Austerity zombies just don't have a clue...

[GGT]

It seems Enoch was combining wet nurse and nanny, meant to convey people sucking at the teat of the welfare state. To nitpick, that's using semantic terms incorrectly ...knowing that both wet nurses and nannies were traditionally less fortunate women trying to make a living, doing "work" for other, richer families.

[Aimless]

It's not so much a SS net, it's more of a welfare net. Basically means you never learn to stand on your own two feet!

Incredibly strange then that almost everyone manages to stand more or less on their own feet for most of their lives.

[oldmunchkin]

Incredibly strange then that almost everyone manages to stand more or less on their own feet for most of their lives.

But the way it's being used here is along the lines of "sucking off the hind tit" of the government instead of saving for your own retirement! In other words, "expecting" the promises made earlier in your employment is stupidity, and you should be blamed for "expecting" government or corporations to live up to the promises made!

[GGT]

Incredibly strange then that almost everyone manages to stand more or less on their own feet for most of their lives.

Even babies learn how to stand, and walk. The politick-speaking people against a safety net adeptly uses words to infantilize its users. Using certain terms like nanny or sucking at teats. They do this by grouping anyone who needs any safety net as a big baby (in a cradle) who sucks from the teat of someone other than their own mother/family, until they die (in their grave).

The other end of politick-speaking uses words like Big Brother, that denotes a government being too paternalistic.

[Aimless]

But the way it's being used here is along the lines of "sucking off the hind tit" of the government instead of saving for your own retirement!

How many people and for what reasons? I mean, I live in a small country routinely mocked for its socialist leanings, and the only people I know who aren't saving for their retirement are those people who have almost no money to put away in the first place. It's possible that most people want more than the bare minimum the govt. can offer them in their old age.

In other words, "expecting" the promises made earlier in your employment is stupidity, and you should be blamed for "expecting" government or corporations to live up to the promises made!

Some/many of those promises were inappropriate or misguided. At the same time, I dunno how you can have a functioning society without people being able to trust at least some promises.

[Aimless]

Even babies learn how to stand, and walk. The politick-speaking people against a safety net adeptly uses words to infantilize its users. Using certain terms like nanny or sucking at teats. They do this by grouping anyone who needs any safety net as a big baby (in a cradle) who sucks from the teat of someone other than their own mother/family, until they die (in their grave).

I know. I just think that sort of rhetoric is disgusting.

The other end of politick-speaking uses words like Big Brother, that denotes a government being too paternalistic.

And let's not forget mooches and leeches and thieves and robbers and, I guess, zombies.

[GGT]

[Enoch the Red]

I appreciate your sentiment and philosophy, but in the 21st century it's just not possible....for everyone to "take care" of themselves, or rely on family and/or charity to do that. Do you know the REAL costs of a hip replacement, or open heart surgery? There aren't enough charities or churches to cover them. Any idea how much Rehab or Long Term Care costs? How about Special Education for kids with special needs? Neither private Insurance, employer-based insurance, nor government programs can manage the costs.

Sorry, but it's not as simple as it was in earlier days. Our modern society, with all its high-tech possibilities and expectations makes it vastly different. You can't expect one person (usually a woman) to stay home and care for the kids and elders, using homeopathic remedies or whatever. Especially not when most families now rely on two incomes just to make ends meet under "normal" circumstances. People don't expect to die at the age of 50 anymore. And why should they?

I think we are presently looking at compelling evidence that the alternative isn't possible, GGT. You seem to want everything for everybody and to hell with the costs, only by doing so you're mortgaging your children's and grandchildren's future.

I'm sorry, but it is that simple, and no, that doesn't mean relying on tired gender stereotypes.

Furthermore, you're basing your analysis of the proposed system on the distorted realities of the current flawed system. Sure, surgeries aren't cheap, but to add injury to injury the costs have been artificially inflated by governmental interference in the medical sector. Remove that interference and who's to say what would happen to prices.

It seems Enoch was combining wet nurse and nanny, meant to convey people sucking at the teat of the welfare state. To nitpick, that's using semantic terms incorrectly ...knowing that both wet nurses and nannies were traditionally less fortunate women trying to make a living, doing "work" for other, richer families.

Feel free to nitpick if you'd like, but you would be wrong. There is nothing semantically incorrect about my usage of the words, or the meaning behind them.

[Aimless]

GGT, do you really want EVERYTHING for EVERYBODY??!

[Enoch the Red]

GGT, do you really want EVERYTHING for EVERYBODY??!

Oh, I forgot, there's probably a picture on the internet that says we are not trillions of dollars in debt or something. That's reassuring.

