Bill O'Rielly might be "right" of you, but he's left of most conservatives. I would consider him a moderate for the most part. Fox News is pretty fair and balanced, but it does have opinion shows that are like editorials that do lean right. So what? One channel that has an opposing voice vs. many newspapers, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, NPR. You should be FOR opposing viewpoints if you are truly a free speech advocate. Those other channels might have a less evident bias to you because you are left leaning. Conservatives find these other channels VERY biased. Do you know of any of these studios that are located in red states? The people who work and write for these studios live in blue states and are therefore surrounded by group think. The same might go for you.
administration officials on fox news repeating the same damn talking points over and over
You mean like every Democrat going on the Sunday news shows and saying things like "culture of corruption?" Both sides do this. You like these comedians because they reinforce your own cynical viewpoint.
Those people working on it don't have to worry about delivering what people want in a timely manner. The people cannot complain because it is free, and the coders don't worry about losing money because they don't make any to begin with. Almost sounds like a recipe for mediocrity.
Nice jab, but the fake news is coming from the "Clinton News Network," the New York Slimes, and "MS-LSD". Comedians can get away with lies because they can always say "it was a joke!" In reality, all TV is pretty much junk. The left likes their beliefs to be reinforced just as anyone does, so they turn to Jon Stewart and the Jane Fonda/Ted Turner News Network. They are for free speech as long as it is in line with their own beliefs, which is why they hate the Fox News Channel and would not even let Dr. Laura on TV! When people who disagree with them finally get something on the air that is more in line with what they believe, then they cry foul! Hypocrites!
It isn't a black and white choice, it is a closed question of "either or" whose basis may be incorrect. You cannot have fuzzy logic without a 1 and a 0, and you cannot have a "gray area" without a black and white. The problem is in _proving_ whether something is true or not. G. W. misquoted Jesus when he said "those who are not for us are against us". What Jesus said was "those who are not against us are with us." They do not mean the same thing! Most Christians understood what he meant though. I bring this up because I hear a lot of this type of statement these days, even in the latest stupid Star Wars movie.
Yes, if the UN and those inspectors would have been listening to NPR, then they would have known that Iraq was complying and would not have needed to pass all those resolutions.
There was an article today about how the media wanted to watch something other than Fox News on Air Force One. They said it was because they thought Fox News leaned Republican. Nevermind that their channel of choice is the "Clinton News Network."
Really though, a "neutral point of view" is an oxymoron. One can lay out proven facts, but even how one lays out those facts can be tilted. One's choice of words can have different connotations, even to different readers.
No, I was referring to your family anecdote, further above in this thread, about advancement through effort and the superiority of the current American system.
I was not intending a straw man argument here. "Advancement through effort and the superiority of the current American system" shows the flaw in your thinking. People do not and should not advance through effort. Good ole' Supply and Demand is what determines a person's economic advancement. If a person is able to only supply what is not in demand (due to an oversupply of their knowledge or labor pool), then he or she will not (and should not) advance economically. Do you feel otherwise? If you do, then I would argue that you have some Adam Smith to be reading.
My point about the public school being a dismal failure was in reply to your statistics about a parent's wealth compared to a child's. If a parent is poor, then their child will probably go to public school. The public school is not teaching them what they need to become better off financially, and therefore it is a dismal failure in that regard. Their parent's obviously are not going to be able to teach them this information. You acted as though I changed the subject or something, but even you agree that this is the case about our public schools. You just would like to see more money thrown at them in order to fix them. I would like to see money attached to the student rather than the school and some good ole' Adam Smith competition in the school system.
Business interests are not anti-democratic. Businesses cannot vote, only individuals can. Therefore, the only way that businesses can subvert our democracy is by corrupting politicians. However, you discount the fact that politicians have children, and these business people have children, and their children will have children, and many will grow up in the US. You also discount the fact that businesses have competition from other businesses, and those businesses might be throwing money at politicians to oppose what the other businesses are advocating.
The only reason I bring up France, is because Democrats seem to use these socialist countries as models for what we should be like. They discount the fact that places like France have 50% unemployment in some places right now, whereas we have 4.9%. They discount the fact that they've never seen very much technological innovation from these countries (ever buy a French made car or computer?). They discount the fact that places like France have riots whenever the price of bread goes up.
