# Don't other people also deserve health care, an education, housing, and respect?



## arnisador (Nov 15, 2009)

Don't other people also deserve health care, an education, housing, and to be treated with respect?


----------



## CuongNhuka (Nov 15, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Don't other people also deserve health care, an education, housing, and to be treated with respect?


 
Communist.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 15, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Don't other people also deserve health care, an education, housing, and to be treated with respect?



Deserve Health Care.
They can get ER care as needed.  Should I also have to hand out free asprins too to any lazy bum on the street? I think not.

Deserve An Education.
Hey, Up through 8th grade is free, just show up. In most of the US, you can even get 4 more years for free, just show up.  It'll more than qualify you to you know, get a job and earn your way in this world.

Deserve Housing?
Like, a 3 bedroom 2 bath house on the lake, or would you accept a cot in a room with 60 other cots, a shared bathroom and a shared kitchen area that they are required to assist in maintaining? Or, do you mean free room and board no strings attached and no effort required?

Deserve Respect?
Respect is earned, not given for nothing. Respect is lost for ones actions and non-action.


So if the question is, does the lazy bum living on the street who turned down 12 years of free education, lost his last job because he decided attendance was optional, and who can't be bothered to visit the local soup kitchen because "they don't have steak there" deserve my respect, a free house and my wallet open for their health care, I say Darwin.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 15, 2009)

Bob, I am too tired now to respond to that post intelligently, so emotionally will have to do.

All I can say is the amount of anti-union, anti-collective-social-responsibility posts I have read on this forum over the past couple of years make me doubt that the posters know a great deal about history.

Of course, history depends on the country you're in so to get a thumbnail idea of why I hold the views that I do, I would ask that people either view or read the excellent BBC series The Making of Modern Britain.

If you still want to do away with any semblance of the welfare state and 'socialist' medicine, then you deserve whatever you (individually and collectively) get.

P.S. The roots of the Welfare State in Britain exist as a result of the reaction of the political and economic elite to the fact that we were only weeks away from a full blown revolution in the early 20th Century.  You can only squeeze the poor so much and for so long before the snake gets up off it's belly.


----------



## Steve (Nov 15, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Deserve Health Care.
> They can get ER care as needed.  Should I also have to hand out free asprins too to any lazy bum on the street? I think not.
> 
> Deserve An Education.
> ...


Bob.  I mean this as a serious question.  Have you spent any meaningful amount of time around people who are really, truly homeless?  I mean, the guys who are actually living on the streets, taking refuge when they can in shelters and eating in souplines?  Because I have and my experience and impression of people who are homeless is very, very different from yours.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2009)

Steve, no I have not. I did in College hang out with several people who did though, and base much of my opinions on what they told me.  I also spent plenty of time in Toronto where I'd have to carefully pass by "bum houses" which were little cardboard homes in store doorways.  I don't doubt there are many wonderful people forced by circumstances beyond their control out there, but there seem to be a good number of "bum by choice" as well.    I live in a city that has several places where the homeless can safely sleep, get a decent meal, clean up, and register with agencies that will aid them at no charge in getting back on their feet. There is medical care available through several county clinics that isn't bad (I've used their services myself).  Each year I see complaints from law enforcement that they (the homeless) just won't use what is available.  Often it's because they are drug users afraid of running into cops. There are a few crazies in the mix as well.

I'm all for helping those less fortunate than me. On my terms. I don't like being forced to do so at the end of a gun. 

In NY a hard working person who carefully watches their expenses, gets to pay for the welfare cheat who rolls up to the convenience store in their Cadillac Escalade, wearing their furs and gold, and gets to buy beer and lotto on food stamps my taxes paid for. I on the other hand have to live within my means, and have neither a Caddi, furs or gold.  I have a problem with that, and given that the government's OWN statistics say there's a 60+% fraud rate, I have a bigger problem with them taking even more from me, to pay for these lazy bastards.

I have issues with unions because of my own dealings with them. They were little more than a cash grab by lazy do nothings.  I have issues with being forced to give away my hard earned income. Should be my choice who and when to give, not some greedy politician. 

People deserve shelter. Ok, a cardboard box IS shelter. So is a 400 room mansion. My question to Arni was simply what do you want to pay for.  I also think that if you are giving something to someone, they have a responsibility to give back as well. Is requiring them to shower daily, to put in an hour a week keeping the place clean, cooking dinner and maintaining the property too much to ask for?  Some say it is, that such hard requirements violate their rights.  I say, if I'm providing the funds I get a say in the matter.

America was built by hard workers not slothful leeches.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 16, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I have issues with unions because of my own dealings with them. They *were* little more than a cash grab by lazy do nothings.



Wow, this is clueless even by _your_ low standards for historical accuracy. Whatever you think of unions now--and I might agree--they were by no means a 'cash grab' by the 'lazy' when they first came about.



> People deserve shelter. Ok, a cardboard box IS shelter.


----------



## crushing (Nov 16, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Wow, this is clueless even by _your_ low standards for historical accuracy. Whatever you think of unions now--and I might agree--they were by no means a 'cash grab' by the 'lazy' when they first came about.


 
I highly doubt Bob's dealings with the union were way back when the unions first came about.  You may want to check the history of the union and compare that to Bob's age.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2009)

I'm sorry Jeff, I guess your are right here. I am absolutely clueless on what that Union I was paying weekly dues to was doing for me.  I'm sure there was something other than taking 3 hrs of my weekly wages going on there, but for the life of me I am at a loss as to what that was. Oh wait, now I remember. I got a guaranteed 14 hr work week. 

As to my- low standards for historical accuracy, **** you very much. Everything I've claimed I have cited, backed up and so on.  I dare you to step out of your sheltered ivory tower and debunk it with facts Jeff. Or is that too hard?

Guess it is since you continue to resort to taking personal shots at me.  



(Rest removed as I refuse to sink to your level here.)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2009)

Labor Union Myths By Bob Hubbard
Pick up the Union argument there Jeff.   

US Civil War Myths and Facts
The Civil War threads are there. Feel free to disprove anything I posted with some facts.



This thread was intended to indicate I wanted better for our Veterans, not a decent into the homeless, Jeff's inability to realize everything he knows is wrong, or why 42 isn't the answer.  

I believe a person is responsible for themselves, and it's not the job of government, any government to take care of them. Not feed em, not shelter them, not clothe them and not ensure they have a retirement fund.  It's theirs, and if they fail to take care of themselves, then it's their problem. If they try to do it at my cost, then it's at their peril. 

If private citizens don't step forward to help the less fortunate, then that's pretty telling on how selfish they are. Charity isn't charity if it's forced at the end of a gun, it's theft.  Pretty it up however you like, it's still theft.

Returning to my original point, I believe that the people who sacrifice deserve thanks, and deserve to be taken care of.  Those who do nothing, deserve nothing.

