Why do people think Socialism is Evil

[Wyatt]

Like I said I feel ya. but It's porbably not gonna happen to YOU. It's the future generatrions that your're doing it for. I ask, do you have more than your parents did? The obvious is, yes the standard of liveing is higher all over the place since then. But you have to work your ass off untill you need a cushin to sit down, then you can rest. It's a very long procces but it will change.

take a look around America today, and tell me WE are better off than our parents are/were. the biggest depression in US history, the biggest budget in US history, 2 wars, $4-5-6 a gallon gas (last summer), property taxes sky high through most of the nation, housing markets in free fall from a bloated high that never should have been in the first place.

let me tell you a little story. my grandmother, (my mothers mother) raised 5 kids out of 7 (2 died young) worked all her life as a mother and partner to my grandfather on their dairy farm. my grandfather got cancer so they sold the farm but he died within 6 weeks of him finding out so there wasnt much in the way of medical bills, anyhow she went to work then in a factory (the same one my mother put 35 years into), worked there for 10 years and retired. between the cash she had from the sale of the farm and the income from working in a factory she managed to afford to buy her own home, a double wide trailor on a 3/4 acre plot of land that her sister owned. not a bad little deal right? a nice 'nest egg' for having worked for her entire life farming and factory work.

then comes old age, what cash she had left, never more than maybe $10,000 was gone within 5 years paying for doctors, her income on social security was as of last month $728 a month so she qualified for medicaid (one of those 'socialist' programs so many seem to be against) anyhow in order to GET medicaid she has had to basicaly give them ALL her wealth that shes gaind over her life time, she has nothing left but her home and her social security check, and when she dies her home will go too the government as 'repayment' for her medical expences.

i didnt tell you this for sympathy, neither i nor her would really want it, i tell you this because when you say things like we can pass on to our children what we build........ your wrong. we get what we build wiped out because of medical bills and our children far from getting any form of Inheritance actualy often times end up going into debt THEMSELVES to pay for care of their parents.

our medical system in this country is sucking the life out of the lower and even the middle classes. my grandmother has wracked up well over a million dollers in medical bills in the last 15 years. if it wasnt for that security net of medicaid she would have been dead long ago. far from complaining that she has had to lose everything she ever worked for im HAPPY that there was that net in place. i dont hold the government at fault because they will take her home after shes gone im happy they will pay her medical bills too keep her here with us.

but dopnt talk to me at ALL about how we can build up our childrens future, its a myth, a lie. all you need to do is too stop spewing propiganda about the American dream for a moment and actualy take a look around at the American reality. maybe YOUR in a comfortable position at the moment, but i ask you, do you even see the people around you anymore? how many storys have you heard like mine? do you LISTEN too them? or do you shrug and say 'tough luck for you. but America is still great'?

i share your faith in America, i really REALLY do. we CAN be great, we have the drive and the ability and the faith in ourselves to make one fucking amazing nation. we CAN build that beacon on a hill. but we cant do it while we ignore reality slaping us in the face every day. our lives are getting worse as the generations go by not better, its not just the fact im 'poor' (im not according to the government and economists) that is causing me to speak like this its simple common sense. you dont get too work and build for your children, the numbers dont add up. you work your whole life and if you can build a nest egg fund of a million or so all it will take is one bout with cancer, or an on going heart condition, or just simply growing older to wipe out everything you worked for in your life and then some, once YOUR moneys gone its up too the government to fund the rest, you not only dont get to pass anything on, but your actualy sucking the life out of future generations also. via taxes for medical spending or direct from children paying their parents medical bills.

youe damn right i want some socialism especialy when it comes to medical support because the American dream you champion is DoA for most Americans, even the middle class. the gap between rich and even middle class in this nation is HUGE and growing larger, the poor you may as sell forget them every chaing anything, they are locked into a cycle that not only doesnt allow them to even build a future for their children but often times robs those children NOW to pay for their parents ............ this is the reality.

ignore it at your own risk.

 

[n64link]

I listen, I know life sucks. But without hope and faith, even if only in yourself, It will never get better. Yes the economy is bad right now but it will turn around, people thougt the Carter years were the end of times then it picked back up. Think, what is the cause for all of these problems we have now? People, people who do the wrong thing. You can lay a foundatin for your kids, one of hard work and knoledge. If they work hard and plan things out, they can earn more money. Also, they need to learn to adapt with the feilds. right now tech jobs are high and soon, nobody will be trying for a craft. That's what's happen down here already. To many doctors and lawyers and not enough plumbers, electritions, carpenters, etc...

If you worry about you kids going into debt for you, don't let them. That's all there is to it, It's cruel by any standards but if there is no us at that point, then they won't have to pay for our well being.

And yes, I am against medicaid and medicare and I will never use them. As you said, paying for medical in taxes. That's what I hate, yes I'm a cold bastard, that's all. There are times to help others and times to help yourself. I don't want the government telling me which and when.

I am better off than my parents. I know more now then they did when they were my age, and that's why I'm better.

I'll be strait with you, The reason I have so much hope is that I've met too many people who have come from **** nothing and made a live for themselves. My boss grew up on a dirt farm in canada and his wife grew up in soviet ukranie. They are worth a few million and even they have to worry about money. I've talked to them about the wonders of socialism and they are why i have no tollerance for it. Hell my family jas gone from not haveing food to having a live in maid and back to worrying about food in one generration. Getting there is hard staying there is harder.

 

[Low Key]

Yeah socialisms absolutley horrible sucks having an nhs and seeing a doctor withing 15 minutes of calling every time or free prescriptions when a student/unemployed or free operations or free dental care if unemployed/a student how the hell have we not started eating each other yet?!?

RUN AMERICA RUN FROM THIS NIGHTMARE! /sarcasm

This made me laugh pretty hard mostly because it is sooooo stereotypical of my fellow Americans. Hell I guess you can't expect much when you have talking heads like Glenn Beck who tell everyone that healthcare is a privilege and not a right. I guess Glenn Beck should tell that to people who have had children die in childbirth since we have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World. I guess having your babies die is a privilege. Hur Hur. And for those who couldn't tell I'm being sarcastic about the last bit.

To be honest the lack of adopting certain Socialist programs is the biggest reason I am looking at leaving this country. I couldn't look myself in the mirror if one of my children died because of our shoddy medical system. I am more then willing to give up my Second Amendment Rights which I hold dear if it means I can raise children with a good education and proper medical care.

Our shoddy medical system that just gave a woman who couldn't eat, drink, or breathe without a tube in her throat a face transplant (One of the first, and the most extensive) so she can do all those things normally again? She may disagree with you.

Haha ignorance is bliss. The first face transplant was done in India with France right behind it. So you were saying?

That's why I said ONE of the first, but the most extensive. But I guess any old shoddy medical system can do that now, it's just those first timers that are up to par. And where are you expecting to find better? There's already multiple people from universal health care countries talking about 3-5 hour waits in this thread.

You should visit an inner-city American Hospital where they turn away people at ERs. 5 hour waits would be heaven. Maybe you should get out of your Ivory Tower a little and see the real America.

EMTALA legally prevents hospitals from turning people away at ERs. Interestingly, it doesn't allocae funding towards paying for emergency treatment. A lot of hospitals are actually being forced to close due to a combination of EMTALA costs and legal fees. I don't want to bombard this thread with quotes from experts, but I can back this claim up if you want me to.

Which only pertains to hospitals that are not privately owned hence why a lot of hospitals are going this route. Atlanta, Georgia is the priemer example of shafting the Inner-City by making the only available hospitals private and therefor able to turn people away. Which is one of the biggest reasons Atlanta has been in a major decline. That the government allows this loophole is disgusting but that is America.

I'm roughly 99% sure that EMTALA also applies to private hospitals, at least to some capacity. I'll have to double check that one though, and you might just be right.

It might. I have always been under the impression that Private Hospitals were able to avoid this through some loophole I would hope it is not true but with all the other loopholes in American Healthcare it wouldn't surprise me.

I checked the text of EMTALA. It's pretty convoluted, but they basically say that any hospital that receives government money from Medicare is "participating" in EMTALA. This basically includes all public and private hospitals.

Which basically means don't take government and you can shaft anyone you want. Which I believe is the case in Atlanta where hospitals stopped taking medicare so they could turn away poor blacks.

Now who's the conspiracy theorist?

Again, what exactly are you proposing? That private hospitals be forced to treat all patients for all conditions?

I don't think anyone is going to turn away someone who is dying, but what right do you have to tell a privately owned business, (yes a hospital is a business), to take a cut in their income in order to treat a stuffy nose?

The whole point is it should never have become a business only in America could be so convoluted and it will be our downfall. While the greedy and rich trample the poor masses and claim they gained their profit from the sweat of their own brow when in reality it came form the broken backs of the masses they trampled. Privatizing Hospitals is madness and anyone who agrees with such a bizarre Healthcare system is equally insane and sociopathic.

Privatized health care has its problems, but it's not that bad. It does lead to more R & D than state run hospitals, since private hospitals are more concerned with efficiency and effectiveness, especially in terms of competing with other hospitals. The failure here is a combination of poorly designed regulation, more poorly designed regulation to try and fix problems with earlier poorly designed regulation, and, yes, less than reputable private owners.

So at first you say its not that bad then describe a situation that is much worse...irony? You can have all the R&D in the world but that you can't honestly take care of infants and have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World with most of the First World being on a Socialized Health Care system then it is honestly time to do a gut check. You can kick around theorycrafting all you want but at the end of the day our Health Care system is beyond the point of broken.