I've enjoyed our discussion, I hope you also have a good day.
Society is not made up of individuals, distinct from each other.
If all those people that you list are concerned about fairness in government and industry, then you do have a pretty big sum. Democracies do answer to the majority for the most part. All you are doing is proving my point.
If this worked in practice, there would have been no need for the labor movements of the late 19th century, no need for the women's suffrage movement, no need for the civil rights movement, and certainly no need for the original American revolution.
Yes, but where do you draw the line? When everyone is forced to be equal?
... despite common American beliefs that, in general, if you work hard you'll be rewarded
You mean that if I move a heavy rock from point a to point b, then some money will fall from the sky? I can see how uneducated people might think this way. Having more opportunity for economic mobility is quite different than being able to take advantage of that opportunity. We all know that our public school system is a dismal failure, and if poor, uneducated parents cannot teach their children how to move up the ladder, then who will? There are dirt poor immigrants who come to this country and immediately start a business and become successful. It isn't for lack of opportunity. Like I said, if France is so much better, then why don't you move there?
Either people need to start a business to be successful, or they already are in business for themselves and something else is keeping everyone from being successful. I think it would be more honest to admit that markets by default encourage an ever smaller class of people with ever growing power and an ever growing class of people with ever diminishing power.
An individual is a business. They produce a product, which is their knowledge and labor. Many choose to work for an employer and therefore only have one customer. One can only get so far with having just one customer. People do this because of human nature.
Larger companies tend to be slow to react, full of bureaucracy, and hemorrhage waste. Microsoft started out as a very small company, so did Google. There are plenty of stories about the little guy running circles around the big guy. I really don't know where you get this thinking from. The US is full of Davids taking on Goliaths. When this stops happening, then we all should be worried.
You seem to think that businesses are not run by citizens of this country, and that these people don't come home and purchase products from other companies. There are a lot of small business owners who make a good living, but still have children that need to do the same. Not all of them will be able to take over the family business. These people are just as concerned as you or I about fairness in the government and industry. You seem to discount this fact.
I believe that insurance and entitlements are the major reason our health care system is a mess. Insurance is a pool of socialism swimming in a sea of capitalism. It hides the direct cost from the consumer. If drug companies could only sell to the rich, they would not make as much money. It would not be long before they lowered the cost enough to sell to the average person. Insurance keeps the price high because there is less price competition and transparency.
As far as ownership goes, people are much more likely to take care and look after something they own than something that is given to them. They are much more likely to question the cost, etc. Should we as a community help the poor and help people get back up when they are knocked down? Of course. But it should come from our hearts and not be forced upon us.
I mean really, can you imagine if every single person in the U.S. started their own business?
In a sense, everyone IS their own business RIGHT NOW. You are worth what the market demands and what you can provide to that market. Every person/business has an employer, whether it be an employer in the literal sense or the customer. People who run their own business are themselves consumers. You act as though if one had their own business, then they would not buy from other businesses. You also act as though if one had their own business, they would only work for that business. This is not true, as they would also "work" for the businesses and customers who they sell to. An employee is simply a person "business" who's only customer is the business that they work for.
Roads are different from internet access, because roads are physical infrastructure that must be cut through town and across land. We do not want to have to stop and pay some private company to use a road each day, nor do we want to have lots of redundant roads put there only so that multiple companies can compete for toll money. The same can be said about the actual physical power lines. Believe me, if I could find a better market driven alternative, I would be all over it.
I believe that Health Savings Accounts are a great idea. I believe that everyone should be required to have them and that the employer should help contribute matching funds. Adam Smith would want transparency in taxes and expense, which is exactly what HSAs enable. Insurance does not enable this because only the insurance company is concerned with the cost. If you had to pay for it yourself, you would know exactly how much it costs.
Quite the contrary. I am a huge fan of Adam Smith.
" For over 200 years, advocates of mercantilism, communism, socialism, price controls, protectionism, industrial policy, social engineering and other administered alternatives have all rejected this wisdom [Adam Smith's]. They have expended vast and varied efforts to improve on market results - and have all failed miserably - often with disastrous results that have blighted the lives of billions of people. Their "folly" was often vastly dangerous indeed."
