets? No, Russian subsidies ( now dead like the dead geo-political reasons for the subsidies) drained any possible reason or incentive to create and left these poor hapless people tinkering with their 1950 Chevrolets. Yes Castro is a monster, but monsters are the glue that hold the communist system together. Chavez is next in this ascendency.
Again, I want all to eat and there is no reason , mainly due to the West's productivity, that we cannot feed everyone. Universal health care, as an idea, but not an actuality, will carry the day without a protest from me. Line up and get your aspirin, but forget your hip replacement. I believe completing the triumvirate : shelter ,is a line not to be crossed or we will begin to need a guy like Chavez to hold us together , telling us how good and noble is our effort as we produce less and less- like Venezuela.
China is turning on and off the capitalist spigot with great success. They know what competition does for MAN. They know that , practically speaking, competition and incentive ($) hike productivity and creates goods which would never be produced under their failed system. Figures for productivity in this large prison are measured from little to more than little: if we start with productivity which is negligible, any increase is a big percentage. (And ,as you noted, can be attributed to cash incentives not a spirit of brotherhood and caring fostered by the communist ideal)
Russia is a mess, filed with corrupt ex party members on the take. By the way, what exactly do you think " bloated middle management" means if not unproductive lay- abouts unwilling to earn their meager share of the deflating pie.
And in my eyes, you're very cynical...
Also, the US imports a lot of things, too. That doesn't mean we're lazy any more than it means they are. It might be cheaper to import certain commodities than it is to produce them. Or they might just prefer them.
Not completely, no. Nevertheless, it's an economic, commercial and financial embargo that, according a report by CBS News, "has caused the island over $93 billion in direct economic damage from its inception until the end of 2007." Combined that with the oppressiveness of the Castro regime along with all the indirect economic damage from the embargo, and it's no wonder the Cuban people are suffering.
Which brings up another point. I think you're confusing predominately authoritarian and militaristic political systems with an economic system characterized by collectively owned and democratically controlled production based on need rather than profit. The two aren't synonymous. It can just as easily be argued that the people want to work and be productive, but don't have the means or freedom to do so.
So hungry people should be able to eat, but they shouldn't have somewhere to sleep at night or use the restroom because that will make them totally unproductive? I call shenanigans. I think you should take another look at China's numbers and compare them to other nations, historically speaking, if you think its rapid industrialization and increases in productivity are 'little.' They're actually pretty impressive. Nobody's claiming that Russia is the greatest place on Earth; but again, just because Russia has a lot of corruption in its political system doesn't mean that the Russian people have no desire to work, especially the average Russians who do work exceptionally hard despite having guaranteed shelter (and that goes double for after the 1917 Revolution, when its productivity skyrocketed, propelling it from a mostly agrarian nation to an industrial and military powerhouse to rival any in the West despite resource and technological constraints).
Basically, I think there are a number of possible reasons for low productivity in any given county, especially ones that have had relatively recent industrial revolutions and other socio-economic setbacks; and I just feel that assuming its all due to people's lack of desire to work, without more evidence to support this, is a bit much.
Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, workers had no understanding that Westerners spend most of their paycheck on necessities, unless they're highly paid professionals. And highly trained professionals in the SU got paid pretty much the same as low-skilled labor, which many resented. Their reward was their status as academics, Party officials, and so on. People didn't feel fairly compensated, so they rebelled by slacking off.
Furthermore, laborers, like construction workers, were paid by the job. So if they could complete the job in a fraction of the allotted time, they were allowed to take the rest of the time off, meaning--they were required to show up at the workplace but they didn't have to work, because they'd completed the assignment or the quota.
This kind of thing destroyed any work ethic there ever may have been.
Whether it will evolve into something concrete and fruitful is anyone's guess.
BTW, has anyone noticed that the US is the only country with a significant percentage of retired people who can't afford to live in the US? You don't see Germans, French, Canadians and Scandinavians moving to 3rd World countries in order to be able to survive off meager pensions/social security.
Shall I go on? And you can't figure out what they're protesting? You need to have a really long, hard, deep look at your level of compassion if you can't.
So, vinlyn, it sounds like the Europeans are retiring to Thailand not due to pension issues, but for other reasons.
But something more, too, at least in my view. For this kind of activity, there's usually some specific trigger, and I think that was and is the inability of our politicians to put political squabbling aside and make our government actually work. If I had done my job the way the Congressmen and Senators are, I would have gotten fired!
Well, some of the expats in Thailand are there for financial reasons, but I would say more it's the other factors. The sad thing is that when some of them get themselves into problems, they can't scrape together the funds to even buy a ticket back home.
FDR saved this country from a rapid descent into anarchy. He wasn't perfect by any means, but without him there wouldn't be a United States of America today. Of that I'm firmly convinced.
I do not lack compassion for their plight; but I do not want to see communist values supplant our capitalist system.
I do not believe communism is a viable system.
I do believe many of these protesters would like to see such a system ( they will call it socialism ) instituted.
I fear for my country.
If MOST people are greedy and self absorbed ( including most of these occupiers) then neither socialism nor communism will work.
In my opinion ( and I believe it is a compassionate one) capitalism is the only viable system, and to completely undermine it is to threaten millions in the USA with true poverty ( third world stuff) .
