| [Ellieke] Tuesday, May 19, 2009 11:50:34 AM | |
|
That's heavy !!! here in Belgium we can't smoke inside any public place or restaurant and they want to forbid it in a cafe aswell but that law isn't aproved yet. We do pay a lot of taxes on smokes but aparently it doesn't stop people from smoking. We can't buy smokes under the age of 18, but if somebody else buys them and you smoke them nobody will panic.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:14:37 AM)| |  | Head banger wrote: | | if you dont pay those taxes, the costs go down and they dont need those taxes. dunno about there, but here they dont keep up to the cost. mind you there is a lag, but not much can be done about the lag time.
here is a good one for you, its against the law to smoke with a minor in the car. so a 19 year old is driving with 2 17 year old friends. 19 year old sparks up a cig, gets pulled over. while he is getting a ticket, the 17 year olds both get out of the car and light a smoke. ticket still stands, but they can legaly smoke.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Now this is new. I was refering to the tax we pay as a part of the price of cigarettes. Paying separately seems just outrageous.
And the "per household" logic is just perverse. So, a family of five with just one smoker would pay the same as 2 or 3 smokers living together? And nicotine patches... Never been a fan of those, but if they really want to reduce smoking, they should make them easily accesible.
Then again, its the fundamental hypocrisy of the state (every state). On one hand, they accept laws to limit smoking, raise age limits and prices to limit acces to tobbacco. On the other hand, they realise full well that if we all suddenly quit, they lose an important source of tax income.
| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | Interesting convo as I just the other day got a letter from my insurance company saying that they would now slap all "tobacco users" with a $50 PER MONTH (per household) surcharge. Wow. As strat said, they are already hit BIG TIME in taxes.
I was thinking to myself....so smokers should move in with other smokers although I am not sure that simply "moving in" constitutes a "household" in the eyes of the insurance companies. They are planning to now cover patches, gum and such as perscription. Hmmm...interesting. Create either a group poor smokers or, most likely, a larger group of nicotine patch addicts! I wonder how Big Brother is going to catch them all?
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:43:07 PM |
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Tuesday, May 19, 2009 11:43:03 AM | |
|
Well, I can buy cigarettes or not. If I buy them, I pay the tax as a part of the price. And what do you mean with "keeping up with the cost"?
As for the thing with minors and cars and smoking... Every age limit is by itself discriminatory. That example just goes to show that, and it shows an example of a really stupid law.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:14:37 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | if you dont pay those taxes, the costs go down and they dont need those taxes. dunno about there, but here they dont keep up to the cost. mind you there is a lag, but not much can be done about the lag time.
here is a good one for you, its against the law to smoke with a minor in the car. so a 19 year old is driving with 2 17 year old friends. 19 year old sparks up a cig, gets pulled over. while he is getting a ticket, the 17 year olds both get out of the car and light a smoke. ticket still stands, but they can legaly smoke.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Now this is new. I was refering to the tax we pay as a part of the price of cigarettes. Paying separately seems just outrageous.
And the "per household" logic is just perverse. So, a family of five with just one smoker would pay the same as 2 or 3 smokers living together? And nicotine patches... Never been a fan of those, but if they really want to reduce smoking, they should make them easily accesible.
Then again, its the fundamental hypocrisy of the state (every state). On one hand, they accept laws to limit smoking, raise age limits and prices to limit acces to tobbacco. On the other hand, they realise full well that if we all suddenly quit, they lose an important source of tax income.
| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | Interesting convo as I just the other day got a letter from my insurance company saying that they would now slap all "tobacco users" with a $50 PER MONTH (per household) surcharge. Wow. As strat said, they are already hit BIG TIME in taxes.
I was thinking to myself....so smokers should move in with other smokers although I am not sure that simply "moving in" constitutes a "household" in the eyes of the insurance companies. They are planning to now cover patches, gum and such as perscription. Hmmm...interesting. Create either a group poor smokers or, most likely, a larger group of nicotine patch addicts! I wonder how Big Brother is going to catch them all?
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:43:07 PM |
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:14:55 AM | |
|
hard work is not cool
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by BLOOD SUCKER Esquire from Tuesday, May 19, 2009 12:58:23 AM)| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | | I believe that at one time in my grandfathers' and fathers' generation, that the social safety net was set in put in place to act as just that. A safety net. It was like an insurance policy, and available for emergencies. Nowadays it seems that each and every social safety net is exploited for the convenience of it's very nature. To pay for people to make one baby after another. To sap the child-care fund unfairly. And yes, it is not the governemnts position to invest in your children. If you cannot afford 2 or 3, then don't make 2 or 3. Stop at 1. And lastly, to take the lazy slouches that live at home while they could be out working. Instead, take that financial cushion, and either retrain those who've lost their jobs. Or, invest in sending that person across the country where work may be available. If you want work, then work can be found. It matters not it is a step down. Have some pride and be thankful that you can provide without social welfare dependence. Because that dependant lifestyle can cause a social death long before the physical one becomes a reality. In the end, the socialy safety net is being abused and misused. Why do our governments continue to act powerless regarding these vary matters? It truly was not intended for what it was initially meant for. A helping hand in desperate times. And these are NOT desperate times. There is opportunity everywhere you look around you. But people are unambitious and lazy today. Instant gratification takes away your ambition. Whatever happend to good old fashioned hard work? a. Hammerstein |
|
|
| [Head banger] Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:14:37 AM | |
|
if you dont pay those taxes, the costs go down and they dont need those taxes. dunno about there, but here they dont keep up to the cost. mind you there is a lag, but not much can be done about the lag time.
here is a good one for you, its against the law to smoke with a minor in the car. so a 19 year old is driving with 2 17 year old friends. 19 year old sparks up a cig, gets pulled over. while he is getting a ticket, the 17 year olds both get out of the car and light a smoke. ticket still stands, but they can legaly smoke.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:52:08 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Now this is new. I was refering to the tax we pay as a part of the price of cigarettes. Paying separately seems just outrageous.
And the "per household" logic is just perverse. So, a family of five with just one smoker would pay the same as 2 or 3 smokers living together? And nicotine patches... Never been a fan of those, but if they really want to reduce smoking, they should make them easily accesible.
Then again, its the fundamental hypocrisy of the state (every state). On one hand, they accept laws to limit smoking, raise age limits and prices to limit acces to tobbacco. On the other hand, they realise full well that if we all suddenly quit, they lose an important source of tax income.
| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | Interesting convo as I just the other day got a letter from my insurance company saying that they would now slap all "tobacco users" with a $50 PER MONTH (per household) surcharge. Wow. As strat said, they are already hit BIG TIME in taxes.
I was thinking to myself....so smokers should move in with other smokers although I am not sure that simply "moving in" constitutes a "household" in the eyes of the insurance companies. They are planning to now cover patches, gum and such as perscription. Hmmm...interesting. Create either a group poor smokers or, most likely, a larger group of nicotine patch addicts! I wonder how Big Brother is going to catch them all?
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:43:07 PM |
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:57:59 AM | |
|
No.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, May 18, 2009 7:34:35 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | at least they are now trying to get people help to get off the demon weed. thats some progress, no?
| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | Interesting convo as I just the other day got a letter from my insurance company saying that they would now slap all "tobacco users" with a $50 PER MONTH (per household) surcharge. Wow. As strat said, they are already hit BIG TIME in taxes.
I was thinking to myself....so smokers should move in with other smokers although I am not sure that simply "moving in" constitutes a "household" in the eyes of the insurance companies. They are planning to now cover patches, gum and such as perscription. Hmmm...interesting. Create either a group poor smokers or, most likely, a larger group of nicotine patch addicts! I wonder how Big Brother is going to catch them all?
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:43:07 PM |
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:53:51 AM | |
|
Well, heres what I think... It should all be covered by insurance. Sex change, beauty operations, and the dentist.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, May 18, 2009 9:45:41 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | yep. now apparently its a human rights issue. the realy stupid thing is the govt wants to eliminate funding for new applicants. but the transgender groups say thats discriminatory so the govt has to provide them funding to chalenge the proposed law in court. so we will pay 15 million in court costs and lawyers on both sides to chalenge a law that would save us 900k a year???
costs like you wrote are prohibitive. I dont see issue with a reasonable cost, here it was $44 per month single, $88 family (does not include drugs) that if you made less than 20K single, or 30 K family was waived.
seems like a good idea to have some separate payment rather than straight tax revenue (not a way to take more, just to show that health care costs to reduce people going to ER for a bandaid)
but health care should be a right.
| | | spapad wrote: | | Now that's insanity. You can get a sex change, but not your teeth cleaned? That makes sense, only to transexuals! I have great healthcare as long as I have a job, if I loose my job, I loose my healthcare. I could never afford what it cost's out of pocket. It cost me 200.00 a month just for me! My daughter is covered by her father, if I had to cover us both it would be 250.00 per pay check. Not something I could ever afford. (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, May 18, 2009 7:47:49 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
I agree. the only question is where does the right end and the privilege begin? Here our healthcare covers sex change opperations. is that a right? yet dental care is not covered, so something that everyone needs like teeth cleaning and xrays you pay for.
think how productive a society you could have if all the people were in fit state to work?
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
Oh , and one other thing; WHY is it that some say healthcare is NOT a right??? I mean, what person in their right mind would NOT think that every citizen of a country should be healthy and/or have the right to treatment?? Why on earth would anyone want even one person in the population to be sick or denied care?? Is it money? Seriously? Considering the waste of money that occurs daily one should think that the health of the population would be paramount. Afterall, we spend BILLIONS "protecting" the population with a military! Would it not be counter-productive and a complete WASTE of money to be paying for protection of a sick population?????
My "tax" dollars build better and more effective weapons to kill enemies that would (theoretically) harm our citizens. Doesn't sickness fall under the definition of "harm"????
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
with insurance you pay based on the level of risk you present. But DF has a good point, the state will pay big time to treat a catestrophic failure, but nothing to prevent that. makes no sense. would be cheaper to treat people up front.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Not a blended scenarion. Public healthcare is what I meant all along.
As for stopping yourself from getting sick/injured... If we go that way, where do we draw the line? Not eating candy because you may have to go to the dentist? Not driving because you may have an accident (wheter by your or somebody elses fault)? If we choose that, than the only thing there is for us is to live in very small rooms with only one entrance, and a shotgun aimed at it all the time.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
a blended scenario??? should people not have some responsibility for their health? sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much. (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 9:37:41 PM |
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:52:08 AM | |
|
Now this is new. I was refering to the tax we pay as a part of the price of cigarettes. Paying separately seems just outrageous.
And the "per household" logic is just perverse. So, a family of five with just one smoker would pay the same as 2 or 3 smokers living together? And nicotine patches... Never been a fan of those, but if they really want to reduce smoking, they should make them easily accesible.
Then again, its the fundamental hypocrisy of the state (every state). On one hand, they accept laws to limit smoking, raise age limits and prices to limit acces to tobbacco. On the other hand, they realise full well that if we all suddenly quit, they lose an important source of tax income.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Monday, May 18, 2009 4:42:22 PM)| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | Interesting convo as I just the other day got a letter from my insurance company saying that they would now slap all "tobacco users" with a $50 PER MONTH (per household) surcharge. Wow. As strat said, they are already hit BIG TIME in taxes.
I was thinking to myself....so smokers should move in with other smokers although I am not sure that simply "moving in" constitutes a "household" in the eyes of the insurance companies. They are planning to now cover patches, gum and such as perscription. Hmmm...interesting. Create either a group poor smokers or, most likely, a larger group of nicotine patch addicts! I wonder how Big Brother is going to catch them all?
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:43:07 PM |
|
|
| [_strat_] Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:46:08 AM | |
|
Well, speaking from experience, taking care of your teeth does not neccesarily protect you from trouble. I always took care of my teeth, and I have one root canal and about half a dozen fillings.
In any case, as I said, some prevention can be done. Regular checkups, blood tests, whatever... But, you can still be the most healthy person in the world, and get hurt. You may have a car crash, there can be an earthquake, you can get cancer just from living in a city, and inhaling the exhaust fumes. Like I said, it would be a total mess, and that kind of a system may even cost more than the one we have now. Someone would have to evaluate those risks. A lot of people would have to be employed, and payed to keep the cost dow. A wonderfull paradox.
Now, if you get hurt for doing something really irresponisble, I would agree that you have to pay for at least some treatment yourself. But the guilt has to be clearly established and proven.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, May 18, 2009 7:39:26 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | if you climb mountains you pay more, if you drink, smoke, eat lots of fatty foods.... should people who get traped on a mountain and need a hugely expensive rescue pay for it? now, to track that sort of thing in advance. probably mess is right.
health care can diagnose problems before they become significant, so that treatment is easier. like taking care of your teath rather than geting one infected and needing a root canal, or surgery.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, then it would be a matter of determining your risk level, which may change constantly. Changing jobs, moving, getting married or divorced, having kids... Loads of things would change it. We would end up with a complete mess.
As for prevention, there is only so much that can be done. Sure, you can get shots against diseases. But thats about as much as healthcare can do, I guess. No doctor can prevent your leg from breaking.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | with insurance you pay based on the level of risk you present. But DF has a good point, the state will pay big time to treat a catestrophic failure, but nothing to prevent that. makes no sense. would be cheaper to treat people up front.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not a blended scenarion. Public healthcare is what I meant all along.
As for stopping yourself from getting sick/injured... If we go that way, where do we draw the line? Not eating candy because you may have to go to the dentist? Not driving because you may have an accident (wheter by your or somebody elses fault)? If we choose that, than the only thing there is for us is to live in very small rooms with only one entrance, and a shotgun aimed at it all the time.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | a blended scenario??? should people not have some responsibility for their health? sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much. (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [BLOOD SUCKER Esquire] Tuesday, May 19, 2009 12:58:23 AM | |
|
| I believe that at one time in my grandfathers' and fathers' generation, that the social safety net was set in put in place to act as just that. A safety net. It was like an insurance policy, and available for emergencies. Nowadays it seems that each and every social safety net is exploited for the convenience of it's very nature. To pay for people to make one baby after another. To sap the child-care fund unfairly. And yes, it is not the governemnts position to invest in your children. If you cannot afford 2 or 3, then don't make 2 or 3. Stop at 1. And lastly, to take the lazy slouches that live at home while they could be out working. Instead, take that financial cushion, and either retrain those who've lost their jobs. Or, invest in sending that person across the country where work may be available. If you want work, then work can be found. It matters not it is a step down. Have some pride and be thankful that you can provide without social welfare dependence. Because that dependant lifestyle can cause a social death long before the physical one becomes a reality. In the end, the socialy safety net is being abused and misused. Why do our governments continue to act powerless regarding these vary matters? It truly was not intended for what it was initially meant for. A helping hand in desperate times. And these are NOT desperate times. There is opportunity everywhere you look around you. But people are unambitious and lazy today. Instant gratification takes away your ambition. Whatever happend to good old fashioned hard work? a. Hammerstein |
|
| [spapad] Monday, May 18, 2009 10:03:20 PM | |
|
It's hard for me to see that amount of my pay go to healthcare, but the only reassurance I have is that if I go to the doctor, my copay is 10.00, a specialist is 20.00 and a visit to the ER will only run me 75.00. But So many times things the doctors office called about and the insurance said they would cover turns into a battle royal with the insurance company. They all of a sudden say they didn't codone that! Most of the time it turns out to be that the office has billed under the wrong code, but it's stressfull when you go in for a procedure and find that your insurance does not want to pay for what they said they would pay for! Cost my good friend 600.00 dollars on a breast reduction surgery, that's 600.00 she never expected. [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, May 18, 2009 9:45:41 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
yep. now apparently its a human rights issue. the realy stupid thing is the govt wants to eliminate funding for new applicants. but the transgender groups say thats discriminatory so the govt has to provide them funding to chalenge the proposed law in court. so we will pay 15 million in court costs and lawyers on both sides to chalenge a law that would save us 900k a year???
costs like you wrote are prohibitive. I dont see issue with a reasonable cost, here it was $44 per month single, $88 family (does not include drugs) that if you made less than 20K single, or 30 K family was waived.
seems like a good idea to have some separate payment rather than straight tax revenue (not a way to take more, just to show that health care costs to reduce people going to ER for a bandaid)
but health care should be a right.
| |
|
spapad wrote: |
| |
Now that's insanity. You can get a sex change, but not your teeth cleaned? That makes sense, only to transexuals! I have great healthcare as long as I have a job, if I loose my job, I loose my healthcare. I could never afford what it cost's out of pocket. It cost me 200.00 a month just for me! My daughter is covered by her father, if I had to cover us both it would be 250.00 per pay check. Not something I could ever afford. (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, May 18, 2009 7:47:49 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
I agree. the only question is where does the right end and the privilege begin? Here our healthcare covers sex change opperations. is that a right? yet dental care is not covered, so something that everyone needs like teeth cleaning and xrays you pay for.
think how productive a society you could have if all the people were in fit state to work?
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
Oh , and one other thing; WHY is it that some say healthcare is NOT a right??? I mean, what person in their right mind would NOT think that every citizen of a country should be healthy and/or have the right to treatment?? Why on earth would anyone want even one person in the population to be sick or denied care?? Is it money? Seriously? Considering the waste of money that occurs daily one should think that the health of the population would be paramount. Afterall, we spend BILLIONS "protecting" the population with a military! Would it not be counter-productive and a complete WASTE of money to be paying for protection of a sick population?????
My "tax" dollars build better and more effective weapons to kill enemies that would (theoretically) harm our citizens. Doesn't sickness fall under the definition of "harm"????
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
with insurance you pay based on the level of risk you present. But DF has a good point, the state will pay big time to treat a catestrophic failure, but nothing to prevent that. makes no sense. would be cheaper to treat people up front.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Not a blended scenarion. Public healthcare is what I meant all along.
As for stopping yourself from getting sick/injured... If we go that way, where do we draw the line? Not eating candy because you may have to go to the dentist? Not driving because you may have an accident (wheter by your or somebody elses fault)? If we choose that, than the only thing there is for us is to live in very small rooms with only one entrance, and a shotgun aimed at it all the time.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
a blended scenario??? should people not have some responsibility for their health? sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much. (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 9:37:41 PM |
|
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 10:12:04 PM |
|
| [Head banger] Monday, May 18, 2009 9:45:41 PM | |
|
yep. now apparently its a human rights issue. the realy stupid thing is the govt wants to eliminate funding for new applicants. but the transgender groups say thats discriminatory so the govt has to provide them funding to chalenge the proposed law in court. so we will pay 15 million in court costs and lawyers on both sides to chalenge a law that would save us 900k a year???
costs like you wrote are prohibitive. I dont see issue with a reasonable cost, here it was $44 per month single, $88 family (does not include drugs) that if you made less than 20K single, or 30 K family was waived.
seems like a good idea to have some separate payment rather than straight tax revenue (not a way to take more, just to show that health care costs to reduce people going to ER for a bandaid)
but health care should be a right.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Monday, May 18, 2009 9:31:24 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | Now that's insanity. You can get a sex change, but not your teeth cleaned? That makes sense, only to transexuals! I have great healthcare as long as I have a job, if I loose my job, I loose my healthcare. I could never afford what it cost's out of pocket. It cost me 200.00 a month just for me! My daughter is covered by her father, if I had to cover us both it would be 250.00 per pay check. Not something I could ever afford. (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, May 18, 2009 7:47:49 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
I agree. the only question is where does the right end and the privilege begin? Here our healthcare covers sex change opperations. is that a right? yet dental care is not covered, so something that everyone needs like teeth cleaning and xrays you pay for.
think how productive a society you could have if all the people were in fit state to work?
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
Oh , and one other thing; WHY is it that some say healthcare is NOT a right??? I mean, what person in their right mind would NOT think that every citizen of a country should be healthy and/or have the right to treatment?? Why on earth would anyone want even one person in the population to be sick or denied care?? Is it money? Seriously? Considering the waste of money that occurs daily one should think that the health of the population would be paramount. Afterall, we spend BILLIONS "protecting" the population with a military! Would it not be counter-productive and a complete WASTE of money to be paying for protection of a sick population?????
My "tax" dollars build better and more effective weapons to kill enemies that would (theoretically) harm our citizens. Doesn't sickness fall under the definition of "harm"????
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
with insurance you pay based on the level of risk you present. But DF has a good point, the state will pay big time to treat a catestrophic failure, but nothing to prevent that. makes no sense. would be cheaper to treat people up front.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Not a blended scenarion. Public healthcare is what I meant all along.
As for stopping yourself from getting sick/injured... If we go that way, where do we draw the line? Not eating candy because you may have to go to the dentist? Not driving because you may have an accident (wheter by your or somebody elses fault)? If we choose that, than the only thing there is for us is to live in very small rooms with only one entrance, and a shotgun aimed at it all the time.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
a blended scenario??? should people not have some responsibility for their health? sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much. (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 9:37:41 PM |
|
|
| [spapad] Monday, May 18, 2009 9:31:24 PM | |
|
Now that's insanity. You can get a sex change, but not your teeth cleaned? That makes sense, only to transexuals! I have great healthcare as long as I have a job, if I loose my job, I loose my healthcare. I could never afford what it cost's out of pocket. It cost me 200.00 a month just for me! My daughter is covered by her father, if I had to cover us both it would be 250.00 per pay check. Not something I could ever afford. [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, May 18, 2009 7:47:49 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
I agree. the only question is where does the right end and the privilege begin? Here our healthcare covers sex change opperations. is that a right? yet dental care is not covered, so something that everyone needs like teeth cleaning and xrays you pay for.
think how productive a society you could have if all the people were in fit state to work?