Yes, when adults are in control. Unfortunately we've had the descendents of the John Birch society and the Goldwater movement in control of government for, arguably, upwards of 25-35 years. Their entire modus operandi is to make government inept, inefficient and unreliable so that they can say exactly what you're saying and dismantle it.
Nope. We've been trying to undo FDR's "raw deal" for the past 25-35 years. Where have you been?
Nope, it's the most successful, popular program in US government history. Sure, it could be better, particularly if the privatization fetishists would stop meddling with it.
It has only been successful because we've had more young people than old people. Government entitlements will always be popular as they allow us to abdicate our responsibilities to our own families and communities and let some beaurocratic institution in Washington do it for us.
You don't think a healthy, secure citizenry is better at participating in the economy and government than a sickly, insecure one?
In case you forgot, the US is currently a world super power. Our economy is the best in the world, and have one of the few governments that ISN"T socialist. If France is so great, go live their. They have 50% unemployment in some places! We don't even have nationalized health care!
Better than you. You seem to want to live under constant economic tyranny. No doubt you feel you'll logically be one of the elite who benefit from the system. "NEWS FLASH:" more likely you'll be one of the serfs. I'd bet you already are and don't even know it, though admittedly I don't know anything about your life and I may be wrong about what class you're in.
Let me see, my parents grew up in small mill towns where the only opportunity was working at the mill. They moved west and raised nine children with a blue collar income. Their parents could barely afford an automobile, but they owned several. I am college educated and make better money than they dreamed of. You see, most of the poor in this country own cars, microwaves, a washer and dryer, etc. With 4.9% unemployment, most can also find a decent job. In fact, nothing stops anyone from starting their own business and becoming successful. Ask the millions of immigrants that pour over our borders! If you think our system is so bad, move to France. I hear you can get a job for life over there!
Are you on crack? The government is the solution for reliability? Good thing you weren't a Katrina victim. Those public schools sure are reliable too. I love standing in line at the good ol' reliable DMV. NEWS FLASH--Social security is an unreliable FAILURE. I hate to break it to you, but people are not infrastructure. In the US, citizens ARE the government. Infrastructure is merely something that we must all share because there is no other alternative. You seem to have the desire to tell others how to live their lives and to force others to "share". Do you even understand the concept of freedom? If you like socialism so much, move to France.
Right wingers believe that you should give because of the kindness of your heart rather than because Uncle Sam holds a gun to your back. Red states would rather give directly to those who need it, rather than to give it to some guy in Washington to waste. Right wingers want to enable people to enable others, rather than create a dependency on government. Blue states act like they are for the poor, but then call them redneck hicks. They attack places where the poor shop, such as Wal Mart. You can't have it both ways.
Ha! True, we are not on the road to Communism. The poster could have at least wrote "socialism maybe, but not communism."
Fascism is a socialist ideology (left wing as far as American politics).
Those greedy right wingers in the red states give more to charity each year than those bleeding heart socialists in the blue states, even though they are generally poorer. Most right wingers do not consider roads or fire departments "socialist" institutions. This is because there is not a realistic way that one fire department can compete with another fire department for your dollar when your house is burning. It is also unrealistic to build x roads side-by-side so that x companies can compete for your dollar to get you around town. It isn't greed or money that drives right wingers, it is the realization that competition makes for better and cheaper service. It is also the realization that one cannot live in freedom while being taxed to death and being told how to live by people like you.
Oh, you like standing in line at the DMV too? Aren't our public schools great? That PBS is great too, because I like to be forced to support the arts. I mean, without ballet, who would entertain rich socialites? I think we should be more like the French and demand a job for life from our companies. If they don't give it to us, we should riot in the streets! I mean, we should all be able to sit around and drink wine and eat cheese right?
You are misinformed. Forcing whole communities to pay higher taxes for something that the private sector can do better and cheaper is just plain stupid. Some of the people in these cities may use the system for a few years, but then something better will come along that is offered by a telecom company or whatever. Many people will switch to that technology and gladly pay for it, but will then be forced to still pay for the city's net service. The leftists will then want a costly upgrade to the city's network, and everyone will pay even higher taxes for something they don't use. Businesses will not continue to use it because they will want to provide the best connection/technology to their customers and clients. Whenever people raise a stink about it and want "vouchers" so that people can choose their service, the leftists will complain that the well off can go to private companies and get better service, diverting money from the city-wide inferior network service and that all that is needed is to throw more money at it. Sound familiar?