Heartless?  Guess I am.  Don't worry. There's enough Democrats in the US government to ensure that responsibility doesn't happen and that irresponsibility will continue to be supported to ensure enough votes for their continued elite positioning.


----------



## Carol (Nov 16, 2009)

But...but...the answer really is 42!  Sometimes.


----------



## Steve (Nov 16, 2009)

Hey guys. I'm going to recuse myself from this conversation.  I think I've made my points as clear as I can.  If you guys disagree, I think that's fine.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2009)

That's how many drinks one needs to deal with this stuff sometimes.....which is why the only rum subsidy I support is the one where it's delivered weekly to my door at no charge to me.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 16, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> This thread was intended to indicate I wanted better for our Veterans



It's a volunteer force. The services do what any other employer does--determine what salary and benefits they need to offer to attract people. That's why bonuses and such rise and fall as needed.

I'm all for respecting those who risk their lives to protect the country in which I live. But giving them lifetime exemption from taxes etc. while not providing for the rest of the citizenry is out-of-balance. Why not provide health care and educational benefits (meaning college in this context) for all? Many European countries do.



> I believe a person is responsible for themselves, and it's not the job of government, any government to take care of them. Not feed em, not shelter them, not clothe them and not ensure they have a retirement fund.



Your govt. and a majority of its citizenry disagrees. There's a reason why no politician in the U.S. has come out against Social Security--it's a popular program the majority wants. including many of those not receiving it and who know they'll get less out of it than they put in. You may not want a govt. to do those things--but I do, and I'm in the majority, and it's perfectly legal as implemented by Congress.



> Charity isn't charity if it's forced at the end of a gun, it's theft.



If you're so against taxation, perhaps you can point to another model currently in use somewhere in the world.



> Returning to my original point, I believe that the people who sacrifice deserve thanks, and deserve to be taken care of.  Those who do nothing, deserve nothing.



You're making the fallacy of the false alternative. Not everyone who isn't a veteran is a welfare cheat.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2009)

arnisador said:


> It's a volunteer force. The services do what any other employer does--determine what salary and benefits they need to offer to attract people. That's why bonuses and such rise and fall as needed.



They must not be offering enough.  See "Stop Loss".



arnisador said:


> I'm all for respecting those who risk their lives to protect the country in which I live. But giving them lifetime exemption from taxes etc. while not providing for the rest of the citizenry is out-of-balance. Why not provide health care and educational benefits (meaning college in this context) for all? Many European countries do.



Because it's expensive, not Constitutional, and in many cases a waste of money.



arnisador said:


> Your govt. and a majority of its citizenry disagrees. There's a reason why no politician in the U.S. has come out against Social Security--it's a popular program the majority wants. including many of those not receiving it and who know they'll get less out of it than they put in. You may not want a govt. to do those things--but I do, and I'm in the majority, and it's perfectly legal as implemented by Congress.



The majority of the populace doesn't vote. 
The question of the legality of Social Security has -never- been tested.

You want a nanny state. Ok.
You want high taxes to cover that. Not ok.




arnisador said:


> If you're so against taxation, perhaps you can point to another model currently in use somewhere in the world.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_British_Virgin_Islands



arnisador said:


> You're making the fallacy of the false alternative. Not everyone who isn't a veteran is a welfare cheat.



I never said they were.  You continue to read more into what I said than I did say.


----------



## Carol (Nov 16, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'm all for restricting the right to vote to those who've served.  The majority of the country sure isn't using it much any more.



HuH?  In 2008 we had among the highest voter turnout in the nation and our state senate became the first democratic body in the U.S. (and perhaps the world) to hold a female majority.

Now that's change you can believe in.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2009)

And in 2009 it went poof again.  There's more that the Presidential election.  I think WNY was around 30%.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2009)

I'm still waiting for Arni to correct my "low standards for historical accuracy." by debunking my comments on the matters he disagrees with, beyond saying "well it kinda implies that it's ok".


----------



## arnisador (Nov 16, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> You want a nanny state. Ok.
> You want high taxes to cover that. Not ok.



It's clearly OK, because we _do _have social programs. If a successful case could be mounted against these it surely would have happened by now. Democracy doesn't mean that _you _personally get the government _you_ (claim to) want.



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_British_Virgin_Islands


Eh...they're _British_. People in the U.K. pay taxes; people in some parts pay less than people in others. As to the B.V.I., they're not paying for their own defense and foreign relations, for example. Also, according to that link, "photocopies of all of the tax laws of the British Virgin Islands would together amount to about 200 pages of paper". That doesn't sound tax-free. There's a payroll tax that replaced a previous income tax; there are real estate taxes. There's an EU tax.

Did you even read the linked article?

Incidentally, the recent financial news has been covering the pressure being placed on the British Caribbean territories to raise taxes:
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091029-715209.html
http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/bu...an-territories-under-pressure-to-raise-taxes/


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 16, 2009)

I cannot help but note that there is a considerable undercurrent here that is dragging the thread away from it's original intent.

As I often say in such matters, the points under discussion are of interest in and of themselves (even tho' you are so wrong it's not true, Cap'n ) but it would better serve all topics touched upon if they were discussed in their own threads.

*This* one is about theoretical better benefits and treatment for those who have served in a military capacity.


----------



## Carol (Nov 16, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> And in 2009 it went poof again.  There's more that the Presidential election.  I think WNY was around 30%.



I doubt it was that high here, and my city deliberately holds its major office elections on even years. Unless there is a need for a local ballot initiative, the elections are typically the aldermen and school board members, as it was this year.  

As such, I don't see that as a challenge for the nation as a whole.  I see that as a challenge for those of us that are city residents to assess what we can do to get more of our citizenry involved in the elections of people that could very well impact our day-to-day lives more than the president does.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> I cannot help but note that there is a considerable undercurrent here that is dragging the thread away from it's original intent.
> 
> As I often say in such matters, the points under discussion are of interest in and of themselves (event tho' you are so wrong it's not true, Cap'n ) but it would better serve all topics touched upon if they were discussed in their own threads.
> 
> *This* one is about theoretical better benefits and treatment for those who have served in a military capacity.


Suk, I'd love to, but so far Arni has been content to regularly insult me and slink away from actually you know, debunking or countering my actual arguments in the proper places.   Of course, considering that this area's pretty random, it's hard to say anything is truly off topic, just outside the scope of good debate.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2009)

arnisador said:


> It's clearly OK, because we _do _have social programs. If a successful case could be mounted against these it surely would have happened by now. Democracy doesn't mean that _you _personally get the government _you_ (claim to) want.



So you're saying if a lot of people think it's ok, it is.  Guess that makes looting ok, gang rape acceptable, etc.  

BTW, you don't live in a Democracy. Might want to look into that misconception of yours.



> Eh...they're _British_. People in the U.K. pay taxes; people in some parts pay less than people in others. As to the B.V.I., they're not paying for their own defense and foreign relations, for example. Also, according to that link, "photocopies of all of the tax laws of the British Virgin Islands would together amount to about 200 pages of paper". That doesn't sound tax-free. There's a payroll tax that replaced a previous income tax; there are real estate taxes. There's an EU tax.
> 
> Did you even read the linked article?
> 
> ...