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
Oh , and one other thing; WHY is it that some say healthcare is NOT a right??? I mean, what person in their right mind would NOT think that every citizen of a country should be healthy and/or have the right to treatment?? Why on earth would anyone want even one person in the population to be sick or denied care?? Is it money? Seriously? Considering the waste of money that occurs daily one should think that the health of the population would be paramount. Afterall, we spend BILLIONS "protecting" the population with a military! Would it not be counter-productive and a complete WASTE of money to be paying for protection of a sick population?????
My "tax" dollars build better and more effective weapons to kill enemies that would (theoretically) harm our citizens. Doesn't sickness fall under the definition of "harm"????
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
with insurance you pay based on the level of risk you present. But DF has a good point, the state will pay big time to treat a catestrophic failure, but nothing to prevent that. makes no sense. would be cheaper to treat people up front.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Not a blended scenarion. Public healthcare is what I meant all along.
As for stopping yourself from getting sick/injured... If we go that way, where do we draw the line? Not eating candy because you may have to go to the dentist? Not driving because you may have an accident (wheter by your or somebody elses fault)? If we choose that, than the only thing there is for us is to live in very small rooms with only one entrance, and a shotgun aimed at it all the time.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
a blended scenario??? should people not have some responsibility for their health? sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much. (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 9:37:41 PM |
|
| [Head banger] Monday, May 18, 2009 7:47:49 PM | |
|
I agree. the only question is where does the right end and the privilege begin? Here our healthcare covers sex change opperations. is that a right? yet dental care is not covered, so something that everyone needs like teeth cleaning and xrays you pay for.
think how productive a society you could have if all the people were in fit state to work?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Monday, May 18, 2009 2:50:47 PM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Oh , and one other thing; WHY is it that some say healthcare is NOT a right??? I mean, what person in their right mind would NOT think that every citizen of a country should be healthy and/or have the right to treatment?? Why on earth would anyone want even one person in the population to be sick or denied care?? Is it money? Seriously? Considering the waste of money that occurs daily one should think that the health of the population would be paramount. Afterall, we spend BILLIONS "protecting" the population with a military! Would it not be counter-productive and a complete WASTE of money to be paying for protection of a sick population?????
My "tax" dollars build better and more effective weapons to kill enemies that would (theoretically) harm our citizens. Doesn't sickness fall under the definition of "harm"????
| | | Head banger wrote: | | with insurance you pay based on the level of risk you present. But DF has a good point, the state will pay big time to treat a catestrophic failure, but nothing to prevent that. makes no sense. would be cheaper to treat people up front.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not a blended scenarion. Public healthcare is what I meant all along.
As for stopping yourself from getting sick/injured... If we go that way, where do we draw the line? Not eating candy because you may have to go to the dentist? Not driving because you may have an accident (wheter by your or somebody elses fault)? If we choose that, than the only thing there is for us is to live in very small rooms with only one entrance, and a shotgun aimed at it all the time.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | a blended scenario??? should people not have some responsibility for their health? sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much. (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, May 18, 2009 7:39:26 PM | |
|
if you climb mountains you pay more, if you drink, smoke, eat lots of fatty foods.... should people who get traped on a mountain and need a hugely expensive rescue pay for it? now, to track that sort of thing in advance. probably mess is right.
health care can diagnose problems before they become significant, so that treatment is easier. like taking care of your teath rather than geting one infected and needing a root canal, or surgery.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, May 18, 2009 3:20:40 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, then it would be a matter of determining your risk level, which may change constantly. Changing jobs, moving, getting married or divorced, having kids... Loads of things would change it. We would end up with a complete mess.
As for prevention, there is only so much that can be done. Sure, you can get shots against diseases. But thats about as much as healthcare can do, I guess. No doctor can prevent your leg from breaking.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | with insurance you pay based on the level of risk you present. But DF has a good point, the state will pay big time to treat a catestrophic failure, but nothing to prevent that. makes no sense. would be cheaper to treat people up front.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not a blended scenarion. Public healthcare is what I meant all along.
As for stopping yourself from getting sick/injured... If we go that way, where do we draw the line? Not eating candy because you may have to go to the dentist? Not driving because you may have an accident (wheter by your or somebody elses fault)? If we choose that, than the only thing there is for us is to live in very small rooms with only one entrance, and a shotgun aimed at it all the time.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | a blended scenario??? should people not have some responsibility for their health? sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much. (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, May 18, 2009 7:34:35 PM | |
|
at least they are now trying to get people help to get off the demon weed. thats some progress, no?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Monday, May 18, 2009 4:42:22 PM)| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | Interesting convo as I just the other day got a letter from my insurance company saying that they would now slap all "tobacco users" with a $50 PER MONTH (per household) surcharge. Wow. As strat said, they are already hit BIG TIME in taxes.
I was thinking to myself....so smokers should move in with other smokers although I am not sure that simply "moving in" constitutes a "household" in the eyes of the insurance companies. They are planning to now cover patches, gum and such as perscription. Hmmm...interesting. Create either a group poor smokers or, most likely, a larger group of nicotine patch addicts! I wonder how Big Brother is going to catch them all?
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:43:07 PM |
|
|
| [guidogodoy] Monday, May 18, 2009 4:42:22 PM | |
|
Interesting convo as I just the other day got a letter from my insurance company saying that they would now slap all "tobacco users" with a $50 PER MONTH (per household) surcharge. Wow. As strat said, they are already hit BIG TIME in taxes.
I was thinking to myself....so smokers should move in with other smokers although I am not sure that simply "moving in" constitutes a "household" in the eyes of the insurance companies. They are planning to now cover patches, gum and such as perscription. Hmmm...interesting. Create either a group poor smokers or, most likely, a larger group of nicotine patch addicts! I wonder how Big Brother is going to catch them all?
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:43:07 PM |
|
| [_strat_] Monday, May 18, 2009 3:20:40 PM | |
|
Well, then it would be a matter of determining your risk level, which may change constantly. Changing jobs, moving, getting married or divorced, having kids... Loads of things would change it. We would end up with a complete mess.
As for prevention, there is only so much that can be done. Sure, you can get shots against diseases. But thats about as much as healthcare can do, I guess. No doctor can prevent your leg from breaking.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, May 18, 2009 1:18:40 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | with insurance you pay based on the level of risk you present. But DF has a good point, the state will pay big time to treat a catestrophic failure, but nothing to prevent that. makes no sense. would be cheaper to treat people up front.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not a blended scenarion. Public healthcare is what I meant all along.
As for stopping yourself from getting sick/injured... If we go that way, where do we draw the line? Not eating candy because you may have to go to the dentist? Not driving because you may have an accident (wheter by your or somebody elses fault)? If we choose that, than the only thing there is for us is to live in very small rooms with only one entrance, and a shotgun aimed at it all the time.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | a blended scenario??? should people not have some responsibility for their health? sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much. (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, May 18, 2009 3:17:52 PM | |
|
Absolutely. And if I get a bit broader, why stop at healthcare? Why dont we say that physical protection is not a right, and do away with police and courts? We would end up with a conclusion that anything organised by people is a waste of something, and go to the survival of the fittest. And that would be a waste of a couple of millenias worth of civilisation.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Monday, May 18, 2009 2:50:47 PM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Oh , and one other thing; WHY is it that some say healthcare is NOT a right??? I mean, what person in their right mind would NOT think that every citizen of a country should be healthy and/or have the right to treatment?? Why on earth would anyone want even one person in the population to be sick or denied care?? Is it money? Seriously? Considering the waste of money that occurs daily one should think that the health of the population would be paramount. Afterall, we spend BILLIONS "protecting" the population with a military! Would it not be counter-productive and a complete WASTE of money to be paying for protection of a sick population?????
My "tax" dollars build better and more effective weapons to kill enemies that would (theoretically) harm our citizens. Doesn't sickness fall under the definition of "harm"????
| | | Head banger wrote: | | with insurance you pay based on the level of risk you present. But DF has a good point, the state will pay big time to treat a catestrophic failure, but nothing to prevent that. makes no sense. would be cheaper to treat people up front.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not a blended scenarion. Public healthcare is what I meant all along.
As for stopping yourself from getting sick/injured... If we go that way, where do we draw the line? Not eating candy because you may have to go to the dentist? Not driving because you may have an accident (wheter by your or somebody elses fault)? If we choose that, than the only thing there is for us is to live in very small rooms with only one entrance, and a shotgun aimed at it all the time.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | a blended scenario??? should people not have some responsibility for their health? sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much. (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Monday, May 18, 2009 2:50:47 PM | |
|
Oh , and one other thing; WHY is it that some say healthcare is NOT a right??? I mean, what person in their right mind would NOT think that every citizen of a country should be healthy and/or have the right to treatment?? Why on earth would anyone want even one person in the population to be sick or denied care?? Is it money? Seriously? Considering the waste of money that occurs daily one should think that the health of the population would be paramount. Afterall, we spend BILLIONS "protecting" the population with a military! Would it not be counter-productive and a complete WASTE of money to be paying for protection of a sick population?????
My "tax" dollars build better and more effective weapons to kill enemies that would (theoretically) harm our citizens. Doesn't sickness fall under the definition of "harm"????
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, May 18, 2009 1:18:40 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | with insurance you pay based on the level of risk you present. But DF has a good point, the state will pay big time to treat a catestrophic failure, but nothing to prevent that. makes no sense. would be cheaper to treat people up front.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not a blended scenarion. Public healthcare is what I meant all along.
As for stopping yourself from getting sick/injured... If we go that way, where do we draw the line? Not eating candy because you may have to go to the dentist? Not driving because you may have an accident (wheter by your or somebody elses fault)? If we choose that, than the only thing there is for us is to live in very small rooms with only one entrance, and a shotgun aimed at it all the time.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | a blended scenario??? should people not have some responsibility for their health? sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much. (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, May 18, 2009 1:18:40 PM | |
|
with insurance you pay based on the level of risk you present. But DF has a good point, the state will pay big time to treat a catestrophic failure, but nothing to prevent that. makes no sense. would be cheaper to treat people up front.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, May 18, 2009 11:30:54 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not a blended scenarion. Public healthcare is what I meant all along.
As for stopping yourself from getting sick/injured... If we go that way, where do we draw the line? Not eating candy because you may have to go to the dentist? Not driving because you may have an accident (wheter by your or somebody elses fault)? If we choose that, than the only thing there is for us is to live in very small rooms with only one entrance, and a shotgun aimed at it all the time.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | a blended scenario??? should people not have some responsibility for their health? sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much. (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, May 18, 2009 12:13:07 PM | |
|
Personaly, I think that in this issue, trying not to get hurt is really beside the point. I dont know a single person that hasnt had treatment for something. We always can, and we do get hurt, sick, injured, and when that happens we should have healthcare. It is called insurance for a reason.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Monday, May 18, 2009 11:47:23 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | I am not a huge advocate of social programs, surprisingly enough. A lot of what BS said is how I feel. I think socialized benefits have taken a wrong turn and become this leviathan that is out of control. Having said this, we are living in a country that spends hundreds of thousands a year on researching ways to reduce the smell of pig farms, yet we have people suffering with no health care..UNTIL they are throw in an ambulance and taken to a hospital. THEN, the state picks up the ENTIRE tab!!! Sometimes, this is HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars with NO reimbursement, yet they will not devise a system that provides for minimal preventive care. That simply makes NO sense. The money is being spent anyway! And MORE of it! Just on the back end.
I do not smoke. I do not drink. I drive but, fortunately, I have not had an accident and I have not had a ticket in twenty years. Doesn't mean much when some drunk plows into my car and kills me but, the point is, I try to live a life that is at least somewhat safe and healthy. If I contract some kind of disease, I want to know that I can afford to get treatment. I do not want a stipend every month for my "suffering". I just want to know that I can go get my medications and have a doctor guide me to recovery. It is ludicrous to suggest that such a desire is unfair. |
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Monday, May 18, 2009 11:47:23 AM | |
|
I am not a huge advocate of social programs, surprisingly enough. A lot of what BS said is how I feel. I think socialized benefits have taken a wrong turn and become this leviathan that is out of control. Having said this, we are living in a country that spends hundreds of thousands a year on researching ways to reduce the smell of pig farms, yet we have people suffering with no health care..UNTIL they are throw in an ambulance and taken to a hospital. THEN, the state picks up the ENTIRE tab!!! Sometimes, this is HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars with NO reimbursement, yet they will not devise a system that provides for minimal preventive care. That simply makes NO sense. The money is being spent anyway! And MORE of it! Just on the back end.
I do not smoke. I do not drink. I drive but, fortunately, I have not had an accident and I have not had a ticket in twenty years. Doesn't mean much when some drunk plows into my car and kills me but, the point is, I try to live a life that is at least somewhat safe and healthy. If I contract some kind of disease, I want to know that I can afford to get treatment. I do not want a stipend every month for my "suffering". I just want to know that I can go get my medications and have a doctor guide me to recovery. It is ludicrous to suggest that such a desire is unfair. |
|
| [_strat_] Monday, May 18, 2009 11:34:10 AM | |
|
And there is one thing I just have to comment on... Smokers not having the right to healthcare because of our habbit? We pay taxes since we buy our first pack. I doubt that there is a country in Europe that doesnt have at least a 100% tax on tobbaco. We not only cover the expenses of treating smoking related diseases, we go way beyond that.
So, if I ever get lung cancer, I will expect a full, public treatment, the best that money can buy. |
|
| [_strat_] Monday, May 18, 2009 11:30:54 AM | |
|
Not a blended scenarion. Public healthcare is what I meant all along.
As for stopping yourself from getting sick/injured... If we go that way, where do we draw the line? Not eating candy because you may have to go to the dentist? Not driving because you may have an accident (wheter by your or somebody elses fault)? If we choose that, than the only thing there is for us is to live in very small rooms with only one entrance, and a shotgun aimed at it all the time.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, May 18, 2009 11:23:00 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | a blended scenario??? should people not have some responsibility for their health? sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much. (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, May 18, 2009 11:23:00 AM | |
|
a blended scenario??? should people not have some responsibility for their health? sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much. (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, May 18, 2009 11:04:28 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, May 18, 2009 11:04:28 AM | |
|
Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, May 18, 2009 9:43:57 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, May 18, 2009 11:02:27 AM | |
|
And of course, tax payers and patients are not the same people at all... Right?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by BLOOD SUCKER Esquire from Monday, May 18, 2009 10:52:53 AM)| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | | Health care is not a right. It is not given to anyone as a sense of entitlement. Certainly not anymore than leading a healthy lifestyle. If you practice good health, then you should be justly rewarded or subsidized in some regards for that decision. If not, then treating your ailment with taxpayers dollars should be questioned. Smokers, drinkers, substance abusers, those who do not practice safe sex, those who do not wear helmets while cycling or riding a motor scooter. These are all choices we make. And if those choices are somehow compromised by our poor judgement and poor decision making, should it be my moral oblgation and responsibility to allow my hard payed tax dollars to treat your misfortune? a. Hammerstein |
|
|
| [BLOOD SUCKER Esquire] Monday, May 18, 2009 10:52:53 AM | |
|
| Health care is not a right. It is not given to anyone as a sense of entitlement. Certainly not anymore than leading a healthy lifestyle. If you practice good health, then you should be justly rewarded or subsidized in some regards for that decision. If not, then treating your ailment with taxpayers dollars should be questioned. Smokers, drinkers, substance abusers, those who do not practice safe sex, those who do not wear helmets while cycling or riding a motor scooter. These are all choices we make. And if those choices are somehow compromised by our poor judgement and poor decision making, should it be my moral oblgation and responsibility to allow my hard payed tax dollars to treat your misfortune? a. Hammerstein |
|
| [Head banger] Monday, May 18, 2009 9:43:57 AM | |
|
personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
| [Deep Freeze] Monday, May 18, 2009 7:39:41 AM | |
|
Ah! At last! A subject with which I have personal experience and can speak from there safely!!!
Most of you are aware of my situation and the events that led up to my current condition. I have not really hidden it as I have nothing to be ashamed of, given that I truly did NOT want to stop working! I loved my job and I miss it very much to this very day. Having said this, I know first hand that the United States has a dismal healthcare system. Dismal. We have some of, if not THE best, doctors in the world but our system is horrible. I have TWO examples!!....
I worked for twenty years in the same industry. Most of that time I was with the same company. I paid tens of thousands of dollars PLUS into a system (matched by my employer) that was (allegedly) designed to "protect" me in the event of a medical disaster. As many of you remember, when that day actually came, I was put through a living hell. Nearly three years of mistreatment, denials, legal fights and whatnot...all to get the benefits for which I had paid my whole working life.
Had it not been for GREAT insurance and a good pension, I would have been destitue. And NO ONE would have given two shakes about me. Now, the Princess suffers from a debilitating, hereditary blood disease. She cannot work. She is barely able to function in a capacity that would be considered "normal" on many days. She has applied for help with medical treatments and been denied. Over and over. We are not able to insure her privately because of her disease, even though she needs minimal treatments (phlebotomies, blood checks, medication). NO insurance company will cover her at ANY price and the government says she is not poor enough! I cannot work so she cannot get coverage from me. Long story short, she suffers and we slowly go broke pulling money from savings to pay for her REQUIRED treatments. If we do not, she dies. Period.
We live in the richest country on earth. I love this country and you all know that. I am heartbroken when we get the letters of denial because she gets SO hopeful that someone will help her and we continue to be told, NO. Yet, they approved her son on the first request and he HAS insurance through her ex-husband (his dad).!!! How can this country turn its back on the citizens that need it so desperately?? She is not asking for a monthly check!!! She is only asking that they help her get the treatments she MUST have.
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 7:40:57 AM |
|
| [ron h] Monday, May 18, 2009 5:06:39 AM | |
|
Unfortunately, we are at the present time (and have for many years now) been paying the price for abuses by the previous generation(s), before welfare reform...I remember in the 70's up to the mid 80's, welfare abuse was rampant...the more kids a single mom had the more cash and food stamps you got, no limits!!!...A typical scenario would have a mother claiming welfare for 'X' amount of kids and don't know where the father is (he was usually living with her and holding down a job, but not in all cases) and they would have yet more kids...ppl on welfare would be living better than ppl who were actually working and paying their bills...there was no looking for the father or home inspections...reform has done a lot to change all that, some States require the welfare recipient to attend schooling/training to become self supporting, some States have a 'cap' for the length of time you can receive benefits and when that time expires you're on your own...when training is involved, the State will pay for the training, but you have to go...there are loopholes still, and some deserving ppl do fall through the cracks, as nothing is foolproof...but we have come a long way...have a good one, must go to work as I don't get welfare...lol!!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, May 18, 2009 4:53:33 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, I absolutely think that the office that does welfare should investigate, and try as best as it can to prevent abuses. I guess that it will never be 100% abuse-proof, but I certainly dont think that just because some people abuse it, that those that really need it should be left without it.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning strat...I do have to chime in on this part of the conversation...when someone applies for Gov. aid, assuming the laws and regulations are relatively the same, the office that one applies to has to investigate the claimants claims of poverty (or whatever)...considering spapad was technically still married, they probably saw fit that her husband should be obligated to cover her medical...all offices are like that, they'll take care of (partially or in whole) if there is no other obligated party to do so...but that doesn't apply to everyone...women, infants and children take priority, it is very. very rare that a male is able to collect any kind of Gov. aid unless they are disabled or are single, jobless parents, and even then they have to sign a document allowing them to garnish wages at a later date when they are back on their feet, but not women (at least in Indiana)...and if a woman with child(ren) is on Gov, aid, they get the SSN of the father and track him down and garnish his wages to help recover their costs...in no way or at any time can someone just walk into an office and walk out with benefits that day unless it is an emergency and you can prove it...usually you get to the interview stage and you're handed a piece of paper that requests a boat load of information, most of which you don't have with you, then another appointment once you've gathered all the info, then an investigation (yes, they will come to your home and inspect!!)...it's quite a lengthy process...our hospitals are only legally bound to stop the bleeding (life saving measures) otherwise, you are on your own...this is how welfare/Gov. aid works here (in general)...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, first of all, I wont get personal here, not in this thread, where tensions are high enough as it is.
The only thing I will say is that, even in these last years of our welfare state (or at least so it looks) the words "medical bill" are unheard of. Comes from public healthcare, which is another benefit of a welfare state. If you need medical assistance, you get it, period. Not as good as it used to be (due to privatisation of healthcare), but it is there. Always. Frankly, I dont know how America can even be considered a developed nation, without something as basic as that.
Now facts... There are and were a lot of cases around the world. In these times, it would be the Scandinavian social democracies (Sweden in particular), and in the past, some socialist countries, like Czhecoslovakia, USSR, Yugoslavia... Enough jobs, so everyone that wanted to work could, and if you couldnt work, a decent welfare system, plus good pensions.
| | | spapad wrote: | | Show me the facts on this! I know from experience when I left my X and was officially homeless in the state's eyes, I applied for emergency aid. I Got 35.00 dollars for that. I never wanted to be unemployed nor did I ever want to apply for famis, but at the time, It was the only way I had to cover my medical bills. Otherwise, I would never had appplied for that. I got my ribs kicked in and black eyes with a somewhat cracked nose, and I needed the benefits only to cover my medical bills, and guess what! The state did not cover it! Even homeless, because I was not officially separated from my soon to be X, they said I didn't need help.
Dont tell me about your ideals! i know how pitiful the system works and I do object.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | It isnt a way to live. Like I said, its supposed to be the minimum. Now, of course, there people who abuse it. But how many are there that need it, through no fault of their own? Especialy in these times, when the unemployment is soaring. Should people that lost their jobs just starve to death? And all just because a moron in a white shirt fucked something up.
And what is interesting the most is that countries where good welfare is combined with good employment oportunity actualy suffer less poverty (now who would have thought?), and all that goes with it (particulary crime).
| | | spapad wrote: | | Welfare is the minimum you can get by on for most people. There are some who abuse the system by becoming baby machines so they never have to work.
