Adding to Bigjeff, the UK has also been a developed nation for several CENTURIES (relative to the rest of the world), with a buildup of capital and such.
Care to take a chunk out of your paycheck and send it to some developing third world fellow so he can see the dentist?
Would you rather no work, or low working standards? Most third-world economies don't exactly get the ability to start everyone in the middle class.
When a country is productive enough to install more humane measurements - which we are seeing in some sectors in places like China and India - they tend to do so because of international pressure.
You also have laid out several problems with the system that add to long-term inefficiencies when a goal - ie "more expensive" to replace - has a short-term outlook. I would debate that we need at MINIMUM a freeze on federal government hiring and allow a certain amount of attrition.
Sorry, I have several friends who work on an AFB who have particular issues with people that don't let them get work done.
You're overstating several issues. One, just about EVERY job in the US that is full time has vacation and sick leave that accrues, and you DON'T have to be union to get it. Unions only take up a small percentage of the workforce in the US now - they're a relatively outdated entity, mostly seeming to feed off of the 1950s model rather than something modern where a cooperative relationship would benefit more.
I debate your last statement because of the inability to fire from the government for incompetence/laziness, and the opposition of unions to merit pay in government service.
Seeing those labor laws, I bet it's rather a big factor in unemployment. I know SA has a ton of other issues that are going to take decades to get out of, but some of those rules would be a BIG headache for an entrepeneur who cannot afford the overhead.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm
"Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector"
There ya go. They're also harder to fire and typically don't have merit-based pay.
Republican != Conservative. Romneycare doesn't work all that well. McCain had some okay ideas, mostly allowing people to go into a freed-up marketplace to get their insurance.
And yeah, I think the Republican alternative from the 90s had a mandate. Not that it made it right.
Sorry, he signed the thing into law, he owns it, for good or ill.
I never saw it as reasonable because many of us conservatives don't believe that we have/had a true free-market health care system, and the left was trying to demonize what we had as being truly awful, when it worked well for just about everyone who has a decent job. Instead of tweaking a system for the minority of uninsured people, they went to revamp the whole thing.
That's NOT reasonable.
Also, remember, under Clinton, he had to run to the right on many policies (ie, balanced budgets), and his last few quarters weren't all that great (and it went positive the quarter BEFORE Clinton took office). There's more to it than all that, anyway - Republican's refusal to curb spending during GWB was a huge issue as well, and the left's overspending and bailing out companies with bad business sense could be one reason why we're not seeing much recovery at the moment.
I didn't say I liked it. I was just saying it was bipartisan (that should have been done differently - it just compounded the idea that the feds somehow should have a role in education.)
Those "bailouts" were unnecessary, and wound up wasting money, even if a lot of it will be returned. As hard a hit as we took, AIG, GM, Chrysler, and several banks should have taken it more on the chin and have their assets dispersed in bankruptcy to companies that were doing well.
I expect a little bit different from them, simply because there's a bit of new blood going around (something like 50+ brand new representatives); but I won't be surprised if they don't. BTW, I voted for a 3-4 libertarians this year (who were all running for statewide offices and only garnered about 3-4% of the statewide vote).
I've no illusions that any major change will take place, and I rarely support any "establishment" types.
Very rarely - both parties are highly corporatist more than anything else. This one Congress has a little ability of doing something differently, but probably won't get much done.
1. Which is the inherent problem in Keynesian thinking - that the government needs to be spending money (which is either printed or comes from taxpayers). The model there is broken.
2. It's NOT about appointments, it's about the regular staffing-type jobs that have been going on as of late. Public employees make a significantly higher amount than private. Let them retire/quit and don't replace them.
3. How did the massive expansion of business in the 1980s happen then? How did companies afford to hire more employees and bring us from 10%+ unemployment on down? Look at the marginal tax rates during the era - 70%+ cut down into the 30s. More private industry kept more of their own money, and we had more millionaires created at that time than ever before - and inflation was LOW. Tax cuts were a HUGE part of that, and the tax rate has stayed at about the same level since.
4. GWB was wrong to do so, but to his and the Republican's credit, there was a push for reform of Fannie and Freddie at the time. Those two agencies are bleeding cash at astronomical levels, and have no business in what they're doing.
6. I'll go with you there - far too corporatist a bill. Doesn't mean that the mandate is Constitutional - or even right. Of course, seeing as there really wasn't a free market for health insurance either before or after...
Yeah, and that's a HUGE problem for our side. Entitlement cuts that NEED to be made won't be.
Economic growth in private industry helps cure a lot of ills though, which the last bubble did (though I'm not promoting a bubble-to-burst economic model).
Ummm...the whole "bailout" fiasco? Government buying stock in private industry (GM, AIG), and pushing to make public more of a sector that has been privatized (non-medicare medical insurance)?
It wasn't necessarily about sticking to principles, it was doing it in such a high-and-mighty we-know-better-than-you manner that the Dems were doing it.
