Should we be ashamed?

lvwhitebir said:
History has shown that the more the government spends, the better the economy.

Then why not let the government spend it on employing people in peaceful endeavors? I wasn't advocating simply dumping government spending -- merely transferring it from funding stealth bombers and missile interceptors to socialized medicine, technology research, work programs, and the like.

To get to some of your specific examples, DARPA's funding for the research that led to the Internet went to colleges forming research networks. That same sort of funding continues today without any tie to defense planning. Who says that we have to be working on stuff to bomb the crap out of communists in order to be working on high-tech equipment with high-paying engineering positions?

It's interesting that conservatives object to government spending unless it's on defence, even if history shows that the economy is better when the government spends more.

In the end, it's a nice thought to be able to choose your charities, but that "freedom" is really costing millions of Americans the ability to get medical care, food, and shelter, let alone the problems billions have around the world. But as long as you're comfortable with that, I guess it's okay, right?
 
kenpo tiger said:
If there's all this work for building weapons of war, then why is the technology industry tied to it a mere shadow of its former self here on Long Island? Where did all those jobs go?

A combination of Clinton-era downsizing and subsequent mergers between the major military contractors in the past decade have reduced the number of competitors and jobs while dramatically increasing the profits of the military-industrial complex.

I suggest you spend a little time researching the Pentagon's budget, and in particular, expenses on R&D on weaponry that is of little to no use in current and future warfighting, including the B-2 Stealth Bomber, the F-22, the JSF, and other insanely expensive programs originally designed for the escalating Cold War.
 
Ender said:
Actually I beleive it was an article in Business week or Forbes a few years back. By your tone, I'm assuming you have a a slight skepticism. Well, lets look at state ranking from the Center for Philanthropy


Individual Generosity Index by State 2004: (2002 US State Data)

Having Rank is the amount of wealth a state has.
Giving rank is the rank in which a state gives to charity
Rank relation is the "Having Rank" minus the "Giving Rank"
Generosity Rank is the overall Score

State, Having Rank, Giving Rank, Rank Relation, Generosity Index

Mississippi 50 5 45 1
Arkansas 47 6 41 2

California 6 17 -11 29
Maryland 4 16 -12 30
Illinois 10 22 -12 31


How odd that the "Blue" states congregate near the bottom.



Hold on there, Babalooey.

Okay...so I'm supposed to believe that Mississippi by "having rank" is the richest state in the Union, and California one of the poorest? What am I missing here? If California was an independent nation it would have one of the top ten GDP's in the world.

On the foreign aid question, reference this:

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs

It shows the U.S. waaaaaaaay behind Scandinavia when it comes to overseas development projects. They don't give more overall, of course (Denmark has only five million or so people), but they give a hell of a lot more per capita.


Regards,


Steve
 
hardheadjarhead said:
Regards,

Steve
Thank you Steve.

I really didn't want to chase that information down ... but some of those statistics seemed a bit odd to me too.

You Go Boy.

Mike
 
PeachMonkey said:
In the end, it's a nice thought to be able to choose your charities, but that "freedom" is really costing millions of Americans the ability to get medical care, food, and shelter, let alone the problems billions have around the world. But as long as you're comfortable with that, I guess it's okay, right?

Nope, I'm not comfortable with that at all. I want everyone to have some help with health care. I have many friends that don't have insurance because they have part-time jobs. I'm just saying that it's not as easy to develop as you may think. I don't want to live in a Socialist society where all my money goes to help someone else. Most if not all of the countries with universal health care have a very high tax base. And there have been reports in the media that while the basic care is ok, advanced care is not.

Why is that freedom costing Americans any ability for care, food, or shelter? If the money is made available, does it have to be from my taxes? I give money to charities to provide food and shelter. Does the government have to be involved?

But if the government can design and run a plan that fits everyone, so be it. I know they tried before and don't know what happened or why they're not still working on it. It just seems to have lost its priority with Congress and the Bush administration.

Unfortunately, every time the government puts together a system such as this it's rife with overspending, mismanagement, or bloating. Look at welfare. When it was developed it was only supposed to be a short-term aid to help people get back on their feet. These days there are people, sometimes generations of families living off it. What happened? It's not that I think everyone on welfare is cheating or anything. I just know that some people are on it and never intend to get off. Usually the more handouts people get the less likely they are to work to get away from the handouts. There's no incentive to.

WhiteBirch
 
lvwhitebir said:
every time the government puts together a system such as this it's rife with overspending, mismanagement, or bloating.
Social Security
Eisenhowever Highway System
Rural Electrification
Medicare
Medicaid
 
lvwhitebir said:
Look at welfare. When it was developed it was only supposed to be a short-term aid to help people get back on their feet. These days there are people, sometimes generations of families living off it. What happened? . . . I just know that some people are on it and never intend to get off. Usually the more handouts people get the less likely they are to work to get away from the handouts. There's no incentive to.

WhiteBirch
Please define welfare.

There are not families living off welfare for generations. The Clinton / Gingrich Welfare Reform Act of 1994 eliminated long term welfare benefits. Usually, its two years and your out. A maximum of 5 years in your life time.

