The public insurance option was revived by two House Democrats -- Chellie Pingree of Maine and Jared Polis of Colorado -- who sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) with 120 signatures, calling for the public option to be put back on the table. Polis's Colorado delegation colleague, freshman Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, then took up the standard, asking senators to sign a letter calling for the same.
Last I remember, Nebraska got a windfall to buy their Senator's vote. Because you know, that's transparency in government. It's transparent that Nebraska gets a windfall at all the other states' expense.
dietrich wrote:Last I remember, Nebraska got a windfall to buy their Senator's vote. Because you know, that's transparency in government. It's transparent that Nebraska gets a windfall at all the other states' expense.
Wasn't that windfall related to the fact that Nebraska's healthcare system, as it is now, trailing far behind the other states?
Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson has finally ensured his support for the health care bill, but not gratuitously. Instead, Nelson's support came in exchange for a Medicaid deal for the state of Nebraska. But, not everyone in Nebraska is happy about the special deal.
Nelson was the last Democratic holdout, but changed his mind over the weekend. On Sen. Ben Nelson's website, a statement appeared dating to December 19 saying, "Nelson to support health care bill: Delay would hurt Nebraska families, workers and employers." The statement said that the health care reform bill will reduce the cost, expand access, and improve health care for all Nebraskans.
What did Nelson ask in return? The federal government agreed to cover 100% of Nebraska's health care bill for an indefinite amount of time. The deal was called an act of "bribery" by the Republicans, who said there should be no special deals for any parties involved in the bill.
Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson has finally ensured his support for the health care bill, but not gratuitously. Instead, Nelson's support came in exchange for a Medicaid deal for the state of Nebraska. But, not everyone in Nebraska is happy about the special deal.
Nelson was the last Democratic holdout, but changed his mind over the weekend. On Sen. Ben Nelson's website, a statement appeared dating to December 19 saying, "Nelson to support health care bill: Delay would hurt Nebraska families, workers and employers." The statement said that the health care reform bill will reduce the cost, expand access, and improve health care for all Nebraskans.
What did Nelson ask in return? The federal government agreed to cover 100% of Nebraska's health care bill for an indefinite amount of time. The deal was called an act of "bribery" by the Republicans, who said there should be no special deals for any parties involved in the bill.
Don't get me wrong. The vote was purchased in the way that such votes often are. That doesn't change the fact that those who supported the move offered the poor condition of Nebraska's health care system (whether that qualifier is founded or not) as a justification for the move.
Frazzled wrote:Spoken like someone who doesn't actually...work.
I've had jobs since I was 15. I have one now. Since we've established that I have a job how about you actually suggest something other than "Fix the economy!". Oh wait, you can't. You don't and never really know what you're talking about. But I'm sure it makes you awful mad.
Health care is the economy. within 20 years it will bankrupt the nation. Typical America is too fething stupid to look past tomorrow.
Actually some people believe that the Industrial Military Complex is the economy. Anywhoo we need to fix our problems now before we can fix Health Care. Which I am on record for supporting a NHS for the U.S.
ShumaGorath wrote:Health care is the economy. within 20 years it will bankrupt the nation. Typical America is too fething stupid to look past tomorrow.
We've been bankrupting ourselves for 30 years. It's not just health care.
Ok, strike out the movie gallery job a few years back. Not really too big of an impact on my work history. I come from a lower class household and lived in a trailer park for 12 years. My family never had the luxury of not working.
ShumaGorath wrote:Health care is the economy. within 20 years it will bankrupt the nation. Typical America is too fething stupid to look past tomorrow.
We've been bankrupting ourselves for 30 years. It's not just health care.
Well reorganizing our entire economic infrastructure and abandoning the concept of an industrial economy is something most Americans have a far weaker idea of how to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Still in school correct Shuma?
Moving on to my second degree. Graduated from the first school when I was 20 and took a year off to work. Had a full time job in high school and had one at my first college. I currently work about 20 hours a week and that will ramp up to ~50 this summer.
ShumaGorath wrote:Health care is the economy. within 20 years it will bankrupt the nation. Typical America is too fething stupid to look past tomorrow.
Now I'm not an expert or anything so bear with me here, I think I have a wild idea. Maybe, to help with this economy issue we should like produce products and build stuff and then sell it to other countries. You know, make and export goods, and make things easier for American businesses, like lowering their taxes. Nah, thats just too wild. Your right shuma, we should instead raise taxes and give every body healthcare, so junkies can get those nasty absesses takin care of, and if we put a bunch of money into healthcare we'll have more doctors and stuff right? That'll fix it.
Frazzled wrote:What (grad?) degree are you going for Shuma?
It's a different degree, not a grad. I'll fish around for a grad degree if I can't get good employment (60k+) out of my current degree. Right now I'm attending for New Media, it's an omni major but I'm focusing on graphic design and special effects. My first degree was an AS in applied graphic design (websites, print design, magazine layout, etc). If I go for a grad degree I'll probably attempt to get a prospective company to pay for it. Most of my knowledge of economics and politics comes from a simple obsessive interest (I also follow tech and videogame news like it's some sort of job). There was a time when I wanted to work in tech news, and it's still something I have to follow up on. I would also not mind working in a campaign for someone and getting my political feet wet.
Ideally I'll end up owning an effects studio, though I would be happy to work a similar job. Being one of the guys doing doing the effects work for the colbert report or being an effects guy for bad robot or something would be keen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Norwulf wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Health care is the economy. within 20 years it will bankrupt the nation. Typical America is too fething stupid to look past tomorrow.
Now I'm not an expert or anything so bear with me here, I think I have a wild idea. Maybe, to help with this economy issue we should like produce products and build stuff and then sell it to other countries. You know, make and export goods, and make things easier for American businesses, like lowering their taxes. Nah, thats just too wild. Your right shuma, we should instead raise taxes and give every body healthcare, so junkies can get those nasty absesses takin care of, and if we put a bunch of money into healthcare we'll have more doctors and stuff right? That'll fix it.
They pay indonesian workers a dollar a week.
YOU CAN'T LOWER TAXES THAT fething MUCH THE FACTORIES AREN'T COMING BACK.
