CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I'm from England, mate, and have been all over Europe many many times. So I can tell you that none of the European countries are welfare states. That's bollocks. Rather, a few of them are what we call socialist democracies. Free health care and all that. Even free university for some blokes. How do they lad for it all? Taxes, mate. Taxes. They can be as high as 70% of your income. Why do you think so many of those Europeans who make big quid in America get residency over there? Blokes like Paul McCartney and Mick Jagger. So their taxes won't be so bloody high.
I made a sodding 40,000 last year and the guv took about half of it, the wankers. That's why I'm now in America where I make about 10% more in sages but pay about 25% less in taxes for net raise of one third over last year.
made a sodding 40,000 last year and the guv took about half of it, the wankers.
In the UK, of 40k you have to pay tax in 39k of it due to the tax free allowance. You would pay 5.8k in tax and 3.8k national insurance. So you would have paid around 25% tax. This is without any tax deductions.
You don't need to spell anything out as a Forbes article is hardly pertinent to what I asked . The Havard school of economics would disagree with Forbes assessment, and your stated reasons as to the why are simply not true .
How is it not pertinent? Your premise states, "Most European countries are much more generous to the poor and their approach seems to be not perfect but far more humane". The article says otherwise as those in the US are living a better life than Europe. You are now throwing Harvard into the mix, but without providing a link to your source it means nothing.
Again, if you want to claim that most European countries are more generous, and I disagree by presenting actual statistics, you cannot accuse me of not answering the question, nor can you simply state the reasons aren't true without supporting evidence to the contrary. All you have done so far is make a seemingly arbitrary statement with no evidence to support it.
Your failure to comprehend the term welfare state has you totally confused .......
The welfare state is a concept of government in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the social and economic well-being of its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life. The general term may cover a variety of forms of economic and social organization.[1] The sociologist T.H. Marshall described the modern welfare state as a distinctive combination of democracy, welfare, and capitalism.[2]
So tell me about the free medical treatment citizens are entitled to in the US , the weekly welfare payments for life if necessary and the free housing if required , also i 'im interested in the state pension plan you's pay out to the aged .
This is what a so called welfare state provides or attempts to provide , and this is what I asked , so I will ask again do you's or do you not have a welfare state ?
I completely understand what a welfare state is, and again, the poor in the US are benefiting just fine including the very things you mention: free health care, welfare payments, free housing, free utilities, free food...ffs free cell phones. State pension plan? You mean social security? You mention equitable distribution of wealth which I think is a terrible idea. You can't have people work on a curve. Why work hard if you'll be rewarded the same as if you did nothing? What you're describing is socialism which doesn't work, especially in such large countries as the US.
What you seem to fail to realize by your constant use of the word free, is that none of the items listed are actually free. Someone has to pay for it which perfectly explains the ridiculous taxes paid in many European countries.
Yes thats why I asked you to address what the question as stated , and again you say one thing based on what you've read or studied and I likewise have to go on what Americans have told me and also on what I read can you not see that ?
How would I know any different if I'm told and read independent reports and studies citing the opposite about what you state ....from the Guardian .....
Healthcare
A study last year found that in many American counties, especially in the deep South, life expectancy is lower than in Algeria, Nicaragua or Bangladesh. The U.S. is the only developed country that does not guarantee health care to its citizens; even after the Affordable Care Act, millions of poor Americans will remain uninsured because governors, mainly Republicans, have refused to expand Medicaid, which provides health insurance for low-income Americans. Although the federal government will pay for the expansion, many governors cited cost, even though the expansion would actually save money. America is unique among developed countries in that tens of thousands of poor Americans die because they lack health insurance, even while we spend more than twice as much of our GDP on healthcare than the average for the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a collection of rich world countries. The U.S. has an infant mortality rate that dwarfs comparable nations, as well as the highest teenage-pregnancy rate in the developed world, largely because of the politically-motivated unavailability of contraception in many areas.
4. Education
The U.S. is among only three nations in the world that does not guarantee paid maternal leave (the other two are Papua New Guinea and Swaziland). This means many poor American mothers must choose between raising their children and keeping their jobs. The U.S. education system is plagued with structural racial biases, like the fact that schools are funded at the local, rather than national level. That means that schools attended by poor black people get far less funding than the schools attended by wealthier students. The Department of Education has confirmed that schools with high concentrations of poor students have lower levels of funding. It's no wonder America has one of the highest achievement gaps between high income and low income students, as measured by the OECD. Schools today are actually more racially segregated than they were in the 1970s. Our higher education system is unique among developed nations in that is funded almost entirely privately, by debt. Students in the average OECD country can expect about 70 percent of their college tuition to be publicly funded; in the United States, only about 40 percent of the cost of education is publicly-funded. That's one reason the U.S. has the highest tuition costs of any OECD country.
5. Inequality
By almost every measure, the U.S. tops out OECD countries in terms of income inequality, largely because America has the stingiest welfare state of any developed country. This inequality has deep and profound effects on American society. For instance, although the U.S. justifies its rampant inequality on the premise of upward mobility, many parts of the United States have abysmal levels of social mobility, where children born in the poorest quintile have a less than 3 percent chance of reaching the top quintile. Inequality harms our democracy, because the wealthy exert an outsized political influence. Sheldon Adelson, for instance, spent more to influence the 2012 election than the residents of 12 states combined. Inequality also tears at the social fabric, with a large body of researchshowing that inequality correlates with low levels of social trust. In their book The Spirit Level, Richard Pickett and Kate Wilkinson show that a wide variety of social indicators, including health and well-being are intimately tied to inequality.
A study last year found that in many American counties, especially in the deep South, life expectancy is lower than in Algeria, Nicaragua or Bangladesh.
With regards to healthcare, especially in areas such as the south there has been a recognition there is a lack of affordable options which is why those same states helped in electing our current president who has intentions of repealing and replacing the ACA. If anything the ACA has made healthcare easier to obtain when on low income; it's the middle income families that struggle. I personally know people paying 65% of their income just on their premium. Even if you don't qualify for "free" healthcare, families making just $30-40k can get healthcare for less than $100/mth depending on the area. Something else to consider in the US, especially in the deep south, is that people just don't take care of themselves. We have terrible drug use, alcohol abuse, and high levels of obesity; problems better healthcare can't address but remain a personal responsibility. Many, especially in the low income areas get involved with violent gangs.
largely because of the politically-motivated unavailability of contraception in many areas
Contraception is widely available and cheap even without insurance.
like the fact that schools are funded at the local, rather than national level
Yes, our constitution was designed around giving the states power rather than the federal government. Don't forget, we have many states larger than many of the countries in Europe so it's not like we are instead giving authority to Kent or London. As far as funding, that is something we are hoping to see change with our new administration.
I addressed the issues of wealth distribution in another comment, but I will reiterate, when it comes to all these programs that you think are so beneficial, who's going to pay for it? Those who earn more than just $250,000 are taxed at 50% or more. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Something I find humorous though is that many of the issues you mention are things we are hoping to see change with our new administration.
Well at last , at least I'm getting someone who will answer what I'm asking thanks for that , I cannot understand why Americans get so pissed on a debate site at someone asking a question ,it's totally alien to me we do it all the time over here ; I used to live in California great people and a lot of fun , Americans have gone so fucking serious if this place is anything to go by .
I pay nearly 50 percent tax the wife too we are well used to it , I don't know why you find it humorous ? According to others the things I mention don't exist so I wonder what's being changed ?
Thanks for the answer I'm done asking questions about the U S on here will do so on quora in future .
Funnily enough just had a message from a good friend who is born and bred and now retired in America and he just told me medical benefits are being slashed in the US making loads of citizens uninsured and welfare payments are being savagely cut ... maybe he's making it all up ?
The money in social welfare is 100 per cent the citizens money as it's paid with their tax dollars so why are the government thieving it ?
medical benefits are being slashed in the US making loads of citizens uninsured and welfare payments are being savagely cut
All part of the ACA which like I said, we're hoping to see fixed soon. We had a terrible president for 8 years and now need to clean up the mess.
welfare payments are being savagely cut
There has been much abuse from these programs. Many people have made welfare their career as there was no incentive on actually working for a living; not when you can make more money by leaching of our tax dollars. It's because of this abuse cuts are made because we simply don't have the money for those that really need it. I'll admit there were a couple times I was down on my luck and went down to our social services office just looking for temporary assistance. The majority of people sitting there are there on a regular basis just to certify they still need it, but these are people fully capable of getting a job; they simply choose not to. How do I know? Because they would talk about it! Sitting in the waiting area, these people would talk with each other, proud to not work and still get paid. Meanwhile those than need help just for a month, or those who are disabled or in poor health and incapable of working, find themselves in a situation where money simply isn't available.
The money in social welfare is 100 per cent the citizens money
100% of government money is citizen money from tax dollars. That's all tax dollars are: a way to steal our money. I work, earn a paycheck and the government takes a percentage of it (the more you make the higher the percentage), when I go to spend the money I then pay another tax in the form of sales tax. When I buy a home I not only have to pay sales tax on the house but continue to pay an annual property tax for as long as I own the property.
The flaw in your argument is that the health care/welfare benefit system in many European countries, especially the U.K, is bankrupt.
The U.K's., national health service and nanny state benefit scheme simply isn't working, and as reported in most of your own reputable publications, is on the verge of collapse with patients having to wait up to two years to be treated for a range of life threatening diseases and the housing waiting lists growing by the hour.
Your health service bounces from one crisis to another regardless of how much money you throw at the the lumbering, abused and inefficient scheme.
You will know that the ''street wise'' from the failed countries of the world go as health tourists to Britain where the figure for their unpaid treatment is an under estimated, Β£5 billion.
Immigrants are literally queueing up in France by the 10s of 1000s to get into ''soft touch Britain and avail of free housing, free medical attention and other benefits, none of which have they contributed a nichol towards.
In the states where the population is of a more self sufficient nature, people are encouraged to make provision for personal problems, including medical health care insurance.
The state will support those whose medicare plan does not meet the full cost of the required treatment of any illness.
The message here is, if you're coming to the United States of America as a tourist, make sure you have good quality medical insurance, no handouts here.
You guys have been labouring under the misapprehension that you have a free national health service when you have been paying into the outdated system since your first pay packet.
The better-off have their illnesses treated more or less immediately by going privately while those relying on ''the nanny state'' have to endure the physical pain and psychological strain of have to wait indefinitely.
Your national health service is a joke and about to implode.
Wake up and smell what it is your trying to shovel.
"The flaw in your argument is that the health care system in many European countries, especially the U.K, is bankrupt.
The U.K's., national health service simply isn't working, and as reported in most of your own reputable publications, is on the verge of collapse with patients having to wait up to two years to be treated for a range of life threatening diseases."
This is just wrong. Life-threatening diseases are treated with high priority, like in any other sensible medical system.
It is also misleading: European social healthcare systems function efficiently and cost-effectively, the UK being the sole outlier at present, which many people like to cite. However, the NHS's problems are a result of a political decision to de-fund many aspects of it, compounded by the utterly stupid decision to give manufacturing contracts to private companies rather than public ones. The result: extortionate medicinal costs, high use of agency staff, and a lack of funding in general.