The article includes some controversial statements recommending disposal of nuclear waste in tropical forests to keep forest land away from greedy developers and farmers
It would also keep away all those greedy eco-tourists and wacko environmentalists.
1. We don't live in a dictatorship because all we see is Bush bashing on television. That would most likely not happen in a dictatorship. The U.S. voted for Bush twice, so he must be doing the will of the people for the most part. And before you mention it, if the voting were fixed then Clinton would have never been elected. We would have had Bush's father for another term. And before you mention the patriot act or domestic spying, where were you when the widely publicized "Echelon" system was being developed/deployed during the Clinton administration?
2. We have some socialist policies left over from FDR, but fortunately we are not completely socialist.
There was a time when only the rich could afford automobiles. Now even many of the poorest in America have a car. Do you think it is because the government subsidized automobiles? Do you think it is because we had some insurance plan to allow everyone to have a vehicle? Nope. Pure and simple economics. Insurance is a pool of socialism floating in a sea of capitalism. It keeps prices high because nobody but the insurance company knows or cares about the true COST. Haven't you seen those medicare scooter commercials? "Just give us your medicare info and we'll take care of the rest." The elderly person doesn't care what the scooter costs. Those companies probably charge the taxpayer $30K for a $200 scooter. The other fallout is that insurance companies start to control everything we do. If we took the responsibility back, then we would be in control again.
No, you look at it by the price of the goods. Nobody _has_ to work for Wal-Mart. Also, I'm not sure you can use the terms "communist" and "outsourcing" in the same sentence. China is now nothing more than a pseudo-capitalist dictatorship with lots of potential customers, low cost labor, and a growing economy. Companies would be stupid not to take advantage of that. If they didn't, then their competition would eat them alive and they would be out of business. This means LAYOFFS. This means UNEMPLOYMENT. See how it works?
By forcing tech workers to become 1099 contractors, they force them to start their own business. This means that the tech worker can now hide their taxable income in their business just like their employers did. This also means that they can often work from home and choose their own hours. In fact, nothing is stopping them from becoming employers themselves "and doing all those evil things to their employees."
You are assuming that Wal-Mart has no competition when it comes to influencing government policy. A better analogy would be to imagine a sandbox (companies) playing in the sandbox (market) fighting for the same toys (customers) and trying to convince the teachers (government/politicians) that the others are the bullies and that they should be given special treatment. I agree with you that government needs to make sure the rules are applied across the board fairly. This does not mean that socialism is somehow the answer, or that Wal-Mart is evil. We elect the politicians who get corrupted and make the rules. We also allow our politicians to become corrupted by sending them to live among the upper crust and paying them more than the national average. The same goes for the Supreme Court Justices. They become removed from the people they represent or serve.
Defense companies are a different beast because their whole means of existence is because of government contracts. Without government contracts, these companies generally would not be able to continue to keep up a certain service. For instance, how can a fighter jet company be good at creating fighter jets without constantly being called upon to create them? If the government did not constantly give them contracts (thus limiting competition), how would they ever be good at what they do? It isn't like they can just sell fighter jets to anyone. They would go out of business very quickly if they had to compete with too many entities. These companies seem to be a necessary evil. They are the corporate equivalent of dependent welfare babies. The government under Clinton used Haliburton just as much as any other president, but I didn't hear any complaining about them back then.
Freedom requires rules, otherwise one person's freedom is another person's bondage. I don't know of very many people who would disagree. With rights come responsibilities. I dislike it when people say things like "it is a privilege to drive" or whatever. This implies that our rights are somehow bestowed upon us by government. _We_ are the government. If we abuse our rights by being really irresponsible, then we understand that we can lose our rights. We also understand that this is the worst thing one can do to another is to strip them of their rights. The government isn't some higher power savior. _We are the government._ We should always keep that in mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Bill O'Rielly might be "right" of you, but he's left of most conservatives. I would consider him a moderate for the most part. Fox News is pretty fair and balanced, but it does have opinion shows that are like editorials that do lean right. So what? One channel that has an opposing voice vs. many newspapers, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, NPR. You should be FOR opposing viewpoints if you are truly a free speech advocate. Those other channels might have a less evident bias to you because you are left leaning. Conservatives find these other channels VERY biased. Do you know of any of these studios that are located in red states? The people who work and write for these studios live in blue states and are therefore surrounded by group think. The same might go for you.
administration officials on fox news repeating the same damn talking points over and over
You mean like every Democrat going on the Sunday news shows and saying things like "culture of corruption?" Both sides do this. You like these comedians because they reinforce your own cynical viewpoint.