Shuma's right (and now I feel dirty), many manufacturing jobs like that aren't coming back, not unless we institute some truly draconian trade protections and pretty much end our presence in the world economy.
Tyyr wrote:Shuma's right (and now I feel dirty), many manufacturing jobs like that aren't coming back, not unless we institute some truly draconian trade protections and pretty much end our presence in the world economy.
Here is my question on the matter, it's always been cheaper to have 3rd world countries fab your stuff. But why is it only in the last 20 years or so that it has blown up? And I'm not talking about software and IT/helpline stuff that's obviously because of the upgraded telecommunications and internet. But I'm talking about classic manufacturing like wood working, textiles, basic electronics.
Shipping costs have dropped. Countries like China have instituted enough quality control measures that their stuff passes at least a minimum muster. People just don't care where their stuff was made, only how much it costs.
Tyyr wrote:Shuma's right (and now I feel dirty), many manufacturing jobs like that aren't coming back, not unless we institute some truly draconian trade protections and pretty much end our presence in the world economy.
You should feel dirty, (but not as dirty as agreeing with dogma, I gotta shower after that happens and it has happened). I for one am all for draconian trade protections against countries like china for example. I feel we need some Hugh Jass tariffs. Although I was being really sarcastic in my earlier post and a bit douchy towards shuma, (sorry shuma, you bring that out in me), I think its incredibly silly to make a claim like: "healthcare is our economy".
Well, when healthcare accounts for 20% of the GDP I'd like you to try and claim it's not a huge part.
Huge tariffs don't work. Your own companies inevitably take it up the tailpipe as the other side imposes tariffs on your crap. In the end protectionist tariffs do nothing but hurt everyone.
Frazzled wrote:What (grad?) degree are you going for Shuma?
It's a different degree, not a grad. I'll fish around for a grad degree if I can't get good employment (60k+) out of my current degree. Right now I'm attending for New Media, it's an omni major but I'm focusing on graphic design and special effects. My first degree was an AS in applied graphic design (websites, print design, magazine layout, etc). If I go for a grad degree I'll probably attempt to get a prospective company to pay for it. Most of my knowledge of economics and politics comes from a simple obsessive interest (I also follow tech and videogame news like it's some sort of job). There was a time when I wanted to work in tech news, and it's still something I have to follow up on. I would also not mind working in a campaign for someone and getting my political feet wet.
Keep up the good work then Shuma
OT on the OT on the OT: AS equals Associate of Science? If so, then respect and I understand the path.
Tyrr wrote:Huge tariffs don't work. Your own companies inevitably take it up the tailpipe as the other side imposes tariffs on your crap. In the end protectionist tariffs do nothing but hurt everyone.
Don't forget that you're raising prices for consumers in the process.
Tyyr wrote:Well, when healthcare accounts for 20% of the GDP I'd like you to try and claim it's not a huge part.
It is a large part. But, if I take off my shoes, I think that means that...carry the 1.... 80% of the GDP isn't health care. That's like a 4-1 ratio. Yes, health care is a large part. It's not the only part. Some of it is interrelated parts. People are living longer, have more health care in later life, but retirement ages haven't drastically increased. So, retirees are a bigger burden on the pension system and the health care system. But, there's lots of other reasons that the federal government is in trouble. Something about not balancing their checkbook for too long, and both the Rep and Dems are to blame for that. But, after WW2, the US got out a larger deficient (relative to the GDP), so it can be done.
It isn't as simple as cutting corporate taxes either. The US effective federal tax rate is 5th in the developed world and, according to some sources, lower than China's. Taking into account state corporate taxes, we move up to second; behind Japan and slightly ahead of Germany. However, tax revenue accounts for 2.2% of GDP, lower than the OECD average of 3.4%; thanks primarily to the many loopholes in the corporate tax code.
Far more important to US economic health is the individual income tax, which accounts for 45% of US federal revenue.
Tyyr wrote:Well, when healthcare accounts for 20% of the GDP I'd like you to try and claim it's not a huge part.
Huge tariffs don't work. Your own companies inevitably take it up the tailpipe as the other side imposes tariffs on your crap. In the end protectionist tariffs do nothing but hurt everyone.
20% is one fifth, thats not what I would call huge. A fraction, yes but not huge, like the majority. Lets say they were going to begin universal healthcare in the US tomorrow, where is the money gonna come from? How is creating jobs for doctors and nurses, who take years to train, and require a fairly large wage compared to other professions, going to help the economy? Why is it so nonsenseical to concetrate on creating jobs that require little training and less pay? For the same cost of employing a few hundred doctors you could employ thousands of factory or sawmill workers etc. We need to start making and selling something.
ShumaGorath wrote:They pay indonesian workers a dollar a week.
YOU CAN'T LOWER TAXES THAT fething MUCH THE FACTORIES AREN'T COMING BACK.
If thats the case then we're boned. What are people who have no education outside of highschool supposed to do? Mc Donalds can only employ so many people.
Norwulf wrote:We need to start making and selling something.
We could subsidize production in order to keep people employed, but that's counter-productive over the long run when practiced on a large scale. Otherwise, we're talking about cutting minimum wage, reducing or eliminating employer side payroll taxes, and cutting the personal income tax in order to encourage investment and consumer spending. That last one also comes with budget cuts to the military and entitlements, which in turn creates certain, hopefully small, issues with unemployment.
Norwulf wrote:We need to start making and selling something.
We could subsidize production in order to keep people employed, but that's counter-productive over the long run when practiced on a large scale. Otherwise, we're talking about cutting minimum wage, reducing or eliminating employer side payroll taxes, and cutting the personal income tax in order to encourage investment and consumer spending. That last one also comes with budget cuts to the military and entitlements, which in turn creates certain, hopefully small, issues with unemployment.
I really, really wish they would lower minimum wage in my state, and mind you I make minimum wage. My profession is fething dishwasher fer christ's sake. They raised it here in washington a little while ago and it just makes it harder to get a job and get a raise. I may not have all the answers, but I wish they could take some small steps like lowering minimum wage, cutting down on social programs, lowering taxes on small businesses etc. I havent had insurance in 3 years and I'm totally fine with that, if it keeps tax payers above the poverty line thats cool.