A welfare state is stupid. Why do people think that is a way to live. Tenaments of welfare are always overrun with drugs and violence. So you have a roof over your head but your children will end up being junkies and prostitutes. Great idea! Pffft! If I needed a way to live without working when there is something wrong with me then maybe they should just lock me up for being a worthless individual. If your that lazy, that's what you deserve.
Edited at: Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:57:27 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, May 18, 2009 4:54:53 AM | |
|
Same here. The only way it should be, imo. Health is a right, not a commodity.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Ellieke from Monday, May 18, 2009 4:27:04 AM)| | | Ellieke wrote: | | In Belgium everybody had medical care. You can buy more if you want but you don't need to.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, first of all, I wont get personal here, not in this thread, where tensions are high enough as it is.
The only thing I will say is that, even in these last years of our welfare state (or at least so it looks) the words "medical bill" are unheard of. Comes from public healthcare, which is another benefit of a welfare state. If you need medical assistance, you get it, period. Not as good as it used to be (due to privatisation of healthcare), but it is there. Always. Frankly, I dont know how America can even be considered a developed nation, without something as basic as that.
Now facts... There are and were a lot of cases around the world. In these times, it would be the Scandinavian social democracies (Sweden in particular), and in the past, some socialist countries, like Czhecoslovakia, USSR, Yugoslavia... Enough jobs, so everyone that wanted to work could, and if you couldnt work, a decent welfare system, plus good pensions.
| | | spapad wrote: | | Show me the facts on this! I know from experience when I left my X and was officially homeless in the state's eyes, I applied for emergency aid. I Got 35.00 dollars for that. I never wanted to be unemployed nor did I ever want to apply for famis, but at the time, It was the only way I had to cover my medical bills. Otherwise, I would never had appplied for that. I got my ribs kicked in and black eyes with a somewhat cracked nose, and I needed the benefits only to cover my medical bills, and guess what! The state did not cover it! Even homeless, because I was not officially separated from my soon to be X, they said I didn't need help.
Dont tell me about your ideals! i know how pitiful the system works and I do object.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | It isnt a way to live. Like I said, its supposed to be the minimum. Now, of course, there people who abuse it. But how many are there that need it, through no fault of their own? Especialy in these times, when the unemployment is soaring. Should people that lost their jobs just starve to death? And all just because a moron in a white shirt fucked something up.
And what is interesting the most is that countries where good welfare is combined with good employment oportunity actualy suffer less poverty (now who would have thought?), and all that goes with it (particulary crime).
| | | spapad wrote: | | Welfare is the minimum you can get by on for most people. There are some who abuse the system by becoming baby machines so they never have to work.
A welfare state is stupid. Why do people think that is a way to live. Tenaments of welfare are always overrun with drugs and violence. So you have a roof over your head but your children will end up being junkies and prostitutes. Great idea! Pffft! If I needed a way to live without working when there is something wrong with me then maybe they should just lock me up for being a worthless individual. If your that lazy, that's what you deserve.
Edited at: Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:57:27 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, May 18, 2009 4:53:33 AM | |
|
Well, I absolutely think that the office that does welfare should investigate, and try as best as it can to prevent abuses. I guess that it will never be 100% abuse-proof, but I certainly dont think that just because some people abuse it, that those that really need it should be left without it.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Monday, May 18, 2009 4:37:38 AM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning strat...I do have to chime in on this part of the conversation...when someone applies for Gov. aid, assuming the laws and regulations are relatively the same, the office that one applies to has to investigate the claimants claims of poverty (or whatever)...considering spapad was technically still married, they probably saw fit that her husband should be obligated to cover her medical...all offices are like that, they'll take care of (partially or in whole) if there is no other obligated party to do so...but that doesn't apply to everyone...women, infants and children take priority, it is very. very rare that a male is able to collect any kind of Gov. aid unless they are disabled or are single, jobless parents, and even then they have to sign a document allowing them to garnish wages at a later date when they are back on their feet, but not women (at least in Indiana)...and if a woman with child(ren) is on Gov, aid, they get the SSN of the father and track him down and garnish his wages to help recover their costs...in no way or at any time can someone just walk into an office and walk out with benefits that day unless it is an emergency and you can prove it...usually you get to the interview stage and you're handed a piece of paper that requests a boat load of information, most of which you don't have with you, then another appointment once you've gathered all the info, then an investigation (yes, they will come to your home and inspect!!)...it's quite a lengthy process...our hospitals are only legally bound to stop the bleeding (life saving measures) otherwise, you are on your own...this is how welfare/Gov. aid works here (in general)...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, first of all, I wont get personal here, not in this thread, where tensions are high enough as it is.
The only thing I will say is that, even in these last years of our welfare state (or at least so it looks) the words "medical bill" are unheard of. Comes from public healthcare, which is another benefit of a welfare state. If you need medical assistance, you get it, period. Not as good as it used to be (due to privatisation of healthcare), but it is there. Always. Frankly, I dont know how America can even be considered a developed nation, without something as basic as that.
Now facts... There are and were a lot of cases around the world. In these times, it would be the Scandinavian social democracies (Sweden in particular), and in the past, some socialist countries, like Czhecoslovakia, USSR, Yugoslavia... Enough jobs, so everyone that wanted to work could, and if you couldnt work, a decent welfare system, plus good pensions.
| | | spapad wrote: | | Show me the facts on this! I know from experience when I left my X and was officially homeless in the state's eyes, I applied for emergency aid. I Got 35.00 dollars for that. I never wanted to be unemployed nor did I ever want to apply for famis, but at the time, It was the only way I had to cover my medical bills. Otherwise, I would never had appplied for that. I got my ribs kicked in and black eyes with a somewhat cracked nose, and I needed the benefits only to cover my medical bills, and guess what! The state did not cover it! Even homeless, because I was not officially separated from my soon to be X, they said I didn't need help.
Dont tell me about your ideals! i know how pitiful the system works and I do object.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | It isnt a way to live. Like I said, its supposed to be the minimum. Now, of course, there people who abuse it. But how many are there that need it, through no fault of their own? Especialy in these times, when the unemployment is soaring. Should people that lost their jobs just starve to death? And all just because a moron in a white shirt fucked something up.
And what is interesting the most is that countries where good welfare is combined with good employment oportunity actualy suffer less poverty (now who would have thought?), and all that goes with it (particulary crime).
| | | spapad wrote: | | Welfare is the minimum you can get by on for most people. There are some who abuse the system by becoming baby machines so they never have to work.
A welfare state is stupid. Why do people think that is a way to live. Tenaments of welfare are always overrun with drugs and violence. So you have a roof over your head but your children will end up being junkies and prostitutes. Great idea! Pffft! If I needed a way to live without working when there is something wrong with me then maybe they should just lock me up for being a worthless individual. If your that lazy, that's what you deserve.
Edited at: Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:57:27 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [ron h] Monday, May 18, 2009 4:37:38 AM | |
|
Good morning strat...I do have to chime in on this part of the conversation...when someone applies for Gov. aid, assuming the laws and regulations are relatively the same, the office that one applies to has to investigate the claimants claims of poverty (or whatever)...considering spapad was technically still married, they probably saw fit that her husband should be obligated to cover her medical...all offices are like that, they'll take care of (partially or in whole) if there is no other obligated party to do so...but that doesn't apply to everyone...women, infants and children take priority, it is very. very rare that a male is able to collect any kind of Gov. aid unless they are disabled or are single, jobless parents, and even then they have to sign a document allowing them to garnish wages at a later date when they are back on their feet, but not women (at least in Indiana)...and if a woman with child(ren) is on Gov, aid, they get the SSN of the father and track him down and garnish his wages to help recover their costs...in no way or at any time can someone just walk into an office and walk out with benefits that day unless it is an emergency and you can prove it...usually you get to the interview stage and you're handed a piece of paper that requests a boat load of information, most of which you don't have with you, then another appointment once you've gathered all the info, then an investigation (yes, they will come to your home and inspect!!)...it's quite a lengthy process...our hospitals are only legally bound to stop the bleeding (life saving measures) otherwise, you are on your own...this is how welfare/Gov. aid works here (in general)...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, May 18, 2009 4:10:34 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, first of all, I wont get personal here, not in this thread, where tensions are high enough as it is.
The only thing I will say is that, even in these last years of our welfare state (or at least so it looks) the words "medical bill" are unheard of. Comes from public healthcare, which is another benefit of a welfare state. If you need medical assistance, you get it, period. Not as good as it used to be (due to privatisation of healthcare), but it is there. Always. Frankly, I dont know how America can even be considered a developed nation, without something as basic as that.
Now facts... There are and were a lot of cases around the world. In these times, it would be the Scandinavian social democracies (Sweden in particular), and in the past, some socialist countries, like Czhecoslovakia, USSR, Yugoslavia... Enough jobs, so everyone that wanted to work could, and if you couldnt work, a decent welfare system, plus good pensions.
| | | spapad wrote: | | Show me the facts on this! I know from experience when I left my X and was officially homeless in the state's eyes, I applied for emergency aid. I Got 35.00 dollars for that. I never wanted to be unemployed nor did I ever want to apply for famis, but at the time, It was the only way I had to cover my medical bills. Otherwise, I would never had appplied for that. I got my ribs kicked in and black eyes with a somewhat cracked nose, and I needed the benefits only to cover my medical bills, and guess what! The state did not cover it! Even homeless, because I was not officially separated from my soon to be X, they said I didn't need help.
Dont tell me about your ideals! i know how pitiful the system works and I do object.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | It isnt a way to live. Like I said, its supposed to be the minimum. Now, of course, there people who abuse it. But how many are there that need it, through no fault of their own? Especialy in these times, when the unemployment is soaring. Should people that lost their jobs just starve to death? And all just because a moron in a white shirt fucked something up.
And what is interesting the most is that countries where good welfare is combined with good employment oportunity actualy suffer less poverty (now who would have thought?), and all that goes with it (particulary crime).
| | | spapad wrote: | | Welfare is the minimum you can get by on for most people. There are some who abuse the system by becoming baby machines so they never have to work.
A welfare state is stupid. Why do people think that is a way to live. Tenaments of welfare are always overrun with drugs and violence. So you have a roof over your head but your children will end up being junkies and prostitutes. Great idea! Pffft! If I needed a way to live without working when there is something wrong with me then maybe they should just lock me up for being a worthless individual. If your that lazy, that's what you deserve.
Edited at: Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:57:27 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
| [Ellieke] Monday, May 18, 2009 4:27:04 AM | |
|
In Belgium everybody had medical care. You can buy more if you want but you don't need to.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, May 18, 2009 4:10:34 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, first of all, I wont get personal here, not in this thread, where tensions are high enough as it is.
The only thing I will say is that, even in these last years of our welfare state (or at least so it looks) the words "medical bill" are unheard of. Comes from public healthcare, which is another benefit of a welfare state. If you need medical assistance, you get it, period. Not as good as it used to be (due to privatisation of healthcare), but it is there. Always. Frankly, I dont know how America can even be considered a developed nation, without something as basic as that.
Now facts... There are and were a lot of cases around the world. In these times, it would be the Scandinavian social democracies (Sweden in particular), and in the past, some socialist countries, like Czhecoslovakia, USSR, Yugoslavia... Enough jobs, so everyone that wanted to work could, and if you couldnt work, a decent welfare system, plus good pensions.
| | | spapad wrote: | | Show me the facts on this! I know from experience when I left my X and was officially homeless in the state's eyes, I applied for emergency aid. I Got 35.00 dollars for that. I never wanted to be unemployed nor did I ever want to apply for famis, but at the time, It was the only way I had to cover my medical bills. Otherwise, I would never had appplied for that. I got my ribs kicked in and black eyes with a somewhat cracked nose, and I needed the benefits only to cover my medical bills, and guess what! The state did not cover it! Even homeless, because I was not officially separated from my soon to be X, they said I didn't need help.
Dont tell me about your ideals! i know how pitiful the system works and I do object.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | It isnt a way to live. Like I said, its supposed to be the minimum. Now, of course, there people who abuse it. But how many are there that need it, through no fault of their own? Especialy in these times, when the unemployment is soaring. Should people that lost their jobs just starve to death? And all just because a moron in a white shirt fucked something up.
And what is interesting the most is that countries where good welfare is combined with good employment oportunity actualy suffer less poverty (now who would have thought?), and all that goes with it (particulary crime).
| | | spapad wrote: | | Welfare is the minimum you can get by on for most people. There are some who abuse the system by becoming baby machines so they never have to work.
A welfare state is stupid. Why do people think that is a way to live. Tenaments of welfare are always overrun with drugs and violence. So you have a roof over your head but your children will end up being junkies and prostitutes. Great idea! Pffft! If I needed a way to live without working when there is something wrong with me then maybe they should just lock me up for being a worthless individual. If your that lazy, that's what you deserve.
Edited at: Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:57:27 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, May 18, 2009 4:10:34 AM | |
|
Well, first of all, I wont get personal here, not in this thread, where tensions are high enough as it is.
The only thing I will say is that, even in these last years of our welfare state (or at least so it looks) the words "medical bill" are unheard of. Comes from public healthcare, which is another benefit of a welfare state. If you need medical assistance, you get it, period. Not as good as it used to be (due to privatisation of healthcare), but it is there. Always. Frankly, I dont know how America can even be considered a developed nation, without something as basic as that.
Now facts... There are and were a lot of cases around the world. In these times, it would be the Scandinavian social democracies (Sweden in particular), and in the past, some socialist countries, like Czhecoslovakia, USSR, Yugoslavia... Enough jobs, so everyone that wanted to work could, and if you couldnt work, a decent welfare system, plus good pensions.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Sunday, May 17, 2009 7:31:03 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | Show me the facts on this! I know from experience when I left my X and was officially homeless in the state's eyes, I applied for emergency aid. I Got 35.00 dollars for that. I never wanted to be unemployed nor did I ever want to apply for famis, but at the time, It was the only way I had to cover my medical bills. Otherwise, I would never had appplied for that. I got my ribs kicked in and black eyes with a somewhat cracked nose, and I needed the benefits only to cover my medical bills, and guess what! The state did not cover it! Even homeless, because I was not officially separated from my soon to be X, they said I didn't need help.
Dont tell me about your ideals! i know how pitiful the system works and I do object.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | It isnt a way to live. Like I said, its supposed to be the minimum. Now, of course, there people who abuse it. But how many are there that need it, through no fault of their own? Especialy in these times, when the unemployment is soaring. Should people that lost their jobs just starve to death? And all just because a moron in a white shirt fucked something up.
And what is interesting the most is that countries where good welfare is combined with good employment oportunity actualy suffer less poverty (now who would have thought?), and all that goes with it (particulary crime).
| | | spapad wrote: | | Welfare is the minimum you can get by on for most people. There are some who abuse the system by becoming baby machines so they never have to work.
A welfare state is stupid. Why do people think that is a way to live. Tenaments of welfare are always overrun with drugs and violence. So you have a roof over your head but your children will end up being junkies and prostitutes. Great idea! Pffft! If I needed a way to live without working when there is something wrong with me then maybe they should just lock me up for being a worthless individual. If your that lazy, that's what you deserve.
Edited at: Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:57:27 PM |
|
|
|
|
| [spapad] Sunday, May 17, 2009 7:31:03 PM | |
|
Show me the facts on this! I know from experience when I left my X and was officially homeless in the state's eyes, I applied for emergency aid. I Got 35.00 dollars for that. I never wanted to be unemployed nor did I ever want to apply for famis, but at the time, It was the only way I had to cover my medical bills. Otherwise, I would never had appplied for that. I got my ribs kicked in and black eyes with a somewhat cracked nose, and I needed the benefits only to cover my medical bills, and guess what! The state did not cover it! Even homeless, because I was not officially separated from my soon to be X, they said I didn't need help.
Dont tell me about your ideals! i know how pitiful the system works and I do object.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, May 17, 2009 4:12:59 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | It isnt a way to live. Like I said, its supposed to be the minimum. Now, of course, there people who abuse it. But how many are there that need it, through no fault of their own? Especialy in these times, when the unemployment is soaring. Should people that lost their jobs just starve to death? And all just because a moron in a white shirt fucked something up.
And what is interesting the most is that countries where good welfare is combined with good employment oportunity actualy suffer less poverty (now who would have thought?), and all that goes with it (particulary crime).
| | | spapad wrote: | | Welfare is the minimum you can get by on for most people. There are some who abuse the system by becoming baby machines so they never have to work.
A welfare state is stupid. Why do people think that is a way to live. Tenaments of welfare are always overrun with drugs and violence. So you have a roof over your head but your children will end up being junkies and prostitutes. Great idea! Pffft! If I needed a way to live without working when there is something wrong with me then maybe they should just lock me up for being a worthless individual. If your that lazy, that's what you deserve.
Edited at: Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:57:27 PM |
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Sunday, May 17, 2009 4:12:59 PM | |
|
It isnt a way to live. Like I said, its supposed to be the minimum. Now, of course, there people who abuse it. But how many are there that need it, through no fault of their own? Especialy in these times, when the unemployment is soaring. Should people that lost their jobs just starve to death? And all just because a moron in a white shirt fucked something up.
And what is interesting the most is that countries where good welfare is combined with good employment oportunity actualy suffer less poverty (now who would have thought?), and all that goes with it (particulary crime).
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:44:25 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | Welfare is the minimum you can get by on for most people. There are some who abuse the system by becoming baby machines so they never have to work.
A welfare state is stupid. Why do people think that is a way to live. Tenaments of welfare are always overrun with drugs and violence. So you have a roof over your head but your children will end up being junkies and prostitutes. Great idea! Pffft! If I needed a way to live without working when there is something wrong with me then maybe they should just lock me up for being a worthless individual. If your that lazy, that's what you deserve.
Edited at: Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:57:27 PM |
|
|
| [_strat_] Sunday, May 17, 2009 4:08:00 PM | |
|
True. Well, I guess a couple of millions wouldnt hurt me. Im that modest. Dont expect it tho, thats why I dont play it. I figure its best to keep the money that I would spend on it, and I dont mean to risk it all for a fortune.
Kinda like starting a business, I guess.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, May 17, 2009 1:50:34 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | want and expect are different. I sure as hell want to. expect to is different. but I saw a study a while ago that 10% of canadians are counting on the lotto for their retirement. thats stupid
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Frankly, I dont think most people want to "win the lotto", or are at least not seriously expecting it. A normal, decent life would suffice, at least for me.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | its harder, and it also is unlikely people will try. its the same with the lotto, more people buy when the prize is 40 mill than 2 mil. your odds of winning are the same, and realy, 2 mil is a good prize, but its not inspiring.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, it makes it harder too reach for the stars, but at least it guarantees a certain minimum that you can always count on, no matter how down on your luck you may be.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but... the welfare state provides less incentive to work, reducing the total production of the state, so everyone has less
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Of course it matters. Its just this pride and all the emotion that goes with it (speaking of nationality here) that I dont understand. Come tho think of it, I dont want to understand it.
The government sets things up, and thats about as much as it can do. A certain number (a majority) of people still have to work.
And as far as Im concerned, while it has its drawbacks, a welfare state is a very good thing. Does much more good than harm.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | ah, but you said that nothing from before your birth mattered.
the government absolutly depends on its people, but many governments set things up so the people depend on it, and cant take actions for themselfs.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Then I should also be ashamed for what they did wrong. And why stop at parents? Why not go back all the way to that first monkey that jumped off a tree and said "oh, Im tired of eating bananas. I want some BBQ!" and invented fire.
That, and family and nation are two very different things.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so you feel no pride in what your parents acomplished?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yup. Grey uniforms. VERY funny.
Personaly, pride is for something I achieved, not something that was determined from birth.
Names and nationality have very little in common. For a start, the parents can choose the name of the child, whereas the nationality is predetermined. And why would I be proud of where I come from? Why would you be, for that matter? What history do you come from? As far as Im concerned, my history started when I was born, not a day before.
| | | spapad wrote: | | So pride in being who you are from where your from is shunned in your ideal society? Does everyone wear gray uniforms and have a number instead of a name? The act of giving a child a name is in and of itself showing pride in who that person is and where and what history they come from.
No thanks.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well... Its associated with patriotism/nationalism, which nowadays is most commonly associated with the political right. When this has happened, I couldnt say, but it used to be pretty neutral, Im sure. Even Stalin resorted to nationalism in WW2, as did our leaders in WW2 and on, even tho they were leftists.
Basicaly, somewhere in the mid 20th century, most radical leftists in the west returned to the old idea of internationalism, as opposed to nationalism, or patriotism. I guess we can find some reasons in that.
As far as Im concerned, its bullshit. Basicly its saying: dont complain, work, be a good citizen, and do whatever we tell you. Theres more than a bit of fascism in that quote. Its why I personaly oppose any pride or feelings of affection for ones country, ethnic group or race.
| | | Head banger wrote: | |
in the 60 a left/center politician named kenedy uttered this famous line "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" today that would be a very right wing idea. what has caused this shift in ideals and is it a good or bad thing? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [spapad] Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:44:25 PM | |
|
Welfare is the minimum you can get by on for most people. There are some who abuse the system by becoming baby machines so they never have to work.
A welfare state is stupid. Why do people think that is a way to live. Tenaments of welfare are always overrun with drugs and violence. So you have a roof over your head but your children will end up being junkies and prostitutes. Great idea! Pffft! If I needed a way to live without working when there is something wrong with me then maybe they should just lock me up for being a worthless individual. If your that lazy, that's what you deserve.
