Creeping socialism. [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Creeping socialism.



piece-it pete
10-12-2004, 12:48 PM
I have come to the conclusion that we who believe socialism tends to "The British Disease" (apologies to my Brit friends, but you know what I mean, soon it'll be "The German Disease" as well)(How about "The American Disease"?) have LOST bigtime.

Even if Kerry loses (heathcare is 17% of the US economy) there is no doubt that both Congress and Bush will continue to push this stuff to some degree, even though our largely un-socialist economy has been proven VERY effective.

Does anyone care anymore?

Pete

piece-it pete
10-13-2004, 05:48 AM
I want to apologise for this post. Not for what I said, but that I said it harshly.

I'm sorry.

I've had trouble political-wise lately, as I find myself pretty much without a party as the whole dang country moves increasingly (and rapidly, now) to the far left.

What's really bothering me, even more so than just the socialism, is the overall fact of our abandoning of policies and systems that work, we know it, we don't want to hear it, we just want more and more and more while we complain about the deficit and just how gosh-darn unfair life is. We're weak, we can't face the trouble that we're guarenteed to have on a regular basis.

Bush is to the left of Roosevelt easily and Kerry, well the # 1 liberal in the Senate (including Hillery!), from where I'm standing we're going to lose our sense of perspective.

No matter who wins the Leviathian will grow, only slower or faster. It feeds on the fruit of our labor. To spend more, it will take more, it will need more power, and get it in our non-self-examining soft-headed society.

And the weak can't be leaders, they can only be lead, by whoever promises the most bs, be it more benifits, less risk, etc.

By whoever's best at the big lie.

I guess what's really bothering me is, from a historical perspective, it's looking more and more like we are heading into decline.

Pete

dean_martin
10-13-2004, 06:49 AM
Pete - My perspective on the socialist state is a little different. For example, study the new tax break bill that just passed and check out the various beneficiaries which include Chinese manufacturers of ceiling fans. It's the new New Deal. We're not paying regular Joe to dig a ditch and fill it back up anymore. In these times of soaring debt and running gov't in the red, we're appeasing corporate interests, the gov'ts largest source of revenue, without reciprocal breaks for sole proprietors and individuals.

Unfortunately, the desire to rape and pillage this country economically does not stop with tax breaks. It extends further to limiting the constitutional rights of individuals for pecuniary gain. The current "tort reform" debate is a prime example. Check out the following article:

According to Study, Insurers Continue to Price-Gouge Doctors Despite Falling Med-Mal Payouts
October 12, 2004

With the issue of medical malpractice and "tort reform" becoming an increasingly discussed topic this election year, Americans for Insurance Reform (AIR) announced the release of a new study of medical malpractice insurance around the country, based on the insurance industry's own data. Its findings may be startling to some:

Contrary to what the insurance and medical lobbies have alleged, the years 2002 and 2003 saw no "explosion" in medical malpractice insurer payouts to justify skyrocketing rate hikes. In fact, rather than exploding, inflation-adjusted payouts per doctor have dropped for the last two years. Payouts (in constant dollars) have been essentially flat or dropping since the mid-1980s.

Second, medical malpractice insurance premiums rose much faster in 2002 and 2003 than was justified by insurance payouts. These price hikes were not connected to actual payouts, jury verdicts or the legal system. Rather, they reflect dropping interest rates and losses experienced by the insurance industry's market investments.

According to Joanne Doroshow, executive director of the Center for Justice & Democracy and AIR co-founder, "These findings undermine one of the central claims of interest groups who seek to blame the legal system for doctors' insurance woes. In fact, the study shows that the causes of, and solutions to, this crisis lie not with the legal system (i.e., "tort reform") but with reforming regulation of the insurance industry, which has been unfairly charging doctors excessive rates to make up for their own investment losses."

The study by AIR, a coalition of more than 100 consumer and public interest groups representing more than 50 million people, makes nearly identical findings to those reached in similar AIR studies of national trends released in 2001 and 2002.