Those people working on it don't have to worry about delivering what people want in a timely manner. The people cannot complain because it is free, and the coders don't worry about losing money because they don't make any to begin with. Almost sounds like a recipe for mediocrity.
Nice jab, but the fake news is coming from the "Clinton News Network," the New York Slimes, and "MS-LSD". Comedians can get away with lies because they can always say "it was a joke!" In reality, all TV is pretty much junk. The left likes their beliefs to be reinforced just as anyone does, so they turn to Jon Stewart and the Jane Fonda/Ted Turner News Network. They are for free speech as long as it is in line with their own beliefs, which is why they hate the Fox News Channel and would not even let Dr. Laura on TV! When people who disagree with them finally get something on the air that is more in line with what they believe, then they cry foul! Hypocrites!
It isn't a black and white choice, it is a closed question of "either or" whose basis may be incorrect. You cannot have fuzzy logic without a 1 and a 0, and you cannot have a "gray area" without a black and white. The problem is in _proving_ whether something is true or not. G. W. misquoted Jesus when he said "those who are not for us are against us". What Jesus said was "those who are not against us are with us." They do not mean the same thing! Most Christians understood what he meant though. I bring this up because I hear a lot of this type of statement these days, even in the latest stupid Star Wars movie.
Yes, if the UN and those inspectors would have been listening to NPR, then they would have known that Iraq was complying and would not have needed to pass all those resolutions.
There was an article today about how the media wanted to watch something other than Fox News on Air Force One. They said it was because they thought Fox News leaned Republican. Nevermind that their channel of choice is the "Clinton News Network."
Really though, a "neutral point of view" is an oxymoron. One can lay out proven facts, but even how one lays out those facts can be tilted. One's choice of words can have different connotations, even to different readers.
No, I was referring to your family anecdote, further above in this thread, about advancement through effort and the superiority of the current American system.
I was not intending a straw man argument here. "Advancement through effort and the superiority of the current American system" shows the flaw in your thinking. People do not and should not advance through effort. Good ole' Supply and Demand is what determines a person's economic advancement. If a person is able to only supply what is not in demand (due to an oversupply of their knowledge or labor pool), then he or she will not (and should not) advance economically. Do you feel otherwise? If you do, then I would argue that you have some Adam Smith to be reading.
My point about the public school being a dismal failure was in reply to your statistics about a parent's wealth compared to a child's. If a parent is poor, then their child will probably go to public school. The public school is not teaching them what they need to become better off financially, and therefore it is a dismal failure in that regard. Their parent's obviously are not going to be able to teach them this information. You acted as though I changed the subject or something, but even you agree that this is the case about our public schools. You just would like to see more money thrown at them in order to fix them. I would like to see money attached to the student rather than the school and some good ole' Adam Smith competition in the school system.
Business interests are not anti-democratic. Businesses cannot vote, only individuals can. Therefore, the only way that businesses can subvert our democracy is by corrupting politicians. However, you discount the fact that politicians have children, and these business people have children, and their children will have children, and many will grow up in the US. You also discount the fact that businesses have competition from other businesses, and those businesses might be throwing money at politicians to oppose what the other businesses are advocating.
The only reason I bring up France, is because Democrats seem to use these socialist countries as models for what we should be like. They discount the fact that places like France have 50% unemployment in some places right now, whereas we have 4.9%. They discount the fact that they've never seen very much technological innovation from these countries (ever buy a French made car or computer?). They discount the fact that places like France have riots whenever the price of bread goes up.
I've enjoyed our discussion, I hope you also have a good day.
Society is not made up of individuals, distinct from each other.