That a majority of Americans in various polls have stated they put off going to the doctor because of the bills thus leading to an increase of more deadly diseases happening or even death that is a problem. That you have the Lower and Middle Class more worried about putting food on the table instead of taking care of themselves you have a broken Economic, Social and Health System.

Different contexts and scenarios demand different solutions. If anyone is "theorycrafting" it's the people who simply say "socialized health care works in [name a Western European country or Canada], so it should be implemented here" The problem is that the USA has too much of an ingrained privatization ethic for socialized health care to be politically practical. Further, the USA also has a political system that would be terrible for managing a system of socialized health care. Specifically, we have too many constraints on government action, as well as legal issues, for socialized health care to work. Further, politicians in the US have to depend a lot more on popular appeal than in other countries. An American socialized health care system would be unmanageable since it would never gain enough political traction to secure good, long-term funding. Any attempts to increase funding would be labeled "pork" by opposition groups, and on top of that every several years the entire policy would be revamped based on whichever political party had the majority.

Further, America has already tried to regulate health care and failed at it. Programs such as Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Welfare, and a slew of other programs are all poorly designed and irreparably broken. This isn't to say government needs to shrink, but it is to say that government in America is currently atrociously inefficient at doing what it tries to do. If these programs were redesigned they could be effective, but right now most of the money goes into administrative costs and wasteful spending.

Oh I don't disagree it is just the fact that the American People are so scared of Socialism ironically enough by our own Government that it isn't a legitimate option. The US Government has been inefficient for a longtime but that is because it refuses to modernize itself to a rapidly changing world with different parameters then our Founding Fathers could ever have imagined. So all in all it comes down to three options: Rigorous Reform that will be brutally slow, Revolution or Emigrating and to be honest the latter option is the most realistic.

America was never supposed to be "the great utilitarian experiment", the whole basis for America's existence is with individual rights, liberty, autonomy, etc. You're making the invalid assumption that a utilitarian socialist approach is universally superior; You're ignoring the fact that there are other standards for evaluating policy decisions besides net utilitarian benefit. It's logically leading you towards argumentative territory you don't want to end up in.

Yes but I'm utilitarian by nature so I have no other measure to judge it by. Nor am I going to bother I can see other points of view but I fail to see the logic in not taking a utilitarian approach to government.

No, the problem isn't that you're not being "not-utilitarian", the problem is that you're not recognizing any merit to non-utilitarianism at all. You're clinging to the notion that you are right and I (and others who disagree with you) are wrong, but this is an almost "colonialist" position. It goes nothing short of calling those you disagree with "savages"; un-enlightened, and evil. According to you we need to be shown the way, with force if needed (your point about revolution earlier is indicative of this).

I would just say we are at an impasse.

Who said I was arguing against you? I'm merely pointing out that you are in a logical trap: either a. you're arguing that socialism is inherently right and socialists logically must therefore have an inherent obligation to spread socialism, even via force if needed (colonialism), or b. you're forced to concede socialism isn't inherently and universally the only "right" option. Pick one, otherwise you re essentially conceding the argument by forfeit.

Socialism obviously isn't inherently right nor did I ever say that. My point was that is was a far better option especially stability wise then Laissez-faire capitalism or whatever we are calling America's weird schizophrenic bastard child of an economy these days.

Your comment about revolution and emigration being the only options indicate otherwise.

I also said reform.

The point is that capitalists are the ones who have to change, according to you. That's the part that's problematic, not the way in which change comes about.

Uhh your point being? How can the workers possibly change? They don't have jobs because the capitalists have outsourced all labour you can't possibly be serious and say the blame is equal because it isn't. The American Economy and Society has been severely imbalanced for a long time. To honestly suggest that the capitalists shouldn't be the ones to change is pretty much putting ones head in the sand unless you can tell me how stripping this nation of most of its production jobs and trying to turn us into a Management economy was some kind of stroke of genius?

The capitalists tried to put something in place so workers could get a fair break. They are called unions. Unfortunately, the mafia started it off by strong arming honest people out of jobs so their workers could take over. And now, union bosses are just as bad as greedy businessmen. Don't go trying to blame that on capitalism, because that isn't the problem. It's the inherent evil people try to get away with when others aren't looking which got us into this mess. The only difference between the government and the workers is the government makes it seem like they are taking our money for the greater good when we all know they don't spend tax money like they should. Giving them more power than they already have would only make it worse.

Is this a joke or did you just attribute a Socialist Principle of Unions and say it was capitalist? Oh you are very deluded.

No, you comprehended it that way. As for me being deluded, maybe I am, but no more than yourself. Just know, your opinion is in the minority, and there is a reason why. Maybe one day you'll figure out that reason, but with the way you constantly talk down to people, I highly doubt it. I'd be willing to bet if you weren't sitting in front of that monitor, you wouldn't have the cojones to mutter half the smack you talk about people.

 

[Shotgunbunny]

I'm also a major socialist, I mean, what is the primary virtue of a good government? Taking care of it's people, I say.

 

[Rajin Cajun]

Yeah socialisms absolutley horrible sucks having an nhs and seeing a doctor withing 15 minutes of calling every time or free prescriptions when a student/unemployed or free operations or free dental care if unemployed/a student how the hell have we not started eating each other yet?!?

RUN AMERICA RUN FROM THIS NIGHTMARE! /sarcasm

This made me laugh pretty hard mostly because it is sooooo stereotypical of my fellow Americans. Hell I guess you can't expect much when you have talking heads like Glenn Beck who tell everyone that healthcare is a privilege and not a right. I guess Glenn Beck should tell that to people who have had children die in childbirth since we have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World. I guess having your babies die is a privilege. Hur Hur. And for those who couldn't tell I'm being sarcastic about the last bit.

To be honest the lack of adopting certain Socialist programs is the biggest reason I am looking at leaving this country. I couldn't look myself in the mirror if one of my children died because of our shoddy medical system. I am more then willing to give up my Second Amendment Rights which I hold dear if it means I can raise children with a good education and proper medical care.

Our shoddy medical system that just gave a woman who couldn't eat, drink, or breathe without a tube in her throat a face transplant (One of the first, and the most extensive) so she can do all those things normally again? She may disagree with you.

Haha ignorance is bliss. The first face transplant was done in India with France right behind it. So you were saying?

That's why I said ONE of the first, but the most extensive. But I guess any old shoddy medical system can do that now, it's just those first timers that are up to par. And where are you expecting to find better? There's already multiple people from universal health care countries talking about 3-5 hour waits in this thread.

You should visit an inner-city American Hospital where they turn away people at ERs. 5 hour waits would be heaven. Maybe you should get out of your Ivory Tower a little and see the real America.

EMTALA legally prevents hospitals from turning people away at ERs. Interestingly, it doesn't allocae funding towards paying for emergency treatment. A lot of hospitals are actually being forced to close due to a combination of EMTALA costs and legal fees. I don't want to bombard this thread with quotes from experts, but I can back this claim up if you want me to.

Which only pertains to hospitals that are not privately owned hence why a lot of hospitals are going this route. Atlanta, Georgia is the priemer example of shafting the Inner-City by making the only available hospitals private and therefor able to turn people away. Which is one of the biggest reasons Atlanta has been in a major decline. That the government allows this loophole is disgusting but that is America.

I'm roughly 99% sure that EMTALA also applies to private hospitals, at least to some capacity. I'll have to double check that one though, and you might just be right.

It might. I have always been under the impression that Private Hospitals were able to avoid this through some loophole I would hope it is not true but with all the other loopholes in American Healthcare it wouldn't surprise me.

I checked the text of EMTALA. It's pretty convoluted, but they basically say that any hospital that receives government money from Medicare is "participating" in EMTALA. This basically includes all public and private hospitals.

Which basically means don't take government and you can shaft anyone you want. Which I believe is the case in Atlanta where hospitals stopped taking medicare so they could turn away poor blacks.

Now who's the conspiracy theorist?

Again, what exactly are you proposing? That private hospitals be forced to treat all patients for all conditions?

I don't think anyone is going to turn away someone who is dying, but what right do you have to tell a privately owned business, (yes a hospital is a business), to take a cut in their income in order to treat a stuffy nose?

The whole point is it should never have become a business only in America could be so convoluted and it will be our downfall. While the greedy and rich trample the poor masses and claim they gained their profit from the sweat of their own brow when in reality it came form the broken backs of the masses they trampled. Privatizing Hospitals is madness and anyone who agrees with such a bizarre Healthcare system is equally insane and sociopathic.

Privatized health care has its problems, but it's not that bad. It does lead to more R & D than state run hospitals, since private hospitals are more concerned with efficiency and effectiveness, especially in terms of competing with other hospitals. The failure here is a combination of poorly designed regulation, more poorly designed regulation to try and fix problems with earlier poorly designed regulation, and, yes, less than reputable private owners.

So at first you say its not that bad then describe a situation that is much worse...irony? You can have all the R&D in the world but that you can't honestly take care of infants and have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World with most of the First World being on a Socialized Health Care system then it is honestly time to do a gut check. You can kick around theorycrafting all you want but at the end of the day our Health Care system is beyond the point of broken.

That a majority of Americans in various polls have stated they put off going to the doctor because of the bills thus leading to an increase of more deadly diseases happening or even death that is a problem. That you have the Lower and Middle Class more worried about putting food on the table instead of taking care of themselves you have a broken Economic, Social and Health System.