I did. You asked a question. I gave an answer. I'm sorry Professor, what was the correct answer that you would have given me a passing grade for here? Fine, look at the UAE.  Or does that one not count because they sit on oil reserves?


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 16, 2009)

Ah.  

As the 'Random Acts' threads are your idea and they do indeed seem to land in a diverse variety of fields, then I suppose that thread drift is part of their intent?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Ah.
> 
> As the 'Random Acts' threads are your idea and they do indeed seem to land in a diverse variety of fields, then I suppose that thread drift is part of their intent?


Not really.  It's more a place for me to drop random things as they come to me as topic foder. Some might fit other areas, some might not.  I'd prefer the more serious ones to remain focused, but sometimes they will wander to interesting places.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 16, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Should I also have to hand out free asprins too to any lazy bum on the street? I think not.



Bob,

I'm referencing this quote -- not to pick on you -- but to pick on how we conventionally argue against social programming. When it comes to matters like education, it's likely a little late for the "lazy bum on the street." Health? The LBOMTS on the street may be a long-term street alcoholic, by this time having graduated from bottles with labels. There's a reason why he's forty and looks sixty. Housing? He isn't looking for housing -- he's looking for a flop for the night.

If we don't want to talk about social programming -- and if we are absolutely determined to derail that talk -- then bring up the LBOMTS. When you look at this guy, it's hard to imagine success social programming.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> Bob,
> 
> I'm referencing this quote -- not to pick on you -- but to pick on how we conventionally argue against social programming. When it comes to matters like education, it's likely a little late for the "lazy bum on the street." Health? The LBOMTS on the street may be a long-term street alcoholic, by this time having graduated from bottles with labels. There's a reason why he's forty and looks sixty. Housing? He isn't looking for housing -- he's looking for a flop for the night.
> 
> If we don't want to talk about social programming -- and if we are absolutely determined to derail that talk -- then bring up the LBOMTS. When you look at this guy, it's hard to imagine success social programming.


We used to have a member here, Phil Elmore, who wrote some interesting articles on street defense, with some dealing specifically with handling hostile homeless.  He had some ideas which some saw as well, crazy talk and paranoia and others as sensible and sane. I'm not going down that road.

I'm also not seeking to paint all homeless as any particular stereotype. I personally find the idea of living on the streets a scary one, and would hope that if it were to happen to me, that someone would open a door for me out of kindness or that someplace safe would be available to goto.  I'm fully aware there are a good many good people, forced into such an existence by bad luck, and other unfortunate circumstance.  These are not who I am referring to when I refer to "lazy bums".

It should be clear from my long term writing that I do not support welfare, free handouts, or other actions that support and encourage a "do nothing and slack off" lifestyle.

I do not view the mother of 3 collecting food stamps to subsidize her poor paying job while she seeks better a leech.  
I don't view the guy just laid off his job needing a little buffer to get by until things pick up but who is actively looking a leech.  
I don't view the systems which help our poor and elderly heat their houses in the winter as supporting mooches.

I do however view the previously mentioned Caddi owner, the 3rd generation welfare family, the people who could get jobs but instead sit at home and collect free money as leaches.

I fully support any and all actions that might require them to be tested for drugs, smoking cessation therapy, maintain a clean living area, comply with sobriety standards, as well as actually show up at job clinics, career counciling and civil service jobs (like trash collection, grass cutting, street sweeping, etc)

My arguments against social services is at the Federal Level. 
States, Counties, Cities etc can provide whatever services to their citizens as their people will support.

If a person isn't willing to improve themselves though, I am hard pressed to support a free handout.  

You can get 12 years of free education in most of the US.  If Timmy won't read, won't show up, can't count to 21 without dropping his pants, why should we offer him another 4 years free? Better to open that slot to someone with ambition and a desire to learn that force someone there who will simply drag the others to their level of mediocrity.

Jeff argues repeatedly that we should take care of the less fortunate. To an extent I agree with him.  We differ in the how and who.  He is in favor of forcing me to give up a % of my labor so that his causes can be supported.  My position is, let me choose who and what I support.  His view is that the Federal Gov. should tax me in NY so that he can enjoy a lower medical bill half way across the country.  I say the Federal needs to stay out of my business and stick to what it was intended to do which is clearly laid out in a simple 19 page document. If NYS wishes to continue to provide some of the highest social services in the country that is they business. With such however comes the highest tax burden in the nation, with businesses leaving left and right. 

My argument against health care has been on 2 fronts.
1- It's not the job of the Federal. It's not. 
2- It's wrong to require me to pay for part of an over priced candy bar (health care) else risk fine and arrest.

I agree with him, and others who say people need a low cost health plan.  My point has been that while that is a noble goal, the method chosen to make it affordable is wrong, morally, ethically and legally.

You cannot win a war by fighting 1 front and ignoring the other.
Share the burden sure, but at the state not federal level.
Force prices down not by subsidizing them with over burdened tax payers wallets, but by driving the costs down to sane levels, fighting the incredible amount of waste, graft, inefficiency and favoritism in the current system.


My argument regarding the homeless is, unless you make being homeless illegal, you will always have those who choose to be so, in addition to those forced to it, and those who take to it by insanity.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 16, 2009)

Would the "Dr." in the title of this thread be a swipe at me?



Bob Hubbard said:


> So you're saying if a lot of people think it's ok, it is.



I'm saying if the courts say it's OK then we abide by that. It's the rule of law.



> Guess that makes looting ok, gang rape acceptable, etc.


Bob, the Argument Sketch was a parody, not an instructional manual.

You're unable to disagree with accusing other people of forcing you to do things at gunpoint or encouraging sexual assault or whatever extremist thought pops into your mind at the time.

We're done here. You've got rape on the mind and bring it up in every context, and frankly you're creeping me out.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 17, 2009)

Actually it's a Harry Potter rip, but hey take offense if you feel like it. I've refrained from taking any actual shots at you. 

Of course, if you were paying attention, knew any real Civil War history you'd be familiar with Sherman's March, the Burning of Atlanta, the Rape of New Orleans, but they don't really spend much time on that in school, focusing on how great ol 'Honest Abe' is, how he freed all those slaves, and how nasty the South was being the only place in the US that had slaves.

Again, it all applies, but keep the head in the sand. Safer that way, lest you have to face unfortunate truths you just can't handle. (note, that's a shot, abet a minor one)

Tell me, do you also deny the Nazi atrocity, or are those ok to recognize since "Nazis are Bad."  Or will you just make the usual "Godwin" comment? (note, that's a shot, abet a minor one)

My Civil War facts come from several sources, all quite respectable. Most of those I cite hold Phds. and are seen as experts in the field. I cite from public records, include quotations that can be fact checked.