If minimum wage is lowered, what exactly is stopping businesses from just pocketing the money, or building new stores, with absolutely no decrease in cost of goods? It seems like a concession that will only serve to hurt our society at large. I can definitely imagine employers being happy about all of that extra money paying for their new car though.
Company makes more money, then builds more stores that their employees cannot afford to actually buy anything from.
As to draconian measures, just to compete with china, that seems to have been addressed already. I can't imagine that being anything but a terrible decision.
Wrexasaur wrote:If minimum wage is lowered, what exactly is stopping businesses from just pocketing the money, or building new stores, with absolutely no decrease in cost of goods? It seems like a concession that will only serve to hurt our society at large. I can definitely imagine employers being happy about all of that extra money paying for their new car though.
Well economic theory goes that when something like minimum wage is lowered, business owners are more likely to hire more workers, thus lowering the unemployment rate. It is just good business sense to invest more money into your own business, that way it is able to profit more. And if they do pocket the money who cares? Its their business, they should be able to benefit from it as much as possible.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Well economic theory goes that when something like minimum wage is lowered, business owners are more likely to hire more workers, thus lowering the unemployment rate.
While simultaneously making a very large number of Americans scrape by on what little money their job can provide. Unless the cost of goods is also lowered across the board, at least to a sensible degree, this appears to be little more than a burden on the lower class. At some point, people will get fed up, and you are bound to find yourself back at square one. More social support from the government than we have ever seen before. People who can't afford to eat, are not going to make for very good employees.
It is just good business sense to invest more money into your own business, that way it is able to profit more. And if they do pocket the money who cares? Its their business, they should be able to benefit from it as much as possible.
Lowering minimum wage, without stopping employers from taking that money and sticking it right in their pocket, is no less than a direct subsidy from their employees. The current minimum wage in my area, is hardly enough (barely enough, due to government programs that attempt to fill in the gaps) to live on as it is.
Wrexasaur wrote:While simultaneously making a very large number of Americans scrape by on what little money their job can provide. Unless the cost of goods is also lowered across the board, at least to a sensible degree, this appears to be little more than a burden on the lower class. At some point, people will get fed up, and you are bound to find yourself back at square one. More social support from the government than we have ever seen before. People who can't afford to eat, are not going to make for very good employees.
While there is a large percentage of Americans at the moment who are underemployed that is generally not the case. The vast majority of minimum wage workers during a normal economy is high school and college students. I think the Department of Labor put it at some 80% a few years back. It really isn't that many people who depend on minimum wage for their livelihood. Besides a $1 raise really isn't going make that much of a difference in terms of their income level.
Wrexasaur wrote:Lowering minimum wage, without stopping employers from taking that money and sticking it right in their pocket, is no less than a direct subsidy from their employees. The current minimum wage in my area, is hardly enough (barely enough, due to government programs that attempt to fill in the gaps) to live on as it is.
Its the nature of the system man. Better jobs usually mean more money, but you can't expect for everyone to make $100,000 a year, it just isn't feasible. Besides, don't you live in like San Fran? That is easily one of the most expensive areas to live in the country, so of course minimum wage won't exactly cut it.
JEB_Stuart wrote:While there is a large percentage of Americans at the moment who are underemployed that is generally not the case. The vast majority of minimum wage workers during a normal economy is high school and college students. I think the Department of Labor put it at some 80% a few years back. It really isn't that many people who depend on minimum wage for their livelihood. Besides a $1 raise really isn't going make that much of a difference in terms of their income level.
How many people are currently on minimum wage? I'll take a bit of time to find the info as well. It would seem to me that many College/High school students are taking that work to support their families income. Either way, a large amount of people that completely rely on having that minimum wage (without cuts), will be hurt by such actions. Give and take I suppose, but I am not sure I could see far past that more jobs at a lower wage, is not necessarily good for anyone but business.
Its the nature of the system man. Better jobs usually mean more money, but you can't expect for everyone to make $100,000 a year, it just isn't feasible. Besides, don't you live in like San Fran? That is easily one of the most expensive areas to live in the country, so of course minimum wage won't exactly cut it.
That is part of the problem though. A universal drop of minimum wage, will effect many states differently. If it were to be a state by state basis, I could see various reasons how it could work. I suppose that Norwulf suggested that for his state specifically, but overall it sounded like a pretty generalized statement overall.
Yes... I can totally hear over the internet.
Note:
JEB... NorCal has, like, infected you with slang.
Wages are the price of labor, and are based on supply and demand. Whether or not wages will fall without minimum wage depends on the conditions of the labor market; however, the more minimum wage law is propping up wages the more of a surplus of labor (unemployment) is created. The employers can't simply "pocket the difference", as any firm that does so will become less competitive (by giving themselves a shortage of labor).
I don't much like minimum wage law. It's distortionary; it's like a tax levied on businesses, to help the poor, but then only levied on businesses that already do the most to help the poor. It disincentives investment in creating jobs that employ the lower class; they need job opportunities more than anyone. Trade creates wealth, and minimum wage is a restriction on what the poor may trade. It doesn't force anyone to accept the offer.
I think if something is to be done to alleviate poverty, some sort of program that transfers wealth from the rich to the poor would be better than a program that transfers wealth from whoever does business with the poor to the poor.
Norwulf wrote:Now I'm not an expert or anything so bear with me here, I think I have a wild idea. Maybe, to help with this economy issue we should like produce products and build stuff and then sell it to other countries.
The US produces around $2.5 trillion in manufactured goods each year, more than anyone else.
You know, make and export goods, and make things easier for American businesses, like lowering their taxes. Nah, thats just too wild.
There is little to nothing linking the general tax level to employment or productivity. Specific taxes can affect economic activity on a micro level, but we're talking about the economy as a whole. Short term, the only means of stimulating the economy as a whole is direct spending, which was undertaken, albeit with significant opposition from the Republicans.
Your right shuma, we should instead raise taxes and give every body healthcare, so junkies can get those nasty absesses takin care of, and if we put a bunch of money into healthcare we'll have more doctors and stuff right? That'll fix it.