Specifically, the study, Stable Losses/Unstable Rates reportedly shows that the real reasons medical malpractice insurance rates have risen so dramatically in the last two years are market forces and dropping interest rates - not, as the insurance industry claims, because of a sudden massive increase in medical malpractice jury awards or payouts, which, in constant dollars, have been decreasing for the last decade.

Author of the study, J. Robert Hunter, director of Insurance for the Consumer Federation of America, former Federal Insurance Administrator and Texas Insurance Commissioner, said, "The current jump in prices doctors pay is a result of a combination of two insurance company practices: (1) the insurers' aggressive under-pricing to gain market share when interest rates were high, coupled with (2) the insurers' classification plan that charges some high-risk doctors (such as OB/GYNs and neurosurgeons) for all of the cost of the high-risk cases referred to them by all other doctors. What is crystal clear is that what did not cause this crisis was an increase in losses. There simply is no evidence of that."

Hunter added, "There is only one way to solve this problem: reforming the insurance industry. State lawmakers must strengthen state insurance laws in order to end the boom and bust swing from illegal overpricing, such as the rates doctors are being asked to pay today, to illegal and inadequate underpricing, which will be seen when the market softens later in the cycle. Fortunately, the hard market price jump is behind us and we are now entering the softer market so legislators have a decade or so to grapple with how best to do this before the next hard market hits the nation."

piece-it pete
10-13-2004, 08:03 AM
Dean,

Thanks for cheering me up :) !

I enjoy research. Before I read any nonfiction I check the author for bias.

My cursory research: Americans for Insurance Reform (AIM): Co-founded by the same people who founded the "Center for Justice & Democracy" (CJD), Joanne Doroshow and J. Robert Hunter, among others.

Interestingly, a search of CJD turned up many links to Ralph Naders' name. Absolutely d_mning? Absolutely not. But dig further:

Let's look at J. Robert Hunter. He's an author, "Simple Things Won't Save the Earth". He's the Director of Insurance for the Consumer Federation of America. I worked door-to-door collecting donations for a similar group here in Ohio for a while.

I got 40% of the first $200, 50% thereafter. Everyone above me got a cut, up to the Director, who was salaried at about $250,000 a year in the '80s!

Joanne Doroshow. One of the executive producers of Fahrenheit 9/11.

So, now I've got a slight idea of where these folks are coming from. Are they lawyers? I couldn't find any biographical info.

Does that mean they don't have a clue? Nope, not IMO. But it certainly means a lot.

The article. When they say "shows that the real reasons medical malpractice insurance rates have risen so dramatically in the last two years are market forces and dropping interest rates" or "The current jump in prices doctors pay is a result of a combination of two insurance company practices: (1) the insurers' aggressive under-pricing to gain market share when interest rates were high, coupled with (2) the insurers' classification plan that charges some high-risk doctors (such as OB/GYNs and neurosurgeons) for all of the cost of the high-risk cases referred to them by all other doctors." my immediate reaction is "well duh. They're saying it's free market at work".

I also think that when they say "the insurers' aggressive under-pricing to gain market share when interest rates were high" they are admitting that the current rates are at least partially justifed. So when they rate of lawsuit payout was increasing to record highs they weren't charging enough, so it still comes down to payouts!!

I'm NOT saying that insurers are angels. Real reform is probably neccessary. But when these kinds of people say "reform", I hold on tightly to my wallet. And like most of us, I like my medical the way it is. I still don't see any important reason to nationalise heath care.

Thanks again!

Pete

nobody
10-13-2004, 08:11 AM
Yeah, get rid of government.

Let's go back to when schools were only for those who could pay and most people didn't go. Get rid of those pesky labor laws. let 12 year olds work 15 hour days. Environment? Let's just let the sky turn back to that nice shade of black from the early industrial revolution. Healthcare...if you want to be healthy, you're gonna have to pay for it yourself. Affirmative Action? Screw that, if the owners of the country's capitol want to hire just their fellow white men, that's their business.

Here's a little something that I think seems to fit here...