... despite common American beliefs that, in general, if you work hard you'll be rewarded
If all those people that you list are concerned about fairness in government and industry, then you do have a pretty big sum. Democracies do answer to the majority for the most part. All you are doing is proving my point.
If this worked in practice, there would have been no need for the labor movements of the late 19th century, no need for the women's suffrage movement, no need for the civil rights movement, and certainly no need for the original American revolution.
Yes, but where do you draw the line? When everyone is forced to be equal?
You mean that if I move a heavy rock from point a to point b, then some money will fall from the sky? I can see how uneducated people might think this way. Having more opportunity for economic mobility is quite different than being able to take advantage of that opportunity. We all know that our public school system is a dismal failure, and if poor, uneducated parents cannot teach their children how to move up the ladder, then who will? There are dirt poor immigrants who come to this country and immediately start a business and become successful. It isn't for lack of opportunity. Like I said, if France is so much better, then why don't you move there?
Either people need to start a business to be successful, or they already are in business for themselves and something else is keeping everyone from being successful. I think it would be more honest to admit that markets by default encourage an ever smaller class of people with ever growing power and an ever growing class of people with ever diminishing power.
An individual is a business. They produce a product, which is their knowledge and labor. Many choose to work for an employer and therefore only have one customer. One can only get so far with having just one customer. People do this because of human nature.
Larger companies tend to be slow to react, full of bureaucracy, and hemorrhage waste. Microsoft started out as a very small company, so did Google. There are plenty of stories about the little guy running circles around the big guy. I really don't know where you get this thinking from. The US is full of Davids taking on Goliaths. When this stops happening, then we all should be worried.
You seem to think that businesses are not run by citizens of this country, and that these people don't come home and purchase products from other companies. There are a lot of small business owners who make a good living, but still have children that need to do the same. Not all of them will be able to take over the family business. These people are just as concerned as you or I about fairness in the government and industry. You seem to discount this fact.
I believe that insurance and entitlements are the major reason our health care system is a mess. Insurance is a pool of socialism swimming in a sea of capitalism. It hides the direct cost from the consumer. If drug companies could only sell to the rich, they would not make as much money. It would not be long before they lowered the cost enough to sell to the average person. Insurance keeps the price high because there is less price competition and transparency.
As far as ownership goes, people are much more likely to take care and look after something they own than something that is given to them. They are much more likely to question the cost, etc. Should we as a community help the poor and help people get back up when they are knocked down? Of course. But it should come from our hearts and not be forced upon us.
I mean really, can you imagine if every single person in the U.S. started their own business?
In a sense, everyone IS their own business RIGHT NOW. You are worth what the market demands and what you can provide to that market. Every person/business has an employer, whether it be an employer in the literal sense or the customer. People who run their own business are themselves consumers. You act as though if one had their own business, then they would not buy from other businesses. You also act as though if one had their own business, they would only work for that business. This is not true, as they would also "work" for the businesses and customers who they sell to. An employee is simply a person "business" who's only customer is the business that they work for.
Roads are different from internet access, because roads are physical infrastructure that must be cut through town and across land. We do not want to have to stop and pay some private company to use a road each day, nor do we want to have lots of redundant roads put there only so that multiple companies can compete for toll money. The same can be said about the actual physical power lines. Believe me, if I could find a better market driven alternative, I would be all over it.
I believe that Health Savings Accounts are a great idea. I believe that everyone should be required to have them and that the employer should help contribute matching funds. Adam Smith would want transparency in taxes and expense, which is exactly what HSAs enable. Insurance does not enable this because only the insurance company is concerned with the cost. If you had to pay for it yourself, you would know exactly how much it costs.
Quite the contrary. I am a huge fan of Adam Smith.
0 Nations%20(II).htm
"
For over 200 years, advocates of mercantilism, communism, socialism, price controls, protectionism, industrial policy, social engineering and other administered alternatives have all rejected this wisdom [Adam Smith's]. They have expended vast and varied efforts to improve on market results - and have all failed miserably - often with disastrous results that have blighted the lives of billions of people. Their "folly" was often vastly dangerous indeed."
From:
http://www.futurecasts.com/Smith,%20Wealth%20of%2
What is your point?