Are you saying the only people without insurance are junkies? Reality would disagree.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JEB_Stuart wrote:Well economic theory goes that when something like minimum wage is lowered, business owners are more likely to hire more workers, thus lowering the unemployment rate.
Not really, as that would assume elastic demand and supply, which are not often present in the labour market. There are productivity studies completed on these issues constantly by all national governments that can establish fairly conclusively what the effect on employment will be, I tried reading a few and my eyeball popped out of my skull… it’s really dense stuff. At the most basic level they look at a range
I don’t know how much those studies impact minimum wage levels in the US. I know they’re taken pretty much verbatim in Australia (politicians trot out the usual lines about free markets and the other side argues for fair markets and afterall the points scoring has been done they all quietly go about following the recommendation of the study) but I do know that US minimum wages are ludicrously low. Dropping them further is unlikely to impact employment as I just cannot believe there’s a significant number of positions out there that aren’t worth filling at $5.15 an hour that might be worth filling at $4 an hour. But I can tell you that trying to get by on around $200 a week is impossible, let alone $160.
I mean, you look at the average overhead costs of providing necessary infrastructure and supervision of a job, and it comes it at least $5 an hour, so arguing that the $5 an employee gets is too much is just odd.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:Here is my question on the matter, it's always been cheaper to have 3rd world countries fab your stuff. But why is it only in the last 20 years or so that it has blown up? And I'm not talking about software and IT/helpline stuff that's obviously because of the upgraded telecommunications and internet. But I'm talking about classic manufacturing like wood working, textiles, basic electronics.
Something has changed....
GG
Globalisation has allowed for more complex international production chains. It is a lot easier to put capital into a new electronics plant in Burma than it was thirty years ago.
More than that, though, the skill level across the world has grown markedly. Electronics and the manufacture of consumer goods used to be a high skill activity, it was done in the West despite our high salaries because no-one else was capable of doing it. But now most countries are capable of building and managing a plant that can produce such goods.
The trick to the whole issue is that all of that is actually a good thing. I understand it doesn’t feel like it during poor economic times, but the only way to sustain the standard of living we’re used to in the West is to focus on high skilled work – doing what the developing world cannot and charging a premium for it - R&D, high level manufacture (aircraft and the like), financial services – these are industries that are driven by technical expertise, not low wage levels.
Through trade we can get low skilled nations to do the low paying work, while a significant portion of our populations can move into high paying industries.
If thats the case then we're boned. What are people who have no education outside of highschool supposed to do? Mc Donalds can only employ so many people.
Increase job training for highly technical fields and encourage upper level education by providing better aid to applying students. The factories aren't coming back and we aren't a production economy. We are a service and technology economy that is too stupid to realize it. We should capitalize on what we have (more colleges than the rest of the world combined) and stop trying to breathe life into a dead body.
Wrexasaur wrote:How many people are currently on minimum wage? I'll take a bit of time to find the info as well. It would seem to me that many College/High school students are taking that work to support their families income. Either way, a large amount of people that completely rely on having that minimum wage (without cuts), will be hurt by such actions. Give and take I suppose, but I am not sure I could see far past that more jobs at a lower wage, is not necessarily good for anyone but business.
The most recent I could dig up so quickly was this report from the Department of Labor. Here is just a small excerpt:
According to Current Population Survey estimates for 2005, 75.6 million American workers were paid at hourly rates, representing 60.1 percent of all wage and salary workers.1 Of those paid by the hour, 479,000 were reported as earning exactly $5.15, the prevailing Federal minimum wage. Another 1.4 million were reported as earning wages below the minimum.2 Together, these 1.9 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 2.5 percent of all hourly-paid workers. Tables 1 - 10 present data on a wide array of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics for hourly-paid workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage.
Wrexasaur wrote:Note: JEB... NorCal has, like, infected you with slang.
sebster wrote:I know they’re taken pretty much verbatim in Australia (politicians trot out the usual lines about free markets and the other side argues for fair markets and afterall the points scoring has been done they all quietly go about following the recommendation of the study) but I do know that US minimum wages are ludicrously low. Dropping them further is unlikely to impact employment as I just cannot believe there’s a significant number of positions out there that aren’t worth filling at $5.15 an hour that might be worth filling at $4 an hour. But I can tell you that trying to get by on around $200 a week is impossible, let alone $160.
Minimum wage would be ludicrously low, if there were no government programs that artificially subsidized the businesses that follow those guidelines. Food stamps, Medicaid, Social security, all of these combined provide a relatively livable situation overall. Note, livable is not my idea of positive. In this economy, I can only begin to imagine how hard it is for families with several children to support.
JEB_Stuart wrote:The most recent I could dig up so quickly was this report from the Department of Labor. Here is just a small excerpt: ... *insert above text here*
BLS wrote:Minimum wage workers tend to be young. About half of workers earning $5.15 or less were under age 25, and about one-fourth of workers earning at or below the minimum wage were age 16-19. Among employed teenagers, about 9 percent earned $5.15 or less. About 2 percent of workers age 25 and over earned the minimum wage or less. Among those age 65 and over, the proportion was about 3 percent.
50% (?) is a high number isn't it. Maybe I am being 3 beers goggle eyed stupid, but the site doesn't seem to want to provide detailed information beyond the difficult to understand, written statistics. I can't find anything better right now, so I will have to take this at face value.
Being from 2006, I can safely say that the job market has changed noticeably since then, though how that affects these numbers, I really couldn't say.
Sticking to the bullets handed to me, 1 million people are likely to oppose this. I could align the planets, and gather all of these people together... then... this isn't going to work, is it?
Wrexasaur wrote:Minimum wage would be ludicrously low, if there were no government programs that artificially subsidized the businesses that follow those guidelines. Food stamps, Medicaid, Social security, all of these combined provide a relatively livable situation overall. Note, livable is not my idea of positive. In this economy, I can only begin to imagine how hard it is for families with several children to support.
It's more like $14 an hour here, which is about $12.50 USD. Even then you can access rent support, child allowances, and a whole host of other programs... and it's still tough. I can't even begin to understand how someone could get by $5.15 an hour.
dogma wrote:Without assistance programs, relatives, illicit income, or wealth most people can't. At least not for very long.