A day in the life of Joe Conservative. By John Gray, Cincinnati, Ohio

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joes bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joes employer pays these standards because Joes employer doesnt want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed hell get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some Liberal didnt think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joes deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joes money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didnt want to make rural loans. The house didnt have electricity until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didnt belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republicans would still be sitting in the dark!)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldnt have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show, the hosts keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesnt tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit. Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, We dont need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, Im a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
10-13-2004, 08:30 AM
Yeah, get rid of government.

Let's go back to when schools were only for those who could pay and most people didn't go. Get rid of those pesky labor laws. let 12 year olds work 15 hour days. Environment? Let's just let the sky turn back to that nice shade of black from the early industrial revolution. Healthcare...if you want to be healthy, you're gonna have to pay for it yourself. Affirmative Action? Screw that, if the owners of the country's capitol want to hire just their fellow white men, that's their business.

Here's a little something that I think seems to fit here...

A day in the life of Joe Conservative. By John Gray, Cincinnati, Ohio

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joes bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joes employer pays these standards because Joes employer doesnt want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed hell get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some Liberal didnt think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joes deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joes money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didnt want to make rural loans. The house didnt have electricity until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didnt belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republicans would still be sitting in the dark!)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldnt have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show, the hosts keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesnt tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit. Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, We dont need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, Im a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.


Genius<img src="http://drumcorpsplanet.org/forums//style_emoticons/default/worthy.gif">

piece-it pete
10-13-2004, 08:52 AM
nobody,

I never said Liberals were EVIL. However it's now obvious that Conservatives are. Well, at least totally stupid, for not listening to our Hollywood masters.

After reading your post I realize the error of my ways. The Democrats have done everything right, are responsible for every good thing in this country, and go directly to heaven with no purgatory, all without selling out the core principles of the Revolution.

I don't have time to go through and rebut your post point-by-point right now, I'm going to Virginia (road trip - yay!) in the early AM and have to catch up and clean up here at work. Of course the Dems did some good things. Maybe someone else can search a point-by-point to see who's responsible for each program. Off the top of my head I can tell you that many, if not most, of FDRs' alphabet soup programs were Hoovers- yep- instituted after he got the boot.

Bush makes the New Deal liberals look Goldwaterish. Kerry would prolly be called a communist, certainly a wimp, by Kennedy.

BTW, thanks for the clean water, I really appreciate it.

Pete

Justlisten2
10-13-2004, 09:21 AM
I want to apologise for this post. Not for what I said, but that I said it harshly.

I'm sorry.

I've had trouble political-wise lately, as I find myself pretty much without a party as the whole dang country moves increasingly (and rapidly, now) to the far left.


Pete

It's funny, it just goes to show you that it's all a matter of perspective, there is no black and white. IMHO the country is swinging so far to the right since Reagan got elected, that's Dem's like Clinton have to act like Republicans to get elected (NAFTA). I'm not happy about the way the country is headed either, but I believe we're far too conservative.

John ;)

Justlisten2
10-13-2004, 09:25 AM
I want to apologise for this post. Not for what I said, but that I said it harshly.

I'm sorry.

I've had trouble political-wise lately, as I find myself pretty much without a party as the whole dang country moves increasingly (and rapidly, now) to the far left.


Pete



BTW, I also am finding myself as a man without a party. I voted for Nader in 2000 because both choices were pathetic, to say the least. In 2004, Nader wasn't able to get on the PA ballot, so I might have to vote for Kerry (not a pleasant thought, but it sure beats the alternative).

John :(

dean_martin
10-13-2004, 09:31 AM
Dean,

Thanks for cheering me up :) !

I enjoy research. Before I read any nonfiction I check the author for bias.

My cursory research: Americans for Insurance Reform (AIM): Co-founded by the same people who founded the "Center for Justice & Democracy" (CJD), Joanne Doroshow and J. Robert Hunter, among others.