Different contexts and scenarios demand different solutions. If anyone is "theorycrafting" it's the people who simply say "socialized health care works in [name a Western European country or Canada], so it should be implemented here" The problem is that the USA has too much of an ingrained privatization ethic for socialized health care to be politically practical. Further, the USA also has a political system that would be terrible for managing a system of socialized health care. Specifically, we have too many constraints on government action, as well as legal issues, for socialized health care to work. Further, politicians in the US have to depend a lot more on popular appeal than in other countries. An American socialized health care system would be unmanageable since it would never gain enough political traction to secure good, long-term funding. Any attempts to increase funding would be labeled "pork" by opposition groups, and on top of that every several years the entire policy would be revamped based on whichever political party had the majority.

Further, America has already tried to regulate health care and failed at it. Programs such as Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Welfare, and a slew of other programs are all poorly designed and irreparably broken. This isn't to say government needs to shrink, but it is to say that government in America is currently atrociously inefficient at doing what it tries to do. If these programs were redesigned they could be effective, but right now most of the money goes into administrative costs and wasteful spending.

Oh I don't disagree it is just the fact that the American People are so scared of Socialism ironically enough by our own Government that it isn't a legitimate option. The US Government has been inefficient for a longtime but that is because it refuses to modernize itself to a rapidly changing world with different parameters then our Founding Fathers could ever have imagined. So all in all it comes down to three options: Rigorous Reform that will be brutally slow, Revolution or Emigrating and to be honest the latter option is the most realistic.

America was never supposed to be "the great utilitarian experiment", the whole basis for America's existence is with individual rights, liberty, autonomy, etc. You're making the invalid assumption that a utilitarian socialist approach is universally superior; You're ignoring the fact that there are other standards for evaluating policy decisions besides net utilitarian benefit. It's logically leading you towards argumentative territory you don't want to end up in.

Yes but I'm utilitarian by nature so I have no other measure to judge it by. Nor am I going to bother I can see other points of view but I fail to see the logic in not taking a utilitarian approach to government.

No, the problem isn't that you're not being "not-utilitarian", the problem is that you're not recognizing any merit to non-utilitarianism at all. You're clinging to the notion that you are right and I (and others who disagree with you) are wrong, but this is an almost "colonialist" position. It goes nothing short of calling those you disagree with "savages"; un-enlightened, and evil. According to you we need to be shown the way, with force if needed (your point about revolution earlier is indicative of this).

I would just say we are at an impasse.

Who said I was arguing against you? I'm merely pointing out that you are in a logical trap: either a. you're arguing that socialism is inherently right and socialists logically must therefore have an inherent obligation to spread socialism, even via force if needed (colonialism), or b. you're forced to concede socialism isn't inherently and universally the only "right" option. Pick one, otherwise you re essentially conceding the argument by forfeit.

Socialism obviously isn't inherently right nor did I ever say that. My point was that is was a far better option especially stability wise then Laissez-faire capitalism or whatever we are calling America's weird schizophrenic bastard child of an economy these days.

Your comment about revolution and emigration being the only options indicate otherwise.

I also said reform.

The point is that capitalists are the ones who have to change, according to you. That's the part that's problematic, not the way in which change comes about.

Uhh your point being? How can the workers possibly change? They don't have jobs because the capitalists have outsourced all labour you can't possibly be serious and say the blame is equal because it isn't. The American Economy and Society has been severely imbalanced for a long time. To honestly suggest that the capitalists shouldn't be the ones to change is pretty much putting ones head in the sand unless you can tell me how stripping this nation of most of its production jobs and trying to turn us into a Management economy was some kind of stroke of genius?

The capitalists tried to put something in place so workers could get a fair break. They are called unions. Unfortunately, the mafia started it off by strong arming honest people out of jobs so their workers could take over. And now, union bosses are just as bad as greedy businessmen. Don't go trying to blame that on capitalism, because that isn't the problem. It's the inherent evil people try to get away with when others aren't looking which got us into this mess. The only difference between the government and the workers is the government makes it seem like they are taking our money for the greater good when we all know they don't spend tax money like they should. Giving them more power than they already have would only make it worse.

Is this a joke or did you just attribute a Socialist Principle of Unions and say it was capitalist? Oh you are very deluded.

No, you comprehended it that way. As for me being deluded, maybe I am, but no more than yourself. Just know, your opinion is in the minority, and there is a reason why. Maybe one day you'll figure out that reason, but with the way you constantly talk down to people, I highly doubt it. I'd be willing to bet if you weren't sitting in front of that monitor, you wouldn't have the cojones to mutter half the smack you talk about people.

Trust me I would say it to your face just the same as I would anyone else. Though I like how you made a mistake and instead make it into a pathetic e-tough guy and e-peen contest. Guess you are out of your depth.

 

[Wyatt]

n64link your just not getting my picture here. people HAVE been 'doing the right thing', people i know HAVE been planing for their future and trying to build something they can pass on to their children, trouble is that while they started out 50 years ago with a plan the friggen rules changed on them.

i told you about my grandmother for a reason that you clearly missed. she had PLANED on passing on to her children the fruits (how ever small) of her lifes work. then she lost it all due to a friggen million doller health bill. how could she have planed 92 years ago that she would need to have MILLIONS of dollers to deal with health issues in her old age? the fucking woman still thinks $3 for a loaf of bread is a obsurd price.

there is an old country song that gos something like this. "its seems every time i make my mark ....... somebody paints the wall". THIS is my exact point. just when you think you CAN make a pretty good life for yourself the rules change, invest in a retirement fund? the market falls apart, buy bonds? the companys themselves end up in bankruptcy and you lose everything. and even if you actualy DO manage to plan and do the smart thing ans save a large chunk of your income for retirment that is generaly wiped out in medical expences, or even a simple change in basic economics like my grandmothers shock at seeing a $3 loaf of bread. Jesus her and my grandfather bought their first CAR for $200 brand new, and they bought their 300 acre farm for about $11,000 now she has a million or so dollers in medical bills. how CAN you plan for those kinds of changes?

there is no form of moral accountability in our business sectors anymore. its all about the buck. 'well thats just good business' you say, i can agree too a point. when its one company facing off against another thats fine, its dog eat dog and both companys ASKED to be in this situation. but when these same companys are dealing with peoples lives who depend on them and DIDNT ask to be in that situation than the lack of moral guidance is causing damage we simply cant allow to continue not even in the name of the great 'god' capitolism. this idea that the goal of 'making a buck' is the BEST system we can come up with is pure stupidity. our whole system is basicaly the fucking lotto writ large. there are a select few people in this country who happen to be in the right place at the right time and are able by this to 'strike it rich', and these people are ALLWAYS pointed too by our 'leaders' as examples of how 'hard work' can pay off. its bull shit. it wasnt hard work it was luck, if it was HARD WORK than the OTHER 250,000,000 would be rich TOO.

take Bill gates as your example, hes the friggen poster child for this nonsence, he 'worked hard' and is now one of the richest men in the world. what part of his life story do you see his hard work coming into play as the prime reason for his wealth? isnt it far more obvious that lady luck herself played the key roll? i say too you that rather than hold this up as an example of all that is right with our system we need to say what it really is, a fucking lucky lotto winer and then knuckle down too try and devise a system taht actualy DOES reward hard work. for ALL the other 250 million americans. instead of viewing our population as mearly a cash cow to be milked and taken advantage of as often as possable by an elite few, fed just enough, and tossed just enough bones to keep us quiet and plyable so the milking can continue its time for the cows to take over the farm.

its time that we DEMAND that our government for by and OF the people stop setting up our systems of government to benifit the elite and hope that we can somehow, among the hundereds of pages (often hand written by special interests) of 'laws', manage to fucking SNEAK in some form of benifit for the ENTIRE population of America and not just those that can afford to pay the lobbyist. i mean Jesus, do we, the average American, need to form a fucking lobby group too so that our elected leaders will actualy do what they are supposed to do and LEAD us? do we need to pay a lobbyist too get their attention put on the common man where it is supposed to belong in the first place?

there is an assumption we are all tought in school, and that is given lip service too by every political person at every election time that our government at all levels is supposed to do the best it can by the majority of our population. that is the basic foundation of our system. the REALITY is that this is ignored. the exceptions have BECOME the rule. the exceptions NOW are if something is done that benifits the population as a whole and NOT special interests.

a tax credit? really? a fucking TAX credit? i dont want a god damn tax credit i want some form of nationel health care. ill pay my taxes quite as a mouse as long as god damn near 1/3 of my pay check each and every week doesnt have to go too provide health care on TOP of my regular taxes.

we cant raise the minimum wage beacuse 'small business' might not be able to start up, then fall appart less than a year later as most do? so the vast majority of Americans who dont work for small business are STILL making minimum wage at fucking WAL-MART? why not raise the wage and benifit those millions of Americans at the 'expence' of those few start-n-flop small business morons? why should millions of Americans have to work at poverty level wages and often 2 or even 3 jobs to just get by, so that some fucktard with a doller and a dream can start his new pizza business that will fail in 6 months time? what makes the needs of this 'small business' wannabe owner more importiant than the millions of Americans stuck with poverty level wages who ARENT working for small businesses? why should we support THIS person who shouldnt BE in business if he cant figure out a way to make enough money to pay his workers a living wage at the expence of the majority of our populations?