Yeah, but like I said above in Australia we have all manner of programs, although I didn't consider folk getting help from family. A lot of minimum wage workers ar kids as well, so they'd live at home and that'd help. And people could work double jobs, or shift work 50+ hours...
It's still, well, I can't believe anyone would talk about lowering it.
sebster wrote:It's more like $14 an hour here, which is about $12.50 USD. Even then you can access rent support, child allowances, and a whole host of other programs... and it's still tough. I can't even begin to understand how someone could get by $5.15 an hour.
In California, minimum wage is 8.75/hr. In the many areas throughout the state, this is nowhere near enough to actually live on. You can do it, but that will be due to government assistance for the most part. When rent is 750$ a month, bills/food are well beyond 500$, and anything in between eating the rest of a meager living, my bootstraps are no longer within reach.
Actually... I think someone just stole my bootstraps... hmmm...
It's still, well, I can't believe anyone would talk about lowering it.
It is perplexing to me as well, especially hearing it from someone (Norwulf), who is currently in such a situation.
3-4 years ago, I could find work with my wits, and experience, using that income to share a house with 2-3 people. Now, my options are a hair above being trapped in my parent's house. 500$ studios are hard to find, and apartments dwell solidly within the range of 700-1000 dollars. This is basic stuff, full bedroom, bath, and kitchen. Nothing fancy there, and it is odd to me that aspiring to such a meager goal, is seemingly out of my means.
sebster wrote:It's more like $14 an hour here, which is about $12.50 USD. Even then you can access rent support, child allowances, and a whole host of other programs... and it's still tough. I can't even begin to understand how someone could get by $5.15 an hour.
They don't anymore, minimum wage is $7.50. Besides, only 2.5% of the population actually earns minimum wage, and half of that is college and high school students. We are talking incredibly small amounts of people much less people who need it to survive. Minimum wage is just another talking point, just like saying that small businesses are the economy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrexasaur wrote:In California, minimum wage is 8.75/hr. In the many areas throughout the state, this is nowhere near enough to actually live on. You can do it, but that will be due to government assistance for the most part. When rent is 750$ a month, bills/food are well beyond 500$, and anything in between eating the rest of a meager living, my bootstraps are no longer within reach.
I make decent money for what I do $10 an hour it is higher than min wage but I would be homeless if I was not renting from my mother a two bed apartment here runs about $750-$850. I make just over 1k a month and still can not afford health care on my own. The policy my company put out would take one whole check of mine that is crazy. Lower min wage when I am living check to check no thanks I am as conservative as they come and I will vote republican till I die. I will sit here with a stick with a nail in it if any one tries to lower it. rant over
sebster wrote:
It's still, well, I can't believe anyone would talk about lowering it.
Not many people do, not seriously anyway, as it doesn't have a huge impact on the economy. About the best that can be said of lowering the minimum wage is that it might extend employment to those who are currently unemployed. However, because those people would still be receiving government assistance, or simply not living independent lifestyles, the potential reduction in unemployment would be of minimal importance. Obviously I say 'potential' because there is no guarantee that there exists a great deal of demand for unskilled labor.
Its irrelevant. You just higher illegal aliens and pay them lower. Plus they work harder, much harder. I'd rather hire an illegal alien who put massive effort into getiting here and is highly motivated to make money vs. a high school mouth breather.
Our neighbor is a contractor. He never hires "local" vs. "illegal" for just that reason.
They don't anymore, minimum wage is $7.50. Besides, only 2.5% of the population actually earns minimum wage, and half of that is college and high school students. We are talking incredibly small amounts of people much less people who need it to survive. Minimum wage is just another talking point, just like saying that small businesses are the economy.
Every minimum wage job I've ever had stopped being minimum wage after a raise gained by not quitting after two months. The raise was usually about a quarter, then the raises stopped. I'm not that up on employment statistics, but what are the number of jobs that start at minimum wage as opposed to the number of workers currently earning it? It looks bad for a business when it pays minimum wage across the board but 7.75 isn't really any better than 7.50.
@Shuma: I don't know, but if they have that information it will be in the Department of Labor's study. I posted the link in this thread. If you want to go through it, be my guest, but I didn't see in my quick read-through any relevant data to your question.
Oops, my mistake. It looks like minimum wage varies quite a bit if the information I have looked at is correct.
Looks like San Fran has a substantially higher minimum wage @ 9.79/hr., apparently. Considering the actual cost of living in that particular city (which I do not), it is better than I thought, but still rough. Not too sure whether other cities in the Bay area have their own minimum wage.
Shuma wrote:It looks bad for a business when it pays minimum wage across the board but 7.75 isn't really any better than 7.50.
The last retail job I had, my first raise was something like 23 cents. The corporate office, had a strange policy of 50 cent raises, split into two different time periods. So your first raise was less than a quarter, my boss thought it would be funny to give me a full quarter. I still wonder if she caught the look of rage that I shot at her. Never got that second part either, not that it really would have mattered.
Frazzled wrote:Its irrelevant. You just higher illegal aliens and pay them lower. Plus they work harder, much harder. I'd rather hire an illegal alien who put massive effort into getiting here and is highly motivated to make money vs. a high school mouth breather.
Our neighbor is a contractor. He never hires "local" vs. "illegal" for just that reason.
You forgot to add: while complaining about border security.
Hopefully this notes the end of this rather ridiculous situation (a year of monotonous debate, backed up by years of the same), not the end to the entire problem.
Brain-crushingly informative set of articles. Hope you have a bit of time on your hands, if you haven't paid some amount of attention to the health care debate. This is likely the best compilation online, though there are bound to be thousands of fantastic articles around the net.
Frazzled wrote:Its irrelevant. You just higher illegal aliens and pay them lower. Plus they work harder, much harder. I'd rather hire an illegal alien who put massive effort into getiting here and is highly motivated to make money vs. a high school mouth breather.
Our neighbor is a contractor. He never hires "local" vs. "illegal" for just that reason.
So, you'd rather encourage border-jumpers AND contribute to the unemployment rate? Why not run a Ponzi scheme, and go for the hat-trick?
Frazzled wrote:Its irrelevant. You just higher illegal aliens and pay them lower. Plus they work harder, much harder. I'd rather hire an illegal alien who put massive effort into getiting here and is highly motivated to make money vs. a high school mouth breather.