And, like it or not, Americans are center-right, and don't tend to like many pushes left.
And more and more it looks like it will be from successful small business owners to the insurance companies if they don't have the clout to be exempted.
There were plenty of times - particularly in the final stages - where Republicans were excluded totally from the process.
LBJ signed medicare, FDR Social Security, and the interstate was a national defense measure that benefited everyone and arguably a reasonable act of government by Eisenhower.
Obama has engaged the government in traditionally private marketplaces in America in ways not really seen since Freddie and Fannie were put into place.
Not really. The mandate was never on the table, and that was pretty much a deal killer for ANY conservative.
Most of the "seeking input" was done my Obama, true, but there was NEVER any done from the Dems in the Senate or House - remember all the "closed door" sessions after a particular promise from Pelosi to have everything on CSPAN and out in the open?
Didn't happen. There were a few bones thrown our way, but there was NO HSA expansion (actually contracted); VERY little in the way of high-deductible plans; NO ability to cross state lines to get a different health care service (which, admittedly, could be done at the state level). It was also comprehensive and ridiculously long, rather than dealing with one issue at a time.
While not giving the left everything they were after, he rapidly increased federal spending with little transparent oversight, pushed the federal government to buy stock in private entities, enacted "Obamacare" in a nearly completely partisan vote with little to no real input from the right, and has not compromised on any bill placed in front of him to sign.
From the perspective of a conservative, his is THE most left-leaning and partisan Presidency to date. GWB had a record of reaching across the aisle even with a majority (NCLB is the big one there, written by Ted Kennedy).
1. A possible return to the 2008 budget - which means freezing any unspent "stimulus."
2. A freeze on federal hiring (EVERY department could probably use a little attrition, and there's been a bit too many people getting on the federal dole/payroll as of late).
3. Extension of tax cuts, namely on estates and dividends.
4. Barney Frank not in charge of the House Financial Services committee (the main proponent/protector of Freddie and Fannie).
5. Crazy conservative ideas coming out of the house that Boehner can't control and the Senate will have to deal with.
6. Cleaning up the "Obamacare" deal (won't be repealed, but the mandate is probably gone).
Slashdot Mirror
Adding to Bigjeff, the UK has also been a developed nation for several CENTURIES (relative to the rest of the world), with a buildup of capital and such.
Care to take a chunk out of your paycheck and send it to some developing third world fellow so he can see the dentist?
Here's the problem.
Would you rather no work, or low working standards? Most third-world economies don't exactly get the ability to start everyone in the middle class.
When a country is productive enough to install more humane measurements - which we are seeing in some sectors in places like China and India - they tend to do so because of international pressure.
One, you underestimate the pay of public employees. There are many who are paid BETTER than their private sector counterparts.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm
You also have laid out several problems with the system that add to long-term inefficiencies when a goal - ie "more expensive" to replace - has a short-term outlook. I would debate that we need at MINIMUM a freeze on federal government hiring and allow a certain amount of attrition.
Sorry, I have several friends who work on an AFB who have particular issues with people that don't let them get work done.
Ummm...forced to do labor? What the heck am I getting paid for? Wait, not posting on slashdot...
You're overstating several issues. One, just about EVERY job in the US that is full time has vacation and sick leave that accrues, and you DON'T have to be union to get it. Unions only take up a small percentage of the workforce in the US now - they're a relatively outdated entity, mostly seeming to feed off of the 1950s model rather than something modern where a cooperative relationship would benefit more.
I debate your last statement because of the inability to fire from the government for incompetence/laziness, and the opposition of unions to merit pay in government service.
Seeing those labor laws, I bet it's rather a big factor in unemployment. I know SA has a ton of other issues that are going to take decades to get out of, but some of those rules would be a BIG headache for an entrepeneur who cannot afford the overhead.
Your Cake is a lie.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm "Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector" There ya go. They're also harder to fire and typically don't have merit-based pay.
Republican != Conservative. Romneycare doesn't work all that well. McCain had some okay ideas, mostly allowing people to go into a freed-up marketplace to get their insurance.
And yeah, I think the Republican alternative from the 90s had a mandate. Not that it made it right.
Sorry, he signed the thing into law, he owns it, for good or ill.
I never saw it as reasonable because many of us conservatives don't believe that we have/had a true free-market health care system, and the left was trying to demonize what we had as being truly awful, when it worked well for just about everyone who has a decent job. Instead of tweaking a system for the minority of uninsured people, they went to revamp the whole thing.
That's NOT reasonable.
Also, remember, under Clinton, he had to run to the right on many policies (ie, balanced budgets), and his last few quarters weren't all that great (and it went positive the quarter BEFORE Clinton took office). There's more to it than all that, anyway - Republican's refusal to curb spending during GWB was a huge issue as well, and the left's overspending and bailing out companies with bad business sense could be one reason why we're not seeing much recovery at the moment.