Interestingly, a search of CJD turned up many links to Ralph Naders' name. Absolutely d_mning? Absolutely not. But dig further:

Let's look at J. Robert Hunter. He's an author, "Simple Things Won't Save the Earth". He's the Director of Insurance for the Consumer Federation of America. I worked door-to-door collecting donations for a similar group here in Ohio for a while.

I got 40% of the first $200, 50% thereafter. Everyone above me got a cut, up to the Director, who was salaried at about $250,000 a year in the '80s!

Joanne Doroshow. One of the executive producers of Fahrenheit 9/11.

So, now I've got a slight idea of where these folks are coming from. Are they lawyers? I couldn't find any biographical info.

Does that mean they don't have a clue? Nope, not IMO. But it certainly means a lot.

The article. When they say "shows that the real reasons medical malpractice insurance rates have risen so dramatically in the last two years are market forces and dropping interest rates" or "The current jump in prices doctors pay is a result of a combination of two insurance company practices: (1) the insurers' aggressive under-pricing to gain market share when interest rates were high, coupled with (2) the insurers' classification plan that charges some high-risk doctors (such as OB/GYNs and neurosurgeons) for all of the cost of the high-risk cases referred to them by all other doctors." my immediate reaction is "well duh. They're saying it's free market at work".

I also think that when they say "the insurers' aggressive under-pricing to gain market share when interest rates were high" they are admitting that the current rates are at least partially justifed. So when they rate of lawsuit payout was increasing to record highs they weren't charging enough, so it still comes down to payouts!!

I'm NOT saying that insurers are angels. Real reform is probably neccessary. But when these kinds of people say "reform", I hold on tightly to my wallet. And like most of us, I like my medical the way it is. I still don't see any important reason to nationalise heath care.

Thanks again!

Pete

Hey, Pete - You are absolutely right in checking the source of info., but I find that this study and other studies by the center for justice and democracy on the medical malpractice insurance "crisis" are more consistent with the GAO studies cited by www.factcheck.org than the 1996 report relied upon by the Bush adminsitration and insurance industry.

You'll have to explain how you concluded that when rate of lawsuit payouts was increasing to record highs they weren't charging enough. First, when were there record highs in lawsuit payouts? Government Accounting Office studies have shown that the rate of lawsuit payouts has remained steady since the mid '80's.

In talking to people in the insurance industry IN PRIVATE I've been told that the increase in premiums across the board (including auto) is due mainly from the huge payouts associated with the 9-11 attacks that involved insurers and reinsurers. I'm not exactly sure what a reinsurer is but apparently companies like The Hartford took a huge hit. I believe it's the reinsurers of the type affected by 9-11 that are also in the medical malpractice liability insurance business. Couple these payouts from this catastrophy with the post 9-11 stock market plunge - our premiums are invested here - and your assets take a HUGE hit. So, what do you do? You raise rates even though your CEO salaries are at an all-time high!

In stark contrast, mom and dad who've invested for their retirement and college for their kids have to eat their losses.

Sure, I'm for survival of the fittest (so long as there is a reasonable safety net for those who can't fight). Practicing law in our adversarial system is all about survival, but don't blame losses on a falsehood. And certainly don't limit my right to a trial by jury for the purpose of making up those losses. Soon justice will be limited to those who can afford it. Do away with the contigency fee and an individual can't afford to hire a lawyer. Cap damages for pain and suffering? You're telling me that the legislature can put a price on pain and suffering but a jury listening to the evidence can't come up with a satisfactory amount? (Meanwhile, jurors from the same pool are in another court room down the hall deciding whether a guilty defendant in a criminal case should be put to death.) Limit attorney fees? OK, here's the hypocrisy that makes me mad. Conservatives don't want gov't regulating their businesses or intefering with their right to contract, which BTW is not even an amendment but is in the main text of the constitution, but they want to intefere with my right to contract without any knowledge or consideration of the time, effort, risk or money advanced required to bring one of these cases to conclusion.

My personal regret is that, in this election, the flying rhetoric has reduced me to a one-issue voter. I hate this because (1) the issue has not even been properly debated (I'll give you the inside scoop - Kerry and Edwards won't get into the virtues of our civil justice system because there is no way to turn the strong public sentiment caused in large part by propaganda from the other side in a sound byte) and (2) there are other issues in this election that are extremely important.