Edited at: Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:57:27 PM |
|
| [Head banger] Sunday, May 17, 2009 1:50:34 PM | |
|
want and expect are different. I sure as hell want to. expect to is different. but I saw a study a while ago that 10% of canadians are counting on the lotto for their retirement. thats stupid
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, May 17, 2009 1:47:51 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Frankly, I dont think most people want to "win the lotto", or are at least not seriously expecting it. A normal, decent life would suffice, at least for me.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | its harder, and it also is unlikely people will try. its the same with the lotto, more people buy when the prize is 40 mill than 2 mil. your odds of winning are the same, and realy, 2 mil is a good prize, but its not inspiring.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, it makes it harder too reach for the stars, but at least it guarantees a certain minimum that you can always count on, no matter how down on your luck you may be.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but... the welfare state provides less incentive to work, reducing the total production of the state, so everyone has less
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Of course it matters. Its just this pride and all the emotion that goes with it (speaking of nationality here) that I dont understand. Come tho think of it, I dont want to understand it.
The government sets things up, and thats about as much as it can do. A certain number (a majority) of people still have to work.
And as far as Im concerned, while it has its drawbacks, a welfare state is a very good thing. Does much more good than harm.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | ah, but you said that nothing from before your birth mattered.
the government absolutly depends on its people, but many governments set things up so the people depend on it, and cant take actions for themselfs.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Then I should also be ashamed for what they did wrong. And why stop at parents? Why not go back all the way to that first monkey that jumped off a tree and said "oh, Im tired of eating bananas. I want some BBQ!" and invented fire.
That, and family and nation are two very different things.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so you feel no pride in what your parents acomplished?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yup. Grey uniforms. VERY funny.
Personaly, pride is for something I achieved, not something that was determined from birth.
Names and nationality have very little in common. For a start, the parents can choose the name of the child, whereas the nationality is predetermined. And why would I be proud of where I come from? Why would you be, for that matter? What history do you come from? As far as Im concerned, my history started when I was born, not a day before.
| | | spapad wrote: | | So pride in being who you are from where your from is shunned in your ideal society? Does everyone wear gray uniforms and have a number instead of a name? The act of giving a child a name is in and of itself showing pride in who that person is and where and what history they come from.
No thanks.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well... Its associated with patriotism/nationalism, which nowadays is most commonly associated with the political right. When this has happened, I couldnt say, but it used to be pretty neutral, Im sure. Even Stalin resorted to nationalism in WW2, as did our leaders in WW2 and on, even tho they were leftists.
Basicaly, somewhere in the mid 20th century, most radical leftists in the west returned to the old idea of internationalism, as opposed to nationalism, or patriotism. I guess we can find some reasons in that.
As far as Im concerned, its bullshit. Basicly its saying: dont complain, work, be a good citizen, and do whatever we tell you. Theres more than a bit of fascism in that quote. Its why I personaly oppose any pride or feelings of affection for ones country, ethnic group or race.
| | | Head banger wrote: | |
in the 60 a left/center politician named kenedy uttered this famous line "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" today that would be a very right wing idea. what has caused this shift in ideals and is it a good or bad thing? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Sunday, May 17, 2009 1:47:51 PM | |
|
Frankly, I dont think most people want to "win the lotto", or are at least not seriously expecting it. A normal, decent life would suffice, at least for me.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, May 17, 2009 12:56:57 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | its harder, and it also is unlikely people will try. its the same with the lotto, more people buy when the prize is 40 mill than 2 mil. your odds of winning are the same, and realy, 2 mil is a good prize, but its not inspiring.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, it makes it harder too reach for the stars, but at least it guarantees a certain minimum that you can always count on, no matter how down on your luck you may be.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but... the welfare state provides less incentive to work, reducing the total production of the state, so everyone has less
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Of course it matters. Its just this pride and all the emotion that goes with it (speaking of nationality here) that I dont understand. Come tho think of it, I dont want to understand it.
The government sets things up, and thats about as much as it can do. A certain number (a majority) of people still have to work.
And as far as Im concerned, while it has its drawbacks, a welfare state is a very good thing. Does much more good than harm.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | ah, but you said that nothing from before your birth mattered.
the government absolutly depends on its people, but many governments set things up so the people depend on it, and cant take actions for themselfs.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Then I should also be ashamed for what they did wrong. And why stop at parents? Why not go back all the way to that first monkey that jumped off a tree and said "oh, Im tired of eating bananas. I want some BBQ!" and invented fire.
That, and family and nation are two very different things.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so you feel no pride in what your parents acomplished?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yup. Grey uniforms. VERY funny.
Personaly, pride is for something I achieved, not something that was determined from birth.
Names and nationality have very little in common. For a start, the parents can choose the name of the child, whereas the nationality is predetermined. And why would I be proud of where I come from? Why would you be, for that matter? What history do you come from? As far as Im concerned, my history started when I was born, not a day before.
| | | spapad wrote: | | So pride in being who you are from where your from is shunned in your ideal society? Does everyone wear gray uniforms and have a number instead of a name? The act of giving a child a name is in and of itself showing pride in who that person is and where and what history they come from.
No thanks.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well... Its associated with patriotism/nationalism, which nowadays is most commonly associated with the political right. When this has happened, I couldnt say, but it used to be pretty neutral, Im sure. Even Stalin resorted to nationalism in WW2, as did our leaders in WW2 and on, even tho they were leftists.
Basicaly, somewhere in the mid 20th century, most radical leftists in the west returned to the old idea of internationalism, as opposed to nationalism, or patriotism. I guess we can find some reasons in that.
As far as Im concerned, its bullshit. Basicly its saying: dont complain, work, be a good citizen, and do whatever we tell you. Theres more than a bit of fascism in that quote. Its why I personaly oppose any pride or feelings of affection for ones country, ethnic group or race.
| | | Head banger wrote: | |
in the 60 a left/center politician named kenedy uttered this famous line "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" today that would be a very right wing idea. what has caused this shift in ideals and is it a good or bad thing? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Sunday, May 17, 2009 12:56:57 PM | |
|
its harder, and it also is unlikely people will try. its the same with the lotto, more people buy when the prize is 40 mill than 2 mil. your odds of winning are the same, and realy, 2 mil is a good prize, but its not inspiring.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, May 17, 2009 12:48:50 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, it makes it harder too reach for the stars, but at least it guarantees a certain minimum that you can always count on, no matter how down on your luck you may be.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but... the welfare state provides less incentive to work, reducing the total production of the state, so everyone has less
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Of course it matters. Its just this pride and all the emotion that goes with it (speaking of nationality here) that I dont understand. Come tho think of it, I dont want to understand it.
The government sets things up, and thats about as much as it can do. A certain number (a majority) of people still have to work.
And as far as Im concerned, while it has its drawbacks, a welfare state is a very good thing. Does much more good than harm.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | ah, but you said that nothing from before your birth mattered.
the government absolutly depends on its people, but many governments set things up so the people depend on it, and cant take actions for themselfs.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Then I should also be ashamed for what they did wrong. And why stop at parents? Why not go back all the way to that first monkey that jumped off a tree and said "oh, Im tired of eating bananas. I want some BBQ!" and invented fire.
That, and family and nation are two very different things.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so you feel no pride in what your parents acomplished?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yup. Grey uniforms. VERY funny.
Personaly, pride is for something I achieved, not something that was determined from birth.
Names and nationality have very little in common. For a start, the parents can choose the name of the child, whereas the nationality is predetermined. And why would I be proud of where I come from? Why would you be, for that matter? What history do you come from? As far as Im concerned, my history started when I was born, not a day before.
| | | spapad wrote: | | So pride in being who you are from where your from is shunned in your ideal society? Does everyone wear gray uniforms and have a number instead of a name? The act of giving a child a name is in and of itself showing pride in who that person is and where and what history they come from.
No thanks.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well... Its associated with patriotism/nationalism, which nowadays is most commonly associated with the political right. When this has happened, I couldnt say, but it used to be pretty neutral, Im sure. Even Stalin resorted to nationalism in WW2, as did our leaders in WW2 and on, even tho they were leftists.
Basicaly, somewhere in the mid 20th century, most radical leftists in the west returned to the old idea of internationalism, as opposed to nationalism, or patriotism. I guess we can find some reasons in that.
As far as Im concerned, its bullshit. Basicly its saying: dont complain, work, be a good citizen, and do whatever we tell you. Theres more than a bit of fascism in that quote. Its why I personaly oppose any pride or feelings of affection for ones country, ethnic group or race.
| | | Head banger wrote: | |
in the 60 a left/center politician named kenedy uttered this famous line "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" today that would be a very right wing idea. what has caused this shift in ideals and is it a good or bad thing? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Sunday, May 17, 2009 12:48:50 PM | |
|
Well, it makes it harder too reach for the stars, but at least it guarantees a certain minimum that you can always count on, no matter how down on your luck you may be.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, May 17, 2009 12:46:19 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | but... the welfare state provides less incentive to work, reducing the total production of the state, so everyone has less
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Of course it matters. Its just this pride and all the emotion that goes with it (speaking of nationality here) that I dont understand. Come tho think of it, I dont want to understand it.
The government sets things up, and thats about as much as it can do. A certain number (a majority) of people still have to work.
And as far as Im concerned, while it has its drawbacks, a welfare state is a very good thing. Does much more good than harm.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | ah, but you said that nothing from before your birth mattered.
the government absolutly depends on its people, but many governments set things up so the people depend on it, and cant take actions for themselfs.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Then I should also be ashamed for what they did wrong. And why stop at parents? Why not go back all the way to that first monkey that jumped off a tree and said "oh, Im tired of eating bananas. I want some BBQ!" and invented fire.
That, and family and nation are two very different things.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so you feel no pride in what your parents acomplished?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yup. Grey uniforms. VERY funny.
Personaly, pride is for something I achieved, not something that was determined from birth.
Names and nationality have very little in common. For a start, the parents can choose the name of the child, whereas the nationality is predetermined. And why would I be proud of where I come from? Why would you be, for that matter? What history do you come from? As far as Im concerned, my history started when I was born, not a day before.
| | | spapad wrote: | | So pride in being who you are from where your from is shunned in your ideal society? Does everyone wear gray uniforms and have a number instead of a name? The act of giving a child a name is in and of itself showing pride in who that person is and where and what history they come from.
No thanks.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well... Its associated with patriotism/nationalism, which nowadays is most commonly associated with the political right. When this has happened, I couldnt say, but it used to be pretty neutral, Im sure. Even Stalin resorted to nationalism in WW2, as did our leaders in WW2 and on, even tho they were leftists.
Basicaly, somewhere in the mid 20th century, most radical leftists in the west returned to the old idea of internationalism, as opposed to nationalism, or patriotism. I guess we can find some reasons in that.
As far as Im concerned, its bullshit. Basicly its saying: dont complain, work, be a good citizen, and do whatever we tell you. Theres more than a bit of fascism in that quote. Its why I personaly oppose any pride or feelings of affection for ones country, ethnic group or race.
| | | Head banger wrote: | |
in the 60 a left/center politician named kenedy uttered this famous line "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" today that would be a very right wing idea. what has caused this shift in ideals and is it a good or bad thing? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Sunday, May 17, 2009 12:46:19 PM | |
|
but... the welfare state provides less incentive to work, reducing the total production of the state, so everyone has less
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, May 17, 2009 12:42:58 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Of course it matters. Its just this pride and all the emotion that goes with it (speaking of nationality here) that I dont understand. Come tho think of it, I dont want to understand it.
The government sets things up, and thats about as much as it can do. A certain number (a majority) of people still have to work.
And as far as Im concerned, while it has its drawbacks, a welfare state is a very good thing. Does much more good than harm.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | ah, but you said that nothing from before your birth mattered.
the government absolutly depends on its people, but many governments set things up so the people depend on it, and cant take actions for themselfs.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Then I should also be ashamed for what they did wrong. And why stop at parents? Why not go back all the way to that first monkey that jumped off a tree and said "oh, Im tired of eating bananas. I want some BBQ!" and invented fire.
That, and family and nation are two very different things.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so you feel no pride in what your parents acomplished?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yup. Grey uniforms. VERY funny.
Personaly, pride is for something I achieved, not something that was determined from birth.
Names and nationality have very little in common. For a start, the parents can choose the name of the child, whereas the nationality is predetermined. And why would I be proud of where I come from? Why would you be, for that matter? What history do you come from? As far as Im concerned, my history started when I was born, not a day before.
| | | spapad wrote: | | So pride in being who you are from where your from is shunned in your ideal society? Does everyone wear gray uniforms and have a number instead of a name? The act of giving a child a name is in and of itself showing pride in who that person is and where and what history they come from.
No thanks.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well... Its associated with patriotism/nationalism, which nowadays is most commonly associated with the political right. When this has happened, I couldnt say, but it used to be pretty neutral, Im sure. Even Stalin resorted to nationalism in WW2, as did our leaders in WW2 and on, even tho they were leftists.
Basicaly, somewhere in the mid 20th century, most radical leftists in the west returned to the old idea of internationalism, as opposed to nationalism, or patriotism. I guess we can find some reasons in that.
As far as Im concerned, its bullshit. Basicly its saying: dont complain, work, be a good citizen, and do whatever we tell you. Theres more than a bit of fascism in that quote. Its why I personaly oppose any pride or feelings of affection for ones country, ethnic group or race.
| | | Head banger wrote: | |
in the 60 a left/center politician named kenedy uttered this famous line "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" today that would be a very right wing idea. what has caused this shift in ideals and is it a good or bad thing? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Sunday, May 17, 2009 12:42:58 PM | |
|
Of course it matters. Its just this pride and all the emotion that goes with it (speaking of nationality here) that I dont understand. Come tho think of it, I dont want to understand it.
The government sets things up, and thats about as much as it can do. A certain number (a majority) of people still have to work.
And as far as Im concerned, while it has its drawbacks, a welfare state is a very good thing. Does much more good than harm.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, May 17, 2009 10:21:17 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | ah, but you said that nothing from before your birth mattered.
the government absolutly depends on its people, but many governments set things up so the people depend on it, and cant take actions for themselfs.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Then I should also be ashamed for what they did wrong. And why stop at parents? Why not go back all the way to that first monkey that jumped off a tree and said "oh, Im tired of eating bananas. I want some BBQ!" and invented fire.
That, and family and nation are two very different things.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so you feel no pride in what your parents acomplished?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yup. Grey uniforms. VERY funny.
Personaly, pride is for something I achieved, not something that was determined from birth.
Names and nationality have very little in common. For a start, the parents can choose the name of the child, whereas the nationality is predetermined. And why would I be proud of where I come from? Why would you be, for that matter? What history do you come from? As far as Im concerned, my history started when I was born, not a day before.
| | | spapad wrote: | | So pride in being who you are from where your from is shunned in your ideal society? Does everyone wear gray uniforms and have a number instead of a name? The act of giving a child a name is in and of itself showing pride in who that person is and where and what history they come from.
No thanks.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well... Its associated with patriotism/nationalism, which nowadays is most commonly associated with the political right. When this has happened, I couldnt say, but it used to be pretty neutral, Im sure. Even Stalin resorted to nationalism in WW2, as did our leaders in WW2 and on, even tho they were leftists.
Basicaly, somewhere in the mid 20th century, most radical leftists in the west returned to the old idea of internationalism, as opposed to nationalism, or patriotism. I guess we can find some reasons in that.
As far as Im concerned, its bullshit. Basicly its saying: dont complain, work, be a good citizen, and do whatever we tell you. Theres more than a bit of fascism in that quote. Its why I personaly oppose any pride or feelings of affection for ones country, ethnic group or race.
| | | Head banger wrote: | |
in the 60 a left/center politician named kenedy uttered this famous line "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" today that would be a very right wing idea. what has caused this shift in ideals and is it a good or bad thing? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Sunday, May 17, 2009 10:27:48 AM | |
|
a reasonable concept gone horibly wrong. went from being a safety net to being a goal for some people, horibly abused system.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Sunday, May 17, 2009 10:22:06 AM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Welfare anyone???
| | | Head banger wrote: | | ah, but you said that nothing from before your birth mattered.
the government absolutly depends on its people, but many governments set things up so the people depend on it, and cant take actions for themselfs.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Then I should also be ashamed for what they did wrong. And why stop at parents? Why not go back all the way to that first monkey that jumped off a tree and said "oh, Im tired of eating bananas. I want some BBQ!" and invented fire.
That, and family and nation are two very different things.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so you feel no pride in what your parents acomplished?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yup. Grey uniforms. VERY funny.
Personaly, pride is for something I achieved, not something that was determined from birth.
Names and nationality have very little in common. For a start, the parents can choose the name of the child, whereas the nationality is predetermined. And why would I be proud of where I come from? Why would you be, for that matter? What history do you come from? As far as Im concerned, my history started when I was born, not a day before.
| | | spapad wrote: | | So pride in being who you are from where your from is shunned in your ideal society? Does everyone wear gray uniforms and have a number instead of a name? The act of giving a child a name is in and of itself showing pride in who that person is and where and what history they come from.
No thanks.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well... Its associated with patriotism/nationalism, which nowadays is most commonly associated with the political right. When this has happened, I couldnt say, but it used to be pretty neutral, Im sure. Even Stalin resorted to nationalism in WW2, as did our leaders in WW2 and on, even tho they were leftists.
Basicaly, somewhere in the mid 20th century, most radical leftists in the west returned to the old idea of internationalism, as opposed to nationalism, or patriotism. I guess we can find some reasons in that.
As far as Im concerned, its bullshit. Basicly its saying: dont complain, work, be a good citizen, and do whatever we tell you. Theres more than a bit of fascism in that quote. Its why I personaly oppose any pride or feelings of affection for ones country, ethnic group or race.
| | | Head banger wrote: | |
in the 60 a left/center politician named kenedy uttered this famous line "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" today that would be a very right wing idea. what has caused this shift in ideals and is it a good or bad thing? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [ron h] Sunday, May 17, 2009 10:22:06 AM | |
|
Welfare anyone???
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, May 17, 2009 10:21:17 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | ah, but you said that nothing from before your birth mattered.
the government absolutly depends on its people, but many governments set things up so the people depend on it, and cant take actions for themselfs.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Then I should also be ashamed for what they did wrong. And why stop at parents? Why not go back all the way to that first monkey that jumped off a tree and said "oh, Im tired of eating bananas. I want some BBQ!" and invented fire.
That, and family and nation are two very different things.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so you feel no pride in what your parents acomplished?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yup. Grey uniforms. VERY funny.
Personaly, pride is for something I achieved, not something that was determined from birth.
Names and nationality have very little in common. For a start, the parents can choose the name of the child, whereas the nationality is predetermined. And why would I be proud of where I come from? Why would you be, for that matter? What history do you come from? As far as Im concerned, my history started when I was born, not a day before.
| | | spapad wrote: | | So pride in being who you are from where your from is shunned in your ideal society? Does everyone wear gray uniforms and have a number instead of a name? The act of giving a child a name is in and of itself showing pride in who that person is and where and what history they come from.
No thanks.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well... Its associated with patriotism/nationalism, which nowadays is most commonly associated with the political right. When this has happened, I couldnt say, but it used to be pretty neutral, Im sure. Even Stalin resorted to nationalism in WW2, as did our leaders in WW2 and on, even tho they were leftists.
Basicaly, somewhere in the mid 20th century, most radical leftists in the west returned to the old idea of internationalism, as opposed to nationalism, or patriotism. I guess we can find some reasons in that.
As far as Im concerned, its bullshit. Basicly its saying: dont complain, work, be a good citizen, and do whatever we tell you. Theres more than a bit of fascism in that quote. Its why I personaly oppose any pride or feelings of affection for ones country, ethnic group or race.
| | | Head banger wrote: | |
in the 60 a left/center politician named kenedy uttered this famous line "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" today that would be a very right wing idea. what has caused this shift in ideals and is it a good or bad thing? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Sunday, May 17, 2009 10:21:17 AM | |
|
ah, but you said that nothing from before your birth mattered.
the government absolutly depends on its people, but many governments set things up so the people depend on it, and cant take actions for themselfs.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, May 17, 2009 3:35:22 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Then I should also be ashamed for what they did wrong. And why stop at parents? Why not go back all the way to that first monkey that jumped off a tree and said "oh, Im tired of eating bananas. I want some BBQ!" and invented fire.
That, and family and nation are two very different things.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so you feel no pride in what your parents acomplished?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yup. Grey uniforms. VERY funny.
Personaly, pride is for something I achieved, not something that was determined from birth.
Names and nationality have very little in common. For a start, the parents can choose the name of the child, whereas the nationality is predetermined. And why would I be proud of where I come from? Why would you be, for that matter? What history do you come from? As far as Im concerned, my history started when I was born, not a day before.
| | | spapad wrote: | | So pride in being who you are from where your from is shunned in your ideal society? Does everyone wear gray uniforms and have a number instead of a name? The act of giving a child a name is in and of itself showing pride in who that person is and where and what history they come from.
No thanks.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well... Its associated with patriotism/nationalism, which nowadays is most commonly associated with the political right. When this has happened, I couldnt say, but it used to be pretty neutral, Im sure. Even Stalin resorted to nationalism in WW2, as did our leaders in WW2 and on, even tho they were leftists.
Basicaly, somewhere in the mid 20th century, most radical leftists in the west returned to the old idea of internationalism, as opposed to nationalism, or patriotism. I guess we can find some reasons in that.
As far as Im concerned, its bullshit. Basicly its saying: dont complain, work, be a good citizen, and do whatever we tell you. Theres more than a bit of fascism in that quote. Its why I personaly oppose any pride or feelings of affection for ones country, ethnic group or race.
| | | Head banger wrote: | |
in the 60 a left/center politician named kenedy uttered this famous line "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" today that would be a very right wing idea. what has caused this shift in ideals and is it a good or bad thing? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Sunday, May 17, 2009 3:38:59 AM | |
|
Well, since the US is not your average nation-state, I guess that would convey a different message in the US than in Europe.