My views on the role of government comes from the writings of the nations founders, as well as recognized Constitutional scholars today, and experts in fields such as law, history and economics..Many Phd's in there.

But please, keep making the deeper shots, and slinging the insults. 
After all, it's better to attack the person than the argument right?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 17, 2009)

> In 1965, Congress added Medicare to the Social Security system, insuring medical
> care for everyone over sixty-five years of age. Simultaneously, Medicaid, a cooperatively
> administered and financed (state and federal) program, assured medical care for welfare
> recipients and the medically indigent. These programs were not exactly what they were
> ...



Source:
*The Unraveling of America: A History of Liberalism in the 1960s*
 By Allen J. Matusow

He makes some interesting points in the book. I'm sure he made it all up though. Medicaid & Medicare work just fine, we just need more taxes to overcome the 60% overhead, corruption and fraud in the system.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 17, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Tell me, do you also deny the Nazi atrocity


 
You're ****ing nuts.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 17, 2009)

Again, you attack me, rather than the argument.

Fine.

It's your usual tactic Jeff.   Such a pity.


----------



## MJS (Nov 17, 2009)

*Admin Note*

*Thread moved to The Study, where it is better suited for this sort of topic.  Also, lets keep the thread somewhat civil, as this is one of those 'hot topics' that can get out of hand quick.*

*MJS
MT Asst. Admin*


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> Bob.  I mean this as a serious question.  Have you spent any meaningful amount of time around people who are really, truly homeless?  I mean, the guys who are actually living on the streets, taking refuge when they can in shelters and eating in souplines?  Because I have and my experience and impression of people who are homeless is very, very different from yours.



Most of the homeless are mentally ill.  When the states shut down their mental hospital system, these people end up on the streets.  Just go down to your local bridge sit around a few fires.  See for yourself.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 17, 2009)

*Note: Topic changed to reflect the OP and not the random wandering it originally had.*


----------



## JDenver (Nov 17, 2009)

No one ever needs to speak of such matters as if they were virtual or hypothetical.  They exist in the real world, here and now.

Countries for which healthcare and education are truly a priority include such awful places as Sweden and Denmark.  In those countries they suffer with some of the highest literacy rates, standards of living and life expectancies while also enduring the lowest rates of crime and homelessness.

Case closed?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 17, 2009)

Cuba out ranks the US in literacy. It doesn't mean their system is superior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate

The US currently spends the most per person on health care.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-person

The problem is, you can't just continue to throw money at the problem without dealing with the causes of the problem. 

On education, the US currently offer the most free education, 12 years.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_ave_yea_of_sch_of_adu-education-average-years-schooling-adults

While the US mandates 12 years, some nations such as Germany mandate 13.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_dur_of_com_edu-education-duration-of-compulsory

Some interesting rankings here http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Education-education

What I'm seeing is the US spends a ton of money on education, yet we end up rather mediocre on the charts.  Can it be that just spending doesn't fix the problem?
You need students willing to learn and excited about learning, something I rarely saw in my classmates when I was in school, and something I rarely saw in the kids I dealt with over the years.


The US spends a huge amount on health care, but only a small portion actually goes towards patient care. The majority is absorbed by a bloated system, corruption, inflated prices and other non-patient-friendly things.  Only by reigning in the costs and cutting back the corruption can you fix the system.  It doesn't need more money, it needs less BS in the system.


----------



## Steve (Nov 17, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> My arguments against social services is at the Federal Level.
> States, Counties, Cities etc can provide whatever services to their citizens as their people will support.


Back in the 60's, this was pretty much how things were.  Each State was left to its own devices where welfare programs were concerned.  The result was that some states were more generous than others.  The generous states became destinations for people in need, then the burden for supporting these more generous programs became onorous for the folks in that state, causing these programs to often face cuts in benefits or the possibility of raising taxes to continue to fund the increasing number of people.  It was seen in the early 70's as a national responsibility to attempt to provide a modest but consistent level of assistance to people who are blind, disabled or aged who are also in financial need.  Supplemental Security Income was signed into law.  States could then and can now opt to provide additional funds to SSI recipients as a supplement to the federal SSI payments.  I see the federalization of SSI as necessary then and now.  

Beyond SSI, I can't think of too many other social support programs that are Federal.  Medicaid is funded by the Federal government, and there are guidelines so that the programs are largely consistent, but each State has latitude to run the program as it is seen fit.  Food stamps, general assistance, TANF...  all State programs.  

Education is a big topic.  I'll agree with you that spending isn't always the answer, but that's because better educating our kids is a very complex puzzle to solve.  It's intellectually dishonest to suggest that one side is oversimplifying the issue only to do the same in another direction.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Nov 17, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Don't other people also deserve health care, an education, housing, and to be treated with respect?


 
Each of these probably deserve their own thread and discussion, but the short answers IMO are....

Health care is not a right, though ethically I feel if one is _able to be _and _is_ a productive & contributing member of society then they should be afforded care. I don't think that families that are struggling and "_following the rules"_ should have to worry about how to pay for their kids doctor visit. 

Education is a necessity to any nation based on freedom. Without it, no free nation can survive. Thomas Jefferson stressed the importance of this quite often. As such, I personally feel that both Technical and Classical 2 year degrees should be offered to citizens without much cost if any granted certain provisions are met. 

Housing? Shouldn't be a problem if you've complied with the "Education" portion... and are a contributing & productive member of society (not including those that simply can't). 

I'm a firm believer that a little respect goes a long way, but you have to respect yourself first. 

Housing and food are available in most communities to the needy, but as already stated many do not take advantage of those and other services designed to help the less fortunate get back on their feet. 

Goodwill Industries is huge where I live. They offer job training as well as other services... but some people won't go. 

Did it occur to you that some people chose to be bums? It's about choice in the end and you can't force someone to come in off the street and make something of themselves.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 17, 2009)

Funny that with all the trillions in dollars collected in taxes and distributed to the poor in the form of free housing, food, and health care, not to mention job training, that since the inception that the poor class has been growing at an insane rate. 2/3's of people accepted into the Job Corps didn't even bother to finish a free job training program. Less than 44% of the 1/3 who did complete the program found a job, and only 12% found one in their field. Most were in the minimum wage range. 

Not bad for a program that cost the US taxpayer $21,333 per body.

The year prior to the introduction of Medicaid poor families had a higher admittance rate at hospitals. Since it's inception, it's reduced or eliminated countless pro-bono programs, and encouraged the current out of control climate of health costs.

In 1971, NYC alone had 1.1 MILLION people on welfare, more people than the total populations of 15 states. I shudder to think what that number is today, where my state tax dollars are being funneled.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Nov 17, 2009)

I loved Ross Perot's idea of "Work-fair" over welfare. 

I have no problem helping someone that wants to help themselves and is/wants to be a contributing member of society or helping those that can not fend for themselves due to illness or disability. 