Sorry, I've gone far afield from your commentary on the socialist state Pete, but I do believe we get into more substance here on occasion than either candidate for pres. ever will in public.

piece-it pete
10-13-2004, 10:09 AM
Dean,

I thoroughly enjoy this too, we'll learn more in one day here than slogging through the 5 tons of crap spouted every day!

At least, we think so :) .

I was just going off the info in that article. Unfortunately I'm outta here! shortly and if I don't shut up I'll be working all night trying to get finished up, so, I'll get back to you next week.

Pete

JSE
10-13-2004, 10:28 AM
Yeah, get rid of government.

Let's go back to when schools were only for those who could pay and most people didn't go. Get rid of those pesky labor laws. let 12 year olds work 15 hour days. Environment? Let's just let the sky turn back to that nice shade of black from the early industrial revolution. Healthcare...if you want to be healthy, you're gonna have to pay for it yourself. Affirmative Action? Screw that, if the owners of the country's capitol want to hire just their fellow white men, that's their business.

Here's a little something that I think seems to fit here...

A day in the life of Joe Conservative. By John Gray, Cincinnati, Ohio

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joes bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joes employer pays these standards because Joes employer doesnt want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed hell get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some Liberal didnt think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joes deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joes money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didnt want to make rural loans. The house didnt have electricity until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didnt belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republicans would still be sitting in the dark!)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldnt have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show, the hosts keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesnt tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit. Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, We dont need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, Im a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.

I think there is a difference between regulation and outright control of an industry by the Government. I agree that certain things need to be regulated but not to the point where people rely on the Government to wipe their own ass.

BTW, here's a intesresting article I read. I know some of you will baulk at the fact that RUSH is cited a couple of times but the artilce makes some good points.

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/trashingamerica/liberty.html

JSE

JSE
10-13-2004, 10:34 AM
IMHO the country is swinging so far to the right since Reagan got elected, that's Dem's like Clinton have to act like Republicans to get elected (NAFTA). I'm not happy about the way the country is headed either, but I believe we're far too conservative.John ;)


How so? I'm not being snide (sp?). I'm just curious.

JSE

nobody
10-13-2004, 11:33 AM
I agree that our country is far to the right. We are just about the most conservative country in the developed world right now, especially in regard to economics, yet there are still so many people within the United States who see us as too liberal. That alone seems to me to pioint out a far right mentality in America.

Add in the way the very term liberal is often tossed around as an insult, and I think it is clear that we live in an extremely conservative time in an extremely conservative country.

JSE
10-13-2004, 11:53 AM
[QUOTE=nobody]I agree that our country is far to the right. We are just about the most conservative country in the developed world right now, especially in regard to economics, yet there are still so many people within the United States who see us as too liberal. That alone seems to me to pioint out a far right mentality in America.QUOTE]


Again, How so? I'm just trying to get idea of why you and Justlisten think this. Give some examples.

And, does being a conservative country mean we have no or little traits of socialism? I tend to agree with Pete that this country is in danger of slipping into socialism regardless of who is in power, Republicans or Democrats. Democrats, in my view, will just get us there sooner.

JSE

nobody
10-13-2004, 12:13 PM
Religion plays a larger role in public discourse here than in most countries, something we owe to a conservative social ideology. We spend less of our goverment resources on social programs than most countries, something we owe to a conservative economic ideology. We pay less to our government than most and receive less in return. I just read an interesting article by George Will pointing out theat the United States has in fact the longest running government in the developed world that has never elected a leftist party. He actually makes the point I am making quite well.

We just differ in that he thinks it is a very good thing and I'm not so convinced.

Of course, we have some traits that can be seen as socialistic. No country is alltogether without some. We have less than most.

Here's a link to the article I mentioned...