By the way, if it should come to it, I'll take my free food, shelter, and healthcare on Kauai, please.
I bet most of the protesters don't really know much about fiscal, taxation, and regulatory policy, so they're not advocating communism, just a remedy to the situation so the country can get back on track. Don't put words in their mouths.
I guess we should take a poll to find out if everyone is greedy and self-absorbed. I don't believe they are. Have you read Lee Iaccoca's "Where Have All The Leaders Gone?" Now there's one guy who, in spite of being a wealthy corporate type, is not greedy and self-absorbed. A Republican all for raising taxes on the rich. The book is very informative, and hilarious--very entertaining.
snymorn, you're reminding me a little of our member, Chiisai, who sees life very bleakly. It can't be that bad, can it? Maybe you should try looking out a window, instead of looking in the mirror.
Does anyone have *the* answer? Not remotely. But regardless of that, what we have now simply isn't working. Is it better to leave it alone and watch ourselves flushed down the toilet, or do *something* and see if it works? I'd go with the latter over the former. "They" aren't any smarter than you or me. "They" don't have the answer. And "they" are the problem.
And I particularly tire of the anti-FDR tirades of the radical right. When they begin down that road, it become clear that they don't believe in democracy. Who was it that was resoundingly elected by American citizens four times? Apparently Americans overwhelmingly favored the Democratic answer to the problems of the Great Depression...probably because the Republicans had no answer at the time. I don't begrudge Ronald Reagan's presidency. He was who the citizenry democratically elected at that time.
And I agree also that everything that isn't dripping with conservative philosophy is communism, or even socialism. But what if Americans did vote for socialism? Would the Republicans turn their backs on democracy? Is democracy only good when they have their way?
Now I don't believe that booing a gay soldier or cheering on death penalty cases means that all Republicans are not compassionate. But I am slowly coming to the conclusion that the Republican party (and I used to be a Republican) is mean spirited. Republicans have turned their backs on their own party' heritage. Lincoln, Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and the first George Bush -- none of them could be nominated for the presidency in today's Republican party...not to mention any of the founding fathers.
Boy, they sure don't make Presidents the way they used to, do they?
When we speak of redistributing the wealth, as many in this movement do, what would you call them?
If you insist that you are owed someone's ( insert evil rich here) money because your labor earned it for the rich guy, what is that?
If you believe food , shelter , and health care are human rights, what is that?
FDR , as good a dude as he was, did not live to see globalization. When he spoke we (USA) had NO competition. Today is a very different world.
I AGREE with many of the complaints issued by the occupier folks, I just do not see a practical solution. Obama has tried , much like the new deal, poring money into public works but he is using credit like it was real money. FDR was playing on a much smaller field.
Whether or not I am a pessimist is really irrelevant and has taken the status of name calling... you bunch of cock-eyed optimists.
:nyah:
Whose fault is it that Obama has had to run the country on debt? Who started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that we couldn't afford? Who instituted tax cuts for the rich that the country couldn't afford? ("Thanks, but I don't need the extra money", says the tells-it-like-it-is Iaccocca.) Yes, FDR began with a debt-free budget. He was also a real leader who could get things done, convince a reluctant Congress, use the "bully pulpit" when necessary. They accused him of communism, too.
People who label an equitable tax structure "communism" don't know what communism is.
Speaking of Obama, why are we in more conflicts now than when he took office? He knew , I assume, our problems with money. Why is he so reckless? Where will he meddle next?
By the way, any rich person (Iacocca, Walton,Gates, et al) can simply give the money back. Why must they wait for tax laws? This sort of logic does not ring true for me .
And now for my optimistic moment: I believe we are on the verge of a new era in this country, partially impelled by these "occupiers" which will bring new prosperity. I do believe this though from where specifically I am not sure. I know there are people tinkering in their garages ( yes, probably some of them just want to be rich) right now who will bring forth ideas which will be the start of our American Renaissance. Let's help our neighbors for now but do not destroy what makes us great. I will not buy you a house or get you an apartment because you are poor (small babies and idiots excepted).
@vinlyn: same to you but more of it
noun
1.
a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering. I'm not really sure exactly how in your mind globalization (whose merits we could discuss in an entirely different thread) impacts the fact that things are spiraling down the drain here. Does that mean we should just let the status quo be? The fact that globalized corporations (which existed in the 1930s, btw) are making insane, obscene levels of profit on the backs of people who are getting poorer by the minute... that doesn't bother you in the least? You need to do some more reading. The British Empire made it through most of the 20th Century with a national debt at or above 100% of GDP. "Debt" is not synonymous with "bad" if you know anything about economics. It's *far* too complicated to get into here, but I maintain that had we (not Obama) not passed the stimulus when we did, we would all be in *FAR* worse shape right now than we are. The right assumes that all public spending is bad as a matter of principle, but economists and social scientists to a person will disagree with them (except the ones employed by the Heritage Foundation, but they don't believe in global climate change or evolution either). Well that's very helpful to the discussion. Do you see that this kind of attitude is the problem with political discourse in America? Nobody is calling anybody names (except you). It's called "discussion". As soon as someone disagrees with you, you circle the wagons and start making accusations. That's not discussion.