As for helping my country - why should I? I dont owe a single thing to my country.
That, and every government depends on the people, and never vice versa. The government doesnt produce anything, its only role is to rule and manage.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Saturday, May 16, 2009 6:43:39 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | what was meant by this phrase, IMO was not a nationalistic message, but that people should do all they can to help their country, rather than asking for help. in short independance, not dependance. now the left calls for more people to behave in a way more dependant on the government, people depend on the govt, not govt on people
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well... Its associated with patriotism/nationalism, which nowadays is most commonly associated with the political right. When this has happened, I couldnt say, but it used to be pretty neutral, Im sure. Even Stalin resorted to nationalism in WW2, as did our leaders in WW2 and on, even tho they were leftists.
Basicaly, somewhere in the mid 20th century, most radical leftists in the west returned to the old idea of internationalism, as opposed to nationalism, or patriotism. I guess we can find some reasons in that.
As far as Im concerned, its bullshit. Basicly its saying: dont complain, work, be a good citizen, and do whatever we tell you. Theres more than a bit of fascism in that quote. Its why I personaly oppose any pride or feelings of affection for ones country, ethnic group or race.
| | | Head banger wrote: | |
in the 60 a left/center politician named kenedy uttered this famous line "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" today that would be a very right wing idea. what has caused this shift in ideals and is it a good or bad thing? |
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Sunday, May 17, 2009 3:35:22 AM | |
|
Then I should also be ashamed for what they did wrong. And why stop at parents? Why not go back all the way to that first monkey that jumped off a tree and said "oh, Im tired of eating bananas. I want some BBQ!" and invented fire.
That, and family and nation are two very different things.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Saturday, May 16, 2009 6:41:41 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | so you feel no pride in what your parents acomplished?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yup. Grey uniforms. VERY funny.
Personaly, pride is for something I achieved, not something that was determined from birth.
Names and nationality have very little in common. For a start, the parents can choose the name of the child, whereas the nationality is predetermined. And why would I be proud of where I come from? Why would you be, for that matter? What history do you come from? As far as Im concerned, my history started when I was born, not a day before.
| | | spapad wrote: | | So pride in being who you are from where your from is shunned in your ideal society? Does everyone wear gray uniforms and have a number instead of a name? The act of giving a child a name is in and of itself showing pride in who that person is and where and what history they come from.
No thanks.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well... Its associated with patriotism/nationalism, which nowadays is most commonly associated with the political right. When this has happened, I couldnt say, but it used to be pretty neutral, Im sure. Even Stalin resorted to nationalism in WW2, as did our leaders in WW2 and on, even tho they were leftists.
Basicaly, somewhere in the mid 20th century, most radical leftists in the west returned to the old idea of internationalism, as opposed to nationalism, or patriotism. I guess we can find some reasons in that.
As far as Im concerned, its bullshit. Basicly its saying: dont complain, work, be a good citizen, and do whatever we tell you. Theres more than a bit of fascism in that quote. Its why I personaly oppose any pride or feelings of affection for ones country, ethnic group or race.
| | | Head banger wrote: | |
in the 60 a left/center politician named kenedy uttered this famous line "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" today that would be a very right wing idea. what has caused this shift in ideals and is it a good or bad thing? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [ron h] Saturday, May 16, 2009 7:28:58 PM | |
|
| Can morality be legislated?? Should morality be legislated?? Who decides what's morally right and wrong?? Separation of Church and State in the USA leaves politicians to decide. No soloution satisfies everybody. This is the reality, everything else is personal opinion and I will keep mine to myself on these issues... |
|
| [Head banger] Saturday, May 16, 2009 6:43:39 PM | |
|
what was meant by this phrase, IMO was not a nationalistic message, but that people should do all they can to help their country, rather than asking for help. in short independance, not dependance. now the left calls for more people to behave in a way more dependant on the government, people depend on the govt, not govt on people
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:40:56 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well... Its associated with patriotism/nationalism, which nowadays is most commonly associated with the political right. When this has happened, I couldnt say, but it used to be pretty neutral, Im sure. Even Stalin resorted to nationalism in WW2, as did our leaders in WW2 and on, even tho they were leftists.
Basicaly, somewhere in the mid 20th century, most radical leftists in the west returned to the old idea of internationalism, as opposed to nationalism, or patriotism. I guess we can find some reasons in that.
As far as Im concerned, its bullshit. Basicly its saying: dont complain, work, be a good citizen, and do whatever we tell you. Theres more than a bit of fascism in that quote. Its why I personaly oppose any pride or feelings of affection for ones country, ethnic group or race.
| | | Head banger wrote: | |
in the 60 a left/center politician named kenedy uttered this famous line "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" today that would be a very right wing idea. what has caused this shift in ideals and is it a good or bad thing? |
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Saturday, May 16, 2009 6:41:41 PM | |
|
so you feel no pride in what your parents acomplished?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, May 16, 2009 3:58:43 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yup. Grey uniforms. VERY funny.
Personaly, pride is for something I achieved, not something that was determined from birth.
Names and nationality have very little in common. For a start, the parents can choose the name of the child, whereas the nationality is predetermined. And why would I be proud of where I come from? Why would you be, for that matter? What history do you come from? As far as Im concerned, my history started when I was born, not a day before.
| | | spapad wrote: | | So pride in being who you are from where your from is shunned in your ideal society? Does everyone wear gray uniforms and have a number instead of a name? The act of giving a child a name is in and of itself showing pride in who that person is and where and what history they come from.
No thanks.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well... Its associated with patriotism/nationalism, which nowadays is most commonly associated with the political right. When this has happened, I couldnt say, but it used to be pretty neutral, Im sure. Even Stalin resorted to nationalism in WW2, as did our leaders in WW2 and on, even tho they were leftists.
Basicaly, somewhere in the mid 20th century, most radical leftists in the west returned to the old idea of internationalism, as opposed to nationalism, or patriotism. I guess we can find some reasons in that.
As far as Im concerned, its bullshit. Basicly its saying: dont complain, work, be a good citizen, and do whatever we tell you. Theres more than a bit of fascism in that quote. Its why I personaly oppose any pride or feelings of affection for ones country, ethnic group or race.
| | | Head banger wrote: | |
in the 60 a left/center politician named kenedy uttered this famous line "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" today that would be a very right wing idea. what has caused this shift in ideals and is it a good or bad thing? |
|
|
|
|
|
| [~ MG_Metalgoddess~] Saturday, May 16, 2009 5:23:45 PM | |
|
LOL I meant when you get married the goverment taxes the shit out of you and your spouse.. so I figured they would want to approve the whole gay marriage thing...
I person.. Doesnt matter to me, If people want to get married thats their buisness,, I think there is a whole lot of more real issues and problems going on in the USA.. that the whole gay marriage thing, they act like it more important than the war, or the economic crisis.. unemployment, banks crashing... ect.. I think its ridiculous.. myself... For people to make such an effort and turn out at the poles on this issue, when over half of them dont even vote in the general elections. Then whine and complain about everything else... Priorities.... Is what I call it.... Live and let live..
~MG~
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:03:07 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | The marriage tax not withstanding, I believe it is the loss of property and loss of benefits when one partner dies that is the biggest problem facing those who have no rights under marriage right now. I know a man who has lived with his partner for 45 years, he is now in a nursing home and his partner is still going; and a bit younger, thank god my friend chose to sign his property over to his long term partner a few years back when he saw the enevitable was going to happen to him with illness. His partner, though will never get any benifits of collecting his partner's benefits or social security, which should be by law his. 45 years with the same person should be applauded in any situation, and his rights as his partner have no protection. He will get no benifits except his own and that is not right. Widows barely make it as it is on the money they get, and to not have that portion, he's going to have to work till the day he joins his partner in death to afford to live. Sad really.
| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | Just think how this could benefit the US Goverment, the could penalize more people with the Marriage TAX... LMAO
| | | spapad wrote: | | I honestly believe that most people who profess to be gay were in fact born that way, and if they choose to share their lives in a union with someone, why shouldn't they get the same treatment under the laws that we all get. That said, since 50 percent of marriages fail, let them also enjoy the hardships of that aspect as well. They should be treated just like the rest of us! It's only fair.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok... Since the topic stalled a bit, how about something new? And I know that HB will come rushing to my side now...
Same sex marriage, yay or nay? And please, no miss USA, or miss California, or whatever that shit was about. |
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, May 16, 2009 3:58:43 PM | |
|
Yup. Grey uniforms. VERY funny.
Personaly, pride is for something I achieved, not something that was determined from birth.
Names and nationality have very little in common. For a start, the parents can choose the name of the child, whereas the nationality is predetermined. And why would I be proud of where I come from? Why would you be, for that matter? What history do you come from? As far as Im concerned, my history started when I was born, not a day before.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Saturday, May 16, 2009 3:23:19 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | So pride in being who you are from where your from is shunned in your ideal society? Does everyone wear gray uniforms and have a number instead of a name? The act of giving a child a name is in and of itself showing pride in who that person is and where and what history they come from.
No thanks.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well... Its associated with patriotism/nationalism, which nowadays is most commonly associated with the political right. When this has happened, I couldnt say, but it used to be pretty neutral, Im sure. Even Stalin resorted to nationalism in WW2, as did our leaders in WW2 and on, even tho they were leftists.
Basicaly, somewhere in the mid 20th century, most radical leftists in the west returned to the old idea of internationalism, as opposed to nationalism, or patriotism. I guess we can find some reasons in that.
As far as Im concerned, its bullshit. Basicly its saying: dont complain, work, be a good citizen, and do whatever we tell you. Theres more than a bit of fascism in that quote. Its why I personaly oppose any pride or feelings of affection for ones country, ethnic group or race.
| | | Head banger wrote: | |
in the 60 a left/center politician named kenedy uttered this famous line "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" today that would be a very right wing idea. what has caused this shift in ideals and is it a good or bad thing? |
|
|
|
|
| [spapad] Saturday, May 16, 2009 3:23:19 PM | |
|
So pride in being who you are from where your from is shunned in your ideal society? Does everyone wear gray uniforms and have a number instead of a name? The act of giving a child a name is in and of itself showing pride in who that person is and where and what history they come from.
No thanks.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:40:56 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well... Its associated with patriotism/nationalism, which nowadays is most commonly associated with the political right. When this has happened, I couldnt say, but it used to be pretty neutral, Im sure. Even Stalin resorted to nationalism in WW2, as did our leaders in WW2 and on, even tho they were leftists.
Basicaly, somewhere in the mid 20th century, most radical leftists in the west returned to the old idea of internationalism, as opposed to nationalism, or patriotism. I guess we can find some reasons in that.
As far as Im concerned, its bullshit. Basicly its saying: dont complain, work, be a good citizen, and do whatever we tell you. Theres more than a bit of fascism in that quote. Its why I personaly oppose any pride or feelings of affection for ones country, ethnic group or race.
| | | Head banger wrote: | |
in the 60 a left/center politician named kenedy uttered this famous line "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" today that would be a very right wing idea. what has caused this shift in ideals and is it a good or bad thing? |
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:40:56 PM | |
|
Well... Its associated with patriotism/nationalism, which nowadays is most commonly associated with the political right. When this has happened, I couldnt say, but it used to be pretty neutral, Im sure. Even Stalin resorted to nationalism in WW2, as did our leaders in WW2 and on, even tho they were leftists.
Basicaly, somewhere in the mid 20th century, most radical leftists in the west returned to the old idea of internationalism, as opposed to nationalism, or patriotism. I guess we can find some reasons in that.
As far as Im concerned, its bullshit. Basicly its saying: dont complain, work, be a good citizen, and do whatever we tell you. Theres more than a bit of fascism in that quote. Its why I personaly oppose any pride or feelings of affection for ones country, ethnic group or race.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:26:09 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | |
in the 60 a left/center politician named kenedy uttered this famous line "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" today that would be a very right wing idea. what has caused this shift in ideals and is it a good or bad thing? |
|
|
| [Head banger] Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:26:09 PM | |
|
in the 60 a left/center politician named kenedy uttered this famous line "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" today that would be a very right wing idea. what has caused this shift in ideals and is it a good or bad thing? |
|
| [spapad] Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:03:07 PM | |
|
The marriage tax not withstanding, I believe it is the loss of property and loss of benefits when one partner dies that is the biggest problem facing those who have no rights under marriage right now. I know a man who has lived with his partner for 45 years, he is now in a nursing home and his partner is still going; and a bit younger, thank god my friend chose to sign his property over to his long term partner a few years back when he saw the enevitable was going to happen to him with illness. His partner, though will never get any benifits of collecting his partner's benefits or social security, which should be by law his. 45 years with the same person should be applauded in any situation, and his rights as his partner have no protection. He will get no benifits except his own and that is not right. Widows barely make it as it is on the money they get, and to not have that portion, he's going to have to work till the day he joins his partner in death to afford to live. Sad really.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ from Saturday, May 16, 2009 11:20:48 AM)| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | Just think how this could benefit the US Goverment, the could penalize more people with the Marriage TAX... LMAO
| | | spapad wrote: | | I honestly believe that most people who profess to be gay were in fact born that way, and if they choose to share their lives in a union with someone, why shouldn't they get the same treatment under the laws that we all get. That said, since 50 percent of marriages fail, let them also enjoy the hardships of that aspect as well. They should be treated just like the rest of us! It's only fair.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok... Since the topic stalled a bit, how about something new? And I know that HB will come rushing to my side now...
Same sex marriage, yay or nay? And please, no miss USA, or miss California, or whatever that shit was about. |
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Saturday, May 16, 2009 1:52:56 PM | |
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, May 16, 2009 1:44:30 PM | |
|
Well, I did mean same-sex marriages, as opposed to marriages between people of different races/ethnicities. Not that either is wrong, and certainly isnt wrong if its "frowned upon".
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by BLOOD SUCKER Esquire from Saturday, May 16, 2009 11:18:23 AM)| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | | Mixed marriages? Still frowned upon in most modern societies. a. Hammerstein |
|
|
| [Head banger] Saturday, May 16, 2009 1:36:25 PM | |
|
I say mary who you want. funny story when one canadian province (I forget which) legalized gay mariage they forgot to legalize their divorce.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Friday, May 15, 2009 6:25:32 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | I honestly believe that most people who profess to be gay were in fact born that way, and if they choose to share their lives in a union with someone, why shouldn't they get the same treatment under the laws that we all get. That said, since 50 percent of marriages fail, let them also enjoy the hardships of that aspect as well. They should be treated just like the rest of us! It's only fair.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok... Since the topic stalled a bit, how about something new? And I know that HB will come rushing to my side now...
Same sex marriage, yay or nay? And please, no miss USA, or miss California, or whatever that shit was about. |
|
|
|
| [Soylentgreen4u] Saturday, May 16, 2009 11:28:01 AM | |
|
YES...TIS' A SILLY PLANET  ...I MARRIED A HUMAN ONCE,SHE WAS DELIGHTFUL,SO I DON'T REALLY SEE THE PROBLEM WITH MIXED MIXED MARRIAGES...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by BLOOD SUCKER Esquire from Saturday, May 16, 2009 11:18:23 AM)| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | | Mixed marriages? Still frowned upon in most modern societies. a. Hammerstein |
|
|
| [~ MG_Metalgoddess~] Saturday, May 16, 2009 11:20:48 AM | |
|
Just think how this could benefit the US Goverment, the could penalize more people with the Marriage TAX... LMAO
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Friday, May 15, 2009 6:25:32 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | I honestly believe that most people who profess to be gay were in fact born that way, and if they choose to share their lives in a union with someone, why shouldn't they get the same treatment under the laws that we all get. That said, since 50 percent of marriages fail, let them also enjoy the hardships of that aspect as well. They should be treated just like the rest of us! It's only fair.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok... Since the topic stalled a bit, how about something new? And I know that HB will come rushing to my side now...
Same sex marriage, yay or nay? And please, no miss USA, or miss California, or whatever that shit was about. |
|
|
|
| [BLOOD SUCKER Esquire] Saturday, May 16, 2009 11:18:23 AM | |
|
| Mixed marriages? Still frowned upon in most modern societies. a. Hammerstein |
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, May 16, 2009 1:45:31 AM | |
|
I agree. Basicly, if we go into laws, I think that the only requirement should be that people who want to get married all consent, and are adults. No requierments to the gender.
Although, since they should be treated like the rest of us, we must keep in mind that they are not privileged. Infact its quite the opposite.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Friday, May 15, 2009 6:25:32 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | I honestly believe that most people who profess to be gay were in fact born that way, and if they choose to share their lives in a union with someone, why shouldn't they get the same treatment under the laws that we all get. That said, since 50 percent of marriages fail, let them also enjoy the hardships of that aspect as well. They should be treated just like the rest of us! It's only fair.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok... Since the topic stalled a bit, how about something new? And I know that HB will come rushing to my side now...
Same sex marriage, yay or nay? And please, no miss USA, or miss California, or whatever that shit was about. |
|
|
|
| [spapad] Friday, May 15, 2009 6:25:32 PM | |
|
I honestly believe that most people who profess to be gay were in fact born that way, and if they choose to share their lives in a union with someone, why shouldn't they get the same treatment under the laws that we all get. That said, since 50 percent of marriages fail, let them also enjoy the hardships of that aspect as well. They should be treated just like the rest of us! It's only fair.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, May 15, 2009 5:28:07 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok... Since the topic stalled a bit, how about something new? And I know that HB will come rushing to my side now...
Same sex marriage, yay or nay? And please, no miss USA, or miss California, or whatever that shit was about. |
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, May 15, 2009 5:28:07 PM | |
|
Ok... Since the topic stalled a bit, how about something new? And I know that HB will come rushing to my side now...
Same sex marriage, yay or nay? And please, no miss USA, or miss California, or whatever that shit was about. |
|
| [BLOOD SUCKER Esquire] Thursday, May 14, 2009 12:21:44 PM | |
|
| How do you look at your parents the next morning? How does that parent look at you, now? And if the grand-parents know, then how do you look at your grandparents again? I would asssume that the discomfort level would be rather obvious. And the silence deafening. It just sends the wrong message, as the message you give your child is the one that your child takes out into the world. For any parent that is alright with this, is this the message that you want to pass on your child? Are these your standards, values, and principles? Or lack thereof? Being a parent is a job and a priviledge. And being a parental example is not easy. It's not supposed to be easy. Being responsible is not easy. But it is owed to the child. To be the parent, not the best friend of big sister or brother. Then don't need more friends. They only have one (or two) parents. That is what you are supposed to be. To heck with all the New Age ways of child rearing and the buddy-reward system. They can stuff it! a. Hammerstein |
|
| [_strat_] Thursday, May 14, 2009 11:07:37 AM | |
|
Oh, now thats just cruel... The poor girl had to wait in the closet while you were having dinner? Lol...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Thursday, May 14, 2009 7:42:33 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | HAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well, I suppose this is as good a thread as any to tell the story. Not all THAT much to tell, actually. I had a girlfriend (Barbie..YES! Her real name) back when I was about 16 or 17. One night, I snuck her into my room. I planned to go in with her after dinner. My younger brother happened into my room and found her (with no clothes) in my closet. HAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TRUE story!! He was all bug-eyed and scared! Came to me in a panic. I got him to keep quiet and I went to bed. She left after my parents went to work in the morning.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | A girl in the closet?!?! Did you have them on stock, or something?
Sorry, but that just made me laugh out loud...
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Hmm. Now THIS is an interesting question! You know, I have a problem with it all together but I really think that has to do with upbringing. I mean, there is just NO way I would allow my son or daughter to have a girlfriend or boyfriend stay the night. Period. In fact, even at eighteen there is a lack of mental development and yet we consider them "adults". HA!!!!!!!!!! The fact is, children are not able to make that kind of decision (sexual activity) and understand its ramifications, so they should not be put into that kind of situation in the first place.
HB makes the point that they will find a way. This is quite true, however, I do not want to "appear" to be against casual sex. I AM against it. At least as far as children are concerned. I do not think allowing children to wear make up is wise. Or watch questionable movies. Or speak using foul language. Or drink alcohol (under adult supervision). The point is, as parents, we must establish boundaries and make it clear as to why they are not to be broached. It is not a "control" issue. It is a decency issue. It is how parents teach values. You remember those, don't you? Values? Some of us do.
HB is right. They are going to "do it". We did. My parents did. Their parents did. The point is, it is our responsibility to guide them towards understanding what it means to have self-respect. How to conduct oneself in society. My parents would NEVER have allowed me to bring a girlfriend over for the night. Never. Of course, I did hide one in my bedroom closet once.....HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! True story but not for this post!!! HAHAHAHAA!!!
It is a matter of leading them in the right directions and showing them what is expected of decent society. Children actually DO look to parents for that kind of thing...believe it or not! It is important that we establish the tent poles of decency and build that for them. |
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Thursday, May 14, 2009 7:42:33 AM | |
|
HAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well, I suppose this is as good a thread as any to tell the story. Not all THAT much to tell, actually. I had a girlfriend (Barbie..YES! Her real name) back when I was about 16 or 17. One night, I snuck her into my room. I planned to go in with her after dinner. My younger brother happened into my room and found her (with no clothes) in my closet. HAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TRUE story!! He was all bug-eyed and scared! Came to me in a panic. I got him to keep quiet and I went to bed. She left after my parents went to work in the morning.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Tuesday, May 12, 2009 1:28:16 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | A girl in the closet?!?! Did you have them on stock, or something?
Sorry, but that just made me laugh out loud...
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Hmm. Now THIS is an interesting question! You know, I have a problem with it all together but I really think that has to do with upbringing. I mean, there is just NO way I would allow my son or daughter to have a girlfriend or boyfriend stay the night. Period. In fact, even at eighteen there is a lack of mental development and yet we consider them "adults". HA!!!!!!!!!! The fact is, children are not able to make that kind of decision (sexual activity) and understand its ramifications, so they should not be put into that kind of situation in the first place.