--- Your health service bounces from one crisis to another regardless of how much money you throw at the the lumbering, abused and inefficient scheme. ----
See above. Apart from last year, the UK was ranked top for more than ten years, every year of the WHO's study of healthcare systems. The US has never broken the top 10. Why? Because the US access to healthcare is comparatively very poor. The US obesity and general health of the population is comparatively very poor. The annual per capita cost to the US government for medical subsidy is almost three times that of the UK. And, of course, procedures themselves are ridiculously expensive in the US. In fact, they are so expensive that the US's largest cause of bankruptcy is medical bills.
Ten years ago the NHS was properly funded, properly staffed, and properly supplied. It was without doubt the best healthcare in the world. And this is exactly WHY so many immigrants wished to move to the country. But to blame immigrants (who, by the way, are more likely in the NHS to be your doctor or nurse, than your waiting room compatriot) is simply nonsense. The under-funding of the NHS is part of a neoconservative political decision intended to drive the entity into private hands. Nothing more.
As for health tourism, the NHS is (or was, rather), subsidised by EU grants intended exactly for that purpose. In the same manner in which I can go to any European country for their healthcare, any other EU citizen can come here for theirs. It's not unheard of for people to fly between countries for specialist treatment in specific fields.
I would get down off that high horse, and right quick. The poor in America are utterly shafted when it comes to healthcare. The rest of the world knows it. Most Americans know it. Why don't you?!
Why do people get so hot over a simple question is it not a debate site ?
I'm asking this question as I have many American friends who particularly talk about and worry about health care and the cost , regarding whether we have a decent or better service in Europe Americans get enraged when an outsider asks the question .
Our health service at home though not perfect still works ,one can walk into hospital with a medical card and will be treated and if seriously ill ring an ambulance and will be shifted to the nearest one and treated .
Anyway I asked this question as an enquiry after reading a report from the Havard school,of business lamenting the lack of a decent welfare system in the US and making the very claim as in my wording of the question , it's all good I won't bother asking this type of question again as it's not worth the hassle
Your welfare system is in tatters and only today it was reported by your B.B.C., that the A.&E;waiting lists is at it's worst ever.
Emergency housing availability is becoming non existent with a massive increase in homeless people and Britain occupying Europe's top position for distributing food parcels to it's poor and needy.
You're clearly living in cloud cuckoo land if you genuinely believe that the ''nanny state'' is really working.
Spew out your misplaced patriotic drivel to those who have been waiting 6 months just for a diagnostic consultation never mind having their malady treated.
The so called 'cradle to grave'' society which exists in the U.K. has bred a nation of cream puffs who have permitted more able and aggressive foreign corporations ''acquire'' long established British companies such as M.G. Motors, Rover, Cadburys' and a host of other gilt edged companies which were founded by the entrepreneurial hard men from your pre-namby pamby industrial past.
Your great engineers of the past constructed the first nuclear reactor in the world for providing energy, and now you modern day dummies have to plead with the clever French and Chinese to build the next generation of reactors.
Don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like reading the truth.
On the other side of the coin to your question, you may reflect that it is the Yanks which have to provide military protection for your nanny state and also for the rest of Europe.
You powder puffs need Yanks to protect and watch over you like spoiled children whilst the rest of the world have carved up your resources and profitable manufacturing concerns.
Foreign companies control your energy supplies and large portions of your transport network.
Once more, there's no animosity or excitement in my post, just a matter of quietly illustrating that welfarism and too many socialist governments have undermined the people of your ONCE great country.
I don't live in the UK so their system is alien to me , so your rant is misplaced old chap and meaningless .
I've posted more than enough on this post to suggest you may need to ease up on the crack pipe as you're obviously smoking something .
Military protection π That's hilarious from who are we being protected ?
We may need it from comb over yet , the American military had its ass kicked in Vietnam and won one battle in a country called Grenada the size of my back garden with a couple of goats on it
I can only guess what you referred to as a 'crack pipe''
The disgusting habit of smoking from a cracked pipe is very dangerous as it could harbour germs and all sorts of nasty little gremlins and Banshees.
Do try to keep up Paddy me boy, when President Trump suggested that he considered N.A.T.O, to be obsolete the European leaders were soiling their drawers in fear that he would disengage his military from this disjointed organization.
The European leaders know the threat posed by an aggressive and expansionist Russia especially after the annexation of the Crimea in 2014 and it's blatant aggression in the Ukraine.
Everyone, including the dogs in the street know that Russia is squaring up for a confrontation in the Baltic states.
China is also in an expansionist mood and making claim to Islands and seas which have always been regarded as international territories.
Again Uncle Sam is there to deter China from gobbling up smaller countries as it did with Tibet.
Their only obstacle is the military might of the United States.
Do you guys not receive newspapers or radio transmissions in the misty bogs of Ireland, or wherever your mud hut is located?
In Italy, the youth jobless rate is nudging 40 percent, a record high in post-war history. Demographer Stefano Rosina says the Italian welfare system has always been skewed toward the middle-aged and elderly, leaving Italian youths with no political or trade union representation. We are also following a subtler story of economic devastation, even with all the news about unemployment in Europe, this next number is hard to absorb. In Italy, among younger people, the jobless rate us close to 40 percent. The government is focused on the middle-aged and the elderly leaving little room it seems for their kids.
The US doesn't have a European - style welfare state because Americans do not like socialism. If people living in the U.S. do not like our "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" way of life, they should GTFO! ;)
Now I'm totally confused as I read this from truth org ....
Americans actually really like socialism, in particular Swedish-style democratic socialism, the kind Bernie Sanders is promoting as part of his political revolution.
A couple of years ago, Harvard University business professor Michael Norton and Duke University Psychology professor Dan Ariely conducted a study in which they showed Americans three different pie charts.
The first pie chart represented how wealth is distributed here in the US, with the richest 20 percent of all Americans controlling 84 percent of all wealth.
The second pie chart represented how wealth is distributed in Sweden, a much more equal society in which the richest 20 percent of the population controlling a much smaller share of all wealth - around 18 percent.
The third chart represented an imaginary society in which wealth was distributed equally among all sectors of the population.
After showing people these three charts, Norton and Ariely then asked them which style of wealth distribution they preferred.
The responses to this question were stunning.
A full 92 percent of people said they preferred a Swedish style of wealth distribution. Seventy-seven percent, meanwhile, said they actually preferred a perfectly equal distribution of wealth.
So what's the takeaway from all this?
Easy: Americans overwhelmingly support either pure socialism, or at least the next best thing - Swedish-style social democracy.
Which brings us back to Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and the generally leftward-swing that's sweeping the entire Democratic Party.
Say what you want about the feasibility of "democratic socialism," but the argument that it's somehow out of step with what the American people want is just flat-out wrong. Americans do want socialism, even if they've been bludgeoned by decades of Cold War era propaganda into believing that it's an affront to our democracy.
I totally agree (with seanB & Dermot). Funny thing is, if we (and you), survive Trump, he may just be the vehicle that drives us into democratic socialism! When people get sick of their friends and relatives dying needlessly, the corporate CEO's living like Saudi Kings, the water and air pollution going back to 1950's standards (or worse), the billions$ wasted on a totally ineffective wall, the dumbing down of our kids, our National Parks destroyed ... etc., etc.! Yeah, I think we'll ALL get sick of radical conservatism very quickly! I hope I (we), live to see it!
Ever read any of the J.D. Robb "In Death" series? They take place "after the Urban War", in 2050. She just might be the 21st century's answer to the "quatrains".
Last I knew, our last commercialized medical system was rated 37th in the world and THEE most expensive by FAR! So much for "private sector medicine"! Will WE never learn!??
It is Nora Roberts. There are umpteen of the "In Death" series. The mention of the "Urban Wars" was in several of the earlier ones, not sure if they are mentioned later. The first time I saw it I thought, "Yeah, possible." In the last few months I think, Yeah, probable. The NRA, Banner, the war on the EPA, the poor, taking away health care, Islamophobia, polluting our water and air, etc., could happen if enough get pissed off!
I think there is enough....venom...in our society that it will happen. Instead of people coming together they are dividing off into their own categories and blaming everyone else for the problems instead of working to fix them. I hope for the best future for my kids but....I think it will only take one small spark to set off something like that.
Fantastic post. As well as this, there was a study carried out by Pew a few years ago that poised some simple questions regarding social policies.
Now I'm paraphrasing (it's been a while since I read the study), but the questions were along the lines of:
1. Do you feel that healthcare should be a right, rather than a luxury?
2. Do you agree with a national, single payer healthcare system?
3. Do you agree with free college tuition?
4. Do you see the value in worker's unions and worker's employment rights?
etc etc.
And in each question, the responses where overhwelmingly positive, meaning that fundamentally, a majority of Americans like socialist principles. However, as soon as the word socialist was mentioned, the respondents quickly decried socialism as an evil.
How odd.
It seems that while most Americans want socialism, they just don't want to call it socialism.
The American PEOPLE didn't. The electoral college did ... with some help from Putin and Comey and Breitbart and Faux and email lies and Benghazi lies and NRA lies, and...........
OH! I forgot those "Kenya" lies! Thanks for reminding me! ;-) You must be talking about Obama's FATHER. Yep, HE WAS from Kenya! BUT, he's been dead for quite a few years now. A dead man "bugged" Trump Towers?? Well, that's not much wilder than MOST of Trumps claims! A shame he didn't know that the name "Hussein" would be linked to a dictator 40 years later, or that his son would eventually become President. I'm sure he would have chosen another middle name, but, Ya' never know. The guy from Hawaii, though, gave U.S. health care, kept U.S. safe for longer than Dubya did, Kept taxes down, had low gas prices pretty much throughout his Presidency, brought the Stock Market back from 6000 to a record 19000+, wanted to do a LOT more , but, "obstruction", ya'know? Ya think another "golden shower" will bring the color back to Trumps hair?? In another coupla months he'll need it monthly, but then, he doesn't really care how many miles he'll log on AF1.... maybe he thinks he keeps the miles after he leaves?? I'd REALLY like to see HIS tax return, HIS Birth Certificate, HIS college records. We REALLY know little about this ... um....bugger. (Except that he went bankrupt ... was it....4 times)?? I'm still waiting for him to do ANYTHING good for U.S.!
Who was that guy that said "A body in motion tends to remain in motion"? The Market hit an all time high under Obama after starting at an extreme low. It was "nudging" that "all time high" several week before the election (coup) It was certainly "going for him", hasn't stopped for several years.;-)
I'm laughing 'cause I predicted your response. If Trump is so bad for the economy, I would imagine that Wall Street would have been like, "We are not in Obama country anymore...." panic and tank. But it didn't. So, either presidents have little, if any, effect on Wall Street or Wall Street is bullish on Trump. ;)
Wall Street is "bullish" on deregulation. They made out like bandits when Bush ignored them and let them "trickle" on U.S.. If a guy named "Hussein" or "bin Laden" won on a ticket of deregulation HE would be popular with the trickledowners also.
JEEZ, I wish there was a way to delete doubles on CD!
Wall Street is "bullish" on deregulation. They made out like bandits when Bush ignored them and let them "trickle" on U.S.. If a guy named "Hussein" or "bin Laden" won on a ticket of deregulation HE would be popular with the trickledowners also. Everybody needs a good laugh today .... there's so much that isn't funny. :-(
Well, he definitely SHARES responsibility. When you are President you at LEAST share responsibility for what happens. He will also share responsibility for a collapse of health care for Americans. He promised a GREAT health care improvement for ALL Americans, a MUCH MORE affordable one. If it's NOT greater for EVERYONE and not more affordable ... for everyone, he's screwed the pooch! Making it "available" is not what he promised.