[GGT]

I think we are looking at compelling evidence that the alternative isn't possible, GGT. You seem to want everything for everybody and to hell with the costs, only by doing so you're mortgaging your children's and grandchildren's future.

I'm sorry, but it is that simple, and no, that doesn't mean relying on gender stereotypes.

No, you're wrong. I don't want (or expect) "everything" for everyone, damn the costs. When it comes to healthcare....we already know that some 5% are using over half of all costs, and that a majority of costs are spent in the last two years of life. That doesn't mean a 40 year old newly diagnosed diabetic should be prohibited from buying insulin, or not have access to nutrition education, or other medical interventions. He shouldn't have to go blind or lose a limb before realizing his church or charity isn't the same as good quality medical care.

[Enoch the Red]

No, you're wrong. I don't want (or expect) "everything" for everyone, damn the costs. When it comes to healthcare....we already know that some 5% are using over half of all costs, and that a majority of costs are spent in the last two years of life. That doesn't mean a 40 year old newly diagnosed diabetic should be prohibited from buying insulin, or not have access to nutrition education, or other medical interventions. He shouldn't have to go blind or lose a limb before realizing his church or charity isn't the same as good quality medical care.

Because those are the only options? Either he has socialized healthcare or he loses his leg? And for much of this country's history, good quality medical care was provided by churches and charities.

Hell, in some places it still is.

[GGT]

Because those are the only options? Either he has socialized healthcare or he loses his leg?

All health care is SSSocialized, in case you hadn't noticed. Private employer-based insurance included.

For the less lucky guy who works a couple of part-time jobs, with no benefits, and may be able to buy a catastrophic policy but can't afford health care....it's unrealistic to think his church or a charity can tend to his comprehensive needs over time. It's even harder, longer, and more expensive for a juvenile type I diabetic.

You tell me, Enoch...how you'd deal with peoples' real lives during the hypothetical and utopian transition you propose. Seems to me that would mean lots of 40-60 year olds dying prematurely, and many kids dying before adulthood. Immunizations alone have extended longevity, and reduced childhood mortality. Thanks to teh evil gummint R & D and mandatory vaccinations.

How far back do you want to turn the clock?

[Aimless]

Oh, I forgot, there's probably a picture on the internet that says we are not trillions of dollars in debt or something. That's reassuring.

Wait, does that mean GGT wants everything for everyone??

As for false dilemmas, either you have completely privatized healthcare or govt death panels kill grandma.

I hope we get generic insulin soon though. It's kinda heart-wrenching to read some of the desperate posts online about people who've been laid off and are trying to scrounge up another week's worth of insulin

[GGT]

Because those are the only options? Either he has socialized healthcare or he loses his leg? And for much of this country's history, good quality medical care was provided by churches and charities.

Hell, in some places it still is.

I must have replied while you did a quick edit...

Of course Shriner's is a great facility, especially for burn patients. So is St. Jude's and other non-profit hospitals that are often associated with Medical Colleges and Universities as teaching centers....that also get funding either directly or indirectly from federal and/or state dollars.

Like I said, all healthcare is ultimately SSSocialized to some degree. Just look at religious hospitals (Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Catholic, Jewish) that pool monies from plate to parish....with county, state or federal assistance.

[Aimless]

With that kind of money the shriners could take care of the entire US population's healthcare needs for 17 hours.

[RandBlade]

Charities are not SSSocialised.

You seem very happy very often to increase spending, when the reality is now a need to decrease it. Don't hear you propose how you'll fund it.

[Aimless]

You seem very happy very often to increase spending, when the reality is now a need to decrease it. Don't hear you propose how you'll fund it.

It's really simple: place all chav kids in loving and responsible foster families. In a few years your spending on welfare will plummet. Or maybe build enough slack into your healthcare system so that it doesn't make as many costly mistakes due to accountant-driven planning. Killing grandparents is another option.

[GGT]

Charities are not SSSocialised.

Of course they are, especially religious-based charities. They pool money and target neediest areas, as decided by their hierarchy. Plate to parish to people.

You seem very happy very often to increase spending, when the reality is now a need to decrease it. Don't hear you propose how you'll fund it.

Now now, don't go putting words in my mouth. We need to be smarter with our gov't spending, not just slash spending across the board. We need to realize that certain spending is an investment in our future----like education, healthcare, job training, infrastructure. Until we can fix our fundamental and structural problems between government and private sectors, I've proposed funding the Transition by letting all Bush tax cuts expire, ending expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan, ending corporate subsidies to big oil and big banks and big Ag.

We spent millions of dollars per day, just providing air conditioning to troops in Iraq/Afghanistan. That's an extraction of wealth with very little return.