HB makes the point that they will find a way. This is quite true, however, I do not want to "appear" to be against casual sex. I AM against it. At least as far as children are concerned. I do not think allowing children to wear make up is wise. Or watch questionable movies. Or speak using foul language. Or drink alcohol (under adult supervision). The point is, as parents, we must establish boundaries and make it clear as to why they are not to be broached. It is not a "control" issue. It is a decency issue. It is how parents teach values. You remember those, don't you? Values? Some of us do.
HB is right. They are going to "do it". We did. My parents did. Their parents did. The point is, it is our responsibility to guide them towards understanding what it means to have self-respect. How to conduct oneself in society. My parents would NEVER have allowed me to bring a girlfriend over for the night. Never. Of course, I did hide one in my bedroom closet once.....HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! True story but not for this post!!! HAHAHAHAA!!!
It is a matter of leading them in the right directions and showing them what is expected of decent society. Children actually DO look to parents for that kind of thing...believe it or not! It is important that we establish the tent poles of decency and build that for them. |
|
|
|
| [spapad] Tuesday, May 12, 2009 6:02:16 PM | |
|
My answer to that is simple and direct! NOT ON MY WATCH!!!! A good parent would never encourage such behavior. Even when my child reaches her older college years and wants to bring home Mr. Right to meet the fam. on spring break, there will be NO sharing a room! My house, my rules! Once she's married would be the only time she will bring a male into my house and share a room with him.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by BLOOD SUCKER Esquire from Tuesday, May 12, 2009 1:38:30 AM)| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | | QUESTION OF THE DAY: "When is it okay to allow a teenagers boyfriend or girlfriend to sleep over?" a. Hammerstein |
|
|
| [ron h] Tuesday, May 12, 2009 4:22:41 PM | |
|
As a father of an 18 year old daughter who I do not live with, I am left with my opinion vs. her mothers' and my daughter is left to make up her own mind. This was not the case when she was a minor, but my oh my how things changed when that magic number (18) rolled in.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that she would take the chance of throwing away all her efforts in school to make the grades she needed to in order to get into a decent college by risking an unplanned pregnancy by having sex (which is what happens when bf/gf get to stay the night). We all know that if they want to do the deed, they will do it.
I'm at a point in my life (and my daughter's) that I have no choice but to rely on her own morals and values that have been instilled and taught to her throughout her life. Prior to now, there was never any real discussion about it as her and her mother both knew that there was nothing that could be said in a manner to which I would be understanding of or persuaded to ever go along with any situation that would allow that to happen.
I'm not from an age where the kid has to understand why a parent thinks the way they do. Kids nowadays seem to think everythings negotiable with their parents. I don't believe so. This is a tough topic, we all dealt with it growing up, and those of us that are parents get the pleasure of going through it again and again.
I know I wrote earlier that if they want to do it that they'll do it, this much is true, but I think it's irresponsible parenting to roll the red carpet out for them. |
|
| [BLOOD SUCKER Esquire] Tuesday, May 12, 2009 1:48:46 PM | |
|
http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Being_The_Parent_And_The_Friend.html
Edited at: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 1:59:54 PM |
|
| [_strat_] Tuesday, May 12, 2009 1:28:16 PM | |
|
A girl in the closet?!?! Did you have them on stock, or something?
Sorry, but that just made me laugh out loud...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Tuesday, May 12, 2009 8:19:07 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Hmm. Now THIS is an interesting question! You know, I have a problem with it all together but I really think that has to do with upbringing. I mean, there is just NO way I would allow my son or daughter to have a girlfriend or boyfriend stay the night. Period. In fact, even at eighteen there is a lack of mental development and yet we consider them "adults". HA!!!!!!!!!! The fact is, children are not able to make that kind of decision (sexual activity) and understand its ramifications, so they should not be put into that kind of situation in the first place.
HB makes the point that they will find a way. This is quite true, however, I do not want to "appear" to be against casual sex. I AM against it. At least as far as children are concerned. I do not think allowing children to wear make up is wise. Or watch questionable movies. Or speak using foul language. Or drink alcohol (under adult supervision). The point is, as parents, we must establish boundaries and make it clear as to why they are not to be broached. It is not a "control" issue. It is a decency issue. It is how parents teach values. You remember those, don't you? Values? Some of us do.
HB is right. They are going to "do it". We did. My parents did. Their parents did. The point is, it is our responsibility to guide them towards understanding what it means to have self-respect. How to conduct oneself in society. My parents would NEVER have allowed me to bring a girlfriend over for the night. Never. Of course, I did hide one in my bedroom closet once.....HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! True story but not for this post!!! HAHAHAHAA!!!
It is a matter of leading them in the right directions and showing them what is expected of decent society. Children actually DO look to parents for that kind of thing...believe it or not! It is important that we establish the tent poles of decency and build that for them. |
|
|
| [Return_of_Darth_Painkiller_0870] Tuesday, May 12, 2009 9:55:12 AM | |
|
I don't think that allowing your kids' b/f or g/f to sleep over is a good idea at all. Like Freeze pointed out, they don't fully understand the ramifications of such actions. For example, what if the girl gets pregnant???? Granted, if they're away at university, there isn't much of anything we can do about their promiscuity, but we have to instill in them the sense and the values to conduct themselves with a sense of decency. Fuck, I sound like a prude talking like this...However as a parent, I look at my children and think that if I don't instill in them the lessons I have learned in life and my values and sense of decency, and if they don't live by them, then I would have failed them. That all being said, there is no way in hell I would allow my daughter to sleep at some boy's house or my son to sleep at some girl's house. It sets a bad precedent for one, and let's them know they can get away with doing the wild thing wthout fear of reprisal.
Now that I've said my peace, it's time to shower and go see Star Trek!!!! Mr. Sulu...Engage! |
|
| [BLOOD SUCKER Esquire] Tuesday, May 12, 2009 9:37:07 AM | |
|
| Permissive parents that are more interested in being their child's best mate then their parent. The age of the child is irrelevant. As long as that child is a minor and living under the roof of the parents, and going to school, then those parents owe that child a duty of service to behave like responsible parents. Not their mates. It really matters not what little Sally or Tommy do. It really matters not what little Sally's or Tommy's parents condone. What matters is what I condone. And when they're out of school and on their own, then they can formulate theor own decision making process. But while they live under my roof and I pave their way morally and financially, the answer is and will always be a vehement NO! a. Hammerstein |
|
| [Deep Freeze] Tuesday, May 12, 2009 8:19:07 AM | |
|
Hmm. Now THIS is an interesting question! You know, I have a problem with it all together but I really think that has to do with upbringing. I mean, there is just NO way I would allow my son or daughter to have a girlfriend or boyfriend stay the night. Period. In fact, even at eighteen there is a lack of mental development and yet we consider them "adults". HA!!!!!!!!!! The fact is, children are not able to make that kind of decision (sexual activity) and understand its ramifications, so they should not be put into that kind of situation in the first place.
HB makes the point that they will find a way. This is quite true, however, I do not want to "appear" to be against casual sex. I AM against it. At least as far as children are concerned. I do not think allowing children to wear make up is wise. Or watch questionable movies. Or speak using foul language. Or drink alcohol (under adult supervision). The point is, as parents, we must establish boundaries and make it clear as to why they are not to be broached. It is not a "control" issue. It is a decency issue. It is how parents teach values. You remember those, don't you? Values? Some of us do.
HB is right. They are going to "do it". We did. My parents did. Their parents did. The point is, it is our responsibility to guide them towards understanding what it means to have self-respect. How to conduct oneself in society. My parents would NEVER have allowed me to bring a girlfriend over for the night. Never. Of course, I did hide one in my bedroom closet once.....HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! True story but not for this post!!! HAHAHAHAA!!!
It is a matter of leading them in the right directions and showing them what is expected of decent society. Children actually DO look to parents for that kind of thing...believe it or not! It is important that we establish the tent poles of decency and build that for them. |
|
| [Head banger] Tuesday, May 12, 2009 7:20:10 AM | |
|
teenager is a wide range, 13-19. then there is the how long dating, are they in separate rooms, do the room locations offer them an easy way to sneek in together. fact is, they will end up doing anything they want sexualy, regardless of letting one sleep over, but you need to look like you discourage casual sex.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by BLOOD SUCKER Esquire from Tuesday, May 12, 2009 1:38:30 AM)| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | | QUESTION OF THE DAY: "When is it okay to allow a teenagers boyfriend or girlfriend to sleep over?" a. Hammerstein |
|
|
| [BLOOD SUCKER Esquire] Tuesday, May 12, 2009 1:38:30 AM | |
|
| QUESTION OF THE DAY: "When is it okay to allow a teenagers boyfriend or girlfriend to sleep over?" a. Hammerstein |
|
| [Head banger] Monday, May 04, 2009 9:47:07 AM | |
|
I figured
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, May 04, 2009 7:25:58 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I agree. I was being a bit sarcastic with the last sentence.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | all economies are crumbling right now, three reasons stand out.
economic growth goes in cycles
the price of oil got out of control, hurting most nations
credit was extended wrongly puting strain on the system
any one of these things could have been absorbed, all three could not, creating this mess. it will turn around.
share value in the north american market will also turn around. how your share system works, not sure
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Exactly. At the beginning they were worth a fair bit. But, since there were a lot of them, and only a few companies who were buying them... They lost worth. Now, Im guessing its around 100€per person. Maybe not even that much. For 30 years of work in some cases. Thats why the economy is crumbling, I guess.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, right now they would be worth squat, considering the economy
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | No dividends, at least as far as I know. As for the worth, that really depends on the stock market, and of course, the offers. There are several companies who buy them, and they all compete with those prices.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | if they held onto them, would they get dividends? could it be worth more now?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | An individual did what was best for him/her.
Now, I did oversimplify the issue a bit, but the way it went was that you got a certain worth of "certificates". You had a piece of paper that said you own a tiny little piece of something. In practice, there were only two things you could do with it: sell it or wipe your ass with it. Naturaly, people sold it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so then the people decided right? it could be the wrong decision, but their call.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Some were privatised, some are yet to be, some hopefully never will be.
Basicly, those that were privatised, were in a sense "given away", although that is not correct. The state gave each citizen a certain amount of shares (of the companies that were technicaly in ownership of the citizens), which were then in term bought by private hands.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | did the state sell them? give them away? still own them?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | And if the workers werent there to produce, the people with ideas would only have... Well, ideas.
And, of course, there is a difference between our economies here - with most of our companies, no one took that risk, and no one invested money. Companies were created and developed under state planning.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | what if the minimum wage was indexed to the cost of living or average wage, so if the average wage goes up 5% the min wage goes up 5%?
do the workers create the wealth? without the person who came up with the idea for the product, invested their money in it, took the risk, there would be nothing for the workers.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Lol... Yeah, I know about that... We had a similar thing in mid-80s. A country where everyone was a millionare.
Now, it would be a great thing if the real wages would be increased in line with inflation, unfortunately they are not, unless the unions go out, block the streets for a day or two and strike for a week.
Now, gaining or losing. As I said, it would be good if it was true that we wouldnt be losing. But, there is another thing. As I said, workers work, and they lose all the time, no matter the inflation or deflation. Workers create wealth that is then expropriated, and distributed by others. That is why I say that they los all the time.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | inflation occurs when more money is placed into circulation, thats true. but the more times the money circulates the more peoples earnings go up vs the inflationary index. I was speaking of earnings power not dollars. look at zimbabwe, last year their inflation went up so fast that you could earn 10 million dollars one day (their dollars) and the next day that wouldnt get you a cup of water. people regularily earned that much and got nothing for it. would be cool to say you earned that, but...
so if the workers real (indexed to inflation) doesnt change, how is he losing. he gets the same thing. can buy the same stuff. not gaining does not equate to losing
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Wrong and wrong. More money in circulation is fine, but if the basic guaranteed incomes arent increased, how can those at the bottom get to it? That, and more money in circulation means inflation, which in term means that you need to pay more.
How are they not losing anything? The people at the bottom are the people doing the dirtiest, hardest and most underpaid jobs. They are losing all the time. If the get a bit more, that just means that they are not losing as much.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but, more money in circulation means everyone has more oportunity. and if those at the botom stay the same, they havent lost anything right
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | LOL... No. Not when you calculate everything in averages. If those at the top move a great distance higher, that alone raises the average. The people at the bottom dont need to get anything more to raise the average standard.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but if the average standard is higher, surely that moves the people at the botom up a bit. it might move those at the top up a great distance, but most people get something.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | It would be, yes. But... We are an economy of some 2 million people. Germany is of 100 million. Germany has been a capitalist country for a century and more, we for 20 years. Their middle sized companies dwarf our big businesses. And most importantly, we already depend on them. And even if we were at their standard, we would still encounter the same problems that any capitalist society does. The pyramidal structure of society, corporate greed, lack of social security... All problems that we already have, to be sure. The point is that just an overall higher standard wouldnt solve them.
For better or for worse, we will never be like Germany. Infact, leaving socialism and attempting to compete in caplitalism with the old capitalist countries, was probably the single most stupid decision in our history.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, if you were on an equal footing with say germany, wouldnt the standard of living be higher?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hardly. And, why would we want to compete in an open economy?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | didnt knwo they had a different name for the economic and military aliance. good to know. do you think your country could grow its economy in a closed setting to be able to compete on equal footing one day as an open economy
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, first of all, the word youre looking for is COMECON. That was the economic union, Warsaw pact was a military alliance. But, since fmr. Yugoslavia wasnt a member of either, there isnt much that I can say about them.
Now, a closed vs. open economy... You see, I dont necesarily favour closed economies. I think that it would be better for us at this point to have a closed economy, since we are a small economy, that has a hard time standing up to the big ones. Like I said before, if the paricipants were more or less equal in strenght, than it would be different.
Now, to your question. Yes, you can have all four, at least thats what I think. A capitalist country can, potentialy, close its market, and remain capitalist on the inside. A socialist country can engage in trade with other countries, as COMECON countries did, and as we did, even though on a very small scale.
And thats another thing, too. Its not a black and white issue, open vs. closed, and nothing in between. Like I said, our economy was very closed, with a lot of protectionism. Did it mean that we did not trade with other countries? No. There were still excesses in our economy that were sold, and there were materials and products that we imported. We had to import oil, for example, as well as certain consumer goods (like coffee), simply because there was no other way we could get them.
But, trade is only a part of the story... The reason why I advocate a closed economy is primarily because of the ownership of businesses. You see, in a socialist economy, no matter how open, businesses are state owned. No one can come from abroad and buy the business, and bag the profits. In an open capitalist economy, that is not a problem.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | | so strat, since we agreed in another thread, perhaps we can in this one. you favor a closed economy vs an open one. the warsaw pact was a group of socialist or comunist countries that had open trade with eachother. would you agree that you can have a closed socialist economy an open socialist economy, a closed capitalist or open capitalist. not which is beter, just their existance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, May 04, 2009 9:14:39 AM | |
|
The way you throw your hands in the air, its a wonder you still have them.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Monday, May 04, 2009 7:51:16 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | | Umm...EVERYTHING strat is saying here is wrong and ...that's just the way it is..(*throwing my hands in the air*) BWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Monday, May 04, 2009 7:51:16 AM | |
|
| Umm...EVERYTHING strat is saying here is wrong and ...that's just the way it is..(*throwing my hands in the air*) BWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| [_strat_] Monday, May 04, 2009 7:25:58 AM | |
|
I agree. I was being a bit sarcastic with the last sentence.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, May 04, 2009 6:48:41 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | all economies are crumbling right now, three reasons stand out.
economic growth goes in cycles
the price of oil got out of control, hurting most nations
credit was extended wrongly puting strain on the system
any one of these things could have been absorbed, all three could not, creating this mess. it will turn around.
share value in the north american market will also turn around. how your share system works, not sure
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Exactly. At the beginning they were worth a fair bit. But, since there were a lot of them, and only a few companies who were buying them... They lost worth. Now, Im guessing its around 100€per person. Maybe not even that much. For 30 years of work in some cases. Thats why the economy is crumbling, I guess.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, right now they would be worth squat, considering the economy
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | No dividends, at least as far as I know. As for the worth, that really depends on the stock market, and of course, the offers. There are several companies who buy them, and they all compete with those prices.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | if they held onto them, would they get dividends? could it be worth more now?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | An individual did what was best for him/her.
Now, I did oversimplify the issue a bit, but the way it went was that you got a certain worth of "certificates". You had a piece of paper that said you own a tiny little piece of something. In practice, there were only two things you could do with it: sell it or wipe your ass with it. Naturaly, people sold it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so then the people decided right? it could be the wrong decision, but their call.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Some were privatised, some are yet to be, some hopefully never will be.
Basicly, those that were privatised, were in a sense "given away", although that is not correct. The state gave each citizen a certain amount of shares (of the companies that were technicaly in ownership of the citizens), which were then in term bought by private hands.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | did the state sell them? give them away? still own them?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | And if the workers werent there to produce, the people with ideas would only have... Well, ideas.
And, of course, there is a difference between our economies here - with most of our companies, no one took that risk, and no one invested money. Companies were created and developed under state planning.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | what if the minimum wage was indexed to the cost of living or average wage, so if the average wage goes up 5% the min wage goes up 5%?
do the workers create the wealth? without the person who came up with the idea for the product, invested their money in it, took the risk, there would be nothing for the workers.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Lol... Yeah, I know about that... We had a similar thing in mid-80s. A country where everyone was a millionare.
Now, it would be a great thing if the real wages would be increased in line with inflation, unfortunately they are not, unless the unions go out, block the streets for a day or two and strike for a week.
Now, gaining or losing. As I said, it would be good if it was true that we wouldnt be losing. But, there is another thing. As I said, workers work, and they lose all the time, no matter the inflation or deflation. Workers create wealth that is then expropriated, and distributed by others. That is why I say that they los all the time.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | inflation occurs when more money is placed into circulation, thats true. but the more times the money circulates the more peoples earnings go up vs the inflationary index. I was speaking of earnings power not dollars. look at zimbabwe, last year their inflation went up so fast that you could earn 10 million dollars one day (their dollars) and the next day that wouldnt get you a cup of water. people regularily earned that much and got nothing for it. would be cool to say you earned that, but...
so if the workers real (indexed to inflation) doesnt change, how is he losing. he gets the same thing. can buy the same stuff. not gaining does not equate to losing
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Wrong and wrong. More money in circulation is fine, but if the basic guaranteed incomes arent increased, how can those at the bottom get to it? That, and more money in circulation means inflation, which in term means that you need to pay more.
How are they not losing anything? The people at the bottom are the people doing the dirtiest, hardest and most underpaid jobs. They are losing all the time. If the get a bit more, that just means that they are not losing as much.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but, more money in circulation means everyone has more oportunity. and if those at the botom stay the same, they havent lost anything right
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | LOL... No. Not when you calculate everything in averages. If those at the top move a great distance higher, that alone raises the average. The people at the bottom dont need to get anything more to raise the average standard.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but if the average standard is higher, surely that moves the people at the botom up a bit. it might move those at the top up a great distance, but most people get something.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | It would be, yes. But... We are an economy of some 2 million people. Germany is of 100 million. Germany has been a capitalist country for a century and more, we for 20 years. Their middle sized companies dwarf our big businesses. And most importantly, we already depend on them. And even if we were at their standard, we would still encounter the same problems that any capitalist society does. The pyramidal structure of society, corporate greed, lack of social security... All problems that we already have, to be sure. The point is that just an overall higher standard wouldnt solve them.
For better or for worse, we will never be like Germany. Infact, leaving socialism and attempting to compete in caplitalism with the old capitalist countries, was probably the single most stupid decision in our history.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, if you were on an equal footing with say germany, wouldnt the standard of living be higher?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hardly. And, why would we want to compete in an open economy?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | didnt knwo they had a different name for the economic and military aliance. good to know. do you think your country could grow its economy in a closed setting to be able to compete on equal footing one day as an open economy
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, first of all, the word youre looking for is COMECON. That was the economic union, Warsaw pact was a military alliance. But, since fmr. Yugoslavia wasnt a member of either, there isnt much that I can say about them.
Now, a closed vs. open economy... You see, I dont necesarily favour closed economies. I think that it would be better for us at this point to have a closed economy, since we are a small economy, that has a hard time standing up to the big ones. Like I said before, if the paricipants were more or less equal in strenght, than it would be different.
Now, to your question. Yes, you can have all four, at least thats what I think. A capitalist country can, potentialy, close its market, and remain capitalist on the inside. A socialist country can engage in trade with other countries, as COMECON countries did, and as we did, even though on a very small scale.
And thats another thing, too. Its not a black and white issue, open vs. closed, and nothing in between. Like I said, our economy was very closed, with a lot of protectionism. Did it mean that we did not trade with other countries? No. There were still excesses in our economy that were sold, and there were materials and products that we imported. We had to import oil, for example, as well as certain consumer goods (like coffee), simply because there was no other way we could get them.
But, trade is only a part of the story... The reason why I advocate a closed economy is primarily because of the ownership of businesses. You see, in a socialist economy, no matter how open, businesses are state owned. No one can come from abroad and buy the business, and bag the profits. In an open capitalist economy, that is not a problem.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | | so strat, since we agreed in another thread, perhaps we can in this one. you favor a closed economy vs an open one. the warsaw pact was a group of socialist or comunist countries that had open trade with eachother. would you agree that you can have a closed socialist economy an open socialist economy, a closed capitalist or open capitalist. not which is beter, just their existance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, May 04, 2009 6:54:21 AM | |
|
yeah, sure. will get right on that.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, May 04, 2009 1:36:24 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yup. Parties are bullshit, one party rules. My party. I expect to have my picture on your desktop, and you will pray to me before you go to sleep.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | there you go, you have politics figured out.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Quite frankly, I think that the parties are bullshit. Populism, to win more votes. Politics are all about advertising now, and less about the content.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | I like the idea that everyone votes, but I also like the idea that you have an option to say these guys are all idiots find me a new slate of candidates. multiparty systems do create coalitions and short terms, which could be good or bad. personaly I am starting to like the 2 party system in the states beter. but you cant take a multiparty system and go back, only forwards. perhaps merging parties would help?
| | | Ellieke wrote: | | If anyone is looking for a politic challenge, just start with our Belgium politic system.