Our neighbor is a contractor. He never hires "local" vs. "illegal" for just that reason.
So, you'd rather encourage border-jumpers AND contribute to the unemployment rate? Why not run a Ponzi scheme, and go for the hat-trick?
What do you mean encourage? There's reality then there's the utopia of unicorns and antigunners. Thats reality.
Thank your democratic (and republican) Congress and Presidents for it, don't blame me.
View from the other side of the pond on healthcare...
Cost of increased taxes to pay for universal coverage < Cost of private health insurance policy.
-Good for individual wealth.
Number of people employed to run universal health care < Number employed to staff private health insurance.
-Bad for overall employment levels.
Cost to economy due to lost income related to sickness with universal coverage < cost with private coverage.
-Good for national wealth.
Ultimately, its not an economic argument that stops the US from having universal coverage, its a political one. The insurance lobby sides with those who think government should be as small as possible and trots out bogus arguments about loss of liberty (how?), massive government beaurocracy (actually more efficient than insurance companies) and huge tax raises (more than offset by not having to pay insurance premiums).
Just suck it up and CHANGE into tzeentch worshippers.
I mean support Obama's policy, obviously [looks around furtively...]
I hope they go ahead and pass the bill without a single GOP vote. They're just as wrong in opposing it as they were to oppose Medicare and Civil Rights in the 60's. Their blustering is just as ridiculous now as it was back then...
Here's a gem from good ol' Ronald Reagan, begging the public to oppose the passage of Medicare:
"If you don’t, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country until one day as Norman Thomas said we will wake to find that we have socialism, and if you don’t do this and I don’t do this, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free."
Nearly half the Republicans voted for the original Medicare, thats pretty damn bipartisan to me. The fact Our Leader can't get one vote speaks volumes.
Now Frazz... you know the most ethical and transparent Administration in the history of the US would never trade political favors for votes.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Commissar Molotov wrote:Here's a gem from good ol' Ronald Reagan, begging the public to oppose the passage of Medicare:
"If you don’t, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country until one day as Norman Thomas said we will wake to find that we have socialism, and if you don’t do this and I don’t do this, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free."
LOL @ fearmongering...
Sounds more like sooth saying to me. Reagan was a wise man and we are fools for not heeding his words.
The very program (Social Security) that was designed to be a safety net for those that couldn't provide for their sunset years has been used to fleece the taxpayers and has turned out to be a big ponzi scheme that is already running into the red. The so called reserve will NEVER be tapped and our corrupt government will hide their ponzi scheme by reducing benefits and increasing retirement age.
Why the hell would I trust an increasing amount of my life to these crooks?
The Green Git wrote:
Sounds more like sooth saying to me. Reagan was a wise man and we are fools for not heeding his words.
The same conclusion can be drawn from the formation of the earliest social groups; eg. "Mark my words, if you listen to me, you'll listen to others, and if you listen to others, eventually you'll involve them in your decision making. And once you involve them in your decision making, you'll allow them to take over your decision making." Its nonsensical, slippery-slope gibberish which denies agency to anyone not granted it in the past tense. Basically, if that Reagan quote is truly representative of soothsaying the only valid conclusion becomes on in which socialism is inevitable.
The Green Git wrote:
The very program (Social Security) that was designed to be a safety net for those that couldn't provide for their sunset years has been used to fleece the taxpayers and has turned out to be a big ponzi scheme that is already running into the red. The so called reserve will NEVER be tapped and our corrupt government will hide their ponzi scheme by reducing benefits and increasing retirement age.
Both of those should have been done some time ago as the age at which benefits can be collected has always been directly tied to the average life expectancy in these sorts of programs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
What do you mean encourage? There's reality then there's the utopia of unicorns and antigunners. Thats reality.
Thank your democratic (and republican) Congress and Presidents for it, don't blame me.
No, reality would mean acknowledging that eliminating, or reducing, the minimum wage would significantly alter the balance on which illegals are hired. Even people here without legal validation have costs associated with their presence. Prevent them from undercutting wages and there will most certainly be an effect, therefore its not irrelevant.
Chimera_Calvin wrote:
View from the other side of the pond on healthcare...
Cost of increased taxes to pay for universal coverage < Cost of private health insurance policy.
-Good for individual wealth.
Number of people employed to run universal health care < Number employed to staff private health insurance.
-Bad for overall employment levels.
Cost to economy due to lost income related to sickness with universal coverage < cost with private coverage.
-Good for national wealth.
Can you prove any of those statements or are you just blowing smoke out your ass?
Actually, yes I can. The tax burden per person in the UK averages at about £6000 per annum (about $8000) but that includes all healthcare costs. This is a lot less than the tax burden + healthcare costs in the US.
As for administration costs (using US figures), health insurance companies typically spend 5-10 times more on administration than Medicare/Medicaid per patient.
The last point may be debatable, but simple logic would seem to dictate that any system with universal coverage will treat more people than one without. If anyone can't work because they need medical treatment, a universal system guarantees that they will be able to get back to work, thus contributing to both the economy at large and government income through taxes.
As for the Reagan argument about the loss of liberty and the inevitable move towards socialism, can anyone explain why my liberty as a British citizen is in any way curtailed by the NHS? If anything its actually liberating. Knowing that I don't need to worry about healthcare for myself or my family (it will always be provided even if I lose my job or when I retire) more than makes up for the higher taxes I have to pay when I do work.
Just something I wanted to speicfy about minimum wage: Over here in my neck of the woods, (your woods may be different, mine happen to be full of deer and bunnies), Minimum wage is about $8.50 an hour, it was a dollar and a half less when I got my first job. Since then it has become much harder for unemployed people to find work, and even harder to get a raise, (in the kind of crap entry level jobs i work in). I believe this is because the cost of living is much higher on the west side of the state, (WA). While it's nice for seatllites it sucks for spokanites, if they were to lower min wage in my state I would be very happy and probably have more choices in employment. I understand in some places lowering minimum wage is a terrble idea, take Idaho for example: theirs is $4-5 doallrs an hour IIRC and I've met alot of people that commute from Idaho to Spokane to cash in on our super high min wage. It may not work everywhere, but there has to be some places they could lower it and get more people working. Like here. *wink wink*
ShumaGorath wrote:
Increase job training for highly technical fields and encourage upper level education by providing better aid to applying students. The factories aren't coming back and we aren't a production economy. We are a service and technology economy that is too stupid to realize it. We should capitalize on what we have (more colleges than the rest of the world combined) and stop trying to breathe life into a dead body.