these are the realitys of life in America. i DO have hope. i have more than hope, i KNOW that someday there will come a revolt in this country. im not talking about arming oursevles with hunting rifles and marching on washington but a common 'grass roots' revolt where we stand up united with one voice and tell our government and our business and the rest of the entire fucking workd for that matter ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. there will come a time when our elected leaders WILL be responcable not to lobbyist whith bundles of cash but to the actual voters. we have allredy seen this start with Obama. he raised more cash from 'average' people that anyone in history and from what i can see hes actualy trying to do whats right BY us 'average' people. there will come a time when the best interests of our leaders DOESNT lie with what ever company can donate enough cash to them to get the elected, but too the average people who can only donate $5 or $10 but with MILLIONS of us we turn the tables on those special interests. WE become prime lobbyist to our own government. OUR voices will be heard over the shrill squawkings of our rich elite. we stop giving lip service to 'joe the plumber' and actauly start trying to figure out ways too REALLY help him insted of using him as a poster child for what ever pro elite agenda your trying to get passed because Exxons lobbyist want a tax credit on their RECORD billion doller profits.

i dont want the government to support me, i DO want the government to stop an elite few from stealing from me what IVE worked for. if thats called being a socialist than so be it. i dont want to fight credit card companys. i cant afford too, i dont want free credit, ill work for my own good thank you very much, what i DO want is a government that will tell a credit card company that charging me 9% interest till i go $5000 in debt that i can afford with ease to pay back at that rate, that the card company cant then turn around and jump that rate to fucking 33%. i didnt agree to borrow $5000 at 33%. i would have done without ANYTHING at that rate. i DID however do the 'right' thing and borrow at 9%. a reasonable return for the bank to get that i dont have an issue with. and by my doing the 'right thing' i now get extorted because my voice isnt loud enough in washington? because i cant afford to hire a lobbyist like major banks can? too hear the bull shit storys from banks that some people NEED the 'safty net' of being able to borrow money at 33% interst? thats a safty net we can ALL do without thank you very much. i dont want my 'safty net' lined with barbwire and i for damn sure wouldnt put banks in charge of it anyhow no matter WHAT its made of.

in the end i can only say this. ive grown up hearing about how great and wonderful capitolism is and how we won the cold war bycause of our free markets and how we are the richest nation on earth, said as if that is the only thing that matters in life. experiance has show me its all rot behind the shine. its time to stop plastering over the cracks and maybe admit that we need to build a new system, instead of clinging to the wreckage of free markets run rampant, that we maybe rise up out of the ashes and decide that we will try something a little different. lets look up from the shrine of the great god of capitolism and see what if any new 'gods' may be doing for others.

 

[n64link]

I get the picture, I see beyond it. I'm talking a hundred years or more. I unders tand were you're coming from and six years ago, I would have agreed. It's obviuos that you want to give socialism a go, go ahead. Hell I'll even vote for it. Just give it more than 40ish years before you give up on it, It will work as long as everbodies honest.

And I did not miss the point otherwise I would have given you and her my sympathies. At some point she messed up, I can't say when since I wasn't there. I'm more than sure that if she redid past events with new knowledge she would have been a little better off in one way or another.

Again the foundation doesn't need ot be money or things, but kwnoledge. If our kids are smarter and wiser than us, they will do better. Maybe all they will need to do is not get married and have kids as young as us, Maybe find a better craft, Maybe know when to spot an oppritunity and take it.

Oh And no tax have ever been removed from the tax code, AFIAK. So that will ad the health care onto your already over taxed check. As A side note, we still have a tax on the books for the spanish american war.

"there is no form of moral accountability in our business sectors anymore."
That has nothing to do with capatalism or socialism, at least in a capacity that humans can do. If you must blame something for that, blame the peopel who want to remove (and have to an extent) morals from america.

And most of the people empolyed in the US are done so in small buissness. It's not just a few. And I think minimum wage should be disbared.

I am getting confused though. you want more apathy for the lowly worker but you have distain for "small" buisness? And you complain about minimum wage and wlamart being stilfulled beacuse of it? If wallmart could pay you less, they would. And if they do pay their workers more, their prices have to go up. Walmart is not managed store buy store, corpuret tells the stores what to charge and what to pay based on Walmart as a whole. I hope That understandable, I'm tired as hell.

And to Obama doing right by "average" people giving companies bailouts when they need to shut down and restuctre only to have that happen anyway, is not in my interest. Nor is promising a governmet that will be opean and will stop lobbyist and earmarks in bills, Then signing the biggest spending package in history without reading it! That billg has more ear marks than thought they could put on paper. Oh over half of his cabinet are lobbyist. It annoies me that i still have to take a bullet for him, but oh well.


Onto bill gates, he did get lucky that he found the guy who made DOS, after that it was all Bill and hiss Balls Of Steal. He got IBM to sign a contract saying they would have to use his "product" (DOS) before he even bought it! He's a sceaming little twerp but I respect him for being an evil guenius. IBM, BTW, treated there workers like crap and oftem did simaler strong arm stuff to other companies. My uncle was a programmer for them in the 70s, when you had to crawl into the computer to program it.

"there will come a time when our elected leaders WILL be responcable not to lobbyist whith bundles of cash but to the actual voters. "
I would love to see that day, and who is leading that charge. I hope it's zombie Jesus that would be sweet.

As It's going, neither of us will budge. So I'm out. Whatever you do I encurage you to learn more and keep up with financial news and politacal news, They effect each other a lot. Inform others and keep up the fight, oh and vote.

PS, I like you. if I was talking to sombody I agreed with I'd have been bored.

 

[Low Key]

Yeah socialisms absolutley horrible sucks having an nhs and seeing a doctor withing 15 minutes of calling every time or free prescriptions when a student/unemployed or free operations or free dental care if unemployed/a student how the hell have we not started eating each other yet?!?

RUN AMERICA RUN FROM THIS NIGHTMARE! /sarcasm

This made me laugh pretty hard mostly because it is sooooo stereotypical of my fellow Americans. Hell I guess you can't expect much when you have talking heads like Glenn Beck who tell everyone that healthcare is a privilege and not a right. I guess Glenn Beck should tell that to people who have had children die in childbirth since we have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World. I guess having your babies die is a privilege. Hur Hur. And for those who couldn't tell I'm being sarcastic about the last bit.

To be honest the lack of adopting certain Socialist programs is the biggest reason I am looking at leaving this country. I couldn't look myself in the mirror if one of my children died because of our shoddy medical system. I am more then willing to give up my Second Amendment Rights which I hold dear if it means I can raise children with a good education and proper medical care.

Our shoddy medical system that just gave a woman who couldn't eat, drink, or breathe without a tube in her throat a face transplant (One of the first, and the most extensive) so she can do all those things normally again? She may disagree with you.

Haha ignorance is bliss. The first face transplant was done in India with France right behind it. So you were saying?

That's why I said ONE of the first, but the most extensive. But I guess any old shoddy medical system can do that now, it's just those first timers that are up to par. And where are you expecting to find better? There's already multiple people from universal health care countries talking about 3-5 hour waits in this thread.

You should visit an inner-city American Hospital where they turn away people at ERs. 5 hour waits would be heaven. Maybe you should get out of your Ivory Tower a little and see the real America.

EMTALA legally prevents hospitals from turning people away at ERs. Interestingly, it doesn't allocae funding towards paying for emergency treatment. A lot of hospitals are actually being forced to close due to a combination of EMTALA costs and legal fees. I don't want to bombard this thread with quotes from experts, but I can back this claim up if you want me to.

Which only pertains to hospitals that are not privately owned hence why a lot of hospitals are going this route. Atlanta, Georgia is the priemer example of shafting the Inner-City by making the only available hospitals private and therefor able to turn people away. Which is one of the biggest reasons Atlanta has been in a major decline. That the government allows this loophole is disgusting but that is America.

I'm roughly 99% sure that EMTALA also applies to private hospitals, at least to some capacity. I'll have to double check that one though, and you might just be right.

It might. I have always been under the impression that Private Hospitals were able to avoid this through some loophole I would hope it is not true but with all the other loopholes in American Healthcare it wouldn't surprise me.

I checked the text of EMTALA. It's pretty convoluted, but they basically say that any hospital that receives government money from Medicare is "participating" in EMTALA. This basically includes all public and private hospitals.

Which basically means don't take government and you can shaft anyone you want. Which I believe is the case in Atlanta where hospitals stopped taking medicare so they could turn away poor blacks.

Now who's the conspiracy theorist?

Again, what exactly are you proposing? That private hospitals be forced to treat all patients for all conditions?

I don't think anyone is going to turn away someone who is dying, but what right do you have to tell a privately owned business, (yes a hospital is a business), to take a cut in their income in order to treat a stuffy nose?

The whole point is it should never have become a business only in America could be so convoluted and it will be our downfall. While the greedy and rich trample the poor masses and claim they gained their profit from the sweat of their own brow when in reality it came form the broken backs of the masses they trampled. Privatizing Hospitals is madness and anyone who agrees with such a bizarre Healthcare system is equally insane and sociopathic.

Privatized health care has its problems, but it's not that bad. It does lead to more R & D than state run hospitals, since private hospitals are more concerned with efficiency and effectiveness, especially in terms of competing with other hospitals. The failure here is a combination of poorly designed regulation, more poorly designed regulation to try and fix problems with earlier poorly designed regulation, and, yes, less than reputable private owners.

So at first you say its not that bad then describe a situation that is much worse...irony? You can have all the R&D in the world but that you can't honestly take care of infants and have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World with most of the First World being on a Socialized Health Care system then it is honestly time to do a gut check. You can kick around theorycrafting all you want but at the end of the day our Health Care system is beyond the point of broken.