I do have a problem giving money and resources to people who do not.

You want to be a bum? Go be a bum, but don't expect me to help with your medical, housing, and other costs. 

I don't cater to parasites.


----------



## Steve (Nov 17, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Funny that with all the trillions in dollars collected in taxes and distributed to the poor in the form of free housing, food, and health care, not to mention job training, that since the inception that the poor class has been growing at an insane rate. 2/3's of people accepted into the Job Corps didn't even bother to finish a free job training program. Less than 44% of the 1/3 who did complete the program found a job, and only 12% found one in their field. Most were in the minimum wage range.
> 
> Not bad for a program that cost the US taxpayer $21,333 per body.
> 
> ...


Cherry picking facts is a funny thing.  Let's pretend that our current health care system is broken because of medicaid.   Come on, Bob.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 17, 2009)

Steve, I believe I've been clear in the past on where I believe the problems with health care lie.  I don't blame just Medicaid.  

Inflated costs subsidized by both the government and insurance companies to the detriment of both doctors and patients.

Yes, I will admit to cherry picking as I go.  Should I report over and over again all prior points or should I expect the intelligent reader to you know, read the whole thread, check out any links, etc?

I support Workfare, not welfare.
I support drug testing and counseling for all recipients of government aid. It's my money, I should get some say in it's use.
I support cutting taxes, cutting social programs, and holding people responsible.

Medicaid had an estimated $60 Billion in fraud in 2007. (Source)
Medicare hit the same number in 2009. (Source)
Hospital Bill overcharges cost us $10 Billion a year. (Source) 

Divide $170B / 350M (Americans) and that's a pretty big amount we're being ripped off each.



> *Doctors Opting out of Medicare at an Alarming Rate*
> 
> _nytimes.com &#8212;_             More and more doctors -- especially internists, gastroenterologists, gynecologists, and psychiatrists -- are refusing to accept Medicare. Why? The reimbursement rates are too low, and paperwork is too much of a hassle, they say. Of the 93 internists affiliated with New York-Presbyterian Hospital, for example, only 37 accept Medicare.



I know of a chiropractor who charges $35 a visit, including xrays. Cash only. Accepts no insurance.
The one I know who accepts insurance charged $40 a visit, xrays start at $50 per.
Maybe all the paperwork is a problem?
Maybe all the fraud is a problem?
Maybe if you reduce the 2, you can raise the quality of health care without taking more money out of my wallet to cover it?


----------



## Steve (Nov 17, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Steve, I believe I've been clear in the past on where I believe the problems with health care lie. I don't blame just Medicaid.
> 
> Inflated costs subsidized by both the government and insurance companies to the detriment of both doctors and patients.
> 
> ...


First, please take a breath.  I'm not picking on you.

Regarding the rest, for the sake of argument, I'll grant all of your points.  Let's presume the fraud, the paperwork, the collusion (that's mine, but I believe it to be there), I think you and I are not too far apart.  Where you _seem_  to see it as a choice between healthcare for everyone and money back in your pocket, I believe that it's possible to have both.

Where we really diverge is that, if given a choice between the two, I would choose to pay for healthcare for everyone and you would, I think, choose otherwise.  That's okay.  That, at least, is an honest disagreement.  

As an aside, regarding your "it's my money" line.  I made a not very funny joke a long time ago while in the military and your quote reminded me of it.  I was an e-3 and my crew chief told me to go out and do something I didn't want to do.  I said something like, "You know, I don't pay a lot in taxes, but I figure I pay about 30 minute's worth.  Can I take that 30 minutes now?"


----------



## celtic_crippler (Nov 17, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Steve, I believe I've been clear in the past on where I believe the problems with health care lie. I don't blame just Medicaid.
> 
> Inflated costs subsidized by both the government and insurance companies to the detriment of both doctors and patients.


 
...and just who benefits from those inflated costs? 

That's the question that gets overlooked when the feces is scattered, people focus on and get distracted by the feces instead of asking the most pertinent question of all: Who Benefits? 

Answer that, and you'll be well on your way to finding a solution....follow the money trail. 



> Yes, I will admit to cherry picking as I go. Should I report over and over again all prior points or should I expect the intelligent reader to you know, read the whole thread, check out any links, etc?
> 
> I support Workfare, not welfare.
> I support drug testing and counseling for all recipients of government aid. It's my money, I should get some say in it's use.
> I support cutting taxes, cutting social programs, and holding people responsible.


 
Personal accountability? 
Governmental accountability?
Perish the thought!!!!  
Those values are out-dated, Bob. You old-timer, you. Get with the program! The new values are all about entitlements. I think therefore I am, I am therefore I deserve...(insert whatever you have that I want here)



> Medicaid had an estimated $60 Billion in fraud in 2007. (Source)
> Medicare hit the same number in 2009. (Source)
> Hospital Bill overcharges cost us $10 Billion a year. (Source)
> 
> Divide $170B / 350M (Americans) and that's a pretty big amount we're being ripped off each.


 
Hmmmm.... that's close to $500 per each American. I think it would be more accurate if you divided into how many Americans actually work and pay taxes. 

Approximately 150 million are employed so that would work out more to about $1133 per person. 

It would be nice to get that back in a check from good old Uncle Sam wouldn't it? 




> I know of a chiropractor who charges $35 a visit, including xrays. Cash only. Accepts no insurance.
> The one I know who accepts insurance charged $40 a visit, xrays start at $50 per.
> Maybe all the paperwork is a problem?
> Maybe all the fraud is a problem?
> Maybe if you reduce the 2, you can raise the quality of health care without taking more money out of my wallet to cover it?


 
...follow the money trail...all the way to the end.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 17, 2009)

Steve, I don't see you picking on me, and I apologize if my post came across harsher than intended.  You and I are pretty much on the same page.


So....did you get your 30 minutes?


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 17, 2009)

Only 150 million are employed!?  Blimey!  I think that might be a sign that there is something fundamentally wrong with your political economy.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 17, 2009)

US population is around 350M.

Of course, Nancy Pelosi stated a few times that every day we failed to bail out those insurance companies 500 miliion American's would lose their jobs.  I think by now her figures somewhere in the trillions.  :rofl:

There are plenty of jobs out there. People just don't want them. When you're used to making $50k it's rather insulting to have to consider flipping a burger at a McJob. (Yes, I speak from personal experience)


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 17, 2009)

:lol: I do recall that particular Epic Fail in economic/fiscal theory .

That knocking on for 1-in-3 employment rate seems very low tho - no wonder people are annoyed by their tax burdens.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 17, 2009)

In all truth Suk, I don't mind paying taxes.  I don't mind paying alot in taxes. What I mind is paying a high % in taxes, that only gets wasted and skimmed off. I'd love to be in a position to pay $100k a year, but not if I'm only making $101k.


----------



## Carol (Nov 17, 2009)

1 in 3 unemployment too high.  We didn't see numbers like that in the great depression.

Just as a reference...