Welfare state?? Paying higher taxes for something is NOT welfare. Wanting a good health care plan that we can "invest our taxes in" is not looking for welfare ... it's looking to distribute "corporate welfare" to the PEOPLE, for a change! Wanting a not for profit health care system run by a not for profit agency that has only one agenda ... the health of Americans rather than stockholders is NOT wanting something for nothing! It's something to make America great again ....NOT fill the pockets of Insurance/pharma CEO's!
WHAT?? You want U.S. to go THERE to get health care as cheaply and better than OUR 37th ranked, MOST expensive in the world, "Industry based" (as it WAS before the ACA came along .... when insurance rates were "about to skyrocket")!? When the Insurance cartel ran the original "Death Panels" (with a vengeance!). Yes, I would LOVE to see a "Single Payer" "NON-PROFIT" health plan that we could afford. Just think of how many of the sick and disabled we could fix up and get OFF the welfare (and bankrupt) list!
I traveled this country when I was a "lazy liberal" working an average of 60 hrs/wk, most weekends and many holidays, and I noticed in every city, the largest, fanciest buildings were "Insurance Companies"! Ever notice that? How much could we improve our health care system with the money spent on those beautiful, healthy buildings?? (Most CEO's got enough per year (or as severance)), to build ANOTHER building! They NEED that, right?? If WE get a disease, have an accident, .... well.... no profit in THAT!:-(
I don't understand. We are trying to fix global warming by getting rid of excess, carbon footprint generating, people. Specifically those who can't pay to stay alive ;)
Coal miners are "carbon footprint generating people that can't afford to pay to stay alive" and the coal mining CEO's can't make money without them! The CEO's generate carbon footprint people by the millions. We have to kill the CEO's that keep giving jobs to these carbon units and the President that wants to keep the CEO's creating jobs for them! sheesh! They're all trying to trickle down on U.S. with their golden shower! Soon we'll ALL be blond and look like upstanding Nazi's! (or Trump!) I can't stands it anymore! Please pass the spinach!
The role of charity falls not to the government, but the people. Confiscating money from citizens to incentivize others to depend on the government is about as far from "generosity" as you can be.
Every country which relies solely on charity to protect its poorest citizens, has an appalling poverty and exploitation problem. That's why welfare is a necessity. And until such times as we no longer rely on the idea of capitalization and currency accumulation as determiners to rights like food, water, and shelter -- or until such times as a reasonable worktime job at a reasonable living wage is available for every citizen of working age -- welfare will continue to be necessary.
Those who willingly depend on government assistance are an unfortunate financial collateral, but hardly anywhere near the magnitude of issue which conservatives like to make of them. In fact, the tax that corporations do not pay in the USA, could pay the unemployment welfare bill almost three times, while the US's military budget could pay the bill fourteen times over.
Around 5% of the American workforce (those of working age and not yet of national retirement age) don't work. Most of those will however be students who don't need work or are not currently looking, as well as early retirees, housewives, and other demographics of people who are not looking for work for good reason. Less than half of the unemployed actually take state benefits.
The unemployment welfare problem, is not that big a problem. What IS, are the corporations who outsource or automate jobs, heavily utilize public infrastructure, but fail to pay their fair share of taxes. if you want to blame someone for the state of the economy, blame those who hold most sway in it. I can tell you for certain that Jane Doe housewife, or Joe Bloggs student, have very little sway or effect on the economic health of the country. But the unemployed and disabled make easy scapegoats. They also serve to make fragile middle-class idiots feel marginally better about themselves.
Wake up and smell the coffee. The President you just elected was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and has the egotistical security of a spoilt child. He doesn't care about you and your woes. He cares about his rich friends. The minute you fall into poverty, he'll cast you aside with the rest of the lepers.
"Every country which relies solely on charity to protect its poorest citizens, has an appalling poverty and exploitation problem."
"That's why welfare is a necessity."
Or a moral populace.
Our current welfare system appears to be specifically designed to keep those on the system within it: it provides an incentive to stay on the system in perpetuity while offering none to leave it. When the cost of this system is punishing financially responsible, hardworking taxpayers by confiscating their money, I fail to see how it's necessary.
"Those who willingly depend on government assistance are an unfortunate financial collateral, but hardly anywhere near the magnitude of issue which conservatives like to make of them."
Again, source? One interesting piece of information that comes to mind in this regard is the disturbing increase in disability welfare claims over the past fifty years (http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/). If that's not a significant issue, we should discuss the definition of the term.
"In fact, the tax that corporations do not pay in the USA, could pay the unemployment welfare bill almost three times, while the US's military budget could pay the bill fourteen times over."
What do you mean by "do not pay"? I'm aware of several loopholes in tax law that corporations exploit, but they (along with America's wealthy, most of whom are business owners) still account for the vast majority of taxes.
"Around 5% of the American workforce (those of working age and not yet of national retirement age) don't work. Most of those will however be students who don't need work or are not currently looking, as well as early retirees, housewives, and other demographics of people who are not looking for work for good reason. Less than half of the unemployed actually take state benefits."
Ah. So welfare isn't necessary?
"What IS, are the corporations who outsource or automate jobs, heavily utilize public infrastructure, but fail to pay their fair share of taxes."
How do you define "fair share" in regards to corporate tax?
" if you want to blame someone for the state of the economy, blame those who hold most sway in it."
The Federal Reserve?
"I can tell you for certain that Jane Doe housewife, or Joe Bloggs student, have very little sway or effect on the economic health of the country. But the unemployed and disabled make easy scapegoats."
Scapegoats? Who said anything about scapegoats? My previous post was a somewhat abstract argument against welfare, not an attack on those who benefit from it.
"The President you just elected was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and has the egotistical security of a spoilt child. He doesn't care about you and your woes. He cares about his rich friends. The minute you fall into poverty, he'll cast you aside with the rest of the lepers."
I fail to see how Trump relates to this issue, though I'd like to point out that he's far from unqualified in this area: of the over 500 businesses he owns, less than 2% have failed. That record in of itself is remarkable in the business world.
Our current welfare system appears to be specifically designed to keep those on the system within it: it provides an incentive to stay on the system in perpetuity while offering none to leave it. When the cost of this system is punishing financially responsible, hardworking taxpayers by confiscating their money, I fail to see how it's necessary""
The welfare system can hardly be cited as the great punisher of the working class, when military spending outdoes welfare by a factor of more than ten, when corporations are granted sufficient power as to utterly stifle progress towards fair wages and proper employment rights, when the legal and political system fundamentally disempowers the poor and the needy for the benefit of the upper class, when educational costs mean lifelong crippling debt, and when a simple hospital visit has the potential to bankrupt the patient.
Wars cost your country much more than welfare does: why aren't you against grotesque military spending and excessive intrusion in other nations' affairs, if unnecessary costs are the enemy?
More importantly though, the creation of a society "moral" enough to pick up the welfare slack, is an utter pipe-dream, particularly in a neocapitalist paradigm where success for some (the capitalization class) demands failure for others (those to be capitalised upon). The majority of welfare is for the disabled and the elderly, and those unemployed, and there simply are not enough jobs for everyone to be in employment, nor enough wages for those in basic-rate employment to care for their disabled, elderly and unemployed peers. This is another result of the neocapitalist paradigm (jobs require wages, and wages cost company owners money -- thus, company owners will do what they can to hire as few staff as possible and pay them as little as they can get away with).
The morals of the elite are clearly lacking. Besides, if you want society to be (by whichever mechanism you may make it so) moral enough to look after the disabled, the elderly and the shamefully impoverished (through education or whichever other route you choose), why not just skip the middle man and take the money from taxes?
Seems like much more a sure-fire way to make sure those poor and disabled people you care so much about (being the moral citizen that you are) are well looked after.
Really, I don't feel anything else you've written requires a response; your views on welfare being a considerable and unnecessary expense (which I disagree with) don't justify the conclusion it seems you have arrived at -- that welfare should be abolished -- particularly when your alternative is so utterly and blatantly stupid.
Another well reasoned answer Sean the person you're replying to calls himself a follower of Jesus and rarely makes sense in his contradictory nonsense .
Here are figures on the military spend for 2015 it's truly shocking and very telling ....
In fiscal year 2015, military spending is projected to account for 54 percent of all federal discretionary spending, a total of $598.5 billion. Military spending includes: all regular activities of the Department of Defense; war spending; nuclear weapons spending; international military assistance; and other Pentagon-related spending.
"The welfare system can hardly be cited as the great punisher of the working class, when military spending outdoes welfare by a factor of more than ten, "
There's a difference between spending taxpayer dollars for welfare and military purposes: the former, in its current form, is an unnecessary, unconstitutional expense, while the latter is utterly vital to the survival of our nation.
"when corporations are granted sufficient power as to utterly stifle progress towards fair wages and proper employment rights,"
What, exactly, do you mean by "fair wages" and "proper employment rights"? Furthermore, if a company weren't paying its employees fair wages, or mistreating them, they could (depending on skill and/or industry) reasonably find work elsewhere. Last I checked, corporations can't survive without employees.
"when the legal and political system fundamentally disempowers the poor and the needy for the benefit of the upper class,"
This statement is extremely general; please clarify.
"when educational costs mean lifelong crippling debt, and when a simple hospital visit has the potential to bankrupt the patient."
This has what to do with the issue of welfare?
"Wars cost your country much more than welfare does: why aren't you against grotesque military spending and excessive intrusion in other nations' affairs, if unnecessary costs are the enemy?"
I'm not familiar with the military's recent actions, therefore I have no opinion on whether said actions have been wasteful. Examples would be wonderful.
"More importantly though, the creation of a society "moral" enough to pick up the welfare slack, is an utter pipe-dream, particularly in a neocapitalist paradigm where success for some (the capitalization class) demands failure for others (those to be capitalised upon)."
This dichotomy of yours, on what is it based? An ideal Capitalist society, which I freely admit is not present, does not force particular persons into income groups; a person's economic status is determined almost exclusively by their talent, ingenuity, and initiative.
"The majority of welfare is for the disabled and the elderly, and those unemployed, and there simply are not enough jobs for everyone to be in employment, nor enough wages for those in basic-rate employment to care for their disabled, elderly and unemployed peers."
I don't buy it. Where's your substantiation?
"This is another result of the neocapitalist paradigm (jobs require wages, and wages cost company owners money -- thus, company owners will do what they can to hire as few staff as possible and pay them as little as they can get away with)."
By making that statement, you ignore what is arguably the most fundamental principle of Capitalism: competition improves circumstances. As stated previously, if a business pays unfair wages to its workers, said workers can find another, more attractive, job. If that occurs, the aforementioned business will suffer and possibly dissolve. In order to avoid that, the business must be attractive not only to consumers but to employees.
"The morals of the elite are clearly lacking."
I wouldn't exclusively blame the "elite". Our society as a whole is growing increasingly amoral.
"Seems like much more a sure-fire way to make sure those poor and disabled people you care so much about (being the moral citizen that you are) are well looked after."
That depends on who's spending the money. The great thing about charity is that it's entirely voluntary: people will only donate if they care about the cause, and will thus be likely to ensure the organization they donated to is fulfilling its purpose. The government, on the other hand, has spent taxpayer dollars with reckless abandon, with little or no regard for results or improvement.
"Really, I don't feel anything else you've written requires a response; your views on welfare being a considerable and unnecessary expense (which I disagree with) don't justify the conclusion it seems you have arrived at -- that welfare should be abolished -- particularly when your alternative is so utterly and blatantly stupid."