That a majority of Americans in various polls have stated they put off going to the doctor because of the bills thus leading to an increase of more deadly diseases happening or even death that is a problem. That you have the Lower and Middle Class more worried about putting food on the table instead of taking care of themselves you have a broken Economic, Social and Health System.

Different contexts and scenarios demand different solutions. If anyone is "theorycrafting" it's the people who simply say "socialized health care works in [name a Western European country or Canada], so it should be implemented here" The problem is that the USA has too much of an ingrained privatization ethic for socialized health care to be politically practical. Further, the USA also has a political system that would be terrible for managing a system of socialized health care. Specifically, we have too many constraints on government action, as well as legal issues, for socialized health care to work. Further, politicians in the US have to depend a lot more on popular appeal than in other countries. An American socialized health care system would be unmanageable since it would never gain enough political traction to secure good, long-term funding. Any attempts to increase funding would be labeled "pork" by opposition groups, and on top of that every several years the entire policy would be revamped based on whichever political party had the majority.

Further, America has already tried to regulate health care and failed at it. Programs such as Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Welfare, and a slew of other programs are all poorly designed and irreparably broken. This isn't to say government needs to shrink, but it is to say that government in America is currently atrociously inefficient at doing what it tries to do. If these programs were redesigned they could be effective, but right now most of the money goes into administrative costs and wasteful spending.

Oh I don't disagree it is just the fact that the American People are so scared of Socialism ironically enough by our own Government that it isn't a legitimate option. The US Government has been inefficient for a longtime but that is because it refuses to modernize itself to a rapidly changing world with different parameters then our Founding Fathers could ever have imagined. So all in all it comes down to three options: Rigorous Reform that will be brutally slow, Revolution or Emigrating and to be honest the latter option is the most realistic.

America was never supposed to be "the great utilitarian experiment", the whole basis for America's existence is with individual rights, liberty, autonomy, etc. You're making the invalid assumption that a utilitarian socialist approach is universally superior; You're ignoring the fact that there are other standards for evaluating policy decisions besides net utilitarian benefit. It's logically leading you towards argumentative territory you don't want to end up in.

Yes but I'm utilitarian by nature so I have no other measure to judge it by. Nor am I going to bother I can see other points of view but I fail to see the logic in not taking a utilitarian approach to government.

No, the problem isn't that you're not being "not-utilitarian", the problem is that you're not recognizing any merit to non-utilitarianism at all. You're clinging to the notion that you are right and I (and others who disagree with you) are wrong, but this is an almost "colonialist" position. It goes nothing short of calling those you disagree with "savages"; un-enlightened, and evil. According to you we need to be shown the way, with force if needed (your point about revolution earlier is indicative of this).

I would just say we are at an impasse.

Who said I was arguing against you? I'm merely pointing out that you are in a logical trap: either a. you're arguing that socialism is inherently right and socialists logically must therefore have an inherent obligation to spread socialism, even via force if needed (colonialism), or b. you're forced to concede socialism isn't inherently and universally the only "right" option. Pick one, otherwise you re essentially conceding the argument by forfeit.

Socialism obviously isn't inherently right nor did I ever say that. My point was that is was a far better option especially stability wise then Laissez-faire capitalism or whatever we are calling America's weird schizophrenic bastard child of an economy these days.

Your comment about revolution and emigration being the only options indicate otherwise.

I also said reform.

The point is that capitalists are the ones who have to change, according to you. That's the part that's problematic, not the way in which change comes about.

Uhh your point being? How can the workers possibly change? They don't have jobs because the capitalists have outsourced all labour you can't possibly be serious and say the blame is equal because it isn't. The American Economy and Society has been severely imbalanced for a long time. To honestly suggest that the capitalists shouldn't be the ones to change is pretty much putting ones head in the sand unless you can tell me how stripping this nation of most of its production jobs and trying to turn us into a Management economy was some kind of stroke of genius?

The capitalists tried to put something in place so workers could get a fair break. They are called unions. Unfortunately, the mafia started it off by strong arming honest people out of jobs so their workers could take over. And now, union bosses are just as bad as greedy businessmen. Don't go trying to blame that on capitalism, because that isn't the problem. It's the inherent evil people try to get away with when others aren't looking which got us into this mess. The only difference between the government and the workers is the government makes it seem like they are taking our money for the greater good when we all know they don't spend tax money like they should. Giving them more power than they already have would only make it worse.

Is this a joke or did you just attribute a Socialist Principle of Unions and say it was capitalist? Oh you are very deluded.

No, you comprehended it that way. As for me being deluded, maybe I am, but no more than yourself. Just know, your opinion is in the minority, and there is a reason why. Maybe one day you'll figure out that reason, but with the way you constantly talk down to people, I highly doubt it. I'd be willing to bet if you weren't sitting in front of that monitor, you wouldn't have the cojones to mutter half the smack you talk about people.

Trust me I would say it to your face just the same as I would anyone else. Though I like how you made a mistake and instead make it into a pathetic e-tough guy and e-peen contest. Guess you are out of your depth.

Says the guys who refuses to answer Thanatos simple question.

 

[ZZ-Tops89]

Yeah socialisms absolutley horrible sucks having an nhs and seeing a doctor withing 15 minutes of calling every time or free prescriptions when a student/unemployed or free operations or free dental care if unemployed/a student how the hell have we not started eating each other yet?!?

RUN AMERICA RUN FROM THIS NIGHTMARE! /sarcasm

This made me laugh pretty hard mostly because it is sooooo stereotypical of my fellow Americans. Hell I guess you can't expect much when you have talking heads like Glenn Beck who tell everyone that healthcare is a privilege and not a right. I guess Glenn Beck should tell that to people who have had children die in childbirth since we have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World. I guess having your babies die is a privilege. Hur Hur. And for those who couldn't tell I'm being sarcastic about the last bit.

To be honest the lack of adopting certain Socialist programs is the biggest reason I am looking at leaving this country. I couldn't look myself in the mirror if one of my children died because of our shoddy medical system. I am more then willing to give up my Second Amendment Rights which I hold dear if it means I can raise children with a good education and proper medical care.

Our shoddy medical system that just gave a woman who couldn't eat, drink, or breathe without a tube in her throat a face transplant (One of the first, and the most extensive) so she can do all those things normally again? She may disagree with you.

Haha ignorance is bliss. The first face transplant was done in India with France right behind it. So you were saying?

That's why I said ONE of the first, but the most extensive. But I guess any old shoddy medical system can do that now, it's just those first timers that are up to par. And where are you expecting to find better? There's already multiple people from universal health care countries talking about 3-5 hour waits in this thread.

You should visit an inner-city American Hospital where they turn away people at ERs. 5 hour waits would be heaven. Maybe you should get out of your Ivory Tower a little and see the real America.

EMTALA legally prevents hospitals from turning people away at ERs. Interestingly, it doesn't allocae funding towards paying for emergency treatment. A lot of hospitals are actually being forced to close due to a combination of EMTALA costs and legal fees. I don't want to bombard this thread with quotes from experts, but I can back this claim up if you want me to.

Which only pertains to hospitals that are not privately owned hence why a lot of hospitals are going this route. Atlanta, Georgia is the priemer example of shafting the Inner-City by making the only available hospitals private and therefor able to turn people away. Which is one of the biggest reasons Atlanta has been in a major decline. That the government allows this loophole is disgusting but that is America.

I'm roughly 99% sure that EMTALA also applies to private hospitals, at least to some capacity. I'll have to double check that one though, and you might just be right.

It might. I have always been under the impression that Private Hospitals were able to avoid this through some loophole I would hope it is not true but with all the other loopholes in American Healthcare it wouldn't surprise me.

I checked the text of EMTALA. It's pretty convoluted, but they basically say that any hospital that receives government money from Medicare is "participating" in EMTALA. This basically includes all public and private hospitals.

Which basically means don't take government and you can shaft anyone you want. Which I believe is the case in Atlanta where hospitals stopped taking medicare so they could turn away poor blacks.

Now who's the conspiracy theorist?

Again, what exactly are you proposing? That private hospitals be forced to treat all patients for all conditions?

I don't think anyone is going to turn away someone who is dying, but what right do you have to tell a privately owned business, (yes a hospital is a business), to take a cut in their income in order to treat a stuffy nose?

The whole point is it should never have become a business only in America could be so convoluted and it will be our downfall. While the greedy and rich trample the poor masses and claim they gained their profit from the sweat of their own brow when in reality it came form the broken backs of the masses they trampled. Privatizing Hospitals is madness and anyone who agrees with such a bizarre Healthcare system is equally insane and sociopathic.

Privatized health care has its problems, but it's not that bad. It does lead to more R & D than state run hospitals, since private hospitals are more concerned with efficiency and effectiveness, especially in terms of competing with other hospitals. The failure here is a combination of poorly designed regulation, more poorly designed regulation to try and fix problems with earlier poorly designed regulation, and, yes, less than reputable private owners.

So at first you say its not that bad then describe a situation that is much worse...irony? You can have all the R&D in the world but that you can't honestly take care of infants and have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World with most of the First World being on a Socialized Health Care system then it is honestly time to do a gut check. You can kick around theorycrafting all you want but at the end of the day our Health Care system is beyond the point of broken.

That a majority of Americans in various polls have stated they put off going to the doctor because of the bills thus leading to an increase of more deadly diseases happening or even death that is a problem. That you have the Lower and Middle Class more worried about putting food on the table instead of taking care of themselves you have a broken Economic, Social and Health System.