I'm having trouble understanding what exactly your saying here, in order to improve our economy we all need to go to college, and get high paying, cutting edge jobs?
I see two problems here: first, where is the money for this increased job training for highly technical fields supposed to come from? Community colleges are swelling with students and there's less and less financial aid to go around. Like I said earlier I'm no expert of any kind, but this doesnt sound like a viable economy to me. I guess I can't see every working citizen in America being a college grad, which brings me to the second problem I see here: Do you really have that much faith in the American people that you could see a majority of us completeing college, and becoming engineers and doctors? From my basic, rudimentary understanding of economics, even if your not a production centered economy, you still need to be producing something in order to keep new money coming in. Heres the scenario I'm seeing, and it doesn't work in my head: pay your takes so you can have health care, which pays your doctor who shops at the wal-mart you work at, thus putting money into your pocket so you can pay those taxes again. Okay, now you guys can pick apart my comments and point out the garing flaws in my illogic.
The Matheson family is respected by most of Utah. The vetting process for Scott Matheson has been going on for months, and both of Utah's Republican Senators have praised the decision. But don't let the truth get in the way of winning back the White House.
I'm having trouble understanding what exactly your saying here, in order to improve our economy we all need to go to college, and get high paying, cutting edge jobs?
Not universally, but some effort to reduce the slide backwards is absolutely necessary. It's considerably harder for a college applicant to attend now than it was 20 years ago. Costs have soared well above inflation while average earnings have slid backwards. Our education economy is one of the few things we have to compete with.
I see two problems here: first, where is the money for this increased job training for highly technical fields supposed to come from? Community colleges are swelling with students and there's less and less financial aid to go around.
I suppose federal and state governments and the attendees themselves paying up front or taking out loans. Same thing going on now really.
Like I said earlier I'm no expert of any kind, but this doesnt sound like a viable economy to me.
Because money has to come from somewhere? Thats your reasoning? Increased aid and focus on college level education would be a drop in the bucket when placed next to healthcare or defense.
I guess I can't see every working citizen in America being a college grad, which brings me to the second problem I see here: Do you really have that much faith in the American people that you could see a majority of us completeing college, and becoming engineers and doctors?
Service and technology economy. The grads can work the technical and business jobs, the rest can work at mcdonalds or do construction or something. The time of the 15 dollar an hour untrained factory job is gone, you don't get to be payed that much for doing something some starving black dude across an ocean could do for a thirtieth the cost.
From my basic, rudimentary understanding of economics, even if your not a production centered economy, you still need to be producing something in order to keep new money coming in.
Only insofar as you want to lower the trade deficit, and America produces quite a bit. However most of the goods it produces are either sold in the U.S., or are intangible and come in the form of medicines, technology, services (such as telecommunications or search), or business services. If a factory export economy was required to survive as a nation the U.S., the UK, and a significant number of european states would have ceased to exist 20 years ago.
Heres the scenario I'm seeing, and it doesn't work in my head: pay your takes so you can have health care, which pays your doctor who shops at the wal-mart you work at, thus putting money into your pocket so you can pay those taxes again. Okay, now you guys can pick apart my comments and point out the garing flaws in my illogic.
Well this last one makes sense, though doctors probably don't shop at wallmart.
YOU CAN'T LOWER TAXES THAT fething MUCH THE FACTORIES AREN'T COMING BACK.
No, but you can tariff the heck out of whatever enters from another country. Yes, I know, the world bank and fair trade losers will come out of the woodwork but other countries *cough* South Korea *cough* get away with it. This shouldn't be news but every country is involved in some form of protectionist behavior anyway, the Canadians always cry when the U.S. raises tariffs on lumber.
YOU CAN'T LOWER TAXES THAT fething MUCH THE FACTORIES AREN'T COMING BACK.
No, but you can tariff the heck out of whatever enters from another country. Yes, I know, the world bank and fair trade losers will come out of the woodwork but other countries *cough* South Korea *cough* get away with it. This shouldn't be news but every country is involved in some form of protectionist behavior anyway, the Canadians always cry when the U.S. raises tariffs on lumber.
Do you want a tshirt to cost 40 dollars? Globalized production is at the heart of why we are able to afford such cheap goods.
Do you want a tshirt to cost 40 dollars? Globalized production is at the heart of why we are able to afford such cheap goods.
Yes and it is the American consumer's locust-like consumption that drives the sweatshops and is partially responsible for the flight of the American manufacturing base.
In answer to your rhetorical question, I want a tshirt to be priced as it should cost, not what walmart thinks it should. I think, overall, people waste less when it costs more. Look at countries in europe and asia and compare the consumer appetites with that of consumers in the U.S. big difference.
As to the OP,
I've lived in 2 countries with a form of public healthcare and cannot for the life of me understand why people are so disinclined to try it. What do you think Medicare and Medicaid (especially medicaid) are? Socialized healthcare. Besides, the people that all the conservatives are worried about getting access to free healthcare, already have it. Roll medicaid and medicare into a complete socialized medicine package and you've got a recipe for win. But, most americans are so indoctrinated in the "all socialism is evil" thing that they won't even consider it. Just think about all that money from your paycheck that goes to medicare and all the federal and state money that gets dumped into medicaid already. think about it.
Frazzled wrote:Nearly half the Republicans voted for the original Medicare, thats pretty damn bipartisan to me. The fact Our Leader can't get one vote speaks volumes.
Yeah, it says that no Republican would dare cross the floor to support even the most watered down version of the bill. It also speaks volumes when the GOP can't even list a starting position for their own vision of healthcare reform... because all they have is bluff and SOCIALISM!