Yes, when adults are in control. Unfortunately we've had the descendents of the John Birch society and the Goldwater movement in control of government for, arguably, upwards of 25-35 years. Their entire modus operandi is to make government inept, inefficient and unreliable so that they can say exactly what you're saying and dismantle it.
Nope. We've been trying to undo FDR's "raw deal" for the past 25-35 years. Where have you been?
Nope, it's the most successful, popular program in US government history. Sure, it could be better, particularly if the privatization fetishists would stop meddling with it.
It has only been successful because we've had more young people than old people. Government entitlements will always be popular as they allow us to abdicate our responsibilities to our own families and communities and let some beaurocratic institution in Washington do it for us.
You don't think a healthy, secure citizenry is better at participating in the economy and government than a sickly, insecure one?
In case you forgot, the US is currently a world super power. Our economy is the best in the world, and have one of the few governments that ISN"T socialist. If France is so great, go live their. They have 50% unemployment in some places! We don't even have nationalized health care!
Better than you. You seem to want to live under constant economic tyranny. No doubt you feel you'll logically be one of the elite who benefit from the system. "NEWS FLASH:" more likely you'll be one of the serfs. I'd bet you already are and don't even know it, though admittedly I don't know anything about your life and I may be wrong about what class you're in.
Let me see, my parents grew up in small mill towns where the only opportunity was working at the mill. They moved west and raised nine children with a blue collar income. Their parents could barely afford an automobile, but they owned several. I am college educated and make better money than they dreamed of. You see, most of the poor in this country own cars, microwaves, a washer and dryer, etc. With 4.9% unemployment, most can also find a decent job. In fact, nothing stops anyone from starting their own business and becoming successful. Ask the millions of immigrants that pour over our borders! If you think our system is so bad, move to France. I hear you can get a job for life over there!
Are you on crack? The government is the solution for reliability? Good thing you weren't a Katrina victim. Those public schools sure are reliable too. I love standing in line at the good ol' reliable DMV. NEWS FLASH--Social security is an unreliable FAILURE. I hate to break it to you, but people are not infrastructure. In the US, citizens ARE the government. Infrastructure is merely something that we must all share because there is no other alternative. You seem to have the desire to tell others how to live their lives and to force others to "share". Do you even understand the concept of freedom? If you like socialism so much, move to France.
Slashdot's point and karma system really sucks. This thread is a prime example.
Just the facts, here is some data to back it up:
n erosity.php?year=2004
http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/ge
Right wingers believe that you should give because of the kindness of your heart rather than because Uncle Sam holds a gun to your back. Red states would rather give directly to those who need it, rather than to give it to some guy in Washington to waste. Right wingers want to enable people to enable others, rather than create a dependency on government. Blue states act like they are for the poor, but then call them redneck hicks. They attack places where the poor shop, such as Wal Mart. You can't have it both ways.
Ha! True, we are not on the road to Communism. The poster could have at least wrote "socialism maybe, but not communism." Fascism is a socialist ideology (left wing as far as American politics).
Those greedy right wingers in the red states give more to charity each year than those bleeding heart socialists in the blue states, even though they are generally poorer. Most right wingers do not consider roads or fire departments "socialist" institutions. This is because there is not a realistic way that one fire department can compete with another fire department for your dollar when your house is burning. It is also unrealistic to build x roads side-by-side so that x companies can compete for your dollar to get you around town. It isn't greed or money that drives right wingers, it is the realization that competition makes for better and cheaper service. It is also the realization that one cannot live in freedom while being taxed to death and being told how to live by people like you.
Oh, you like standing in line at the DMV too? Aren't our public schools great? That PBS is great too, because I like to be forced to support the arts. I mean, without ballet, who would entertain rich socialites? I think we should be more like the French and demand a job for life from our companies. If they don't give it to us, we should riot in the streets! I mean, we should all be able to sit around and drink wine and eat cheese right?
Why stop there? How about "free" cars and airplanes for everyone? How about free space ships? I'll need one of those to get away from people like you!