I never claimed that welfare required an alternative; I merely suggested one. Furthermore, in your previous posts, you implied welfare to be a relative nonissue, with so few people requiring it. Is it, as you previously claimed, a necessity, or is it a relative nonissue? Consistency would go a long way towards a resolution.
--- There's a difference between spending taxpayer dollars for welfare and military purposes: the former, in its current form, is an unnecessary, unconstitutional expense, while the latter is utterly vital to the survival of our nation. ---
"Necessary" is clearly open to interpretation. You think spending 54% of Federal Funding on militarization is necessary. I do not.
---- What, exactly, do you mean by "fair wages" and "proper employment rights"? ----
Fair wages are wages sufficient for a person to work a reasonable worktime and make enough income to live comfortably.
--- Furthermore, if a company weren't paying its employees fair wages, or mistreating them, they could (depending on skill and/or industry) reasonably find work elsewhere. Last I checked, corporations can't survive without employees. ---
This is a fairly obtuse view to take. High paid employees tend to be talented, educated, and sought after, because they help corporations make money. But bottlers? Machine workers? Factory staff? Easily replaceable, with other minions, or with automation.
---- This (educational costs and hospital bills) has what to do with the issue of welfare? ----
Everyone requires healthcare: everyone. The more it costs, the less people can afford it. As for education, the answer should be obvious: education is a direct factor in income. Costly education -- as opposed to free education -- means less likelihood to undertake education, and less income after education. No education generally means lower wages.
--- I'm not familiar with the military's recent actions, therefore I have no opinion on whether said actions have been wasteful. Examples would be wonderful. ---
Then perhaps you should check out the news now and then. I find it quite disturbing that someone who seems to have such staunch socioeconomic opinions seems to take so little interest in his country's most significant financial affairs.
---- This dichotomy of yours, on what is it based? An ideal Capitalist society, which I freely admit is not present, does not force particular persons into income groups; a person's economic status is determined almost exclusively by their talent, ingenuity, and initiative. ----
Talent, ingenuity and initiative are businessman's words. There are considerably more factors at play to determine income in a capitalist society. At any rate, even if it were possible to base income purely on initiative, ingenuity and talent, there would still exist a dichotomy between the capitalizers and the capitalized upon: those at the top, and those at the bottom: those who own the corporations and banks and big businesses, and those who make up their workforces and working-class consumers.
---- I don't buy it [that there are not enough wages for those in basic rate employment to care for their disabled, elderly and unemployed peers]. Where's your substantiation? ----
Minimum wage in the USA is $7.25 an hour. At an average 40 hour work week, that's an income of $15080, without ever having any days off work. The average living costs for an American with no children are $28,458. How can that person possibly look after disabled relatives or the unemployed or the poorer of society?
---- By making that statement, you ignore what is arguably the most fundamental principle of Capitalism: competition improves circumstances. As stated previously, if a business pays unfair wages to its workers, said workers can find another, more attractive, job. If that occurs, the aforementioned business will suffer and possibly dissolve. In order to avoid that, the business must be attractive not only to consumers but to employees. -----
As for "the workers can find another job", well no, that's a stupid and misleading statement. Finding a job isn't simple or easy. It requires experience, expertise, good references, work history, presentable clothing, and the availability of a job. Not all those things are ever present for every person in a crap job. Regardless, many people simply do not qualify for jobs that are better paid, hence the necessity that they take a job that is poorly paid, often at minimum wage, which as shown, does not provide enough income for the average single citizen to live off, which means for lots of people, taking up more than one job, or trying to get an education simultaneously. These are not conditions agreed upon by the electorate of a country; they are conditions imposed by the oligarchic paradigms that people are simply born into. If you are not smart or educated or otherwise talented, you survive on the bottom rung of society. Such a position is not so much a choice as a necessity. I personally think -- as a smart and talented individual -- to subject people to those conditions is unfair. We are a species on a planet spinning in the void of space, with short, fleeting, and hard lives. It's difficult enough, without needing to scrape by for most of life, in some cruel neocapitalistic culture.
Sentimental, maybe. But then as a moral individual, you should be familiar with compassion and sympathy for those less fortunate than you are.
---- I never claimed that welfare required an alternative; I merely suggested one. Furthermore, in your previous posts, you implied welfare to be a relative nonissue, with so few people requiring it. Is it, as you previously claimed, a necessity, or is it a relative nonissue? Consistency would go a long way towards a resolution. ---
You should stop twisting my arguments and denying the logical implications of your own. Welfare expenditure is a relative non issue when compared to the more gross and unnecessary expenditures of militarization. That is not the same as saying that welfare is unnecessary; quite the contrary. I would advocate diverting more money away from militarization, taxing corporations more, increasing the minimum wage, and distributing wealth and prosperity more evenly across the board. Wealth is unfortunately a precursor to power; and in that light, democracy requires more effective redistribution of wealth (which of course is the same as saying fiscal policies need changed and taxes need spent in better ways).
""Necessary" is clearly open to interpretation. You think spending 54% of Federal Funding on militarization is necessary. I do not."
Where did you get that statistic? From what I've read, last year the Federal Government spent ~4% of our GDP for military purposes.
"Fair wages are wages sufficient for a person to work a reasonable worktime and make enough income to live comfortably."
Is that universal? If someone, for example, performed poorly, would they still be entitled to live comfortably? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that is (in theory) a tenant of Communism.
"This is a fairly obtuse view to take. High paid employees tend to be talented, educated, and sought after, because they help corporations make money. But bottlers? Machine workers? Factory staff? Easily replaceable, with other minions, or with automation."
They're only replaceable if the open job is attractive enough to warrant it. Unless illegal immigrants are involved, corporations have to have certain standards of employment quality to attract workers.
"Everyone requires healthcare: everyone."
What about healthy young adults? You know, the large group of people who are neither likely to be sick nor injured?
"The more it costs, the less people can afford it."
That's an issue with government interference and unwarranted malpractice lawsuits. It has nothing to do with welfare.
"As for education, the answer should be obvious: education is a direct factor in income. Costly education -- as opposed to free education -- means less likelihood to undertake education, and less income after education. No education generally means lower wages."
I don't necessarily disagree with you on this point, but I'd like to see your source.
"Then perhaps you should check out the news now and then. I find it quite disturbing that someone who seems to have such staunch socioeconomic opinions seems to take so little interest in his country's most significant financial affairs."
Last year, the Fed spent more on government pensions, healthcare, and education than on national defense. In what way is military spending, then, our "most significant financial affair"? Furthermore, my lack of knowledge regarding recent specific military actions is in no way relevant to this discussion.
"Talent, ingenuity and initiative are businessman's words. There are considerably more factors at play to determine income in a capitalist society."
Such as? I'm aware of, and acknowledge, the existence of other factors (such as familial connections), but, in my opinion, the three aforementioned attributes are the driving force behind a person's economic position.
"At any rate, even if it were possible to base income purely on initiative, ingenuity and talent, there would still exist a dichotomy between the capitalizers and the capitalized upon: those at the top, and those at the bottom: those who own the corporations and banks and big businesses, and those who make up their workforces and working-class consumers."
Your wording implies some sort of exploitation. Just because some people own corporations and others work for those corporations doesn't mean they're oppressed or exploited for unethical gain.
"Minimum wage in the USA is $7.25 an hour. At an average 40 hour work week, that's an income of $15080, without ever having any days off work. The average living costs for an American with no children are $28,458. How can that person possibly look after disabled relatives or the unemployed or the poorer of society?"
Minimum wage was never intended to be capable of sustaining a person. Its only purpose is to mitigate severe worker exploitation, as in the days of the Monopolies (which are, funny enough, not an issue anymore). Hypothetically, if one were to raise minimum wage, labor costs would massively increase, which would in turn damage businesses and drive the cost of low-skill goods through the roof. In what way is that preferable?
"As for "the workers can find another job", well no, that's a stupid and misleading statement. Finding a job isn't simple or easy. It requires experience, expertise, good references, work history, presentable clothing, and the availability of a job. Not all those things are ever present for every person in a crap job."
I would argue that finding a job requires only time and effort. Experience, expertise, and good references are unnecessary (though likely helpful) for finding a sustainable, if unskilled, occupation.
"Regardless, many people simply do not qualify for jobs that are better paid, hence the necessity that they take a job that is poorly paid, often at minimum wage, which as shown, does not provide enough income for the average single citizen to live off, which means for lots of people, taking up more than one job, or trying to get an education simultaneously."
I was referring to employment within a given field. There's a difference between leaving a job to avoid unfair circumstances and leaving one to find a different job.
"These are not conditions agreed upon by the electorate of a country; they are conditions imposed by the oligarchic paradigms that people are simply born into."
To what "oligarchic paradigms" are you referring to?
" If you are not smart or educated or otherwise talented, you survive on the bottom rung of society."
You're forgetting "initiative". Everyone's capable of hard work, and hard work, in a Capitalist society, is key to improving one's circumstances.
"...as a smart and talented individual..."
Pardon me, but I can't resist: whatever gave you an indication of your intelligence and talent? I'm genuinely curious.
"I personally think -- as a smart and talented individual -- to subject people to those conditions is unfair."
To subject people to a fair playing field is unfair? I hate to break it to you, but life isn't fair. Capitalism isn't to blame for the inherent lack of equal opportunity in our species (genetics is to blame for that), but it's at least somewhat capable of remedying that.
"You should stop twisting my arguments and denying the logical implications of your own. Welfare expenditure is a relative non issue when compared to the more gross and unnecessary expenditures of militarization. That is not the same as saying that welfare is unnecessary; quite the contrary."
My argument was indeed based off of a straw man. My apologies.
"I would advocate diverting more money away from militarization,"
To what end? Until we're incapable of defending ourselves from those who would slaughter us?
"taxing corporations more,"
So, in effect, punishing successful businesses? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to start up, much less run, a business nowadays?
"increasing the minimum wage,"
Already pointed out why that's a bad idea.
"and distributing wealth and prosperity more evenly across the board."
So, punishing the successful to provide for the unsuccessful? Here's a thought: in an open marketplace, where good, productive ideas succeed, perhaps if an idea is unsuccessful, it's neither good nor productive? If that's the case, what you're effectively proposing is a government subsidy on regressive ideas, funded by a tax on progressive ideas. Excellent idea.
"Wealth is unfortunately a precursor to power; and in that light, democracy requires more effective redistribution of wealth (which of course is the same as saying fiscal policies need changed and taxes need spent in better ways)."
Well, first of all, we're not a Democracy. This country is a Constitutional Republic with certain Democratic influences, specifically designed to avoid the problems caused by Democracy.
Anyway, exploiting wealth to gain political power is an unethical, illegal practice, not at all in line with what the Founders intended. As such, it should not exist; if our system were functioning properly (I.E. with a moral, informed populace), social or economic status would have no bearing on political power.
----- Where did you get that statistic? From what I've read, last year the Federal Government spent ~4% of our GDP for military purposes. -----
GDP is not the same as Federal Funding.
----- Is that universal? If someone, for example, performed poorly, would they still be entitled to live comfortably? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that is (in theory) a tenant of Communism. -----
Everyone who is born into this system deserves to have basic rights -- food, shelter, water. If someone is in a job and they perform poorly, they ought to have certain rights that allow them fair time by law to improve their performance to a standard that is realistic and reasonable rather than exploitative. If they continue to perform poorly, it's obviously the right of the employer to terminate their employment, if all other avenues fail. It may well be a tenant of communism, I don't know.