I didn't say I liked it. I was just saying it was bipartisan (that should have been done differently - it just compounded the idea that the feds somehow should have a role in education.)
Those "bailouts" were unnecessary, and wound up wasting money, even if a lot of it will be returned. As hard a hit as we took, AIG, GM, Chrysler, and several banks should have taken it more on the chin and have their assets dispersed in bankruptcy to companies that were doing well.
I expect a little bit different from them, simply because there's a bit of new blood going around (something like 50+ brand new representatives); but I won't be surprised if they don't. BTW, I voted for a 3-4 libertarians this year (who were all running for statewide offices and only garnered about 3-4% of the statewide vote).
I've no illusions that any major change will take place, and I rarely support any "establishment" types.
Very rarely - both parties are highly corporatist more than anything else. This one Congress has a little ability of doing something differently, but probably won't get much done.
1. Which is the inherent problem in Keynesian thinking - that the government needs to be spending money (which is either printed or comes from taxpayers). The model there is broken.
2. It's NOT about appointments, it's about the regular staffing-type jobs that have been going on as of late. Public employees make a significantly higher amount than private. Let them retire/quit and don't replace them.
3. How did the massive expansion of business in the 1980s happen then? How did companies afford to hire more employees and bring us from 10%+ unemployment on down? Look at the marginal tax rates during the era - 70%+ cut down into the 30s. More private industry kept more of their own money, and we had more millionaires created at that time than ever before - and inflation was LOW. Tax cuts were a HUGE part of that, and the tax rate has stayed at about the same level since.
4. GWB was wrong to do so, but to his and the Republican's credit, there was a push for reform of Fannie and Freddie at the time. Those two agencies are bleeding cash at astronomical levels, and have no business in what they're doing.
6. I'll go with you there - far too corporatist a bill. Doesn't mean that the mandate is Constitutional - or even right. Of course, seeing as there really wasn't a free market for health insurance either before or after...
Yeah, and that's a HUGE problem for our side. Entitlement cuts that NEED to be made won't be.
Economic growth in private industry helps cure a lot of ills though, which the last bubble did (though I'm not promoting a bubble-to-burst economic model).
Admitted, but their staunchest defenders have been from the left, and the ones pushing for their reform (or dissolution) from the right.
Ummm...the whole "bailout" fiasco? Government buying stock in private industry (GM, AIG), and pushing to make public more of a sector that has been privatized (non-medicare medical insurance)?
It wasn't necessarily about sticking to principles, it was doing it in such a high-and-mighty we-know-better-than-you manner that the Dems were doing it.
And, like it or not, Americans are center-right, and don't tend to like many pushes left.
And more and more it looks like it will be from successful small business owners to the insurance companies if they don't have the clout to be exempted.
There were plenty of times - particularly in the final stages - where Republicans were excluded totally from the process.
LBJ signed medicare, FDR Social Security, and the interstate was a national defense measure that benefited everyone and arguably a reasonable act of government by Eisenhower.
Obama has engaged the government in traditionally private marketplaces in America in ways not really seen since Freddie and Fannie were put into place.
Amending a bad bill doesn't mean that either side was reaching for compromise.
Dodd isn't exactly credible, in any case, and only a few of those amendments could remotely be called "substantive." Sorry, no dice.
Not really. The mandate was never on the table, and that was pretty much a deal killer for ANY conservative.
Most of the "seeking input" was done my Obama, true, but there was NEVER any done from the Dems in the Senate or House - remember all the "closed door" sessions after a particular promise from Pelosi to have everything on CSPAN and out in the open?
Didn't happen. There were a few bones thrown our way, but there was NO HSA expansion (actually contracted); VERY little in the way of high-deductible plans; NO ability to cross state lines to get a different health care service (which, admittedly, could be done at the state level). It was also comprehensive and ridiculously long, rather than dealing with one issue at a time.
Not from this side of the aisle.
While not giving the left everything they were after, he rapidly increased federal spending with little transparent oversight, pushed the federal government to buy stock in private entities, enacted "Obamacare" in a nearly completely partisan vote with little to no real input from the right, and has not compromised on any bill placed in front of him to sign.
From the perspective of a conservative, his is THE most left-leaning and partisan Presidency to date. GWB had a record of reaching across the aisle even with a majority (NCLB is the big one there, written by Ted Kennedy).
1. A possible return to the 2008 budget - which means freezing any unspent "stimulus."
2. A freeze on federal hiring (EVERY department could probably use a little attrition, and there's been a bit too many people getting on the federal dole/payroll as of late).
3. Extension of tax cuts, namely on estates and dividends.
4. Barney Frank not in charge of the House Financial Services committee (the main proponent/protector of Freddie and Fannie).
5. Crazy conservative ideas coming out of the house that Boehner can't control and the Senate will have to deal with.
6. Cleaning up the "Obamacare" deal (won't be repealed, but the mandate is probably gone).