We should tax Norway specifically because they aren't in the US. If we tax Norway, the US gets all the benefit and no one in the US pays anything for it. It's all benefit and no cost.
The US health care ranks worse than all of the top 10 countries.
...based on criteria carefully chosen to make sure the US comes out worst. (Does anyone still give any credence to these types of rankings? If you do, do you also click on clickbait headlines because you're curious what "doctors hate" and what "your insurance agent doesn't want you to know"?)
So... I don't see a problem here.
I predicted you wouldn't in the first line of my post above.
Would you care to explain why a government handout is bad, in this specific instance?
Can we cut some other government handouts to pay for this one?
Well, how do you propose we fix it?
One suggestion worth looking at Megan McArdle's plan. You pay for all your health care up to 20% of your annual income (or buy insurance if you want) and the government pays the amount over 20% of your annual income. It partly gets paid for by getting Medicare recipients to pay for more of their health care (the part up to 20% of their income).
Actually, I have suggested this exact plan. The US should tax Norway to buy stuff for US benefit recipients. Norway is rich. Why shouldn't we tax them?
The pro-ACA people don't care about screening out fake applicants. They think any person getting another government handout is a good thing, regardless of circumstance.
The anti-Obamacare people don't care about fixing the screening process either. They want to get rid of the government exchanges altogether.
4. People have a right to know what their government authorities are doing regardless of whether something is paid for with tax dollars. It's not a funding question. Government in a free country exists to serve the public. They can't be allowed to hide what they're doing. The police department isn't the CIA. Secrecy is unjustifiable.
New York City isn't a nation. The NYPD isn't a national security organization. They're a police department. They can't hide behind a national security justification for this.
They are just two different aspects and understandings of the idea of "classes". What's wrong with different ideas?
If you look back, I specifically referred to "European-style classes". There was never any ambiguity.
I think legally privileged classes are wrong. And they shouldn't be confused with lifestyle differences caused by hard work or good luck or good decision-making versus sloth or bad luck or unwise life choices.
I don't think government force should be used against innocent people. It shouldn't be used against people to prop up an inherited nobility or a ruling class of elite Washington-insiders, and it shouldn't be used against people who worked hard and started a business or went to school and became successful and chose to save their money instead of spending it.
It's human nature for people to group around common beliefs. It's been donw for all of human history and you're literally doing so yourself, labeling yourself a "non divider" (which is pure arrogance as there's not such thing) and me as "part of the problem".
It's not about you or me or whether something is or isn't "human nature". The prisons are full of people who did things that are "human nature".
Encouraging Americans to divide against each other in order to gain power by organizing one group against the other is wrong. That's the point. Let's not do that. Let's stop supporting politicians who do that. Let's think twice before we endorse "solutions" that require division and conflict and re-examine options that help everyone. It's what a non-hater might do.
Dividing people into groups, and encouraging and widening the divisions, hyping up the hostility to gain power organizing one group against the other is almost the definition of evil.
And this is exactly what the wealthy are doing—claiming that the poor are trying to steal their hard-earned cash—while the poor are merely arguing for a return to a time when we had a large, healthy middle class. You can lament the use of the term "class" all you want; it's simply a distinction to talk about degrees of wealth and opportunity.
So you're saying wanting to keep the money you earn is "exactly" the same as trying to get groups of Americans to hate each other so you can lead one group against another?
That seems like a pretty weak argument, even by Internet message board standards. Can you explain why you think these things are "exactly" the same? Or similar at all?
We're talking about a country that had institutionalized slavery up till 150 years ago
Except the class-dividers don't talk about slavery as a class issue. It's a race issue, but they've already maxed out the benefit of race divisions, securing about 94% of the black vote in the process. And what benefit do those voters see for it? Should people allow themselves to be divided into classes to reap the same rewards, the same resulting prosperity that black voters have achieved by listening to the same voices?
You're really good at reciting grievances -- many against long-dead villains on behalf of long-dead victims. Other than trying to divide people and encourage people to hate each other, what's the point?
We're not saying you should hurt your local [other people who are not like you]. But here's the reason they're not like you. Here's a story about why you should be angry at them.
But we're totally innocent of dividing people and fomenting hatred. Obviously.