---- They're only replaceable if the open job is attractive enough to warrant it. Unless illegal immigrants are involved, corporations have to have certain standards of employment quality to attract workers. -----
It doesn't take much to attract workers when the alternative to not working is to open oneself up to the very real prospect of poverty, homelessness and social derision for being on welfare. If I were a low-skilled individual struggling to get by, I would not call a job bottling at a factory for minimum wage "attractive", so much as I would call it necessary. It's a matter of options. For many people, such work is realistically the only option. Which puts them in a very difficult position, because as I mentioned in my previous posts, minimum wage work is very much insufficient for a person to get by on. What's the alternative for an unintelligent, low-skilled worker?
----- What about healthy young adults? You know, the large group of people who are neither likely to be sick nor injured? -----
Even healthy young adults need healthcare. For instance, I'm a 26 year old master's student. In the last year I've needed healthcare for several reasons: I grind my teeth when I sleep (dental guard required); I've suffered from depression for years and recently started treatment (medication and therapy). On the surface, and legally speaking, I count as part of your "healthy young adult" demographic. That doesn't mean I don't require healthcare. Everybody does. Everybody.
----- That's (the high price of healthcare is) an issue with government interference and unwarranted malpractice lawsuits. It has nothing to do with welfare. ------
It does. The high price of healthcare is a result of the practice of profiteering from healthcare. When you have shareholders whose primary interests are making money, it pays to slap high prices on medications, procedures, and hospital stays. It also doesn't really pay to inform the public of cheaper alternatives, or to allow healthcare into the public domain. There's a reason why the US's per capita federal health spending is three times higher than the UK's per capita health spending (the UK has an entirely socialised healthcare system, which drives down costs by enabling the government to manufacture their own medicines, barter far better deals with pharma companies who wish to trade in the country, and keeping the costs of hospital stays down.) It is in the interests of a socialized healthcare system to keep spending at a minimum, which means having a generally healthy population, and making sure that while healthcare is maintained at an effective standard, it is not made stupidly expensive by private interference. Unfortunately, since the UK's last Prime Minister (a self professed Christian conservative), this system which was instated after the second world war and which has become part of the British national identity, is being driven towards the hands of private interests by underfunding, understaffing and increasing outsourcing of pharmaceutical contracts to private interests.
Alas, when people's bottom line wages are so low, and when welfare is threatened by right-wing nonsense, it becomes a genuine worry for millions of people that they won't be able to afford healthcare. Healthcare thus ought to be a right: a form OF welfare, else welfare and minimum wage ought to supply an individual with enough money to pay for their healthcare.
----- Last year, the Fed spent more on government pensions, healthcare, and education than on national defense. In what way is military spending, then, our "most significant financial affair"? Furthermore, my lack of knowledge regarding recent specific military actions is in no way relevant to this discussion. -----
I wouldn't call education an unnecessary expenditure (nor would I call it welfare, for that matter), nor would I call government pensions such: again, people who make poor wages don't have the money to live, never-mind pay extortionate amounts for education, or save enough for a reasonable pension. These are results of a neocapitalist ideology.
---- Your wording implies some sort of exploitation. Just because some people own corporations and others work for those corporations doesn't mean they're oppressed or exploited for unethical gain. ----
Well no, you're right. As a logical point, it doesn't. However, people ARE being exploited by corporations, by banks, by lobbyists, by politicians, by the rich and powerful, all over the world, every day, and have been for hundred if not thousands of years.
We have Nestle, whose CEO thinks water ought not to be a human right. We have coke, who every day usurp millions of gallons of water in the most deprived parts of the world. We have oil oligarchs and barons and sheiks who are more interested in destroying our climate than investing in renewable energy. (All those good-ideas-beget-good-market-share dogmas that you seem to abide by go right out the window on that front). We have an entire generation who've had to contend with paying more than four times (relative and adjusted for inflation) for their education, than their predecessors (many of whom got their educations for free). We have a minimum wage that has failed to adjust itself properly for inflation and rising living costs. Whole swathes of young people who simply couldn't afford their educations. People making a wage which is more than 10k too little to live off, and all the while people like yourself championing the cause of libertarian capitalism. The USA has 46 million people who use food banks, and the most millionaires in the world by far.
Certainly looks like exploitation from where I'm standing.
----- to subject people to a fair playing field is unfair? I hate to break it to you, but life isn't fair. Capitalism isn't to blame for the inherent lack of equal opportunity in our species (genetics is to blame for that), but it's at least somewhat capable of remedying that. ------
This is the same old argument: "we're a greedy species. Life isn't fair, some people are just better than others". Yes, while it may be true to a certain degree, and of a minority of people, capitalism exacerbates those qualities. It tells us from the youngest of ages that to be of any worth we have to have money. We have to succeed, because only people who succeed in a capitalist paradigm are worthy. Only people who make lots of money ought to be allowed opinions with weight and impact. It all feeds into the same old delusion that money is somehow an integral factor of worth in our species, yet we're the only species on this planet who use it.
Several studies of children and altruisic behaviours have been carried out in the past couple of decades, unanimously finding that the vast majority of children are not naturally aggressive, selfish, tending towards theft and capitalization, but are in fact altruistic, empathetic, sharing, and placid. You will find no society in human history that thrived more than a blip on infinity's radar which was capitalistic, oligarchic, tyrannic, or otherwise built in such a pyramidal way. And that's because only societies which cohere and work together can flourish for any significant length of time. Almost all societies in history have been led by those who usurped power, stole rights, instated systems of oppression however subtle or noble they may have seemed; and all those societies have utterly failed, if we are to take stock of the problems which still exist for humanity: hunger, poverty, unnecessary infant mortality, preventable disease, inequality, slavery.
We have more than ever, the means to end all of these blights, and the biggest hurdle in our way is the simplest one: the balance of power. People are unaware of the intrinsic might of their own convictions. We're taught somewhere to give up our empathy and altruism in exchange for cars and currency, and it's a crying shame, because I would estimate that the vast majority of humanity do not really enjoy the lives we lead: learn, work, struggle, pay, retire, die. We all want something different and it comes about so much easier by the desire for equality than by the selfish drive to succeed at the cost of someone else.
We're not naturally competitive so much as we are naturally co-operative.
As for "punishing good ideas and rewarding regressive ones": we already do that, in droves and spades. We reward industry that destroys our planet; we reward companies that pay abysmal wages with great big tax breaks and rights on our water supplies and infrastructure (because Coca Cola is more important than sustainability and the lives of the poorest people in society, right?)
What a lot of nonsense!
The only difference between you and I is priorities, and I'm quite sure that in a thousand years time, it won't be market share, GDP and the impact of welfare on human history that people will be talking about: it will be people asking "where is the cleanest air?" and "why does water cost so much?" and "how could our planet have been saved?" and "why did our stupid ancestors, with so much food and knowledge and potential, utterly destroy the future for us?"
According to http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/119/2016, only of Federal spending went to national defense, as compared to 28% on Medicare and health, and 6 on Social security and other labor costs. The 54% statistic you provided comes from Federal discretionary spending, which accounts for about a third of total expenditures. If that mistake was deliberate, I'd be inclined to accuse you of dishonesty.
"If I were a low-skilled individual struggling to get by, I would not call a job bottling at a factory for minimum wage "attractive", so much as I would call it necessary. It's a matter of options. For many people, such work is realistically the only option."
According to http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/08/who-makes-minimum-wage/, only 2.6% of all workers are working at minimum wage, and less than half of them working full-time. Given that more than ~1% of jobs are low-skill, low-pay, it follows that many such jobs pay higher than minimum wage. As such, the "necessity" you speak of is nonexistent.
"Which puts them in a very difficult position, because as I mentioned in my previous posts, minimum wage work is very much insufficient for a person to get by on. What's the alternative for an unintelligent, low-skilled worker?"
First of all, as previously mentioned, the hypothetical group of persons, if existent, is almost insignificant (accounting for less than 1% of the population). I fail to see why we should completely destroy our economic system for their sake, as you propose.
Furthermore, minimum wage is, and was, never intended to support a person. All it does is ensure meaningful pay for work, not necessarily livable.
Finally, even given the above, assuming compensation for overtime, a person working at minimum wage would need to work ~60 hours a week to meet the average cost of living. That is, though somewhat taxing, far from infeasible.
"Even healthy young adults need healthcare. For instance, I'm a 26 year old master's student. In the last year I've needed healthcare for several reasons: I grind my teeth when I sleep (dental guard required); I've suffered from depression for years and recently started treatment (medication and therapy). On the surface, and legally speaking, I count as part of your "healthy young adult" demographic. That doesn't mean I don't require healthcare. Everybody does. Everybody."
Therefore it should be mandated by government? You know, the people least interested in your personal well-being?
"The high price of healthcare is a result of the practice of profiteering from healthcare. When you have shareholders whose primary interests are making money, it pays to slap high prices on medications, procedures, and hospital stays."
You could blame high medical costs on shareholders who want their investment to turn a profit, but at the same time you could also acknowledge the fact that, 1. the medical industry is largely safe from competition (one of the most important aspects of Capitalism), and 2. that doctors are all but forced to massively increase expenses (largely in the form of extra medical tests and increased insurance) to avoid a lawsuit.
I agree that there are issues with the medical industry (such as the aforementioned safety from competition), but blaming the symptoms of those issues on shareholders is a narrow and obviously biased perspective.
"We have Nestle, whose CEO thinks water ought not to be a human right. We have coke, who every day usurp millions of gallons of water in the most deprived parts of the world."
Source?
"We have oil oligarchs and barons and sheiks who are more interested in destroying our climate than investing in renewable energy."
First of all, I'd like to ask where your claim that those in the oil industry have an insidious plot to destroy the climate comes from. I'd also like to know how they're responsible for the alleged destruction of our climate at all, much less deliberately conspiring to do so.
Second, some of the largest oil companies in the world are investing in "renewable" energy (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/21/oil-majors-investments-renewable-energy- solar-wind). Just because they're making a profit on oil, one of the most energy-dense substances we have access to, doesn't mean that they're abandoning "green" energy.
"We have an entire generation who've had to contend with paying more than four times (relative and adjusted for inflation) for their education, than their predecessors (many of whom got their educations for free)."
That's the fault of ease of access to student loans and the like, not Capitalism. Colleges can afford to charge whatever they like when loans are so easy to acquire; that has nothing to do with our economy, and everything to do with government interference.
" The USA has 46 million people who use food banks, and the most millionaires in the world by far."
Just because 46 million people may use food banks (which you haven't provided a source for) doesn't mean that every single one needs to do so.
"It tells us from the youngest of ages that to be of any worth we have to have money. We have to succeed, because only people who succeed in a capitalist paradigm are worthy. Only people who make lots of money ought to be allowed opinions with weight and impact."
That's simply absurd. Since when are reasonably-skilled middle-class workers worthless? What does one's financial success have to do with the weight of their opinion, excepting on financial matters? Your portrayal of our system is simply unrealistic.
"It all feeds into the same old delusion that money is somehow an integral factor of worth in our species, yet we're the only species on this planet who use it."
We're also the only species on this planet capable of sapience. Your point?
"Several studies of children and altruisic behaviours have been carried out in the past couple of decades, unanimously finding that the vast majority of children are not naturally aggressive, selfish, tending towards theft and capitalization, but are in fact altruistic, empathetic, sharing, and placid."