[Aimless]

Look, with almost a third of your healthcare expenditure being pure waste, and with huge unnecessary disparities in both quality and cost of care, it's entirely possible you can find your funding in your funding. After that you might even see gains from having a healthy and fearless populace served by good medicine. Or not, i dunno. They said the iPad was a crazy useless fad and it looks like they were right.

[GGT]

That's cute, funding within our funding. Also quite true, in a pathetic example of the US being such a strong and wealthy nation....whose institutions are constantly at odds with one another, and can't move forward.

Coming together as communities is considered Communism, instead of Communitarianism. Taxation is considered wealth re-distribution and SSSocialism, instead of Constitutional representation that keeps our Union running.

[Enoch the Red]

All health care is SSSocialized, in case you hadn't noticed. Private employer-based insurance included.

And it sure has done a bang-up job of controlling costs and providing care, hasn't it? To argue that the broken system is broken is a tautology. To argue that we need to continue breaking it to fix it is absurd.

For the less lucky guy who works a couple of part-time jobs, with no benefits, and may be able to buy a catastrophic policy but can't afford health care....it's unrealistic to think his church or a charity can tend to his comprehensive needs over time. It's even harder, longer, and more expensive for a juvenile type I diabetic.

Yes? Of course he can't afford health care. That's an indictment of the current system, no? Again, you'll get no argument from me that what we're working with now is broken

You tell me, Enoch...how you'd deal with peoples' real lives during the hypothetical and utopian transition you propose. Seems to me that would mean lots of 40-60 year olds dying prematurely, and many kids dying before adulthood. Immunizations alone have extended longevity, and reduced childhood mortality. Thanks to teh evil gummint R & D and mandatory vaccinations.

How far back do you want to turn the clock?

I reject your premise. You are conflating the increasing knowledge and research in the medical field with socialized medicine. Correlation does not equal causation. I don't believe that had government not stepped in and started disrupting the markets that medical progress and research and development would have flatlined. You seem to be arguing that without government people stop innovating. They lose their sense of wonder and joy at discovery. I couldn't disagree more. Now, you could make the argument that governmental funding can better enable scientific progress, and there may be truth to that, but the overwhelming percentage of governmental spending does not go to furthering research and development, they contribute to creating perverse (dis)incentives for insurance companies, drug companies and healthcare organizations.

I also reject the idea that people who have seen their tax burden decrease would not also turn around and fulfill needs with their extra income. Or that evil corporations wouldn't take the opportunity to make a public relations coup with the general public.

[RandBlade]

Of course they are, especially religious-based charities. They pool money and target neediest areas, as decided by their hierarchy. Plate to parish to people.

That's not socialist. Socialism takes money by force, charities are given it voluntarily. Mammoth difference.

Now now, don't go putting words in my mouth. We need to be smarter with our gov't spending, not just slash spending across the board. We need to realize that certain spending is an investment in our future----like education, healthcare, job training, infrastructure. Until we can fix our fundamental and structural problems between government and private sectors, I've proposed funding the Transition by letting all Bush tax cuts expire, ending expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan, ending corporate subsidies to big oil and big banks and big Ag.

We spent millions of dollars per day, just providing air conditioning to troops in Iraq/Afghanistan. That's an extraction of wealth with very little return.

Iraq and Afghanistan wars were "an investment in our future" - they kept us safer and led to the Arab Spring. Bin Laden is dead, al'Qaeda is largely dismantled. I'm glad we responded to 9/11 in such a way that it hasn't happened since.

As for ending the expenditures there, too late that is already happening. How many US troops are in Iraq now? I thought it was zero? In Afghanistan we're already in transition to withdraw all troops soon and many already have been. So too late to do any changes there. I don't see how you hope to save a single cent here.

Corporate subsidies to big oil, banks and ag - how much revenue do you hope to raise from this and what consequences will those actions have?

Tax cuts - Again arguable as to whether this'll actually raise any money since increased tax rates can cause decreased activity and/or incentivise moving cash overseas. How much do you expect net to raise from this and what consequences will there be?

[RandBlade]

They said the iPad was a crazy useless fad and it looks like they were right.

Source?

I got one in December and find it very useful for work. Also a hell of a lot easier to carry and keep charged than my Laptop, plus much more responsive (it takes no time to boot up since its always on). Seen it used in some very clever places and ways and its still early days.

AFAIK sales are growing and not shrinking so seems a really bizarre (and irrelevant) claim.

[Steely Glint]

led to the Arab Spring

citation needed

[Aimless]

Source?

January issue of Irony Magazine.

The iPad was well-timed and is in many ways groundbreaking. Apple isn't just hugely successful because of its power to cut costs; it's also because it's a company driven by vision as much as by accountants.