Also, Europe had centuries of hereditary nobility. So the case can be made that the nobles and their descendants may owe the common people a sort of class-based debt. The US didn't. Class is just a talking-point in the US -- a way to divide people who have historically been equal under the law.
So we cant point to problems anymore because then we're succumbing to some nebulous evil?
There's nothing nebulous about it. Dividing people into groups, and encouraging and widening the divisions, hyping up the hostility to gain power organizing one group against the other is almost the definition of evil.
Trying to bring people together, finding common ground, encouraging peace and empathy is the opposite.
Which are you doing? Do you want peace and empathy, or do you want victory for your side and some sort of so-called "justice"?
And i said absolutly nothing about "hating" others...
Of course not. If you did, you might say... Well, you might say something very similar to what you said. But with exclamation points or something. For someone not intending evil, that should indicate more thoughtfulness might be in order.
Yay, finger-pointing! This will totally solve our problems.
One style of politics is to divide people into groups, tell them they should hate each other, and then gain power by organizing one group against the other. One argument against "class warfare" in the US is that we never had European-style "classes", and Americans shouldn't be divided up that way for the benefit of power-hungry would-be organization leaders.
Your argument seems to be the opposite: we should hate those other Americans in those other classes. Support your local politician! He's fighting for YOU! (Against your fellow Americans, over money someone else earned.).
As long as there's something for someone to gain, expect the "struggle with sexual harassment" to continue. Here's to the day no one can benefit by dividing people and organizing one side against the other. Maybe someday our society will reach that level of enlightenment.
Slashdot Mirror
Because they aren't in the US.
We should tax Norway specifically because they aren't in the US. If we tax Norway, the US gets all the benefit and no one in the US pays anything for it. It's all benefit and no cost.
The US health care ranks worse than all of the top 10 countries.
...based on criteria carefully chosen to make sure the US comes out worst. (Does anyone still give any credence to these types of rankings? If you do, do you also click on clickbait headlines because you're curious what "doctors hate" and what "your insurance agent doesn't want you to know"?)
So... I don't see a problem here.
I predicted you wouldn't in the first line of my post above.
Would you care to explain why a government handout is bad, in this specific instance?
Can we cut some other government handouts to pay for this one?
Well, how do you propose we fix it?
One suggestion worth looking at Megan McArdle's plan. You pay for all your health care up to 20% of your annual income (or buy insurance if you want) and the government pays the amount over 20% of your annual income. It partly gets paid for by getting Medicare recipients to pay for more of their health care (the part up to 20% of their income).
Actually, I have suggested this exact plan. The US should tax Norway to buy stuff for US benefit recipients. Norway is rich. Why shouldn't we tax them?
The pro-ACA people don't care about screening out fake applicants. They think any person getting another government handout is a good thing, regardless of circumstance.
The anti-Obamacare people don't care about fixing the screening process either. They want to get rid of the government exchanges altogether.
No one wants the process fixed. So it won't be.
Ok, we'll stop it. We didn't know it was bothering you. Sorry.
signed -- Worldwide IT Business
4. People have a right to know what their government authorities are doing regardless of whether something is paid for with tax dollars. It's not a funding question. Government in a free country exists to serve the public. They can't be allowed to hide what they're doing. The police department isn't the CIA. Secrecy is unjustifiable.
New York City isn't a nation. The NYPD isn't a national security organization. They're a police department. They can't hide behind a national security justification for this.
If they say there is no problem then experts are no longer valuable.
a random walk algorithm.
They are just two different aspects and understandings of the idea of "classes". What's wrong with different ideas?
If you look back, I specifically referred to "European-style classes". There was never any ambiguity.
I think legally privileged classes are wrong. And they shouldn't be confused with lifestyle differences caused by hard work or good luck or good decision-making versus sloth or bad luck or unwise life choices.
I don't think government force should be used against innocent people. It shouldn't be used against people to prop up an inherited nobility or a ruling class of elite Washington-insiders, and it shouldn't be used against people who worked hard and started a business or went to school and became successful and chose to save their money instead of spending it.
What I do consider divisive is calling the working class "moochers" and "takers," ...