<a href="http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/georgewill/story/5012731DFB7567A686256F280039FB94?OpenDocument&Headline=POLITICS%3A+America+always+has+leaned+rig ht,+to+liberals'+dism">George Will Article</a>

Bryan
10-14-2004, 06:44 AM
Ultra liberal - Tends to lean towards government in control of and paying for everything.

Ultra conservative - Tends to lean towards government being severely limited.

Democrat - Tends to lean more to social programs and feel good stuff. Health care is an excellent example.

Republican - Tends to lean towards individual responsibility and less government. Health insurance and taxes are excellent examples.

Independent - Has leanings both ways, depending upon the issues but is not loyal to either party.

Constitutionalist - Screw everyone. What does the Constitution actually say about this issue? Does an item even belong on either the State or US Constitution?

The trick is understanding who is responsible for what and where does individual responsibility end and governmental responsibility begin. The other trick is to make sure the exceptions to the rule never become the rule. Today that trick is lost for, more often than not, the exception is becoming the rule.

Justlisten2
10-14-2004, 10:27 AM
How so? I'm not being snide (sp?). I'm just curious.

JSE

By catering to the rich and corporations. All these tax cuts for the wealthy have left the middle class barren compared to 25 years ago. It's easy to see if you look at the new ball parks being constructed, as an example of the change in the fiscal enviornment. In the late 60's and early 70's, when the middle class was strong, they built parks like Three Rivers in Pittsburgh, Riverfront in Cinncinnati and Veterns Stadium in Philadelphia. All multi-purpose stadiums that catered to the middle class family. Now these stadiums are all defunct. Replaced with facilities that cater to corporations and the wealthy. You don't see families at ballgames anymore, you go to games with business associates. That's just an example of society changing due to the economy changing. The emphasis has moved away from appeasing families and middle class to appeasing the rich and corporations.

I've worked for the same company for 23 years. 23 years ago, I didn't pay a penny for healthcare, no deductibles, nothing taken out of my paycheck. I also had better quality healthcare. That was the company's responsibilty, to take care of their employees. Now I have $55 taken out of my check a week, and still pay a $15 co-pay. While I agree that the government should not be held accountable for healthcare, they should enforce a law that holds big business accountable for employees healthcare. I also have to put money into a 401K to save for my own retirement now, since the pension fund raiders of the 80's cleaned out the pension funds. I do not believe in my government paying to lure jobs out of the US.

Basically, I know many don't like big government, but I feel a strong powerful government is necessary to protect the middle class and the poor from corporate greed. I find big government to be the lesser of two evils. I don't mind paying more taxes if it means bringing 'real' jobs back to this country. 'Real' jobs aren't temporary, and pay 'real' wages and benefits, not these phony Wal-Mart jobs. While I'm at it, I'd also like to bring back the days when one icome supported a family, so the mother can stay home. Now-a-days, two work for the price of one 30 years ago. We are the first generation that is not living better than our parents. Most of us anyway, the silent majority. You don't see us much on these boards because 'The Man' keeps us too busy slaving. Many don't have computers and/or time to throw their political $.02 into the ring.


BTW, I do agree with you on shutting the borders, but it will never happen, because the rich love the cheap labor.

John :)

JSE
10-14-2004, 11:25 AM
"By catering to the rich and corporations. All these tax cuts for the wealthy have left the middle class barren compared to 25 years ago. It's easy to see if you look at the new ball parks being constructed, as an example of the change in the fiscal enviornment. In the late 60's and early 70's, when the middle class was strong, they built parks like Three Rivers in Pittsburgh, Riverfront in Cinncinnati and Veterns Stadium in Philadelphia. All multi-purpose stadiums that catered to the middle class family. Now these stadiums are all defunct. Replaced with facilities that cater to corporations and the wealthy. You don't see families at ballgames anymore, you go to games with business associates. That's just an example of society changing due to the economy changing. The emphasis has moved away from appeasing families and middle class to appeasing the rich and corporations."

I'm not sure the current state of sports in because of Conservatism. That's a pretty big stretch.