[RandBlade]

citation needed

It's a claim and idea, impossible to prove. However when we were debating Iraq back in 2003 I was in favour of it, not just due to the human rights abuses in Iraq (reason enough) but also due to the idea a free Iraq with regulat elections etc would put pressure on other Arab nations to do the same thing. As has happened.

No successful bug business (besides accounting ones) are so due to accountants alone. Or without them either.

[Steely Glint]

If you think that the arab spring was caused by people looking at Iraq and Afghanistan and going "wouldn't it be awesome if it was like that here" then I don't know what to say to you.

[GGT]

And it sure has done a bang-up job of controlling costs and providing care, hasn't it? To argue that the broken system is broken is a tautology. To argue that we need to continue breaking it to fix it is absurd.

Yes? Of course he can't afford health care. That's an indictment of the current system, no? Again, you'll get no argument from me that what we're working with now is broken

I reject your premise. You are conflating the increasing knowledge and research in the medical field with socialized medicine. Correlation does not equal causation. I don't believe that had government not stepped in and started disrupting the markets that medical progress and research and development would have flatlined. You seem to be arguing that without government people stop innovating. They lose their sense of wonder and joy at discovery. I couldn't disagree more. Now, you could make the argument that governmental funding can better enable scientific progress, and there may be truth to that, but the overwhelming percentage of governmental spending does not go to furthering research and development, they contribute to creating perverse (dis)incentives for insurance companies, drug companies and healthcare organizations.

I also reject the idea that people who have seen their tax burden decrease would not also turn around and fulfill needs with their extra income. Or that evil corporations wouldn't take the opportunity to make a public relations coup with the general public.

1. I've never claimed our costs of care and providing care have had aligned goals, whether by gov't or the medical profession....and especially not by the Insurance industry.

2. R&D relies heavily on gov't funding, which comes from tax dollars---ie, "socialized" vs privatized. Even private universities and pharmaceutical companies rely on gov't grants. That doesn't mean people can't/won't innovate without gov't. However, governments do have a great capability of pooling and mobilizing tax dollars, in ways private corporations either can't or won't, to tackle huge projects. Small Pox and Polio vaccinations come to mind. Work on HIV/AIDs as a disease process, its diagnosis/meds/prevention. Also earlier things like the Manhattan Project, Hoover Dam, sending men to the moon (NASA), nuclear medicine, the genome project, etc. Would projects like high-speed rail, the Chunnel, or the Hadron Collider have been underwritten purely by private entities? I'm doubtful.

3. Now, if we could re-align social goals (particularly public education and health) with our social (tax) dollars.....some of those (dis)incentives might vanish, along with distorted private profits. In reality, all private innovation is now competing with global forces like China. And their gov't is quite happy to subsidize anything future-oriented, by throwing billions of dollars into it. "Can companies compete with nations?"

That's not socialist. Socialism takes money by force, charities are given it voluntarily. Mammoth difference.
Iraq and Afghanistan wars were "an investment in our future" - they kept us safer and led to the Arab Spring. Bin Laden is dead, al'Qaeda is largely dismantled. I'm glad we responded to 9/11 in such a way that it hasn't happened since.

As for ending the expenditures there, too late that is already happening. How many US troops are in Iraq now? I thought it was zero? In Afghanistan we're already in transition to withdraw all troops soon and many already have been. So too late to do any changes there. I don't see how you hope to save a single cent here.

Corporate subsidies to big oil, banks and ag - how much revenue do you hope to raise from this and what consequences will those actions have?

Tax cuts - Again arguable as to whether this'll actually raise any money since increased tax rates can cause decreased activity and/or incentivise moving cash overseas. How much do you expect net to raise from this and what consequences will there be?

There are too many big topics in there to address in one reply. Some religions use a different type of indoctrinating "force" for getting money, even if they call it voluntary tithing instead of buying salvation, but that's another thread entirely. If your definition of Socialism is "taking money by force", then any nation with legislated taxes fits that bill and We are all SSSocialists now.

[RandBlade]

There are too many big topics in there to address in one reply. Some religions use a different type of indoctrinating "force" for getting money, even if they call it voluntary tithing instead of buying salvation, but that's another thread entirely. If your definition of Socialism is "taking money by force", then any nation with legislated taxes fits that bill and We are all SSSocialists now.

Not all taxation is socialism. That's like the animals and dogs fallacy, all dogs are animals but not all animals are dogs.

Anyway, I thought it was already accepted that all modern western economies are a hybrid mix of some parts capitalism, some parts socialism. The question is the balance that you seek. I see less of the socialism, more of the capitalism.