Would you mind providing links to those studies? Forgive me if I don't take your word for it.
"You will find no society in human history that thrived more than a blip on infinity's radar which was capitalistic, oligarchic, tyrannic, or otherwise built in such a pyramidal way."
I don't think lumping those terms together is either fair or productive. Furthermore, countries like Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and many others have survived for quite a long time (several hundred years, at least) with a thriving tyrannical or oligarchical government. That's not to say that those countries are decent to live in, just that they've existed for a long time.
"We're taught somewhere to give up our empathy and altruism in exchange for cars and currency, and it's a crying shame, because I would estimate that the vast majority of humanity do not really enjoy the lives we lead: learn, work, struggle, pay, retire, die."
And that, I think, is where the moral aspect of this discussion comes into play. With our economic system, having no moral basis (as we're now experiencing) leads to cold, amoral materialism. I wholeheartedly agree that that's an issue, but it's not caused by the system; it's caused by lack of morality.
"We're not naturally competitive so much as we are naturally co-operative."
If that were true, why is competition such a massive part of our history? Wars, both ideological and physical, contests, and many other such things fill our history books.
"We reward industry that destroys our planet;"
Source?
"we reward companies that pay abysmal wages with great big tax breaks"
As previously stated, if a company pays unfair wages, there are many more a worker can relocate to.
"The only difference between you and I is priorities"
You seem to think me to be uncaring for the general welfare, in favor of material gain. I'm simply of the opinion that an economy which incentivizes productivity, rather than disregarding or even indirectly punishing it, is simply a more realistic system for a people so diverse in belief, character, and background.
"and I'm quite sure that in a thousand years time, it won't be market share, GDP and the impact of welfare on human history that people will be talking about: it will be people asking "where is the cleanest air?" and "why does water cost so much?" and "how could our planet have been saved?" and "why did our stupid ancestors, with so much food and knowledge and potential, utterly destroy the future for us?""
That's a rather bleak outlook. I assume you think everyone's going to sit around twiddling their thumbs, allowing technology to stagnate, for a thousand years?
A comprehensive breakdown of American incomes. It is deductible from these data that slightly more than 70% of Americans earn less than the aforementioned average living cost of $28k - $29k per year. The very rich boost the average income to around $58k.
A data bank on healthcare expenditure per capita per country, showing the US's government spending on healthcare to be around three times the UK's per capita.
A WHO affiliated study carried out yearly by various financial and health organizations, showing that the UK's socialized healthcare system is comprehensively superior to the American system, while being much more cost efficient (reference materials are included at the bottom of the table).
A quote translated from the supplied video from Nestle CEO speaking in HochDeutsch: "One one hand, you have the opinion which I consider extreme, the opinion propagated by NGO's, that water should be considered a fundamental public right; that you as a human being should have a human right to water. That's an extreme conclusion. On the other hand, you have the idea that water is a foodstuff and like any foodstuff it should have a market value. Personally I think it is better to give it a market value, to make us all aware that it has its price, and then we can discuss the possibilities for those people who do not have access to this water".
A comprehensively referenced article detailing how the Koch Brothers have funded climate change skepticism and ultra-libertarian initiatives for decades, but they are not the only ones.
As for government student loans, they wouldn't be necessary if education was state-funded like it used to be. If the government is going to give out loans they probably won't ever see again, why not invest that money into educational subsidy instead? Plenty of countries do it, and it works. Providing free education for a country is immeasurably valuable as a tool for the economic betterment of new generations.
"A comprehensive breakdown of American incomes. It is deductible from these data that slightly more than 70% of Americans earn less than the aforementioned average living cost of $28k - $29k per year. The very rich boost the average income to around $58k."
How, exactly, did you deduct that information from the document? I may not have been looking at exactly what you're referring to, but the data is based around household income, not that of individuals.
"A data bank on healthcare expenditure per capita per country, showing the US's government spending on healthcare to be around three times the UK's per capita."
Pardon me if I'm missing something, but what is this data meant to prove?
"A WHO affiliated study carried out yearly by various financial and health organizations, showing that the UK's socialized healthcare system is comprehensively superior to the American system, while being much more cost efficient (reference materials are included at the bottom of the table)."
They did indeed claim that the UK's healthcare system is superior to the US's, but their criteria for quality of healthcare were not only flawed, but biased towards Socialistic ideals (as the UK exhibits). Source: http://www.yalemedlaw.com/methodology-of-who-healthcare-rankings/
"A quote translated from the supplied video from Nestle CEO speaking in HochDeutsch: "One one hand, you have the opinion which I consider extreme, the opinion propagated by NGO's, that water should be considered a fundamental public right; that you as a human being should have a human right to water. That's an extreme conclusion. On the other hand, you have the idea that water is a foodstuff and like any foodstuff it should have a market value. Personally I think it is better to give it a market value, to make us all aware that it has its price, and then we can discuss the possibilities for those people who do not have access to this water"."
I fail to see the issue with this statement. To begin with, water, like all physical substances, is a finite resource. As such, access to it cannot, nor should be, legally mandated or otherwise guaranteed. As water is, for the most part, such an abundant resource, however, it often has no cost associated with it. That's not to say, however, that it's a right; it's merely common enough to have no worth, and thus be immediately and freely accessible.
"A comprehensively referenced article detailing how the Koch Brothers have funded climate change skepticism and ultra-libertarian initiatives for decades, but they are not the only ones."
Funding the furthering of one's ideology and being, as you stated, "interested in destroying our climate" are two wholly different things. Furthermore, are you claiming Climate Change Alarmism skepticism to have the sole ulterior motive of destroying the environment, as implied by your statements?
"Another well referenced article detailing informed hypotheses for the culmination of continued fossil fuel use."
How, exactly, can you justify your claim of this article being "well referenced" when it has exactly one source, which provides neither its parameters nor specific details of its conclusion (specifically, the space of time in which the hypothetical carbon emissions occur)?
"As for government student loans, they wouldn't be necessary if education was state-funded like it used to be. If the government is going to give out loans they probably won't ever see again, why not invest that money into educational subsidy instead? Plenty of countries do it, and it works. Providing free education for a country is immeasurably valuable as a tool for the economic betterment of new generations."
Just because the costs are renamed doesn't mean they no longer exist. Sure, if college education was entirely state-funded, student loans wouldn't exist, but that doesn't mean the costs just disappear; nothing is ever free.
Furthermore, how will handing over control of a service to those who have no incentive to ensure its success benefit anyone? Our government has clearly shown its inability to responsibly handle projects (Amtrak and UPS being great examples), so why trust it with what is perhaps our most important service?
I've just realised I'm debating with a disingenuous moron who has no concept of any worthy human endeavour lying outside the parameters of supply and demand.
You seem to hold exactly the type of hair-splitting, dishonest opinions experts on climate change and healthcare policy the world over hate to have to deal with.
How, exactly, did you deduct that information from the document? I may not have been looking at exactly what you're referring to, but the data is based around household income, not that of individuals.
The income assessment for households shows that 70% of working families fall below the average wage line. It's not hard to work out. The majority of those households bring in less than what it costs on average for a single person to live.
Pardon me if I'm missing something, but what is this data meant to prove?
That healthcare need not cost an arm and a leg.
They did indeed claim that the UK's healthcare system is superior to the US's, but their criteria for quality of healthcare were not only flawed, but biased towards Socialistic ideals (as the UK exhibits). Source: http://www.yalemedlaw.com/methodology-of-who-healthcare-rankings/
So your small legal firm who use words like "customer satisfaction" when talking about patient satisfaction and who have referenced no parts of the WHO study in their analyses whatsoever, are a more formidable and reliable source of healthcare data than the single largest, most renowned, most independently reviewed international health agency on the planet?
I think not.
I fail to see the issue with this statement. To begin with, water, like all physical substances, is a finite resource.
Relatively speaking, it is probably the most abundant resource on this planet. More than enough of it to go around, several thousand times over in fact, endlessly so.
As such, access to it cannot, nor should be, legally mandated or otherwise guaranteed.
It definitely can and should.
As water is, for the most part, such an abundant resource, however, it often has no cost associated with it. That's not to say, however, that it's a right; it's merely common enough to have no worth, and thus be immediately and freely accessible.
Water is necessary to sustain human life. Privatising the world's water directly threatens the hydration of people all over the globe. Morally, politically, economically, socially, judicially, that is a disgrace. You seem to lack simple human decency.
Funding the furthering of one's ideology and being, as you stated, "interested in destroying our climate" are two wholly different things.
Reductionistic misrepresentation. Furthering an ideology that deliberately attempts to subvert established and proven climatic data for the furtherance of one's fossil fuel driven business is tantamount to interest in destroying our climate.
Furthermore, are you claiming Climate Change Alarmism skepticism to have the sole ulterior motive of destroying the environment, as implied by your statements?
Climate Change Alarmism, whatever its motivations, is ignorant and is dangerous for the health of our planet. It is irrelevant what its proponents' motivations are: it is scientifically incorrect and directly hinders progress in climate science and awareness of the dangers climate change poses.
The same principle applies to tobacco companies that deliberately subverted scientific evidence of the danger's of smoking in order to continue to profit from tobacco, at the expense of countless lives. It is exactly the same principle.
...
How, exactly, can you justify your claim of this article being "well referenced" when it has exactly one source, which provides neither its parameters nor specific details of its conclusion (specifically, the space of time in which the hypothetical carbon emissions occur)?
Alright. I direct to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as the article does. Have a look.
Just because the costs are renamed doesn't mean they no longer exist. Sure, if college education was entirely state-funded, student loans wouldn't exist, but that doesn't mean the costs just disappear; nothing is ever free.
This is narrow, and ultimately irrelevant to the point. People struggle to afford education because educational costs are too high for them to realistically manage. That is the main barrier to education. Removing this financial barrier, by whatever means necessary, will open up educational possibilities for millions. The success of that education is entirely dependent, as it always has been, on the quality of teaching and the attitude of students.
There is a reason why American graduate numbers are declining while countries like Iceland, Finland and Belgium are seeing continuing increases in graduate percentages. It's the same reason students in the UK are dropping out of university at record rates: cost is a hurdle to accessibility.
I don't think education ought to be given on the basis of financial means, rather on the basis of intellectual merit alone.
Furthermore, how will handing over control of a service to those who have no incentive to ensure its success benefit anyone? Our government has clearly shown its inability to responsibly handle projects (Amtrak and UPS being great examples), so why trust it with what is perhaps our most important service?
How has the government appointed by the the people of a democratic country got no incentive to ensure the educational success of its populace? It is an integral motivation in a developed society for children and young people to get educated. The government by the people for the people clearly have incentive to make sure that happens.
Profiteering from education means higher student debt, which brings risk-aversive mindsets among graduates and less attraction to education in poorer demographics. Prohibitively costly education is, whether intended or not, a form of social engineering where wealthy people can afford to be educated and successful and poorer people struggle to get out of their socioeconomic hole.
Free education for the end user, eliminates this barrier, thereby positively influencing the future by providing the maximum yield of graduates and educated citizens, which allows for a more robust future economy.
I really don't care how the government or the universities go about making education accessible to everyone who has intellectual merit for it, so long as they do.
And here I thought his discussion might remain both civil and rational. Oh, well.
"I've just realised I'm debating with a disingenuous moron..."
Both a contradiction in terms and a baseless insult.