Different contexts and scenarios demand different solutions. If anyone is "theorycrafting" it's the people who simply say "socialized health care works in [name a Western European country or Canada], so it should be implemented here" The problem is that the USA has too much of an ingrained privatization ethic for socialized health care to be politically practical. Further, the USA also has a political system that would be terrible for managing a system of socialized health care. Specifically, we have too many constraints on government action, as well as legal issues, for socialized health care to work. Further, politicians in the US have to depend a lot more on popular appeal than in other countries. An American socialized health care system would be unmanageable since it would never gain enough political traction to secure good, long-term funding. Any attempts to increase funding would be labeled "pork" by opposition groups, and on top of that every several years the entire policy would be revamped based on whichever political party had the majority.

Further, America has already tried to regulate health care and failed at it. Programs such as Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Welfare, and a slew of other programs are all poorly designed and irreparably broken. This isn't to say government needs to shrink, but it is to say that government in America is currently atrociously inefficient at doing what it tries to do. If these programs were redesigned they could be effective, but right now most of the money goes into administrative costs and wasteful spending.

Oh I don't disagree it is just the fact that the American People are so scared of Socialism ironically enough by our own Government that it isn't a legitimate option. The US Government has been inefficient for a longtime but that is because it refuses to modernize itself to a rapidly changing world with different parameters then our Founding Fathers could ever have imagined. So all in all it comes down to three options: Rigorous Reform that will be brutally slow, Revolution or Emigrating and to be honest the latter option is the most realistic.

America was never supposed to be "the great utilitarian experiment", the whole basis for America's existence is with individual rights, liberty, autonomy, etc. You're making the invalid assumption that a utilitarian socialist approach is universally superior; You're ignoring the fact that there are other standards for evaluating policy decisions besides net utilitarian benefit. It's logically leading you towards argumentative territory you don't want to end up in.

Yes but I'm utilitarian by nature so I have no other measure to judge it by. Nor am I going to bother I can see other points of view but I fail to see the logic in not taking a utilitarian approach to government.

No, the problem isn't that you're not being "not-utilitarian", the problem is that you're not recognizing any merit to non-utilitarianism at all. You're clinging to the notion that you are right and I (and others who disagree with you) are wrong, but this is an almost "colonialist" position. It goes nothing short of calling those you disagree with "savages"; un-enlightened, and evil. According to you we need to be shown the way, with force if needed (your point about revolution earlier is indicative of this).

I would just say we are at an impasse.

Who said I was arguing against you? I'm merely pointing out that you are in a logical trap: either a. you're arguing that socialism is inherently right and socialists logically must therefore have an inherent obligation to spread socialism, even via force if needed (colonialism), or b. you're forced to concede socialism isn't inherently and universally the only "right" option. Pick one, otherwise you re essentially conceding the argument by forfeit.

Socialism obviously isn't inherently right nor did I ever say that. My point was that is was a far better option especially stability wise then Laissez-faire capitalism or whatever we are calling America's weird schizophrenic bastard child of an economy these days.

Your comment about revolution and emigration being the only options indicate otherwise.

I also said reform.

The point is that capitalists are the ones who have to change, according to you. That's the part that's problematic, not the way in which change comes about.

Uhh your point being? How can the workers possibly change? They don't have jobs because the capitalists have outsourced all labour you can't possibly be serious and say the blame is equal because it isn't. The American Economy and Society has been severely imbalanced for a long time. To honestly suggest that the capitalists shouldn't be the ones to change is pretty much putting ones head in the sand unless you can tell me how stripping this nation of most of its production jobs and trying to turn us into a Management economy was some kind of stroke of genius?

The capitalists tried to put something in place so workers could get a fair break. They are called unions. Unfortunately, the mafia started it off by strong arming honest people out of jobs so their workers could take over. And now, union bosses are just as bad as greedy businessmen. Don't go trying to blame that on capitalism, because that isn't the problem. It's the inherent evil people try to get away with when others aren't looking which got us into this mess. The only difference between the government and the workers is the government makes it seem like they are taking our money for the greater good when we all know they don't spend tax money like they should. Giving them more power than they already have would only make it worse.

Is this a joke or did you just attribute a Socialist Principle of Unions and say it was capitalist? Oh you are very deluded.

Actually unions are in theory a purely market mechanism for negotiating higher wage rates. So long as government remains uninvolved in negotiations, the unions are actually out in the free market. Also in response toy your other reply, I'm not saying the shift would need to be 50/50, the point is you can't go in to an argument under the specific assumption that your side is inherently right and the other side only exists due to people being either deluded, wrong, or evil. That's how the Crusades got started, and I can tell you it's not a good way of thinking about issues. I'm not denying that you have some good arguments, I just feel you need to frame them in a different way and change the rhetoric to avoid numerous argumentative/logical problems.

 

[Rajin Cajun]

Yeah socialisms absolutley horrible sucks having an nhs and seeing a doctor withing 15 minutes of calling every time or free prescriptions when a student/unemployed or free operations or free dental care if unemployed/a student how the hell have we not started eating each other yet?!?

RUN AMERICA RUN FROM THIS NIGHTMARE! /sarcasm

This made me laugh pretty hard mostly because it is sooooo stereotypical of my fellow Americans. Hell I guess you can't expect much when you have talking heads like Glenn Beck who tell everyone that healthcare is a privilege and not a right. I guess Glenn Beck should tell that to people who have had children die in childbirth since we have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World. I guess having your babies die is a privilege. Hur Hur. And for those who couldn't tell I'm being sarcastic about the last bit.

To be honest the lack of adopting certain Socialist programs is the biggest reason I am looking at leaving this country. I couldn't look myself in the mirror if one of my children died because of our shoddy medical system. I am more then willing to give up my Second Amendment Rights which I hold dear if it means I can raise children with a good education and proper medical care.

Our shoddy medical system that just gave a woman who couldn't eat, drink, or breathe without a tube in her throat a face transplant (One of the first, and the most extensive) so she can do all those things normally again? She may disagree with you.

Haha ignorance is bliss. The first face transplant was done in India with France right behind it. So you were saying?

That's why I said ONE of the first, but the most extensive. But I guess any old shoddy medical system can do that now, it's just those first timers that are up to par. And where are you expecting to find better? There's already multiple people from universal health care countries talking about 3-5 hour waits in this thread.

You should visit an inner-city American Hospital where they turn away people at ERs. 5 hour waits would be heaven. Maybe you should get out of your Ivory Tower a little and see the real America.

EMTALA legally prevents hospitals from turning people away at ERs. Interestingly, it doesn't allocae funding towards paying for emergency treatment. A lot of hospitals are actually being forced to close due to a combination of EMTALA costs and legal fees. I don't want to bombard this thread with quotes from experts, but I can back this claim up if you want me to.

Which only pertains to hospitals that are not privately owned hence why a lot of hospitals are going this route. Atlanta, Georgia is the priemer example of shafting the Inner-City by making the only available hospitals private and therefor able to turn people away. Which is one of the biggest reasons Atlanta has been in a major decline. That the government allows this loophole is disgusting but that is America.

I'm roughly 99% sure that EMTALA also applies to private hospitals, at least to some capacity. I'll have to double check that one though, and you might just be right.

It might. I have always been under the impression that Private Hospitals were able to avoid this through some loophole I would hope it is not true but with all the other loopholes in American Healthcare it wouldn't surprise me.

I checked the text of EMTALA. It's pretty convoluted, but they basically say that any hospital that receives government money from Medicare is "participating" in EMTALA. This basically includes all public and private hospitals.

Which basically means don't take government and you can shaft anyone you want. Which I believe is the case in Atlanta where hospitals stopped taking medicare so they could turn away poor blacks.

Now who's the conspiracy theorist?

Again, what exactly are you proposing? That private hospitals be forced to treat all patients for all conditions?

I don't think anyone is going to turn away someone who is dying, but what right do you have to tell a privately owned business, (yes a hospital is a business), to take a cut in their income in order to treat a stuffy nose?

The whole point is it should never have become a business only in America could be so convoluted and it will be our downfall. While the greedy and rich trample the poor masses and claim they gained their profit from the sweat of their own brow when in reality it came form the broken backs of the masses they trampled. Privatizing Hospitals is madness and anyone who agrees with such a bizarre Healthcare system is equally insane and sociopathic.

Privatized health care has its problems, but it's not that bad. It does lead to more R & D than state run hospitals, since private hospitals are more concerned with efficiency and effectiveness, especially in terms of competing with other hospitals. The failure here is a combination of poorly designed regulation, more poorly designed regulation to try and fix problems with earlier poorly designed regulation, and, yes, less than reputable private owners.

So at first you say its not that bad then describe a situation that is much worse...irony? You can have all the R&D in the world but that you can't honestly take care of infants and have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World with most of the First World being on a Socialized Health Care system then it is honestly time to do a gut check. You can kick around theorycrafting all you want but at the end of the day our Health Care system is beyond the point of broken.

That a majority of Americans in various polls have stated they put off going to the doctor because of the bills thus leading to an increase of more deadly diseases happening or even death that is a problem. That you have the Lower and Middle Class more worried about putting food on the table instead of taking care of themselves you have a broken Economic, Social and Health System.