We have to vote , if we don't we'll get a fine of atleast 250€ but even when the results are in they can't make up their mind who is gone lead the country.
We are a year after the past election and still we don't know for sure who is leading Belgium, on June 7th we'll have to vote again maybe they will come to a workingagrement this time.
It's so complicated to know who is who and who does what, we have 3 different parlements for the 3 parts of Belgium and we have one that is for the whole of Belgium.
We have a king who doesn't have anything to say but hey is nice to see his castle and the gossip is fun.
Politics , nothing for me and I'm byfar not the only one who things about it like this. The people are so sick of the "buddy-politics" it wouldn't surpice me if there is a national stike if the results of the next voting are respected by the politicians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, May 04, 2009 6:48:41 AM | |
|
all economies are crumbling right now, three reasons stand out.
economic growth goes in cycles
the price of oil got out of control, hurting most nations
credit was extended wrongly puting strain on the system
any one of these things could have been absorbed, all three could not, creating this mess. it will turn around.
share value in the north american market will also turn around. how your share system works, not sure
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, May 04, 2009 1:32:06 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Exactly. At the beginning they were worth a fair bit. But, since there were a lot of them, and only a few companies who were buying them... They lost worth. Now, Im guessing its around 100€per person. Maybe not even that much. For 30 years of work in some cases. Thats why the economy is crumbling, I guess.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, right now they would be worth squat, considering the economy
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | No dividends, at least as far as I know. As for the worth, that really depends on the stock market, and of course, the offers. There are several companies who buy them, and they all compete with those prices.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | if they held onto them, would they get dividends? could it be worth more now?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | An individual did what was best for him/her.
Now, I did oversimplify the issue a bit, but the way it went was that you got a certain worth of "certificates". You had a piece of paper that said you own a tiny little piece of something. In practice, there were only two things you could do with it: sell it or wipe your ass with it. Naturaly, people sold it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so then the people decided right? it could be the wrong decision, but their call.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Some were privatised, some are yet to be, some hopefully never will be.
Basicly, those that were privatised, were in a sense "given away", although that is not correct. The state gave each citizen a certain amount of shares (of the companies that were technicaly in ownership of the citizens), which were then in term bought by private hands.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | did the state sell them? give them away? still own them?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | And if the workers werent there to produce, the people with ideas would only have... Well, ideas.
And, of course, there is a difference between our economies here - with most of our companies, no one took that risk, and no one invested money. Companies were created and developed under state planning.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | what if the minimum wage was indexed to the cost of living or average wage, so if the average wage goes up 5% the min wage goes up 5%?
do the workers create the wealth? without the person who came up with the idea for the product, invested their money in it, took the risk, there would be nothing for the workers.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Lol... Yeah, I know about that... We had a similar thing in mid-80s. A country where everyone was a millionare.
Now, it would be a great thing if the real wages would be increased in line with inflation, unfortunately they are not, unless the unions go out, block the streets for a day or two and strike for a week.
Now, gaining or losing. As I said, it would be good if it was true that we wouldnt be losing. But, there is another thing. As I said, workers work, and they lose all the time, no matter the inflation or deflation. Workers create wealth that is then expropriated, and distributed by others. That is why I say that they los all the time.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | inflation occurs when more money is placed into circulation, thats true. but the more times the money circulates the more peoples earnings go up vs the inflationary index. I was speaking of earnings power not dollars. look at zimbabwe, last year their inflation went up so fast that you could earn 10 million dollars one day (their dollars) and the next day that wouldnt get you a cup of water. people regularily earned that much and got nothing for it. would be cool to say you earned that, but...
so if the workers real (indexed to inflation) doesnt change, how is he losing. he gets the same thing. can buy the same stuff. not gaining does not equate to losing
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Wrong and wrong. More money in circulation is fine, but if the basic guaranteed incomes arent increased, how can those at the bottom get to it? That, and more money in circulation means inflation, which in term means that you need to pay more.
How are they not losing anything? The people at the bottom are the people doing the dirtiest, hardest and most underpaid jobs. They are losing all the time. If the get a bit more, that just means that they are not losing as much.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but, more money in circulation means everyone has more oportunity. and if those at the botom stay the same, they havent lost anything right
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | LOL... No. Not when you calculate everything in averages. If those at the top move a great distance higher, that alone raises the average. The people at the bottom dont need to get anything more to raise the average standard.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but if the average standard is higher, surely that moves the people at the botom up a bit. it might move those at the top up a great distance, but most people get something.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | It would be, yes. But... We are an economy of some 2 million people. Germany is of 100 million. Germany has been a capitalist country for a century and more, we for 20 years. Their middle sized companies dwarf our big businesses. And most importantly, we already depend on them. And even if we were at their standard, we would still encounter the same problems that any capitalist society does. The pyramidal structure of society, corporate greed, lack of social security... All problems that we already have, to be sure. The point is that just an overall higher standard wouldnt solve them.
For better or for worse, we will never be like Germany. Infact, leaving socialism and attempting to compete in caplitalism with the old capitalist countries, was probably the single most stupid decision in our history.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, if you were on an equal footing with say germany, wouldnt the standard of living be higher?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hardly. And, why would we want to compete in an open economy?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | didnt knwo they had a different name for the economic and military aliance. good to know. do you think your country could grow its economy in a closed setting to be able to compete on equal footing one day as an open economy
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, first of all, the word youre looking for is COMECON. That was the economic union, Warsaw pact was a military alliance. But, since fmr. Yugoslavia wasnt a member of either, there isnt much that I can say about them.
Now, a closed vs. open economy... You see, I dont necesarily favour closed economies. I think that it would be better for us at this point to have a closed economy, since we are a small economy, that has a hard time standing up to the big ones. Like I said before, if the paricipants were more or less equal in strenght, than it would be different.
Now, to your question. Yes, you can have all four, at least thats what I think. A capitalist country can, potentialy, close its market, and remain capitalist on the inside. A socialist country can engage in trade with other countries, as COMECON countries did, and as we did, even though on a very small scale.
And thats another thing, too. Its not a black and white issue, open vs. closed, and nothing in between. Like I said, our economy was very closed, with a lot of protectionism. Did it mean that we did not trade with other countries? No. There were still excesses in our economy that were sold, and there were materials and products that we imported. We had to import oil, for example, as well as certain consumer goods (like coffee), simply because there was no other way we could get them.
But, trade is only a part of the story... The reason why I advocate a closed economy is primarily because of the ownership of businesses. You see, in a socialist economy, no matter how open, businesses are state owned. No one can come from abroad and buy the business, and bag the profits. In an open capitalist economy, that is not a problem.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | | so strat, since we agreed in another thread, perhaps we can in this one. you favor a closed economy vs an open one. the warsaw pact was a group of socialist or comunist countries that had open trade with eachother. would you agree that you can have a closed socialist economy an open socialist economy, a closed capitalist or open capitalist. not which is beter, just their existance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Ellieke] Monday, May 04, 2009 2:13:28 AM | |
|
Tell me about it !!
We have to vote , not choice there or you'll get a fine of 250€, but what ever the people say the gouverment just makes up it's onw rules later on.
democracy they call it ! tsssssssss |
|
| [BLOOD SUCKER Esquire] Monday, May 04, 2009 2:04:41 AM | |
|
| Voting does not work. You replace one idea with another idea. And then in a few years, you want that old idea back. And then back and forth again. There are far too few political parties in some countries, and far to many in others. But at the end of the day, ideals like communism, socialism, fascism, and totalitarianism are not too far off from being the purest form of idealogical forms of government. Too many voices, and too many generals eventually spoil the stew. The stew only needs a few ingredients to taste good. Meat, potatoes, carrots, onions, garlic, and gravy. Add some salt and pepper, and it tastes good. But add the wrong ingredients, and you have to throw the stew out. Just like bad goverment. a. Hammerstein |
|
| [_strat_] Monday, May 04, 2009 1:36:24 AM | |
|
Yup. Parties are bullshit, one party rules. My party. I expect to have my picture on your desktop, and you will pray to me before you go to sleep.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, May 03, 2009 9:07:23 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | there you go, you have politics figured out.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Quite frankly, I think that the parties are bullshit. Populism, to win more votes. Politics are all about advertising now, and less about the content.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | I like the idea that everyone votes, but I also like the idea that you have an option to say these guys are all idiots find me a new slate of candidates. multiparty systems do create coalitions and short terms, which could be good or bad. personaly I am starting to like the 2 party system in the states beter. but you cant take a multiparty system and go back, only forwards. perhaps merging parties would help?
| | | Ellieke wrote: | | If anyone is looking for a politic challenge, just start with our Belgium politic system.
We have to vote , if we don't we'll get a fine of atleast 250€ but even when the results are in they can't make up their mind who is gone lead the country.
We are a year after the past election and still we don't know for sure who is leading Belgium, on June 7th we'll have to vote again maybe they will come to a workingagrement this time.
It's so complicated to know who is who and who does what, we have 3 different parlements for the 3 parts of Belgium and we have one that is for the whole of Belgium.
We have a king who doesn't have anything to say but hey is nice to see his castle and the gossip is fun.
Politics , nothing for me and I'm byfar not the only one who things about it like this. The people are so sick of the "buddy-politics" it wouldn't surpice me if there is a national stike if the results of the next voting are respected by the politicians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, May 04, 2009 1:32:06 AM | |
|
Exactly. At the beginning they were worth a fair bit. But, since there were a lot of them, and only a few companies who were buying them... They lost worth. Now, Im guessing its around 100€per person. Maybe not even that much. For 30 years of work in some cases. Thats why the economy is crumbling, I guess.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, May 03, 2009 9:08:31 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, right now they would be worth squat, considering the economy
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | No dividends, at least as far as I know. As for the worth, that really depends on the stock market, and of course, the offers. There are several companies who buy them, and they all compete with those prices.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | if they held onto them, would they get dividends? could it be worth more now?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | An individual did what was best for him/her.
Now, I did oversimplify the issue a bit, but the way it went was that you got a certain worth of "certificates". You had a piece of paper that said you own a tiny little piece of something. In practice, there were only two things you could do with it: sell it or wipe your ass with it. Naturaly, people sold it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so then the people decided right? it could be the wrong decision, but their call.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Some were privatised, some are yet to be, some hopefully never will be.
Basicly, those that were privatised, were in a sense "given away", although that is not correct. The state gave each citizen a certain amount of shares (of the companies that were technicaly in ownership of the citizens), which were then in term bought by private hands.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | did the state sell them? give them away? still own them?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | And if the workers werent there to produce, the people with ideas would only have... Well, ideas.
And, of course, there is a difference between our economies here - with most of our companies, no one took that risk, and no one invested money. Companies were created and developed under state planning.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | what if the minimum wage was indexed to the cost of living or average wage, so if the average wage goes up 5% the min wage goes up 5%?
do the workers create the wealth? without the person who came up with the idea for the product, invested their money in it, took the risk, there would be nothing for the workers.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Lol... Yeah, I know about that... We had a similar thing in mid-80s. A country where everyone was a millionare.
Now, it would be a great thing if the real wages would be increased in line with inflation, unfortunately they are not, unless the unions go out, block the streets for a day or two and strike for a week.
Now, gaining or losing. As I said, it would be good if it was true that we wouldnt be losing. But, there is another thing. As I said, workers work, and they lose all the time, no matter the inflation or deflation. Workers create wealth that is then expropriated, and distributed by others. That is why I say that they los all the time.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | inflation occurs when more money is placed into circulation, thats true. but the more times the money circulates the more peoples earnings go up vs the inflationary index. I was speaking of earnings power not dollars. look at zimbabwe, last year their inflation went up so fast that you could earn 10 million dollars one day (their dollars) and the next day that wouldnt get you a cup of water. people regularily earned that much and got nothing for it. would be cool to say you earned that, but...
so if the workers real (indexed to inflation) doesnt change, how is he losing. he gets the same thing. can buy the same stuff. not gaining does not equate to losing
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Wrong and wrong. More money in circulation is fine, but if the basic guaranteed incomes arent increased, how can those at the bottom get to it? That, and more money in circulation means inflation, which in term means that you need to pay more.
How are they not losing anything? The people at the bottom are the people doing the dirtiest, hardest and most underpaid jobs. They are losing all the time. If the get a bit more, that just means that they are not losing as much.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but, more money in circulation means everyone has more oportunity. and if those at the botom stay the same, they havent lost anything right
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | LOL... No. Not when you calculate everything in averages. If those at the top move a great distance higher, that alone raises the average. The people at the bottom dont need to get anything more to raise the average standard.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but if the average standard is higher, surely that moves the people at the botom up a bit. it might move those at the top up a great distance, but most people get something.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | It would be, yes. But... We are an economy of some 2 million people. Germany is of 100 million. Germany has been a capitalist country for a century and more, we for 20 years. Their middle sized companies dwarf our big businesses. And most importantly, we already depend on them. And even if we were at their standard, we would still encounter the same problems that any capitalist society does. The pyramidal structure of society, corporate greed, lack of social security... All problems that we already have, to be sure. The point is that just an overall higher standard wouldnt solve them.
For better or for worse, we will never be like Germany. Infact, leaving socialism and attempting to compete in caplitalism with the old capitalist countries, was probably the single most stupid decision in our history.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, if you were on an equal footing with say germany, wouldnt the standard of living be higher?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hardly. And, why would we want to compete in an open economy?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | didnt knwo they had a different name for the economic and military aliance. good to know. do you think your country could grow its economy in a closed setting to be able to compete on equal footing one day as an open economy
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, first of all, the word youre looking for is COMECON. That was the economic union, Warsaw pact was a military alliance. But, since fmr. Yugoslavia wasnt a member of either, there isnt much that I can say about them.
Now, a closed vs. open economy... You see, I dont necesarily favour closed economies. I think that it would be better for us at this point to have a closed economy, since we are a small economy, that has a hard time standing up to the big ones. Like I said before, if the paricipants were more or less equal in strenght, than it would be different.
Now, to your question. Yes, you can have all four, at least thats what I think. A capitalist country can, potentialy, close its market, and remain capitalist on the inside. A socialist country can engage in trade with other countries, as COMECON countries did, and as we did, even though on a very small scale.
And thats another thing, too. Its not a black and white issue, open vs. closed, and nothing in between. Like I said, our economy was very closed, with a lot of protectionism. Did it mean that we did not trade with other countries? No. There were still excesses in our economy that were sold, and there were materials and products that we imported. We had to import oil, for example, as well as certain consumer goods (like coffee), simply because there was no other way we could get them.
But, trade is only a part of the story... The reason why I advocate a closed economy is primarily because of the ownership of businesses. You see, in a socialist economy, no matter how open, businesses are state owned. No one can come from abroad and buy the business, and bag the profits. In an open capitalist economy, that is not a problem.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | | so strat, since we agreed in another thread, perhaps we can in this one. you favor a closed economy vs an open one. the warsaw pact was a group of socialist or comunist countries that had open trade with eachother. would you agree that you can have a closed socialist economy an open socialist economy, a closed capitalist or open capitalist. not which is beter, just their existance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Sunday, May 03, 2009 9:08:31 PM | |
|
well, right now they would be worth squat, considering the economy
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, May 03, 2009 1:00:06 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | No dividends, at least as far as I know. As for the worth, that really depends on the stock market, and of course, the offers. There are several companies who buy them, and they all compete with those prices.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | if they held onto them, would they get dividends? could it be worth more now?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | An individual did what was best for him/her.
Now, I did oversimplify the issue a bit, but the way it went was that you got a certain worth of "certificates". You had a piece of paper that said you own a tiny little piece of something. In practice, there were only two things you could do with it: sell it or wipe your ass with it. Naturaly, people sold it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so then the people decided right? it could be the wrong decision, but their call.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Some were privatised, some are yet to be, some hopefully never will be.
Basicly, those that were privatised, were in a sense "given away", although that is not correct. The state gave each citizen a certain amount of shares (of the companies that were technicaly in ownership of the citizens), which were then in term bought by private hands.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | did the state sell them? give them away? still own them?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | And if the workers werent there to produce, the people with ideas would only have... Well, ideas.
And, of course, there is a difference between our economies here - with most of our companies, no one took that risk, and no one invested money. Companies were created and developed under state planning.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | what if the minimum wage was indexed to the cost of living or average wage, so if the average wage goes up 5% the min wage goes up 5%?
do the workers create the wealth? without the person who came up with the idea for the product, invested their money in it, took the risk, there would be nothing for the workers.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Lol... Yeah, I know about that... We had a similar thing in mid-80s. A country where everyone was a millionare.
Now, it would be a great thing if the real wages would be increased in line with inflation, unfortunately they are not, unless the unions go out, block the streets for a day or two and strike for a week.
Now, gaining or losing. As I said, it would be good if it was true that we wouldnt be losing. But, there is another thing. As I said, workers work, and they lose all the time, no matter the inflation or deflation. Workers create wealth that is then expropriated, and distributed by others. That is why I say that they los all the time.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | inflation occurs when more money is placed into circulation, thats true. but the more times the money circulates the more peoples earnings go up vs the inflationary index. I was speaking of earnings power not dollars. look at zimbabwe, last year their inflation went up so fast that you could earn 10 million dollars one day (their dollars) and the next day that wouldnt get you a cup of water. people regularily earned that much and got nothing for it. would be cool to say you earned that, but...
so if the workers real (indexed to inflation) doesnt change, how is he losing. he gets the same thing. can buy the same stuff. not gaining does not equate to losing
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Wrong and wrong. More money in circulation is fine, but if the basic guaranteed incomes arent increased, how can those at the bottom get to it? That, and more money in circulation means inflation, which in term means that you need to pay more.
How are they not losing anything? The people at the bottom are the people doing the dirtiest, hardest and most underpaid jobs. They are losing all the time. If the get a bit more, that just means that they are not losing as much.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but, more money in circulation means everyone has more oportunity. and if those at the botom stay the same, they havent lost anything right
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | LOL... No. Not when you calculate everything in averages. If those at the top move a great distance higher, that alone raises the average. The people at the bottom dont need to get anything more to raise the average standard.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but if the average standard is higher, surely that moves the people at the botom up a bit. it might move those at the top up a great distance, but most people get something.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | It would be, yes. But... We are an economy of some 2 million people. Germany is of 100 million. Germany has been a capitalist country for a century and more, we for 20 years. Their middle sized companies dwarf our big businesses. And most importantly, we already depend on them. And even if we were at their standard, we would still encounter the same problems that any capitalist society does. The pyramidal structure of society, corporate greed, lack of social security... All problems that we already have, to be sure. The point is that just an overall higher standard wouldnt solve them.
For better or for worse, we will never be like Germany. Infact, leaving socialism and attempting to compete in caplitalism with the old capitalist countries, was probably the single most stupid decision in our history.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, if you were on an equal footing with say germany, wouldnt the standard of living be higher?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hardly. And, why would we want to compete in an open economy?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | didnt knwo they had a different name for the economic and military aliance. good to know. do you think your country could grow its economy in a closed setting to be able to compete on equal footing one day as an open economy
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, first of all, the word youre looking for is COMECON. That was the economic union, Warsaw pact was a military alliance. But, since fmr. Yugoslavia wasnt a member of either, there isnt much that I can say about them.
Now, a closed vs. open economy... You see, I dont necesarily favour closed economies. I think that it would be better for us at this point to have a closed economy, since we are a small economy, that has a hard time standing up to the big ones. Like I said before, if the paricipants were more or less equal in strenght, than it would be different.
Now, to your question. Yes, you can have all four, at least thats what I think. A capitalist country can, potentialy, close its market, and remain capitalist on the inside. A socialist country can engage in trade with other countries, as COMECON countries did, and as we did, even though on a very small scale.
And thats another thing, too. Its not a black and white issue, open vs. closed, and nothing in between. Like I said, our economy was very closed, with a lot of protectionism. Did it mean that we did not trade with other countries? No. There were still excesses in our economy that were sold, and there were materials and products that we imported. We had to import oil, for example, as well as certain consumer goods (like coffee), simply because there was no other way we could get them.
But, trade is only a part of the story... The reason why I advocate a closed economy is primarily because of the ownership of businesses. You see, in a socialist economy, no matter how open, businesses are state owned. No one can come from abroad and buy the business, and bag the profits. In an open capitalist economy, that is not a problem.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | | so strat, since we agreed in another thread, perhaps we can in this one. you favor a closed economy vs an open one. the warsaw pact was a group of socialist or comunist countries that had open trade with eachother. would you agree that you can have a closed socialist economy an open socialist economy, a closed capitalist or open capitalist. not which is beter, just their existance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Sunday, May 03, 2009 9:07:23 PM | |
|
there you go, you have politics figured out.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, May 03, 2009 1:02:16 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Quite frankly, I think that the parties are bullshit. Populism, to win more votes. Politics are all about advertising now, and less about the content.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | I like the idea that everyone votes, but I also like the idea that you have an option to say these guys are all idiots find me a new slate of candidates. multiparty systems do create coalitions and short terms, which could be good or bad. personaly I am starting to like the 2 party system in the states beter. but you cant take a multiparty system and go back, only forwards. perhaps merging parties would help?
| | | Ellieke wrote: | | If anyone is looking for a politic challenge, just start with our Belgium politic system.