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

US population:  304,059,724

Persons under 18:  24.3%, or 73,886,513

Persons over 65: 12.5% or 38,007,466

(total population) - (under 18s) - (over 65s) = 192,165,745


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 17, 2009)

A most perfectly rational position, Bob. 

I noted the figures for 'graft and corruption' in the way that medical services were funded and if they are even close to accurate, how can such a pass have arisen? Such a degree of waste is unforgiveable and if that is why there is such railing against 'socialised medicine' I can well understand it.

To me, mind you, that speaks that there is something very wrong in the implementation rather than something wrong with the basic idea.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 17, 2009)

That's my point.  The system we have is fubar.  The proposed plan, only adds more money to a broken ship.  There's enough money in the system now, if it was properly focused to make the US system the best in the world.   Just like we grow enough food in the US to feed everyone in the country like kings of old.  The systems broken. I'd rather fix it, then continue to slap dirty bandaids on a festering wound.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Nov 17, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> A most perfectly rational position, Bob.
> 
> I noted the figures for 'graft and corruption' in the way that medical services were funded and if they are even close to accurate, how can such a pass have arisen? Such a degree of waste is unforgiveable and if that is why there is such railing against 'socialised medicine' I can well understand it.
> 
> To me, mind you, that speaks that there is something very wrong in the implementation rather than something wrong with the basic idea.


 
Starting to see why we're so pissed now, eh? LOL


----------



## Big Don (Nov 17, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Don't other people also deserve health care, an education, housing, and to be treated with respect?


Yes, but, no one else deserves to be coerced to pay for the above.


----------



## Steve (Nov 17, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Yes, but, no one else deserves to be coerced to pay for the above.


That's debatable.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 17, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> That's debatable.


Is it? Mail me a check for my rent and dinner then...


----------



## Steve (Nov 17, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Is it? Mail me a check for my rent and dinner then...


Haha.  How about you try to leave the restaurant without paying for your dinner, telling them that they have no right to coerce you into paying.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 17, 2009)

I just sign the bill over to Bernanke.


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 17, 2009)

Paying for something you consumed is far different from the gvt forcing your neighbor to pay for your groceries.


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 17, 2009)

> A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
> ...
> I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
> 
> -Thomas Jefferson



"America" is not about GETTING WHAT I DESERVE. It's about having the freedom to make of yourself what you will depending on how hard you want to work for it. Our Pioneer and/or immigrant ancestors would smack us upside the heads.

While I do not think we need to do away with "safety nets", some people appear to want to provide everybody with hammocks.


----------



## Carol (Nov 17, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> While I do not think we need to do away with "safety nets", some people appear to want to provide everybody with hammocks.



And  cars. Complete with full insurance and repair costs, all paid for by Da Commonwealth.


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 17, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> And  cars. Complete with full insurance and repair costs, all paid for by Da Commonwealth.



And internet too right?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 17, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> And internet too right?


It's a right in some European nations.....


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 17, 2009)

It is a sad truth that Capitalism does not work without government intervention in markets. It is also a sad truth that an overly centralised economy does not work either as manual regulation cannot replicate the responsiveness of markets (even when those markets are not actually 'free' at all).

I spent a lot of years studying Economics and was most disturbed to find that there is no perfect way to organise money and labour to give a 'steady state' decent outcome for everyone.

Communism does not function well due to inefficiencies introduced by lags in information and distribution of resources (and greed from those in positions of power). 

Capitalism does not work well because over time those who have manipulated events to their advantage (and the disadvantage of others) gather wealth into fewer and fewer hands and act to extract that wealth from the circular flow of the segment of the macro economy of which they are part. This means that those often looked to as shining examples of 'wealth creators' are more realistically acting to siphon real wealth out of the economy. This action means that a disproportionate financial burden falls upon those least able to respond (whether via tax or the simple cost of living) and over time causes an ever increasing disconnect between actual contribution and actual reward. More crucially, it induces an ever widening gap between the very wealthy and the very poor and, despite empassioned protests to the contrary, other than those cases of purposeful 'leachdom', the ordinary person not born into 'money' has no control over their fiscal fate (being paper boats tossed about in a sea of luck).


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 17, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> It's a right in some European nations.....


 
You need to add the word 'theoretical' into that. It is also the case that electricity and gas supplies are a 'right' - doesn't mean everyone gets them tho.


----------



## Carol (Nov 17, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> And internet too right?



At the state level, I think its just cell phones.


----------



## Steve (Nov 17, 2009)

Please tell me that you guys are kidding.  Don said something silly, I respond in kind and then all hell breaks lose.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 17, 2009)

Used to be, only water, food and shelter were fundamental human rights.  
In addition to those and free speech, education, and privacy, Internet access is a fundamental human right in at least 4 nations. (France) (Estonia) (Finland) (Greece)
Expectations are that within 10 years the UN will be insisting on it for everyone.

Oh and health care, and respect, and someone to pick up after you, and someone to clean your home, and cable tv, and a flat screen tv, and a computer and a cell phone and...... starting to get expensive for the people who actually you know, produce.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 18, 2009)

I think we've reached a point where the general public is realizing that the government is completely cancerous and needs to be removed.  This is resulting in a general hysteria where a great many are deciding that government cannot ever work...EVER!  I don't think this is the case despite believing that we probably need to pull the entire edifice down and start over.  

There are some things that I think our society needs.  These are things that probably need to be addressed in a new Constitutional Convention after we send our politicians packing and prosecute/lock up/execute the sick predatory elite that feel like they can steal trillions, kill millions for the war profits, and generally rape the Earth of its resources with the power of usury.  

Before this happens, the wheels are going to come off this crazy train and we are going to learn just how much we need each other.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 18, 2009)

Might be right.  Hope you aint though.  Anarchy isn't something I care to experience first hand.



Let me look at the OP again....

Do people deserve health care.  Maybe.....how much?
Now, before anyone takes this the wrong way, let me rephrase the question.
Do people deserve food? Maybe.  Water, yes. Basic sustenance, yes.  A bottle of Dom and a Homar Lobster, not unless they are paying. But, lets back up.

Water, yes. But if they live in a desert, miles from water, should we pay to truck it in?
Food, yes, but again, if they live in an area that can't support life should we truck it in?
Or should we do as Sam Kinison said and send them UHauls?

Where is the line between helping to survive and enabling to leech?

Lets go back to health care.
Someone's in a car accident, get the paramedics in, get them to the ER, save their life if at all possible.  Cover every band aid for every skinned knee, provide free aspirin and cough drops, that may be pushing it a bit. Especially if they engage in activities that almost ensure they'll be high risk. I don't know if I should pay for a life long smokers lung cancer treatments...or a cutters hobby.  Some times as hard as it is, you have to cut costs and focus on what you can save. 