Different contexts and scenarios demand different solutions. If anyone is "theorycrafting" it's the people who simply say "socialized health care works in [name a Western European country or Canada], so it should be implemented here" The problem is that the USA has too much of an ingrained privatization ethic for socialized health care to be politically practical. Further, the USA also has a political system that would be terrible for managing a system of socialized health care. Specifically, we have too many constraints on government action, as well as legal issues, for socialized health care to work. Further, politicians in the US have to depend a lot more on popular appeal than in other countries. An American socialized health care system would be unmanageable since it would never gain enough political traction to secure good, long-term funding. Any attempts to increase funding would be labeled "pork" by opposition groups, and on top of that every several years the entire policy would be revamped based on whichever political party had the majority.

Further, America has already tried to regulate health care and failed at it. Programs such as Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Welfare, and a slew of other programs are all poorly designed and irreparably broken. This isn't to say government needs to shrink, but it is to say that government in America is currently atrociously inefficient at doing what it tries to do. If these programs were redesigned they could be effective, but right now most of the money goes into administrative costs and wasteful spending.

Oh I don't disagree it is just the fact that the American People are so scared of Socialism ironically enough by our own Government that it isn't a legitimate option. The US Government has been inefficient for a longtime but that is because it refuses to modernize itself to a rapidly changing world with different parameters then our Founding Fathers could ever have imagined. So all in all it comes down to three options: Rigorous Reform that will be brutally slow, Revolution or Emigrating and to be honest the latter option is the most realistic.

America was never supposed to be "the great utilitarian experiment", the whole basis for America's existence is with individual rights, liberty, autonomy, etc. You're making the invalid assumption that a utilitarian socialist approach is universally superior; You're ignoring the fact that there are other standards for evaluating policy decisions besides net utilitarian benefit. It's logically leading you towards argumentative territory you don't want to end up in.

Yes but I'm utilitarian by nature so I have no other measure to judge it by. Nor am I going to bother I can see other points of view but I fail to see the logic in not taking a utilitarian approach to government.

No, the problem isn't that you're not being "not-utilitarian", the problem is that you're not recognizing any merit to non-utilitarianism at all. You're clinging to the notion that you are right and I (and others who disagree with you) are wrong, but this is an almost "colonialist" position. It goes nothing short of calling those you disagree with "savages"; un-enlightened, and evil. According to you we need to be shown the way, with force if needed (your point about revolution earlier is indicative of this).

I would just say we are at an impasse.

Who said I was arguing against you? I'm merely pointing out that you are in a logical trap: either a. you're arguing that socialism is inherently right and socialists logically must therefore have an inherent obligation to spread socialism, even via force if needed (colonialism), or b. you're forced to concede socialism isn't inherently and universally the only "right" option. Pick one, otherwise you re essentially conceding the argument by forfeit.

Socialism obviously isn't inherently right nor did I ever say that. My point was that is was a far better option especially stability wise then Laissez-faire capitalism or whatever we are calling America's weird schizophrenic bastard child of an economy these days.

Your comment about revolution and emigration being the only options indicate otherwise.

I also said reform.

The point is that capitalists are the ones who have to change, according to you. That's the part that's problematic, not the way in which change comes about.

Uhh your point being? How can the workers possibly change? They don't have jobs because the capitalists have outsourced all labour you can't possibly be serious and say the blame is equal because it isn't. The American Economy and Society has been severely imbalanced for a long time. To honestly suggest that the capitalists shouldn't be the ones to change is pretty much putting ones head in the sand unless you can tell me how stripping this nation of most of its production jobs and trying to turn us into a Management economy was some kind of stroke of genius?

The capitalists tried to put something in place so workers could get a fair break. They are called unions. Unfortunately, the mafia started it off by strong arming honest people out of jobs so their workers could take over. And now, union bosses are just as bad as greedy businessmen. Don't go trying to blame that on capitalism, because that isn't the problem. It's the inherent evil people try to get away with when others aren't looking which got us into this mess. The only difference between the government and the workers is the government makes it seem like they are taking our money for the greater good when we all know they don't spend tax money like they should. Giving them more power than they already have would only make it worse.

Is this a joke or did you just attribute a Socialist Principle of Unions and say it was capitalist? Oh you are very deluded.

Actually unions are in theory a purely market mechanism for negotiating higher wage rates. So long as government remains uninvolved in negotiations, the unions are actually out in the free market. Also in response toy your other reply, I'm not saying the shift would need to be 50/50, the point is you can't go in to an argument under the specific assumption that your side is inherently right and the other side only exists due to people being either deluded, wrong, or evil. That's how the Crusades got started, and I can tell you it's not a good way of thinking about issues. I'm not denying that you have some good arguments, I just feel you need to frame them in a different way and change the rhetoric to avoid numerous argumentative/logical problems.

Sure but at this point I'm just being purposefully argumentative after Thanatos tried to derail the topic into abortion which had nothing to do with my points. Who has magical backup from a recently created account which still smells like someone using a sockpuppet to defend their lack of information.

I don't think any side is inherently evil but I feel that the capitalists have caused far more destruction then they should have ever been allowed to. I believe in the ideals of Social Order and Justice thus I disagree with the capitalists that they deserve extra praise or benefits of the doubt when they are largely to blame for our current predicament which isn't to excuse the American Workers who should have long ago stopped voting in people who only support the capitalist and care nothing for the State or its People.

 

[Low Key]

If you don't believe I am a unique user, then please, feel free to ask the mods to cross check our IP addresses. That should clear up any false assumptions you might have.

 

[ZZ-Tops89]

Yeah socialisms absolutley horrible sucks having an nhs and seeing a doctor withing 15 minutes of calling every time or free prescriptions when a student/unemployed or free operations or free dental care if unemployed/a student how the hell have we not started eating each other yet?!?

RUN AMERICA RUN FROM THIS NIGHTMARE! /sarcasm

This made me laugh pretty hard mostly because it is sooooo stereotypical of my fellow Americans. Hell I guess you can't expect much when you have talking heads like Glenn Beck who tell everyone that healthcare is a privilege and not a right. I guess Glenn Beck should tell that to people who have had children die in childbirth since we have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World. I guess having your babies die is a privilege. Hur Hur. And for those who couldn't tell I'm being sarcastic about the last bit.

To be honest the lack of adopting certain Socialist programs is the biggest reason I am looking at leaving this country. I couldn't look myself in the mirror if one of my children died because of our shoddy medical system. I am more then willing to give up my Second Amendment Rights which I hold dear if it means I can raise children with a good education and proper medical care.

Our shoddy medical system that just gave a woman who couldn't eat, drink, or breathe without a tube in her throat a face transplant (One of the first, and the most extensive) so she can do all those things normally again? She may disagree with you.

Haha ignorance is bliss. The first face transplant was done in India with France right behind it. So you were saying?

That's why I said ONE of the first, but the most extensive. But I guess any old shoddy medical system can do that now, it's just those first timers that are up to par. And where are you expecting to find better? There's already multiple people from universal health care countries talking about 3-5 hour waits in this thread.

You should visit an inner-city American Hospital where they turn away people at ERs. 5 hour waits would be heaven. Maybe you should get out of your Ivory Tower a little and see the real America.

EMTALA legally prevents hospitals from turning people away at ERs. Interestingly, it doesn't allocae funding towards paying for emergency treatment. A lot of hospitals are actually being forced to close due to a combination of EMTALA costs and legal fees. I don't want to bombard this thread with quotes from experts, but I can back this claim up if you want me to.

Which only pertains to hospitals that are not privately owned hence why a lot of hospitals are going this route. Atlanta, Georgia is the priemer example of shafting the Inner-City by making the only available hospitals private and therefor able to turn people away. Which is one of the biggest reasons Atlanta has been in a major decline. That the government allows this loophole is disgusting but that is America.

I'm roughly 99% sure that EMTALA also applies to private hospitals, at least to some capacity. I'll have to double check that one though, and you might just be right.

It might. I have always been under the impression that Private Hospitals were able to avoid this through some loophole I would hope it is not true but with all the other loopholes in American Healthcare it wouldn't surprise me.

I checked the text of EMTALA. It's pretty convoluted, but they basically say that any hospital that receives government money from Medicare is "participating" in EMTALA. This basically includes all public and private hospitals.

Which basically means don't take government and you can shaft anyone you want. Which I believe is the case in Atlanta where hospitals stopped taking medicare so they could turn away poor blacks.

Now who's the conspiracy theorist?

Again, what exactly are you proposing? That private hospitals be forced to treat all patients for all conditions?

I don't think anyone is going to turn away someone who is dying, but what right do you have to tell a privately owned business, (yes a hospital is a business), to take a cut in their income in order to treat a stuffy nose?

The whole point is it should never have become a business only in America could be so convoluted and it will be our downfall. While the greedy and rich trample the poor masses and claim they gained their profit from the sweat of their own brow when in reality it came form the broken backs of the masses they trampled. Privatizing Hospitals is madness and anyone who agrees with such a bizarre Healthcare system is equally insane and sociopathic.

Privatized health care has its problems, but it's not that bad. It does lead to more R & D than state run hospitals, since private hospitals are more concerned with efficiency and effectiveness, especially in terms of competing with other hospitals. The failure here is a combination of poorly designed regulation, more poorly designed regulation to try and fix problems with earlier poorly designed regulation, and, yes, less than reputable private owners.

So at first you say its not that bad then describe a situation that is much worse...irony? You can have all the R&D in the world but that you can't honestly take care of infants and have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World with most of the First World being on a Socialized Health Care system then it is honestly time to do a gut check. You can kick around theorycrafting all you want but at the end of the day our Health Care system is beyond the point of broken.