You are misinformed. Forcing whole communities to pay higher taxes for something that the private sector can do better and cheaper is just plain stupid. Some of the people in these cities may use the system for a few years, but then something better will come along that is offered by a telecom company or whatever. Many people will switch to that technology and gladly pay for it, but will then be forced to still pay for the city's net service. The leftists will then want a costly upgrade to the city's network, and everyone will pay even higher taxes for something they don't use. Businesses will not continue to use it because they will want to provide the best connection/technology to their customers and clients. Whenever people raise a stink about it and want "vouchers" so that people can choose their service, the leftists will complain that the well off can go to private companies and get better service, diverting money from the city-wide inferior network service and that all that is needed is to throw more money at it. Sound familiar?
The article includes some controversial statements recommending disposal of nuclear waste in tropical forests to keep forest land away from greedy developers and farmers
It would also keep away all those greedy eco-tourists and wacko environmentalists.
1. We don't live in a dictatorship because all we see is Bush bashing on television. That would most likely not happen in a dictatorship. The U.S. voted for Bush twice, so he must be doing the will of the people for the most part. And before you mention it, if the voting were fixed then Clinton would have never been elected. We would have had Bush's father for another term. And before you mention the patriot act or domestic spying, where were you when the widely publicized "Echelon" system was being developed/deployed during the Clinton administration? 2. We have some socialist policies left over from FDR, but fortunately we are not completely socialist.
There was a time when only the rich could afford automobiles. Now even many of the poorest in America have a car. Do you think it is because the government subsidized automobiles? Do you think it is because we had some insurance plan to allow everyone to have a vehicle? Nope. Pure and simple economics. Insurance is a pool of socialism floating in a sea of capitalism. It keeps prices high because nobody but the insurance company knows or cares about the true COST. Haven't you seen those medicare scooter commercials? "Just give us your medicare info and we'll take care of the rest." The elderly person doesn't care what the scooter costs. Those companies probably charge the taxpayer $30K for a $200 scooter. The other fallout is that insurance companies start to control everything we do. If we took the responsibility back, then we would be in control again.
No, you look at it by the price of the goods. Nobody _has_ to work for Wal-Mart. Also, I'm not sure you can use the terms "communist" and "outsourcing" in the same sentence. China is now nothing more than a pseudo-capitalist dictatorship with lots of potential customers, low cost labor, and a growing economy. Companies would be stupid not to take advantage of that. If they didn't, then their competition would eat them alive and they would be out of business. This means LAYOFFS. This means UNEMPLOYMENT. See how it works?
By forcing tech workers to become 1099 contractors, they force them to start their own business. This means that the tech worker can now hide their taxable income in their business just like their employers did. This also means that they can often work from home and choose their own hours. In fact, nothing is stopping them from becoming employers themselves "and doing all those evil things to their employees."
You are assuming that Wal-Mart has no competition when it comes to influencing government policy. A better analogy would be to imagine a sandbox (companies) playing in the sandbox (market) fighting for the same toys (customers) and trying to convince the teachers (government/politicians) that the others are the bullies and that they should be given special treatment. I agree with you that government needs to make sure the rules are applied across the board fairly. This does not mean that socialism is somehow the answer, or that Wal-Mart is evil. We elect the politicians who get corrupted and make the rules. We also allow our politicians to become corrupted by sending them to live among the upper crust and paying them more than the national average. The same goes for the Supreme Court Justices. They become removed from the people they represent or serve.
Defense companies are a different beast because their whole means of existence is because of government contracts. Without government contracts, these companies generally would not be able to continue to keep up a certain service. For instance, how can a fighter jet company be good at creating fighter jets without constantly being called upon to create them? If the government did not constantly give them contracts (thus limiting competition), how would they ever be good at what they do? It isn't like they can just sell fighter jets to anyone. They would go out of business very quickly if they had to compete with too many entities. These companies seem to be a necessary evil. They are the corporate equivalent of dependent welfare babies. The government under Clinton used Haliburton just as much as any other president, but I didn't hear any complaining about them back then.
Freedom requires rules, otherwise one person's freedom is another person's bondage. I don't know of very many people who would disagree. With rights come responsibilities. I dislike it when people say things like "it is a privilege to drive" or whatever. This implies that our rights are somehow bestowed upon us by government. _We_ are the government. If we abuse our rights by being really irresponsible, then we understand that we can lose our rights. We also understand that this is the worst thing one can do to another is to strip them of their rights. The government isn't some higher power savior. _We are the government._ We should always keep that in mind.