And of course, the stories you are referring to about people who 'never intend to get off' welfare ... often, while receiving welfare services, they and their families are eligable for Medicaid. By moving 'off' welfare, into an available workforce job, they are often no longer eligable for this healthcare coverage. So its a choice between working and not having healthcare coverage or not working and being able to receive healthcare treatment.

Nice Society, eh?
 
michaeledward said:
Please define welfare.

There are not families living off welfare for generations. The Clinton / Gingrich Welfare Reform Act of 1994 eliminated long term welfare benefits. Usually, its two years and your out. A maximum of 5 years in your life time.

And of course, the stories you are referring to about people who 'never intend to get off' welfare ... often, while receiving welfare services, they and their families are eligable for Medicaid. By moving 'off' welfare, into an available workforce job, they are often no longer eligable for this healthcare coverage. So its a choice between working and not having healthcare coverage or not working and being able to receive healthcare treatment.

Nice Society, eh?
Yes, lets hope we are going away from and not closer to the 1%-5% who own about 80% of all the worlds resources and want more, so they can give less.

Just remember the 10% you tithe goes to the same as above.

When handing that 10 spot to the person begging at least you know it will get back into the economy. Weather it is yours or theirs it is probably well spent.

Happy new year.

Regards, Gary
 
michaeledward said:
This too, would be a wonderful statement to source and provide actual data to support.

I think you may find that we do not give more money. I don't know. But, if you are going to make such claims. Please verify with data.

Thanks - Mike
That is a two way street Michael, good tactic though.

You must be reading Robert's rules.

Regards, Gary
 
michaeledward said:
I think you may find that we do not give more money. I don't know. But, if you are going to make such claims. Please verify with data.[/QUOTE

GAB said:
That is a two way street Michael, good tactic though.
Gary,

I don't know if it was a 'tactic' or not. But it certainly had the tone of hyperbole - and it is always nice to have supporting information.

I changed the emphasis in my quote above, just to point out how definitive the statement I was making actually was.

Mike
 
CNN today reported that the USA is supplying $320 million in aid for tsunami victims. Sect'y Powell reveals that U.S. aid will exceed $1 billion. At the same time, another $12-14 million has gone to WHO for hunger relief.
Ashamed? I don't feel at all ashamed. I'm proud.
Figures from Sweden aren't in yet.
As an aside, GDPs for Norway and Sweden were given to show, as I'm sure you divined, how deceptive percentages can be. A small base figure (like theirs ) makes modest contributions seem more important than the billions given by the US with a GDP of almost 12 trillion. US ODA contributions, I now know, exceed those of Norway, Sweden and Denmark combined, times two. See hardheadjarhead's of 12/29. Be proud of that too.
It is equally true that Western Europe surrendered its national defense responsibilities to the U.S. long ago. We are Europe's first line of defense. And their last hope. There ought to be more room in the European budget for aid programs with the U.S. taking care of little necessities like national security and defense R&D.
Oh well.
p.s. One reason we don't have socialized medicine is because many if not most Americans don't agree with the concept or the practice. It is groundless to believe that if defense spending were cut, spending on aid and social programs would increase. It's not a lack of resources, as has been pointed out.More likely, it is a reluctance to expand government into areas now served by private industry. Change that mindset and the rest will follow, don't you think?
 
ghostdog2 said:
.One reason we don't have socialized medicine is because many if not most Americans don't agree with the concept or the practice. It is groundless to believe that if defense spending were cut, spending on aid and social programs would increase. It's not a lack of resources, as has been pointed out.More likely, it is a reluctance to expand government into areas now served by private industry. Change that mindset and the rest will follow, don't you think?
I'm not sure what most Americans think about the practice, but I believe that socializing most things that private concerns should and could do is a poor route to take.
 
Ray said:
I'm not sure what most Americans think about the practice, but I believe that socializing most things that private concerns should and could do is a poor route to take.
On the one hand, having socialized medicine could guarantee health care for everyone. On the other hand, you could end up with substandard health care because there are too many patients and too few qualified doctors. If it was offered as an option, I'm sure people would take it, the other option being you could continue with your privatized health care if you so chose.

So Ray. What would be your suggestion, other than socialized medicine, to have health care available to everyone in our country?
 
Hi,

I am throwing in my thought.

I have talked to a few of the "snow birds", Canadians visiting during the winter and going home in their better weather conditions.

I feel they have a good system, it is better then ours as far as humane treating to all goes.

Why should we not have care for all??? If the people with money want to spend it, they are going to because they have it.

We need to change and get our head out of the sand. Disease etc. does not follow the "money line" on TV.
In fact the ones who are costing the most are the rich and famous with some of the frivoulous stuff being done in the name of medicine...

Yes, we have some stop gaps, but the best is socialized medicine...

Regards, Gary
 
Gary,

Socialized medicine, in countries like those in South America, allows people to indulge in vanity surgery as well -- at little or no cost to them. What a concept! We could all be lifted and tucked at the government's expense.:uhyeah:
 
Back
Top