That a majority of Americans in various polls have stated they put off going to the doctor because of the bills thus leading to an increase of more deadly diseases happening or even death that is a problem. That you have the Lower and Middle Class more worried about putting food on the table instead of taking care of themselves you have a broken Economic, Social and Health System.

Different contexts and scenarios demand different solutions. If anyone is "theorycrafting" it's the people who simply say "socialized health care works in [name a Western European country or Canada], so it should be implemented here" The problem is that the USA has too much of an ingrained privatization ethic for socialized health care to be politically practical. Further, the USA also has a political system that would be terrible for managing a system of socialized health care. Specifically, we have too many constraints on government action, as well as legal issues, for socialized health care to work. Further, politicians in the US have to depend a lot more on popular appeal than in other countries. An American socialized health care system would be unmanageable since it would never gain enough political traction to secure good, long-term funding. Any attempts to increase funding would be labeled "pork" by opposition groups, and on top of that every several years the entire policy would be revamped based on whichever political party had the majority.

Further, America has already tried to regulate health care and failed at it. Programs such as Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Welfare, and a slew of other programs are all poorly designed and irreparably broken. This isn't to say government needs to shrink, but it is to say that government in America is currently atrociously inefficient at doing what it tries to do. If these programs were redesigned they could be effective, but right now most of the money goes into administrative costs and wasteful spending.

Oh I don't disagree it is just the fact that the American People are so scared of Socialism ironically enough by our own Government that it isn't a legitimate option. The US Government has been inefficient for a longtime but that is because it refuses to modernize itself to a rapidly changing world with different parameters then our Founding Fathers could ever have imagined. So all in all it comes down to three options: Rigorous Reform that will be brutally slow, Revolution or Emigrating and to be honest the latter option is the most realistic.

America was never supposed to be "the great utilitarian experiment", the whole basis for America's existence is with individual rights, liberty, autonomy, etc. You're making the invalid assumption that a utilitarian socialist approach is universally superior; You're ignoring the fact that there are other standards for evaluating policy decisions besides net utilitarian benefit. It's logically leading you towards argumentative territory you don't want to end up in.

Yes but I'm utilitarian by nature so I have no other measure to judge it by. Nor am I going to bother I can see other points of view but I fail to see the logic in not taking a utilitarian approach to government.

No, the problem isn't that you're not being "not-utilitarian", the problem is that you're not recognizing any merit to non-utilitarianism at all. You're clinging to the notion that you are right and I (and others who disagree with you) are wrong, but this is an almost "colonialist" position. It goes nothing short of calling those you disagree with "savages"; un-enlightened, and evil. According to you we need to be shown the way, with force if needed (your point about revolution earlier is indicative of this).

I would just say we are at an impasse.

Who said I was arguing against you? I'm merely pointing out that you are in a logical trap: either a. you're arguing that socialism is inherently right and socialists logically must therefore have an inherent obligation to spread socialism, even via force if needed (colonialism), or b. you're forced to concede socialism isn't inherently and universally the only "right" option. Pick one, otherwise you re essentially conceding the argument by forfeit.

Socialism obviously isn't inherently right nor did I ever say that. My point was that is was a far better option especially stability wise then Laissez-faire capitalism or whatever we are calling America's weird schizophrenic bastard child of an economy these days.

Your comment about revolution and emigration being the only options indicate otherwise.

I also said reform.

The point is that capitalists are the ones who have to change, according to you. That's the part that's problematic, not the way in which change comes about.

Uhh your point being? How can the workers possibly change? They don't have jobs because the capitalists have outsourced all labour you can't possibly be serious and say the blame is equal because it isn't. The American Economy and Society has been severely imbalanced for a long time. To honestly suggest that the capitalists shouldn't be the ones to change is pretty much putting ones head in the sand unless you can tell me how stripping this nation of most of its production jobs and trying to turn us into a Management economy was some kind of stroke of genius?

The capitalists tried to put something in place so workers could get a fair break. They are called unions. Unfortunately, the mafia started it off by strong arming honest people out of jobs so their workers could take over. And now, union bosses are just as bad as greedy businessmen. Don't go trying to blame that on capitalism, because that isn't the problem. It's the inherent evil people try to get away with when others aren't looking which got us into this mess. The only difference between the government and the workers is the government makes it seem like they are taking our money for the greater good when we all know they don't spend tax money like they should. Giving them more power than they already have would only make it worse.

Is this a joke or did you just attribute a Socialist Principle of Unions and say it was capitalist? Oh you are very deluded.

Actually unions are in theory a purely market mechanism for negotiating higher wage rates. So long as government remains uninvolved in negotiations, the unions are actually out in the free market. Also in response toy your other reply, I'm not saying the shift would need to be 50/50, the point is you can't go in to an argument under the specific assumption that your side is inherently right and the other side only exists due to people being either deluded, wrong, or evil. That's how the Crusades got started, and I can tell you it's not a good way of thinking about issues. I'm not denying that you have some good arguments, I just feel you need to frame them in a different way and change the rhetoric to avoid numerous argumentative/logical problems.

Sure but at this point I'm just being purposefully argumentative after Thanatos tried to derail the topic into abortion which had nothing to do with my points. Who has magical backup from a recently created account which still smells like someone using a sockpuppet to defend their lack of information.

I don't think any side is inherently evil but I feel that the capitalists have caused far more destruction then they should have ever been allowed to. I believe in the ideals of Social Order and Justice thus I disagree with the capitalists that they deserve extra praise or benefits of the doubt when they are largely to blame for our current predicament which isn't to excuse the American Workers who should have long ago stopped voting in people who only support the capitalist and care nothing for the State or its People.

You keep generalizing about capitalism and looking at it as this singular monolithic entity, when in reality it's not, nor is the entire world operating in a capitalist system. Your argument has two glaring problems in it, which I think should be pointed out. If not to convince you to change your opinion, maybe to cause you to rethink it and strengthen it. First, you aren't thinking marginally. Yes, capitalism has flaws, but I don't know of anything without flaws. The point is, you need to think in terms of marginality. If you can defend some sort of socialist system as creating generally better outcomes than capitalism, then it makes the argument much more persuasive. Simply arguing "capitalism has problems" isn't a sufficient position on which to compel people to change their opinions. You need to defend that your alternative to the status quo is better than the status quo, why it is better, and why your plan will work as you say it will. Otherwise, there's no reason to reject the status quo with its flaws in favor of something else which is worse, for all we know.

The second problem you have is that capitalism is not a singular monolithic entity, nor does the world operate in a solely capitalist system. A wide range of different systems operate globally and interact in odd ways. For example there is a strong case that China is the most free economy in the world in terms of de-regulation and competition, but it still is managed by the Communist Party. Conversely, America is said to be a right-wing economy when in reality it is more state-directed than a number of other nations that are thought to be more leftist than America. The point is that things are more complex than they seem at heart and thus categorically attacking capitalism is missing the real-world issue. A purely capitalist system would be very problematic, as would a purely socialist, communist, or fascist econonmy, which is why none of these has ever existed in their purest forms on a wide level.

 

[paasi]

Reason to the fear of socialism is its similiarity to communism and communism has been generally feared and hated in the US since the cold war when a force equal in power to the US (soviet Russia) threatened the world i.e their coffers. Infamous communist hunts (refer to witch hunts in dark ages) were frequent during that time. Because the fall of Soviet Russia happened only around 20 years ago it is only natural that the antipahy towards their political ideals remains.

The association of sosialism to communism is wrong though. It is known through out the world though that republicans are stubborn as mules and not only misinformed but unwilling to accept information that contradicts their own beliefs, hence they are favored by fundies, and when a group is favored so eventually many of its members may become such. Fundies are known to hate things just because, hence republican party ought to be liquidated and the ground salted and burned. Then the otherwise good nation may continue its formerly stunted growth.

This is only a theory based on observation and deduction.

OK, that's just cheap shoting the republicans. I've met far more registerd DEMs that won't listen to a word I say than REPs. FYI, Both parties have failed, which is why people are leaveing bother parties and voting as indpendants.

Well, ok. It's cheap kicking a guy already down. But despite all the generalization done in the previous statement, the history lesson is accurate and it's causality rather accurate.
But to put it simply, pretentious and hypocritical politicians and confidence in the invulnerability of their country are the reasons why basically the whole world views US as an ADHD child with a gatling gun; certain beyond doubt in his self-righteousness, off to right every wrong in the world with force and fear.
Ok, the PoV is cynical, but hey: at least im not one of them, hence I don't really care.

Also, am I wrong if I say that to the american government it's something of a sacriledge to change the constitution? Somehow i've gotten that picture.

 

[Orlana]

The thing is socialism, if done properly, can improve YOUR life too. I know I don't own a car, so seeing improved public transit, keeping our roads from delapitating into a collection of potholes and (since I'm in Canada) having good snow removal helps my life out a lot. Not to mention the reduced tuition with me being a student.

Sorry for the insanely late reply. Don't get me wrong, I feel the same way you do. I may have complained about how our system works, but it was more a point of Americans complain about the "evils" of Socialism and yet the complaints we have we already experience under a Capitalist economy. I'm one of the few Americans who wouldn't mind some Socialism in our economy. When you think about it, I'm working my ass off to line the pockets of people who already have millions running their companies and all they pretty much do is sit in their office and delegate tasks rather than work hard. I'm all for spreading the wealth, and that doesn't mean among the people specifically. Like you pointed out, bettering public systems is a major benefit and that 700 billion we spent on bailing out companies that didn't need bailing out could have been put to far better use like public transit, alternative fuels/energy sources, and affordable heath care.