Who calls workers "takers"? Workers are generally the opposite of takers. Is this a strawman or did someone actually call some workers "takers"?
... children don't starve because their parents ...
When was the last time any children starved in the US (or any western country)? What were the names of these children?
BTW, you keep saying "the money you earn" as if people earn money on their own in a vacuum.
Yeah. Workers earn their paychecks. Investors earn their investment returns. Not on their own, but together, side-by-side.
It's human nature for people to group around common beliefs. It's been donw for all of human history and you're literally doing so yourself, labeling yourself a "non divider" (which is pure arrogance as there's not such thing) and me as "part of the problem".
It's not about you or me or whether something is or isn't "human nature". The prisons are full of people who did things that are "human nature".
Encouraging Americans to divide against each other in order to gain power by organizing one group against the other is wrong. That's the point. Let's not do that. Let's stop supporting politicians who do that. Let's think twice before we endorse "solutions" that require division and conflict and re-examine options that help everyone. It's what a non-hater might do.
What is this 'European-style "classes"' you're talking about anyway?
Europe had centuries of hereditary nobility. The US has never had a class system.
So not similar at all then.
And this is exactly what the wealthy are doing—claiming that the poor are trying to steal their hard-earned cash—while the poor are merely arguing for a return to a time when we had a large, healthy middle class. You can lament the use of the term "class" all you want; it's simply a distinction to talk about degrees of wealth and opportunity.
So you're saying wanting to keep the money you earn is "exactly" the same as trying to get groups of Americans to hate each other so you can lead one group against another?
That seems like a pretty weak argument, even by Internet message board standards. Can you explain why you think these things are "exactly" the same? Or similar at all?
We're talking about a country that had institutionalized slavery up till 150 years ago
Except the class-dividers don't talk about slavery as a class issue. It's a race issue, but they've already maxed out the benefit of race divisions, securing about 94% of the black vote in the process. And what benefit do those voters see for it? Should people allow themselves to be divided into classes to reap the same rewards, the same resulting prosperity that black voters have achieved by listening to the same voices?
You're really good at reciting grievances -- many against long-dead villains on behalf of long-dead victims. Other than trying to divide people and encourage people to hate each other, what's the point?
We're not saying you should hurt your local [other people who are not like you]. But here's the reason they're not like you. Here's a story about why you should be angry at them.
But we're totally innocent of dividing people and fomenting hatred. Obviously.
Also, Europe had centuries of hereditary nobility. So the case can be made that the nobles and their descendants may owe the common people a sort of class-based debt. The US didn't. Class is just a talking-point in the US -- a way to divide people who have historically been equal under the law.
No-one's advocating hating other citizens...
https://www.google.com/search?...
So we cant point to problems anymore because then we're succumbing to some nebulous evil?
There's nothing nebulous about it. Dividing people into groups, and encouraging and widening the divisions, hyping up the hostility to gain power organizing one group against the other is almost the definition of evil.
Trying to bring people together, finding common ground, encouraging peace and empathy is the opposite.
Which are you doing? Do you want peace and empathy, or do you want victory for your side and some sort of so-called "justice"?
And i said absolutly nothing about "hating" others ...
Of course not. If you did, you might say... Well, you might say something very similar to what you said. But with exclamation points or something. For someone not intending evil, that should indicate more thoughtfulness might be in order.
Yay, finger-pointing! This will totally solve our problems.
One style of politics is to divide people into groups, tell them they should hate each other, and then gain power by organizing one group against the other. One argument against "class warfare" in the US is that we never had European-style "classes", and Americans shouldn't be divided up that way for the benefit of power-hungry would-be organization leaders.
Your argument seems to be the opposite: we should hate those other Americans in those other classes. Support your local politician! He's fighting for YOU! (Against your fellow Americans, over money someone else earned.).
Short-armed Tyrannosaurs are poorly served by erotic literature.
Do Gartner projections turn out to be accurate? How accurate? How often?
Ok. My advice is for the general case. Perhaps your case is special.
As long as there's something for someone to gain, expect the "struggle with sexual harassment" to continue. Here's to the day no one can benefit by dividing people and organizing one side against the other. Maybe someday our society will reach that level of enlightenment.