...who has no concept of any worthy human endeavour lying outside the parameters of supply and demand."
I dare say the only reason you have that perception (if indeed you do) is because we've exclusively discussed economics. What you're implying is that, because we've only discussed economics, economics are all I care about.
"You seem to hold exactly the type of hair-splitting, dishonest opinions experts on climate change and healthcare policy the world over hate to have to deal with."
Is my failure to baselessly conform to the political and scientific orthodoxy an issue? Furthermore, what does this have to do with this discussion?
"The income assessment for households shows that 70% of working families fall below the average wage line. It's not hard to work out. The majority of those households bring in less than what it costs on average for a single person to live."
If the majority of Americans truly earn less than the average cost of living, why don't we constantly hear about our endemic poverty?
"So your small legal firm who use words like "customer satisfaction" when talking about patient satisfaction and who have referenced no parts of the WHO study in their analyses whatsoever, are a more formidable and reliable source of healthcare data than the single largest, most renowned, most independently reviewed international health agency on the planet?"
First of all, since when is the premier publication of Yale University, with many prominent figures on their executive and advisory boards, a "small legal firm"?
Furthermore, what does the size of an organization have to do with the validity of its claims? Going by that logic, we should all trust massive corporations, right?
Third, and finally, the formerly provided article is not the only one pointing out this fatal flaw in the WHO's methodology; here's another, thoroughly researched and referenced paper on the matter: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp101.pdf
"It definitely can and should."
Since it's so abundant, and therefore largely valueless, what benefit is gained from legally mandating access to it? Furthermore, how would you even begin enforcing it?
" Privatising the world's water directly threatens the hydration of people all over the globe."
What do you mean by "privatising" water? Even if a company could "own" a body of water (a lake, river, etc.), it would be neither economically nor physically feasible to maintain, exploit, and guard. Even if it were, people could just find water elsewhere.
If you're claiming, as your statement implies, that the entirety of the world's water could somehow fall under the ownership of a monopoly, I don't even know if rational conversation is possible.
" You seem to lack simple human decency."
Because I don't believe the government should force corporations and/or individuals to ensure everyone else has access to an already abundant resource?
"Furthering an ideology that deliberately attempts to subvert established and proven climatic data for the furtherance of one's fossil fuel driven business is tantamount to interest in destroying our climate."
Where is this "established and proven climate data" you speak of? Surely, if it's so obvious, it should be readily available? Further, even if the former of your two claims is true (that this ideology "deliberately attempts to subvert established and proven climactic data for the furtherance of one's fossil fuel driven business"), all that demonstrates is neglect, or ignorance. Being neglectful of something and demonstrating a deliberate interest in said thing's destruction are two entirely different positions.
"Climate Change Alarmism, whatever its motivations, is ignorant and is dangerous for the health of our planet. It is irrelevant what its proponents' motivations are: it is scientifically incorrect and directly hinders progress in climate science and awareness of the dangers climate change poses."
Let me just stop you right there for a minute. The term "Climate Change Alarmism" refers to the phenomenon of what you simply call "Climate Change", I.E. that the Earth is warming (or is it cooling now?) due to the actions of Man. Using the term "Climate Change" under that definition is, in my opinion, misleading (as it's quite easy to abuse the equivocal nature of the term to sound more truthful), hence my use of the term "Climate Change Alarmism", which is univocal, and refers only to the aforementioned belief in Man's harmful effect on our climate.
Of course, I agree with your statement here, if only because the meaning of the term I used was apparently not clear.
"It is irrelevant what its proponents' motivations are: it is scientifically incorrect and directly hinders progress in climate science and awareness of the dangers climate change poses."
Since when is science based off of conformity? Last I checked, skepticism was a fundamental element of the process.
"The same principle applies to tobacco companies that deliberately subverted scientific evidence of the danger's of smoking in order to continue to profit from tobacco, at the expense of countless lives. It is exactly the same principle."
Assuming that's true (I wouldn't be surprised if it was), what does it matter? Nicotine is an extremely addictive substance, so tobacco companies are going to continue profiting anyway, regardless of how badly smoking damages you.
"Alright. I direct to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as the article does. Have a look."
(Note: this list is far from exhaustive. I could go on, but I think I've made my point.)
"This is narrow, and ultimately irrelevant to the point. People struggle to afford education because educational costs are too high for them to realistically manage. That is the main barrier to education. Removing this financial barrier, by whatever means necessary, will open up educational possibilities for millions. The success of that education is entirely dependent, as it always has been, on the quality of teaching and the attitude of students."
My point was that just because people wouldn't be directly paying for education any more doesn't mean that the costs of education disappear. Under State-run education, who's going to pay for it? The government. And where does the government's money come from? Taxes. Now, if government spending suddenly increases due to directly paying for college, what happens to taxes? They increase proportionately. People will still be paying for college (and, often, subsidizing it), the only difference is they won't have a choice as to how their money's spent.
"I don't think education ought to be given on the basis of financial means, rather on the basis of intellectual merit alone."
And who determines what qualifies as "intellectual merit"?
"How has the government appointed by the the people of a democratic country got no incentive to ensure the educational success of its populace? It is an integral motivation in a developed society for children and young people to get educated. The government by the people for the people clearly have incentive to make sure that happens."
First of all, this country is not a Democracy. It's a Constitutional Republic with Democratic influence, which is an important distinction.
Second, the vast majority of the government today consists of unelected officials (bureaucrats) who have few, if any, checks to ensure accountability. In what way are we meant to keep them in line?
"Profiteering from education means higher student debt,"
Such as college officials who demand exorbitant fees because they know they'll get them from a government loan?
You could say exactly the same thing about any other industry. For example, "Profiteering from the food industry means higher food costs"... oh, wait, no it doesn't. Not in a free market, anyway.
"Free education for the end user, eliminates this barrier, thereby positively influencing the future by providing the maximum yield of graduates and educated citizens, which allows for a more robust future economy."
Once again, you ignore the fact that nothing is ever free. Education employees still require salaries, and you can bet that Teachers' Unions aren't lowering them for any reason. The "end user" you speak of will still pay for college, along with everyone else in the region. Better yet, they will continue to subsidize everyone else's education for the rest of their lives, regardless of whether they think a Gender Studies degree is a valuable use of time or not.
"I really don't care how the government or the universities go about making education accessible to everyone who has intellectual merit for it, so long as they do."
This is the second time you've used the term "intellectual merit", and I'm still somewhat confused as to its exact meaning. Are you implying that only certain persons "merit" education? Again, how would you go about making this determination?
The NIPCC? Really? It is a Heartland Institute panel whose documents have been exposed by whisteblowers and ripped apart by credible scientific counterargument several times already. The Institute has been shown, through leaked documents, to directly attempt to contravene established climate scientific facts under the direction of its funders, most notably the Koch Brothers. This is not ignorance, nor is it neglect. It is deliberate intent to dishonestly contravene established fact in order to personally profit from a process that is extremely harmful to our planet.
The anthropogenic influence on climate is not mere belief, it is established firmly as scientific reality, subject and reviewed by the skeptical processes you mention.
You also used an article from Hayley Dixon at the Guardian which includes the sentence: "Since 1997, world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase", along with the base assertion that mainstream climate scientists have failed to adjust records and predictions for natural fluctuations in climate. This is utter nonsense.
As for your murmurings about the flawed methodology of the WHO study on healthcare systems, you cite the CATO Institute's publication "WHO's fooling who?" The CATO Institute was founded as the Charles Koch Institute (that's right, of Koch Industries). Their awarded contributors consist entirely of libertarian economists, and the arguments presented against the WHO study as such is expected of such an institute do not fully appreciate the methodologies they are arguing against: the paper is full of libertarian principles put forward as objectively valid rebuttals to the WHO study's methodologies. For instance, it yams on about how expecting rich people to contribute more to a health system they consume as much as poor people, drives the WHO's findings that countries with more privatised healthcare score poorer in terms of financial fairness: that the methodologies are biased in favour of health systems that have more governmental involvement. This is the same as saying that the CATO Institute are in favour of healthcare systems with less governmental involvement.
The document attempts to remove attention away from the relatively poor affordability of private healthcare, into an economically framed argument that suggests that public healthcare affordability can be ham-fistedly analysed by the same parameters as private affordability, which of course it cannot: A system which uses taxation to fund a public healthcare format, uses a proportion of all taxes which is sufficient enough to fund healthcare for all citizens. That rich people naturally pay higher taxation in staggered taxation systems means they pay more for road-building and upkeep of the military and education and whatever else taxes are spent on, and this would of course would mean they technically pay more towards a public healthcare system as well (unless we talk about expenditure as a percentage of income). But so what? To point this out and paint it as a negative is to assert that because rich people get taxed more it is morally wrong to have a public healthcare system. A does not logically lead us to B here.
Look: rich folks pay more taxes because they earn more money: if those taxes are spent on better roads or better education or a larger military or more accessible healthcare, it makes no odds. Taxes are there to be spent on whatever they are spent on, as directed by the needs of the country and the will of the people. Besides, the WHO study isn't arguing that rich people should pay more money towards public infrastructure than poor people (they already do that by paying higher taxes); the study simply points out that accessibility to private healthcare is much more dependent on individual income than accessibility to public healthcare is, thus the privatization or nationalization of healthcare are direct determiners to accessibility. I would surely consider poorer overall individual accessibility and individual affordability of healthcare to be negative attributes compared to greater individual accessibility and individual affordability.
I suppose it depends on your point of reference. Is healthcare rranking about rating the degree to which we as a society are making sick people better, making healthcare more accessible and more affordable overall; or is it about the myriad of perspectives on the morality or immorality of staggered taxation?
"The NIPCC? Really? It is a Heartland Institute panel whose documents have been exposed by whisteblowers and ripped apart by credible scientific counterargument several times already. The Institute has been shown, through leaked documents, to directly attempt to contravene established climate scientific facts under the direction of its funders, most notably the Koch Brothers. This is not ignorance, nor is it neglect. It is deliberate intent to dishonestly contravene established fact in order to personally profit from a process that is extremely harmful to our planet."
Great. Do you have any evidence to back this up?
"The anthropogenic influence on climate is not mere belief, it is established firmly as scientific reality, subject and reviewed by the skeptical processes you mention."
Again, where's your substantiation?
"As for your murmurings about the flawed methodology of the WHO study on healthcare systems, you cite the CATO Institute's publication "WHO's fooling who?" The CATO Institute was founded as the Charles Koch Institute (that's right, of Koch Industries). Their awarded contributors consist entirely of libertarian economists, and the arguments presented against the WHO study as such is expected of such an institute do not fully appreciate the methodologies they are arguing against: the paper is full of libertarian principles put forward as objectively valid rebuttals to the WHO study's methodologies. For instance, it yams on about how expecting rich people to contribute more to a health system they consume as much as poor people, drives the WHO's findings that countries with more privatised healthcare score poorer in terms of financial fairness: that the methodologies are biased in favour of health systems that have more governmental involvement. This is the same as saying that the CATO Institute are in favour of healthcare systems with less governmental involvement."
First of all, the motivation for whoever funded the document is irrelevant to the document's accusations, which you have yet to refute with anything other than "well, the WHO is a reliable and trustworthy organization because it's reliable and trustworthy"
Second, what's wrong with criticizing bias, especially from such a large organization?
Disingenuousness is only a good debate tactic when the person you're debating isn't smart enough to recognize that you are being disingenuous. Thinking you're smart enough to convince me of your playing-stupid, makes you look genuinely stupid.