Do people deserve an education?
Yes.  But they must make use of what is offered.  The United States today offers 12 years of education. There is no reason at all that after 12 years in school, that someone can't read, write, speak English and know enough math to balance a check book and make change.  Unless they don't bother to use what is offered to them. I realize that not everyone is a genius, and that some kids need extra help. I don't begrudge them that. However, they must make use of it.  If they don't, adding extra years on is a waste of time and money that can be better spent on someone who will use it.  

Do people deserve housing.
No. They deserve shelter.  My definition of shelter is simple, a place out of the elements where one can be safe, warm and dry.   Housing and homes are more elaborate.   Shelter to me is a barracks.  Housing is an apartment, and a home is a private dwelling.  People deserve shelter, but it's not my job to make their house payments for them. 
Part of shelter to me includes a clean place to wash up. That's a shower, not a jetted hot tub.
Part of shelter is a place to pee.  That's a community rest room, not a bidet with cushy seat and silk TP.
Part of shelter is clean water to both drink and bath. It's not Bottled from Mountain Springs.
Part of shelter is clothing to wear. That's not designer label name brand stuff.


Do people deserve respect?
Only if they deserve it.  I have no respect for the life long smoker who won't quit despite having serious health problems, who refuses change, to take care of themselves.  I have no respect for the drop out who thinks reading is for chumps. I have no respect for the 3rd generation welfare who is too busy watching Oprah to look for a job. (all 3 are people I know btw)

I have respect for anyone who works hard and smart, who puts in effort, who takes care of themselves, who put forth effort to improve their lot in life.  Respect is earned, and it is lost by our actions and non actions.


Now, having said all this, here is the question Arnisidor didn't ask.

*Who's responsibility is it to provide the things we deserve?*

I see it as my responsibility to provide it to me, through whatever legal means is available to me.  For me, I work, I earn an income, and I spend that income on what I deserve. I'm an adult, it's my responsibility to provide for my basic needs.  When I was a kid, it was my parents responsibility to provide for my basic needs.  Those needs didn't include a tv set, a phone, a computer or a candy bar.

If I live in filth, whose fault is that? Especially if the place wasn't dirty when I got there?  My city picks up the trash every week. No reason to collect it inside for months.  How many slums are there where if the people in them picked up the trash they could be beautiful?  More than a few I'm sure. Ever notice that most slums are also government subsidized?  

People don't take care of, or value, that which is just given to them. That's why more lottery winners are broke within a few years.

We are so fixated on 'helping' that we 'help' them right into dependence. That is where the waste comes in.   Go buy crab legs at the supermarket...you pick every last bit of meat out of them.  At the buffet?  You don't try and get every last bit, you just go back for more.

We don't need more housing programs, more welfare, more free anything.  We need programs that teach people how to be responsible, how to become self sufficient, how to save and how to invest.  That will cure poverty, solve the home crisis, fix the economy and move us forward.

It's not my responsibility to feed you when you are perfectly capable of feeding yourself.

Do that, and we can free up Billions of dollars to help out the people who really really need it, who get lost in the bloated system, and who I really do want to see helped.


I'm not against helping people. I'm against wasting those efforts, doing it illegally, and doing it ineffectively. There's a difference. I really hope I've cleared up any misconceptions my earlier posts have made.


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 18, 2009)

Bob for President!

Couldn't have said it better myself Bob.

As a tangent. Cigs are about what..$5 a pack?

2 pack a day habit-$300+ a month? Thats a car payment. Or at least a good chunk of a health plan payment. What about that cell-phone bill, cable TV and those new rims you just have to have for your car?

It's interesting to see what people can find the money for and what they can't.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 18, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'd love to be in a position to pay $100k a year, but not if I'm only making $101k.


 
Ya know Bob... this is my issue with this as well... Now, one could argue that I'm "Rich" because I own a car and a motorcycle, and I have me a Videogame system and a computer... And it's true, I'm better off than many, because I do.  And when things get _*truly*_ desperate, I'll sell them off, as I have always done in the past.  BUT...

I'm STRUGGLING now to keep my home, keep gas in said vehicle, and put food in my belly.  Often I'm eating 20 cent packages of Ramen, because it's what I have the cash to pay for that week.  I have a _*decent* "grownup"_ job, (meaning its not Clerking or Fast food, but a job in a professional envrionment) I'm educated, BUT... I also got educated into a career I was told "Will Always be in demand, and will pay great" that has a HUGE amount of unemployment in and only a tiny percentage of those employed in the field are earning what they are worth... So be it.  The point is, I accept all that as my "Fault" or possibly "Responsibilty" depending on how you look at it... and I can't justify in my mind that I should be forced to make my situation worse because someone else wants to make me provide for someone who is in a worse position than me.   I do my best to help the people I can, in the ways that I can, but I'm sorry... I need to look out for myself and my own first.  There's no damn way Jeff or Obama or even my Hippy Reletives are going to convince me I am better off not eating for 3 days so that some dude named Tony from Topeka can have his cough checked out.  I'm sorry... but that guy is outside my Monkeysphere.

Ok, that was a long *** rant for what I wanted to say.  Bottom line is... Im Getting by, should I not, in order to help someone else?  And once I am no longer getting by, should someone else be put into the same position to help me? And once they do, should I not, in order to help someone else?  And once I am no longer getting by, should someone else be put into the same position to help me... ad nausem?


----------



## Carol (Nov 18, 2009)

What is the _real _cost of all these programs?  


BOSTON - May 2009:  At a time when the Commonwealth is strapped for cash, the Governor starts issuing Commonwealth-paid cars to welfare recipients.  



> Gov. Deval Patrick&#8217;s free wheels for welfare recipients program is revving up despite the stalled economy, as the keys to donated cars loaded with state-funded insurance, repairs and even AAA membership are handed out to get them to work.
> But the program - fueled by a funding boost despite the state&#8217;s fiscal crash - allows those who end up back on welfare to keep the cars anyway.


SALEM, NH - July 2009: When was the last time you heard a smaller car dealership was doing well?  



> Garofalo says his customer mix is heavily weighted with Massachusetts customers because aside from a sales tax, customers there pay a 30 percent cigar tax as well.
> 
> A car dealer down the street is also having a good season.  Salem Ford Hyundai is less than a mile from the Massachusetts border.


BOSTON - August 1, 2009: Sales tax rate increases by 25 percent.



> The sales tax in Massachusetts will increase 25 percent on August 1, now that Gov. Patrick has signed a state budget bill for the fiscal year that begins Wednesday.


SALEM, NH - August 15, 2009:  Mass. residents take their money elsewhere



> Some Massachusetts consumers, frustrated by the recent sales tax hike, say they are driving miles out of their way to shopping centers in tax-free New Hampshire for their back-to-school needs.





> She...estimates she will spend close to $1,000 in New Hampshire, money she usually would have spent at the local stores in North Reading.


BOSTON - October 2009: The Mass. Retailers Association and the Mass. Dept. of Revenue confirms: retail sales are down, and *tax revenue is down* throughout the Commonwealth.