We have to vote , if we don't we'll get a fine of atleast 250€ but even when the results are in they can't make up their mind who is gone lead the country.
We are a year after the past election and still we don't know for sure who is leading Belgium, on June 7th we'll have to vote again maybe they will come to a workingagrement this time.
It's so complicated to know who is who and who does what, we have 3 different parlements for the 3 parts of Belgium and we have one that is for the whole of Belgium.
We have a king who doesn't have anything to say but hey is nice to see his castle and the gossip is fun.
Politics , nothing for me and I'm byfar not the only one who things about it like this. The people are so sick of the "buddy-politics" it wouldn't surpice me if there is a national stike if the results of the next voting are respected by the politicians.
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Sunday, May 03, 2009 1:02:16 PM | |
|
Quite frankly, I think that the parties are bullshit. Populism, to win more votes. Politics are all about advertising now, and less about the content.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, May 03, 2009 10:27:03 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | I like the idea that everyone votes, but I also like the idea that you have an option to say these guys are all idiots find me a new slate of candidates. multiparty systems do create coalitions and short terms, which could be good or bad. personaly I am starting to like the 2 party system in the states beter. but you cant take a multiparty system and go back, only forwards. perhaps merging parties would help?
| | | Ellieke wrote: | | If anyone is looking for a politic challenge, just start with our Belgium politic system.
We have to vote , if we don't we'll get a fine of atleast 250€ but even when the results are in they can't make up their mind who is gone lead the country.
We are a year after the past election and still we don't know for sure who is leading Belgium, on June 7th we'll have to vote again maybe they will come to a workingagrement this time.
It's so complicated to know who is who and who does what, we have 3 different parlements for the 3 parts of Belgium and we have one that is for the whole of Belgium.
We have a king who doesn't have anything to say but hey is nice to see his castle and the gossip is fun.
Politics , nothing for me and I'm byfar not the only one who things about it like this. The people are so sick of the "buddy-politics" it wouldn't surpice me if there is a national stike if the results of the next voting are respected by the politicians.
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Sunday, May 03, 2009 1:00:06 PM | |
|
No dividends, at least as far as I know. As for the worth, that really depends on the stock market, and of course, the offers. There are several companies who buy them, and they all compete with those prices.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, May 03, 2009 10:21:10 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | if they held onto them, would they get dividends? could it be worth more now?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | An individual did what was best for him/her.
Now, I did oversimplify the issue a bit, but the way it went was that you got a certain worth of "certificates". You had a piece of paper that said you own a tiny little piece of something. In practice, there were only two things you could do with it: sell it or wipe your ass with it. Naturaly, people sold it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so then the people decided right? it could be the wrong decision, but their call.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Some were privatised, some are yet to be, some hopefully never will be.
Basicly, those that were privatised, were in a sense "given away", although that is not correct. The state gave each citizen a certain amount of shares (of the companies that were technicaly in ownership of the citizens), which were then in term bought by private hands.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | did the state sell them? give them away? still own them?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | And if the workers werent there to produce, the people with ideas would only have... Well, ideas.
And, of course, there is a difference between our economies here - with most of our companies, no one took that risk, and no one invested money. Companies were created and developed under state planning.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | what if the minimum wage was indexed to the cost of living or average wage, so if the average wage goes up 5% the min wage goes up 5%?
do the workers create the wealth? without the person who came up with the idea for the product, invested their money in it, took the risk, there would be nothing for the workers.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Lol... Yeah, I know about that... We had a similar thing in mid-80s. A country where everyone was a millionare.
Now, it would be a great thing if the real wages would be increased in line with inflation, unfortunately they are not, unless the unions go out, block the streets for a day or two and strike for a week.
Now, gaining or losing. As I said, it would be good if it was true that we wouldnt be losing. But, there is another thing. As I said, workers work, and they lose all the time, no matter the inflation or deflation. Workers create wealth that is then expropriated, and distributed by others. That is why I say that they los all the time.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | inflation occurs when more money is placed into circulation, thats true. but the more times the money circulates the more peoples earnings go up vs the inflationary index. I was speaking of earnings power not dollars. look at zimbabwe, last year their inflation went up so fast that you could earn 10 million dollars one day (their dollars) and the next day that wouldnt get you a cup of water. people regularily earned that much and got nothing for it. would be cool to say you earned that, but...
so if the workers real (indexed to inflation) doesnt change, how is he losing. he gets the same thing. can buy the same stuff. not gaining does not equate to losing
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Wrong and wrong. More money in circulation is fine, but if the basic guaranteed incomes arent increased, how can those at the bottom get to it? That, and more money in circulation means inflation, which in term means that you need to pay more.
How are they not losing anything? The people at the bottom are the people doing the dirtiest, hardest and most underpaid jobs. They are losing all the time. If the get a bit more, that just means that they are not losing as much.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but, more money in circulation means everyone has more oportunity. and if those at the botom stay the same, they havent lost anything right
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | LOL... No. Not when you calculate everything in averages. If those at the top move a great distance higher, that alone raises the average. The people at the bottom dont need to get anything more to raise the average standard.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but if the average standard is higher, surely that moves the people at the botom up a bit. it might move those at the top up a great distance, but most people get something.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | It would be, yes. But... We are an economy of some 2 million people. Germany is of 100 million. Germany has been a capitalist country for a century and more, we for 20 years. Their middle sized companies dwarf our big businesses. And most importantly, we already depend on them. And even if we were at their standard, we would still encounter the same problems that any capitalist society does. The pyramidal structure of society, corporate greed, lack of social security... All problems that we already have, to be sure. The point is that just an overall higher standard wouldnt solve them.
For better or for worse, we will never be like Germany. Infact, leaving socialism and attempting to compete in caplitalism with the old capitalist countries, was probably the single most stupid decision in our history.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, if you were on an equal footing with say germany, wouldnt the standard of living be higher?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hardly. And, why would we want to compete in an open economy?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | didnt knwo they had a different name for the economic and military aliance. good to know. do you think your country could grow its economy in a closed setting to be able to compete on equal footing one day as an open economy
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, first of all, the word youre looking for is COMECON. That was the economic union, Warsaw pact was a military alliance. But, since fmr. Yugoslavia wasnt a member of either, there isnt much that I can say about them.
Now, a closed vs. open economy... You see, I dont necesarily favour closed economies. I think that it would be better for us at this point to have a closed economy, since we are a small economy, that has a hard time standing up to the big ones. Like I said before, if the paricipants were more or less equal in strenght, than it would be different.
Now, to your question. Yes, you can have all four, at least thats what I think. A capitalist country can, potentialy, close its market, and remain capitalist on the inside. A socialist country can engage in trade with other countries, as COMECON countries did, and as we did, even though on a very small scale.
And thats another thing, too. Its not a black and white issue, open vs. closed, and nothing in between. Like I said, our economy was very closed, with a lot of protectionism. Did it mean that we did not trade with other countries? No. There were still excesses in our economy that were sold, and there were materials and products that we imported. We had to import oil, for example, as well as certain consumer goods (like coffee), simply because there was no other way we could get them.
But, trade is only a part of the story... The reason why I advocate a closed economy is primarily because of the ownership of businesses. You see, in a socialist economy, no matter how open, businesses are state owned. No one can come from abroad and buy the business, and bag the profits. In an open capitalist economy, that is not a problem.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | | so strat, since we agreed in another thread, perhaps we can in this one. you favor a closed economy vs an open one. the warsaw pact was a group of socialist or comunist countries that had open trade with eachother. would you agree that you can have a closed socialist economy an open socialist economy, a closed capitalist or open capitalist. not which is beter, just their existance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Sunday, May 03, 2009 10:27:03 AM | |
|
I like the idea that everyone votes, but I also like the idea that you have an option to say these guys are all idiots find me a new slate of candidates. multiparty systems do create coalitions and short terms, which could be good or bad. personaly I am starting to like the 2 party system in the states beter. but you cant take a multiparty system and go back, only forwards. perhaps merging parties would help?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Ellieke from Sunday, May 03, 2009 1:30:58 AM)| | | Ellieke wrote: | | If anyone is looking for a politic challenge, just start with our Belgium politic system.
We have to vote , if we don't we'll get a fine of atleast 250€ but even when the results are in they can't make up their mind who is gone lead the country.
We are a year after the past election and still we don't know for sure who is leading Belgium, on June 7th we'll have to vote again maybe they will come to a workingagrement this time.
It's so complicated to know who is who and who does what, we have 3 different parlements for the 3 parts of Belgium and we have one that is for the whole of Belgium.
We have a king who doesn't have anything to say but hey is nice to see his castle and the gossip is fun.
Politics , nothing for me and I'm byfar not the only one who things about it like this. The people are so sick of the "buddy-politics" it wouldn't surpice me if there is a national stike if the results of the next voting are respected by the politicians.
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Sunday, May 03, 2009 10:21:10 AM | |
|
if they held onto them, would they get dividends? could it be worth more now?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, May 03, 2009 6:56:27 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | An individual did what was best for him/her.
Now, I did oversimplify the issue a bit, but the way it went was that you got a certain worth of "certificates". You had a piece of paper that said you own a tiny little piece of something. In practice, there were only two things you could do with it: sell it or wipe your ass with it. Naturaly, people sold it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so then the people decided right? it could be the wrong decision, but their call.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Some were privatised, some are yet to be, some hopefully never will be.
Basicly, those that were privatised, were in a sense "given away", although that is not correct. The state gave each citizen a certain amount of shares (of the companies that were technicaly in ownership of the citizens), which were then in term bought by private hands.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | did the state sell them? give them away? still own them?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | And if the workers werent there to produce, the people with ideas would only have... Well, ideas.
And, of course, there is a difference between our economies here - with most of our companies, no one took that risk, and no one invested money. Companies were created and developed under state planning.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | what if the minimum wage was indexed to the cost of living or average wage, so if the average wage goes up 5% the min wage goes up 5%?
do the workers create the wealth? without the person who came up with the idea for the product, invested their money in it, took the risk, there would be nothing for the workers.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Lol... Yeah, I know about that... We had a similar thing in mid-80s. A country where everyone was a millionare.
Now, it would be a great thing if the real wages would be increased in line with inflation, unfortunately they are not, unless the unions go out, block the streets for a day or two and strike for a week.
Now, gaining or losing. As I said, it would be good if it was true that we wouldnt be losing. But, there is another thing. As I said, workers work, and they lose all the time, no matter the inflation or deflation. Workers create wealth that is then expropriated, and distributed by others. That is why I say that they los all the time.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | inflation occurs when more money is placed into circulation, thats true. but the more times the money circulates the more peoples earnings go up vs the inflationary index. I was speaking of earnings power not dollars. look at zimbabwe, last year their inflation went up so fast that you could earn 10 million dollars one day (their dollars) and the next day that wouldnt get you a cup of water. people regularily earned that much and got nothing for it. would be cool to say you earned that, but...
so if the workers real (indexed to inflation) doesnt change, how is he losing. he gets the same thing. can buy the same stuff. not gaining does not equate to losing
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Wrong and wrong. More money in circulation is fine, but if the basic guaranteed incomes arent increased, how can those at the bottom get to it? That, and more money in circulation means inflation, which in term means that you need to pay more.
How are they not losing anything? The people at the bottom are the people doing the dirtiest, hardest and most underpaid jobs. They are losing all the time. If the get a bit more, that just means that they are not losing as much.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but, more money in circulation means everyone has more oportunity. and if those at the botom stay the same, they havent lost anything right
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | LOL... No. Not when you calculate everything in averages. If those at the top move a great distance higher, that alone raises the average. The people at the bottom dont need to get anything more to raise the average standard.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but if the average standard is higher, surely that moves the people at the botom up a bit. it might move those at the top up a great distance, but most people get something.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | It would be, yes. But... We are an economy of some 2 million people. Germany is of 100 million. Germany has been a capitalist country for a century and more, we for 20 years. Their middle sized companies dwarf our big businesses. And most importantly, we already depend on them. And even if we were at their standard, we would still encounter the same problems that any capitalist society does. The pyramidal structure of society, corporate greed, lack of social security... All problems that we already have, to be sure. The point is that just an overall higher standard wouldnt solve them.
For better or for worse, we will never be like Germany. Infact, leaving socialism and attempting to compete in caplitalism with the old capitalist countries, was probably the single most stupid decision in our history.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, if you were on an equal footing with say germany, wouldnt the standard of living be higher?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hardly. And, why would we want to compete in an open economy?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | didnt knwo they had a different name for the economic and military aliance. good to know. do you think your country could grow its economy in a closed setting to be able to compete on equal footing one day as an open economy
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, first of all, the word youre looking for is COMECON. That was the economic union, Warsaw pact was a military alliance. But, since fmr. Yugoslavia wasnt a member of either, there isnt much that I can say about them.
Now, a closed vs. open economy... You see, I dont necesarily favour closed economies. I think that it would be better for us at this point to have a closed economy, since we are a small economy, that has a hard time standing up to the big ones. Like I said before, if the paricipants were more or less equal in strenght, than it would be different.
Now, to your question. Yes, you can have all four, at least thats what I think. A capitalist country can, potentialy, close its market, and remain capitalist on the inside. A socialist country can engage in trade with other countries, as COMECON countries did, and as we did, even though on a very small scale.
And thats another thing, too. Its not a black and white issue, open vs. closed, and nothing in between. Like I said, our economy was very closed, with a lot of protectionism. Did it mean that we did not trade with other countries? No. There were still excesses in our economy that were sold, and there were materials and products that we imported. We had to import oil, for example, as well as certain consumer goods (like coffee), simply because there was no other way we could get them.
But, trade is only a part of the story... The reason why I advocate a closed economy is primarily because of the ownership of businesses. You see, in a socialist economy, no matter how open, businesses are state owned. No one can come from abroad and buy the business, and bag the profits. In an open capitalist economy, that is not a problem.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | | so strat, since we agreed in another thread, perhaps we can in this one. you favor a closed economy vs an open one. the warsaw pact was a group of socialist or comunist countries that had open trade with eachother. would you agree that you can have a closed socialist economy an open socialist economy, a closed capitalist or open capitalist. not which is beter, just their existance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Sunday, May 03, 2009 6:56:27 AM | |
|
An individual did what was best for him/her.
Now, I did oversimplify the issue a bit, but the way it went was that you got a certain worth of "certificates". You had a piece of paper that said you own a tiny little piece of something. In practice, there were only two things you could do with it: sell it or wipe your ass with it. Naturaly, people sold it.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Saturday, May 02, 2009 5:52:23 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | so then the people decided right? it could be the wrong decision, but their call.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Some were privatised, some are yet to be, some hopefully never will be.
Basicly, those that were privatised, were in a sense "given away", although that is not correct. The state gave each citizen a certain amount of shares (of the companies that were technicaly in ownership of the citizens), which were then in term bought by private hands.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | did the state sell them? give them away? still own them?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | And if the workers werent there to produce, the people with ideas would only have... Well, ideas.
And, of course, there is a difference between our economies here - with most of our companies, no one took that risk, and no one invested money. Companies were created and developed under state planning.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | what if the minimum wage was indexed to the cost of living or average wage, so if the average wage goes up 5% the min wage goes up 5%?
do the workers create the wealth? without the person who came up with the idea for the product, invested their money in it, took the risk, there would be nothing for the workers.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Lol... Yeah, I know about that... We had a similar thing in mid-80s. A country where everyone was a millionare.
Now, it would be a great thing if the real wages would be increased in line with inflation, unfortunately they are not, unless the unions go out, block the streets for a day or two and strike for a week.
Now, gaining or losing. As I said, it would be good if it was true that we wouldnt be losing. But, there is another thing. As I said, workers work, and they lose all the time, no matter the inflation or deflation. Workers create wealth that is then expropriated, and distributed by others. That is why I say that they los all the time.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | inflation occurs when more money is placed into circulation, thats true. but the more times the money circulates the more peoples earnings go up vs the inflationary index. I was speaking of earnings power not dollars. look at zimbabwe, last year their inflation went up so fast that you could earn 10 million dollars one day (their dollars) and the next day that wouldnt get you a cup of water. people regularily earned that much and got nothing for it. would be cool to say you earned that, but...
so if the workers real (indexed to inflation) doesnt change, how is he losing. he gets the same thing. can buy the same stuff. not gaining does not equate to losing
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Wrong and wrong. More money in circulation is fine, but if the basic guaranteed incomes arent increased, how can those at the bottom get to it? That, and more money in circulation means inflation, which in term means that you need to pay more.
How are they not losing anything? The people at the bottom are the people doing the dirtiest, hardest and most underpaid jobs. They are losing all the time. If the get a bit more, that just means that they are not losing as much.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but, more money in circulation means everyone has more oportunity. and if those at the botom stay the same, they havent lost anything right
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | LOL... No. Not when you calculate everything in averages. If those at the top move a great distance higher, that alone raises the average. The people at the bottom dont need to get anything more to raise the average standard.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but if the average standard is higher, surely that moves the people at the botom up a bit. it might move those at the top up a great distance, but most people get something.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | It would be, yes. But... We are an economy of some 2 million people. Germany is of 100 million. Germany has been a capitalist country for a century and more, we for 20 years. Their middle sized companies dwarf our big businesses. And most importantly, we already depend on them. And even if we were at their standard, we would still encounter the same problems that any capitalist society does. The pyramidal structure of society, corporate greed, lack of social security... All problems that we already have, to be sure. The point is that just an overall higher standard wouldnt solve them.
For better or for worse, we will never be like Germany. Infact, leaving socialism and attempting to compete in caplitalism with the old capitalist countries, was probably the single most stupid decision in our history.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, if you were on an equal footing with say germany, wouldnt the standard of living be higher?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hardly. And, why would we want to compete in an open economy?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | didnt knwo they had a different name for the economic and military aliance. good to know. do you think your country could grow its economy in a closed setting to be able to compete on equal footing one day as an open economy
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, first of all, the word youre looking for is COMECON. That was the economic union, Warsaw pact was a military alliance. But, since fmr. Yugoslavia wasnt a member of either, there isnt much that I can say about them.
Now, a closed vs. open economy... You see, I dont necesarily favour closed economies. I think that it would be better for us at this point to have a closed economy, since we are a small economy, that has a hard time standing up to the big ones. Like I said before, if the paricipants were more or less equal in strenght, than it would be different.
Now, to your question. Yes, you can have all four, at least thats what I think. A capitalist country can, potentialy, close its market, and remain capitalist on the inside. A socialist country can engage in trade with other countries, as COMECON countries did, and as we did, even though on a very small scale.
And thats another thing, too. Its not a black and white issue, open vs. closed, and nothing in between. Like I said, our economy was very closed, with a lot of protectionism. Did it mean that we did not trade with other countries? No. There were still excesses in our economy that were sold, and there were materials and products that we imported. We had to import oil, for example, as well as certain consumer goods (like coffee), simply because there was no other way we could get them.
But, trade is only a part of the story... The reason why I advocate a closed economy is primarily because of the ownership of businesses. You see, in a socialist economy, no matter how open, businesses are state owned. No one can come from abroad and buy the business, and bag the profits. In an open capitalist economy, that is not a problem.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | | so strat, since we agreed in another thread, perhaps we can in this one. you favor a closed economy vs an open one. the warsaw pact was a group of socialist or comunist countries that had open trade with eachother. would you agree that you can have a closed socialist economy an open socialist economy, a closed capitalist or open capitalist. not which is beter, just their existance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Ellieke] Sunday, May 03, 2009 1:30:58 AM | |
|
If anyone is looking for a politic challenge, just start with our Belgium politic system.
We have to vote , if we don't we'll get a fine of atleast 250€ but even when the results are in they can't make up their mind who is gone lead the country.
We are a year after the past election and still we don't know for sure who is leading Belgium, on June 7th we'll have to vote again maybe they will come to a workingagrement this time.
It's so complicated to know who is who and who does what, we have 3 different parlements for the 3 parts of Belgium and we have one that is for the whole of Belgium.
We have a king who doesn't have anything to say but hey is nice to see his castle and the gossip is fun.
Politics , nothing for me and I'm byfar not the only one who things about it like this. The people are so sick of the "buddy-politics" it wouldn't surpice me if there is a national stike if the results of the next voting are respected by the politicians.
|
|
| [Palmer Griffiths] Sunday, May 03, 2009 1:06:02 AM | |
|
Hey you ever here of a film called Manufacturing Consent ? it's by Noam Chomsky and it talks about the Mass media and how it's used to influence people.Another good documentary.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Soylentgreen4u a.k.a. theWOLFMAN from Saturday, May 02, 2009 5:59:28 PM)| | | Soylentgreen4u a.k.a. theWOLFMAN wrote: | | HI MARITIMER,HOPE ALL IS WELL  ....YES I DOWNLOADED THAT FILM ABOUT A YEAR OR SO AGO I GUESS,VERY INTERESTING,DEFINATELY NOT WHAT THEIR GOVERNMENT WOULD WANT KNOWN,BUT I FEEL MORE AND MORE PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO REALIZE JUST HOW
UNTRUSTWORTHY AND UNDERHANDED ESTABLISHMENTS CAN BE TO TRY AND GAIN POWER AND CONTROL THE MASSES...WELL DONE,ALSO A SECOND PART TO THIS TOO I BELIEVE. 
| | | Palmer Griffiths wrote: | | | Anyone here ever see a documentary called Zeitgeist ? It's quite interesting.It talks about the Central banking system in the United States as well as Politics and corporations,organised religion etc. I guess though alot of the topics it focuses on could be reffered to the rest of the industrialised nations as well. Some people would probaly dismiss it as shear nonsense and propaganda but I suggest anyone to check it out and form there own opinions.Saying that it's interesting so check it out. |
|
|
|