I've refuted the credibility of the CATO institute adequately, I've questioned their motivations because their motivations are directly tied to the tone and direction of the content of their reports, and I've challenged the logical precedents within said report in simplistic terms, using logical analysis. If you can't grasp that, it's your issue. The facts of the matter are that private healthcare is almost always harder for the average person to financially access, than public healthcare is. This is a cost-prohibitive barrier to medical care. I can't think of a single healthcare standard that can be satisfied better by less cumulative access to medical treatment, than it can by more cumulative access to medical treatment. If we are to base our ratings of the financial implications of relative healthcare systems, logically, upon how they impact the availability and affordability of that care, then we must conclude from the evidence that private healthcare offers significantly more financial barriers to the average person's access to care, than public healthcare does.
Is that so hard to grasp?
I can walk into a chemist today and get a prescription that I require, without having to pay a single penny there and then. I can go to a hospital with a broken arm and have it x-rayed, re-set and cast the same day, without having to pay a single penny, there and then. No bills through the door, no threat of legal ramifications, no debt collector knocking my window. This is easy, immediate access to medical care. This by its very definition makes medical care simpler to attain, in the financial sense.
What is complicated about that? As I said before:
The CATO document attempts to remove attention away from the relatively poor affordability of private healthcare compared to public healthcare, into an economically framed argument that suggests that public healthcare affordability can be ham-fistedly analysed by the same parameters as private affordability, which of course it cannot: A system which uses taxation to fund a public healthcare format, uses a proportion of all taxes which is sufficient enough to fund healthcare for all citizens. That rich people naturally pay higher taxation in staggered taxation systems means they pay more for road-building and upkeep of the military and education and whatever else taxes are spent on, and this would of course would mean they technically pay more towards a public healthcare system as well (unless we talk about expenditure as a percentage of income). But so what? To point this out and assert it as a negative is to assert that because rich people get taxed more it is morally wrong to have a public healthcare system. A does not logically lead us to B here. The premise relates in no way to the conclusion
Rich folks pay more taxes because they earn more money: if those taxes are spent on better roads or better education or a larger military or more accessible healthcare, it makes no odds to the morality of spending those taxes in those ways. Taxes are there to be spent on whatever they are spent on, as directed by the needs of the country and the will of the people. Besides, the WHO study isn't arguing that rich people should pay more money towards public infrastructure than poor people (they already do that by paying higher taxes -- this is a given); the WHO study simply points out that accessibility to private healthcare is much more dependent on individual income than accessibility to public healthcare is, thus the privatization or nationalization of healthcare are direct determiners to its accessibility. I would surely consider poorer overall individual accessibility and individual affordability of healthcare to be negative attributes compared to greater overall individual accessibility and individual affordability.
I suppose it depends on your point of reference. Is healthcare ranking about rating the degree to which we as a society are making sick people better, making healthcare more accessible and more affordable overall; or is it about the myriad of perspectives on the morality or immorality of staggered taxation?
"Disingenuousness is only a good debate tactic when the person you're debating isn't smart enough to recognize that you are being disingenuous. Thinking you're smart enough to convince me of your playing-stupid, makes you look genuinely stupid."
First of all, I'd be quite interested to know how you know what I think. Oh, wait, you don't.
Second, in what way am I being disingenuous? Since you first used that term as an accusation, you've yet to provide any substantiation for it.
Third, even if I were being disingenuous, what would it matter? That has no bearing on the validity of my arguments.
"I've refuted the credibility of the CATO institute adequately, I've questioned their motivations because their motivations are directly tied to the tone and direction of the content of their reports, and I've challenged the logical precedents within said report in simplistic terms, using logical analysis."
Unless I'm mistaken, the only arguments you have against the document (neither of which are "logical analyses") are,
1. " the paper is full of libertarian principles put forward as objectively valid rebuttals to the WHO study's methodologies."
And,
2. "The document attempts to remove attention away from the relatively poor affordability of private healthcare, into an economically framed argument that suggests that public healthcare affordability can be ham-fistedly analysed by the same parameters as private affordability..."
The only substantiation you've provided for your first claim is an example from the document, which points out bias in the WHO's methodology, which you then claim "...is the same as saying that the CATO Institute are in favour of healthcare systems with less governmental involvement."
First of all, what does motivation have to do with the validity of the document? It has, as previously stated, no bearing on its legitimacy.
Second, the claim that (as you implied) "because X entity produced a document accusing Y entity of ideological bias, X entity must have a contradictory ideology" is completely absurd, which I can demonstrate through a simple switching of terms. Let's say that X entity is a media outlet, and Y entity is a pacifist organization. If the above statement is true, clearly, X entity (the media outlet) must be full of warmongers! It just doesn't make sense.
As for your second argument, you present a somewhat fragmented (apparently logical) statement, whose premises have neither substantiation nor apparent connection to the conclusion (I'm not entirely sure where you got the morality bit from; certainly not the premises), not to mention are irritatingly ambiguous.
"I can walk into a chemist today and get a prescription that I require, without having to pay a single penny there and then. I can go to a hospital with a broken arm and have it x-rayed, re-set and cast the same day, without having to pay a single penny, there and then. No bills through the door, no threat of legal ramifications, no debt collector knocking my window. This is easy, immediate access to medical care. This by its very definition makes medical care simpler to attain, in the financial sense."
That sounds wonderful, except for the one part you seem to be deliberately ignoring at this point: nothing is free. Just because you can't see the money you're losing on healthcare doesn't mean the cost doesn't exist. Further, as previously stated, what incentive does the government have to provide for you with reasonable, relatively inexpensive care, as opposed to you, who should be (hopefully) have every reason to ensure you're getting your money's worth? Again, all your proposed system does is take control from the individual and hand it over to what is probably one of the most irresponsible organizations in the world. What justifies this complete faith in the government you seem to have?
Around 5% of the American workforce (those of working age and not yet of national retirement age) don't work.
According to politifact.com, drawing from data of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 40.5 million Americans civilian, non-institutionalized population who were between the ages 25 and 64 were not in the labor force in July 2015. There are 318.9 million people in the U.S. This means that after we account for college and retirement, approximately 12.7% of the population that could be working is not.
This makes me doubt your other assertion that less than half are on state assistance.
EDIT: After reading just a little further, I found that the 40.5 million was drawn from the number of people not working and not actively seeking work. Which means if you add unemployment data (people on unemployment assistance and seeking work) you can add another 5% to 6%.
If you read my whole post you would see that they are people not actively seeking employment, so:
1. I'm not assuming they want to work. I'm simply showing data for those who do not work but are capable. This would include those who may be ladies or men of leisure on welfare. If you assume there are none, you don't have friends in low places. Which is fine, but misinformed.
2. If they are looking for work then they are figured into the unemployment number, which isn't perfect, but a fair estimate.
3. See number 1. Stating the number of those who might be working but are not, makes no assumption about geography.
The necessity of welfare as such does not dictate a necessity for welfare as is. And the data presented have relevant implications, just as they would have, had your 5% been accurate. Since it isn't, I'm curious where you got the idea that half of that 5% isn't on any form of assistance.
Wake up Joe and smell the Coffee government money is your tax money and government can deem your tax money charity !Government is confiscating your money you already admitted to that ! Government will address poverty with your tax dollars do you not see that Joe ? Hey Joe maybe it would be better for you to address the Youth unemployment rate in your country which is at 39.4 percent !
"Why would money from a government be deemed charity ?"
What else would you call welfare?
"Why do you use the term 'confiscating ' and then 'incentivise ' ?"
Because they are, in my opinion, both accurate and appropriate.
"Do you not see governments having a role in addressing poverty , housing and social issues as in people afflicted by these conditions ?"
If you'd like to refer me to the section of the Constitution that explicitly permits the Federal Government to distribute its citizens' incomes as it sees fit, feel free to do so.
" It's hilarious you call yourself like others a ' Christian ' what do you think Jesus would do ?"
My religious views hold no relevance to this discussion. Ironically, however, Jesus preached, somewhat indirectly, against involvement with government.
1: proving yet again you're possibly not a Christian as you do not even know what the term charity means
2: as above
3: as above
4: so your belief in a god does not influence the way you treat others ? I'm delighted to see you wouldn't let your belief in a god or the teachings of Jesus effect your ' judgement ' , I know you clearly demonstrate this , you are as is called here a Sunday Christian
Matthew 6:1-4 ESV / 306 helpful votes
βBeware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. βThus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
Our country, LichPotato, loves sports. The thing with most sports is TEAMWORK. If you don't have it, you will never "be great again"! In the 40's, if we hadn't worked together and sacrificed together, we would never have been "great"! I can remember the books of ration stamps (still have one), the plastic bag of lard with a red ball to squeeze to make yellow margarine (my job at the time), the Air Raid Wardens in white helmets knocking on your door because you had to much light coming around your shades, or had left the porch light on. I carried burlap bags around collecting milkweed pods to turn in to make parachutes. We never complained (very loudly, at least), about taxes. We even tried to give the country MORE money through War Bonds though we had little to give! Only conservatives are against teamwork! They'd rather pay the "coaches" exorbitant fees and HOPE they win something! We should be happy to pay taxes to "make America great again", we just have to make sure WE get our money's worth! If the Federal Government cuts taxes and turns responsibilities over to the states, guess what! The states will RAISE taxes FAR MORE! As my ex mother-in-law used to say, "Promises are cheap, takes money to buy Rum!"
The "Government" is supposed to BE OF, BY, and FOR the "people". That means charity FROM the government is OF, BY, and FOR the people! The government could have no "generosity" if the PEOPLE didn't give it the money to do so! Instead, we give MOST charity to corporations that pay too little or NO taxes! Those guys that sell our JOBS to the overseas corporations and governments that (many times) HATE U.S.!
Now, Trump wants to kill charity to those health care corporations that research cures, help women save babies (and themselves), keep our water and air clean so we WONT get sick, so we can spend more than the next 11 countries on "defense"! (We already spend more than the next seven!). Killing for peace is like screwing for virginity! We can already destroy the world many times over ... in minutes! We need to fight poverty, sickness and radicalism with our "generosity" and make it a better world, rather than destroy it!
Dermot you are typical Progressive who believes in redistribution of wealth. You agree with your government taking 50 percent of your income to provide a welfare state and you are proud to support a welfare state !
OUTLAW I'm delighted that I play a role in assisting those who through circumstances find themselves in a situation I would not desire for me or mine ; my father and mother brought me up with these values and I'm staggered at the lack of basic humanity in our modern societies
Because despite the occasional hysteria from conservatives that we're becoming all socialist or communist we are nowhere close to that being true and even the people they rail against as being Liberals or Progressives are genuinely not trying to turn the US into Europe.
Heck, the fact that Obamacare actually forced lower income people to buy insurance instead of just saying bam you're automatically covered was the biggest proof of all Obama's administration wasn't trying to go full socialized medicine. But the right whipped up a frenzy and people were too naive to know the diffrerence in the two realities. Now ironically, if the conservatives burn the poor throughout a Trump administration you might actually see enough whiplash afterward to go far more welfare state than you thought Obama had done. Think I'm wrong? Well wait and see. And when it happens 8 or so years from now, if we're still clamoring around this website, then I don't want to hear the conservatives belly aching about it. You pick your battles. Sometimes you pick the wrong ones. Sometimes you make capital offense over situations you should actually feel lucky aren't a whole lot worse.