"I've worked for the same company for 23 years. 23 years ago, I didn't pay a penny for healthcare, no deductibles, nothing taken out of my paycheck. I also had better quality healthcare. That was the company's responsibilty, to take care of their employees. Now I have $55 taken out of my check a week, and still pay a $15 co-pay. While I agree that the government should not be held accountable for healthcare, they should enforce a law that holds big business accountable for employees healthcare. I also have to put money into a 401K to save for my own retirement now, since the pension fund raiders of the 80's cleaned out the pension funds. I do not believe in my government paying to lure jobs out of the US."


It seems like the times you want to get back to, are when Government was smaller?

"Basically, I know many don't like big government, but I feel a strong powerful government is necessary to protect the middle class and the poor from corporate greed. I find big government to be the lesser of two evils. I don't mind paying more taxes if it means bringing 'real' jobs back to this country. 'Real' jobs aren't temporary, and pay 'real' wages and benefits, not these phony Wal-Mart jobs."


You be paying a more than just greater taxes. You will give up freedoms that we now enjoy and our right to choose how to live your life free of government interference. I'm not willing to do this.

"While I'm at it, I'd also like to bring back the days when one icome supported a family, so the mother can stay home. Now-a-days, two work for the price of one 30 years ago. We are the first generation that is not living better than our parents. Most of us anyway, the silent majority. You don't see us much on these boards because 'The Man' keeps us too busy slaving. Many don't have computers and/or time to throw their political $.02 into the ring."

Well, I am living better than my parents were at my age and just about everyone I know is as well. But's that just my experience. I also don't think conservatism is the reason there are many more two income familes. I think that has more to do with personal greed than corporate greed. Have you notice how many people have really nice cars now days? I know people and families that don't make much money and they have nicer cars than me. My wife and I make pretty good money and I will drive a car until it dies. Why is someone making $40k a year with a wife and three kids driving a $40k car? I know not everyone is like this but it's becoming more and more common.

And, if "The Man" is keeping you down, move out from under him. No other country in the world give you the ability to do this like the US.


"BTW, I do agree with you on shutting the borders, but it will never happen, because the rich love the cheap labor."

And the middle class loves the cheap prices.

JSE

Bryan
10-15-2004, 05:52 AM
Isn't the corporation in business to make money and to pass that money onto its stockholders? Seems the line of thinking today is gravitating towards corporations not making any money. Rather everything that comes in goes right out the door. I thought you wanted to go to work for a company, such as IBM, who had a significant amount in savings and you knew would be around for several years to come.

Overseas jobs are coming here. Jobs here are going overseas. Amazingly enough it is still possible to find employment, though it may not be for the pay you want, working for whom you want, or even doing what you want. However, you can still find a job if you want to or even take the path of becoming self employed.

Is working for Wal-Mart not a real job? Or UPS? Or Ford? How about for utility companies, grocery stores, or warehouses? Plumbers, electricians, welders, flight attendants, pilots, etc, would all disagree. People also won't do a job, such as pick apples, clean toilets, etc., because they think it is beneath them.

Competition for jobs with benefits is greater. Employees now need to know more than they did 15 - 20 years ago. More is expected of them. Are these changes a bad thing? Yes and no. They are what we make them to be.

Justlisten2
10-15-2004, 10:28 AM
"Well, I am living better than my parents were at my age and just about everyone I know is as well. But's that just my experience. I also don't think conservatism is the reason there are many more two income familes. I think that has more to do with personal greed than corporate greed. Have you notice how many people have really nice cars now days? I know people and families that don't make much money and they have nicer cars than me. My wife and I make pretty good money and I will drive a car until it dies. Why is someone making $40k a year with a wife and three kids driving a $40k car? I know not everyone is like this but it's becoming more and more common.


JSE

I wish I had more time for a proper reply, but all I can say is we live in two different worlds. I only know a handful of folks living better than their parents. And while I know a lot of folks making $40K a year, I don't know any that drive a $40K car. It is funny how different things can be in the same country. Not surprising though. I know that departments within my company are very different, so why not? Maybe it's time to move.

Gotta run,

John :)