> Responding to a survey by the Retailers Association of Massachusetts, store owners said their sales dropped an average of 24 percent in August compared with the previous year.
> 
> The state Department of Revenue released a report on Friday that also showed a double-digit drop in retail sales. In September, when the state collects most of August&#8217;s sales tax revenue, sales tax collections fell 13.9 percent from the same time a year ago when the extra money from the tax hike is taken out of the calculation.


DOVER, NH - November 2009:  New Hampshire Retailers Association has better news



> The statistics released on Tuesday indicate 47 percent of RMANH members surveyed reported their sales so far in 2009 were the same as or better than last year, and 57 percent replied they expect their holiday sales to be better or the same as last year


http://news.bostonherald.com/news/r...r_poor_fuel_road_rage/srvc=home&position=also

http://www.nhpr.org/node/26132

http://www.wbur.org/2009/06/29/state-budget-2

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/08/15/mass_shoppers_avoiding_sales_tax/

http://www.patriotledger.com/busine...sales-have-slumped-since-state-sales-tax-hike

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091112/GJNEWS_01/711129759


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 18, 2009)

28800 posts, and (presumably) gone because of a silly argument. So sad.
This is why I try not to get emotionally involved in the study.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Nov 18, 2009)

I don't know where to begin.

Guys, I think what was meant by this thread is:
Doesn't everyone deserve health care, meaning if they are sick, suffering or dying and it can be prevented, shouldn't everyone deserve this?

An education? many people can't read. Doesn't anyone who wants an education deserve it?

Shelter is a human need, shouldn't everyone have access to it?

And respect, simply respect as a human being treated with human dignity.

Now, a book can be written concerning this topic, but we aren't talking about mansions and creating a welfare state.

Simply put, there are many people who don't want to work, but there are also MANY people on the street who are ill, be it mentally or physically and who aren't able to take care of themselves.
One of the saddest things I ever saw was a report on a homeless kid who had cancer and was dying and was homeless and dying on the streets of I believe it was Chicago. Heartbreaking.

I know what it's like not to be able to afford an education despite wanting it, did I let it stop me? No, but it did take me alot longer and because of that didn't allow me to get as far as I could have, am I bitter, no because I take responsibility for my life and move forward but the truth is that I do believe all people deserve more.

Housing? Let's not say that all peope deserve mansions, I wouldn't want to live in one anyway, but should that mean that people don't deserve a human need like shelter. And NO a box doesn't qualify.

Again it comes down to human dignity.

Now what if I told you that all this is not that impossible.

The truth is that we simply could provide all that right now for all people in the world.
It's not that difficult.

As a matter of fact I strongly believe that the world will end up this way eventually.
Is this a Utopian dream, no, there will always be problems in the world and conflicts will arise, but the world would be a better place if all the basic necessities were provided.

How? it all starts with FREE sustainable power.
Sustainable being a key word. Solar, wind, water and geothermal energy.
From there manufacturing would become more limited in terms of variation and almost completely taken over by machines.   

I personally have worked hardest in my life for things that brought me no money, therefore I don't see why people wouldn't work hardest for the benefit of all people.

Contrary to popular belief, not everyone who is poor and uneducated is that way because they are lazy, most are just conditioned to be this way.

An excellent book that discusses the statistics involved in success demonstrates that most successful people are that way because of their surroundings or conditions first, this doesn't mean that you can't break free of the conditions in you life, it just means that when the conditions are there to help you and you have some talent and you have desire you are much more likely to succeed.
There are exceptions to this rule but they are just that exceptions.

Now does this all mean I am a socialist.

Well I have seen the abuse that takes place, (I am Canadian) in our medical system firsthand. I have seen people who abuse their priviledges and yes I have seen the waste of resources that this costs. Welfare bums and drunks who take ambulances for no reason and end up in the hospital the beginning of the month because they just got paid.

But I have also seen the plus side , I have never paid to see a doctor, much of any medication I've had to take has been paid for, the government has a mandatory drug insurance in the province of Quebec. If your employer doesn't proviide this insurance then you must be insured by the province. This insurance pays for the bulk of medications.

You don't have to pay for an ambulance if you ever need it either. (not that I ever have).
The point being that socialism isn't all evil.

Comments?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 19, 2009)

I think that society should provide health care and education to those that want it and at the same time protect basic civil liberties.  It is possible and just because we don't see that happening now, we can't completely discount government's role in doing this.  The problem that I see is that many of us are choosing to ignore our humanity in favor of ideological propaganda campaigns that serve hidden purposes.

The arguments for providing both of these are fairly straightforward and systems that really work well are not hard to find.  The fact that both completely suck is suspect, because someone WANTED it that way.  There's a greater purpose being served when so many people are dumb, sick, and afraid.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 19, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Don't other people also deserve health care, an education, housing, and to be treated with respect?


I'm gonna change my answer.
No, not everyone deserves to be treated with respect. Respect is earned by respectful behavior. Some people deserve to be treated with contempt.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 19, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Bob for President!
> 
> Couldn't have said it better myself Bob.
> 
> ...


I'm seriously considering a real, all out run.....but that's another thread I'll start in a few weeks.....


----------



## Deaf Smith (Nov 19, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Don't other people also deserve health care, an education, housing, and to be treated with respect?


 
Deserve? Is that a basic right? Some sort of guarantee? Or is it, well, everyone SHOULD have these things if they work hard for them?

Treated with respect, yea if they earn it, everyone should be. All the rest you are asking for? TANSTAAFL.

TANSTAAFL, arnisador, TANSTAAFL. If you expect everyone to works hard to fork in to make sure everyone, reguardless if they work or not, get all that above you will find the free lunch. And there ain't one arnisador. Never was.

And to try to give a free lunch to everyone is to bring total bankruptcy to those who do work and contribute.

Deaf


----------



## SensibleManiac (Nov 19, 2009)

> And to try to give a free lunch to everyone is to bring total bankruptcy to those who do work and contribute.



Under the current systems we employ, yes you are right, but it's not impossible for life to truly be free, as a matter of fact it's most likely probable, as soon as we stop being against it. By we I'm talking about humanity in general.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 19, 2009)

SensibleManiac said:


> Under the current systems we employ, yes you are right, but it's not impossible for life to truly be free, as a matter of fact it's most likely probable, as soon as we stop being against it. By we I'm talking about humanity in general.



This is not necessarily the failure of the welfare state.  Our fractional debt based fiat currency has devalued that anyone who attempts to use it, including the government, can hardly pay for anything.  The Libertarians, anarchocapitalists, and John Birchers rail against both, but absolutely refuse to make the connection between the two for purely ideological reasons.  One one hand, they want to blame the Welfare State for the expansion of state debt, however a fractional debt based fiat currency will always lead to a debasement of value in the currency whether their is a Welfare State or not.  

Clever humans and and have devised other financial systems where a Welfare State AND a market economy may coincide and coexist peacefully.


----------