I mean, hate the Democrats all you want (there's plenty of reasons to) but don't for one second pretend that no member of the GOP will cross the floor because of Obama or the contents of the health bill (in any form, it don't matter). They won't cross the floor because it's good politics to hurt the Democrats on this issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
agnosto wrote:No, but you can tariff the heck out of whatever enters from another country. Yes, I know, the world bank and fair trade losers will come out of the woodwork but other countries *cough* South Korea *cough* get away with it. This shouldn't be news but every country is involved in some form of protectionist behavior anyway, the Canadians always cry when the U.S. raises tariffs on lumber.
There are millions of jobs in the US dependant on exports - good jobs that pay well. The high living standard in the US is only possible as a result of trade with other nations. The benefits of comparative advantage is very basic stuff and impossible to dispute.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
agnosto wrote:Yes and it is the American consumer's locust-like consumption that drives the sweatshops and is partially responsible for the flight of the American manufacturing base.
In answer to your rhetorical question, I want a tshirt to be priced as it should cost, not what walmart thinks it should. I think, overall, people waste less when it costs more. Look at countries in europe and asia and compare the consumer appetites with that of consumers in the U.S. big difference.
Are you working on the assumption that consumption patterns in Europe are substantially different to the US? They aren't.
Yes and it is the American consumer's locust-like consumption that drives the sweatshops and is partially responsible for the flight of the American manufacturing base.
Not really, sheer profit drives companies overseas, it's the american onus to own more that keeps market capitalism flowin'.
In answer to your rhetorical question, I want a tshirt to be priced as it should cost, not what walmart thinks it should. I think, overall, people waste less when it costs more. Look at countries in europe and asia and compare the consumer appetites with that of consumers in the U.S. big difference.
Cost is relative to what people are willing to pay. There is no price that something "Should cost". I'm also going to just assume that you've never been to either europe (in the last 30 years) or china (in the last 15). Neither one is particularly different in it's spending habits or shirt costs.
Do you want a tshirt to cost 40 dollars? Globalized production is at the heart of why we are able to afford such cheap goods.
Yes and it is the American consumer's locust-like consumption that drives the sweatshops and is partially responsible for the flight of the American manufacturing base.
In answer to your rhetorical question, I want a tshirt to be priced as it should cost, not what walmart thinks it should. I think, overall, people waste less when it costs more. Look at countries in europe and asia and compare the consumer appetites with that of consumers in the U.S. big difference.
As to the OP,
I've lived in 2 countries with a form of public healthcare and cannot for the life of me understand why people are so disinclined to try it. What do you think Medicare and Medicaid (especially medicaid) are? Socialized healthcare. Besides, the people that all the conservatives are worried about getting access to free healthcare, already have it. Roll medicaid and medicare into a complete socialized medicine package and you've got a recipe for win. But, most americans are so indoctrinated in the "all socialism is evil" thing that they won't even consider it. Just think about all that money from your paycheck that goes to medicare and all the federal and state money that gets dumped into medicaid already. think about it.
Incorrect. I'm annoyed because they want to kill Medicare and Medicare Advantage to pay for it.
That and the other 2000 pages of whatever bill is up this time.
Whatever. This is stupid. Arguing about this topic on the OT is stupid. Pass or fail this is the death knell of the Democrats' control of Congress in 2010.
Do you want a tshirt to cost 40 dollars? Globalized production is at the heart of why we are able to afford such cheap goods.
Yes and it is the American consumer's locust-like consumption that drives the sweatshops and is partially responsible for the flight of the American manufacturing base.
In answer to your rhetorical question, I want a tshirt to be priced as it should cost, not what walmart thinks it should. I think, overall, people waste less when it costs more. Look at countries in europe and asia and compare the consumer appetites with that of consumers in the U.S. big difference.
As to the OP,
I've lived in 2 countries with a form of public healthcare and cannot for the life of me understand why people are so disinclined to try it. What do you think Medicare and Medicaid (especially medicaid) are? Socialized healthcare. Besides, the people that all the conservatives are worried about getting access to free healthcare, already have it. Roll medicaid and medicare into a complete socialized medicine package and you've got a recipe for win. But, most americans are so indoctrinated in the "all socialism is evil" thing that they won't even consider it. Just think about all that money from your paycheck that goes to medicare and all the federal and state money that gets dumped into medicaid already. think about it.
Incorrect. I'm annoyed because they want to kill Medicare and Medicare Advantage to pay for it.
That and the other 2000 pages of whatever bill is up this time.
Whatever. This is stupid. Arguing about this topic on the OT is stupid. Pass or fail this is the death knell of the Democrats' control of Congress in 2010.
Argue about what? I haven't seen you make a cognizant point in sixth months, and if you think the republicans have looked anything but petty over the last year you're smoking some damn good reefer.
ShumaGorath wrote:Not really, sheer profit drives companies overseas, it's the american onus to own more that keeps market capitalism flowin'.
Yeah and we all know that market capitalism has been so good for the world [/sarcasm]
Market capitalism saw the birth of the middle class and will bear witness to its demise.
ShumaGorath wrote:Cost is relative to what people are willing to pay. There is no price that something "Should cost". I'm also going to just assume that you've never been to either europe (in the last 30 years) or china (in the last 15). Neither one is particularly different in it's spending habits or shirt costs.
I'll admit that my information regarding European spending habits and attitudes towards consumer spending is anecdotal; however, I lived in South Korea for 4 1/2 years and in Japan for 2 1/2 years with frequent trips to China and various S.E. Asian countries and can say with a certain amount of confidence that I never witnessed the sheer volume of rampant consumerism as I see in the U.S. My wife, who is Japanese, often comments on magnitude of obvious waste here in the states and I suffered from a certain amount of reverse culture shock upon my return as well. Yes, a Japanese person (for example) may spend an obscene amount of money on a namebrand something or other but they will keep that item for much longer than an average American person who will most likely play with their new toy for a certain amount of time, tire of it, and then replace it with the latest doodad that they fall in love with.
agnosto wrote:I've lived in 2 countries with a form of public healthcare and cannot for the life of me understand why people are so disinclined to try it.
Because of the inalienable rule of Government: Once a program is implemented it will never, ever go away. The primary goal of any bureaucracy is to preserve it's existence. Our Federal government is too big and too powerful already.
agnosto wrote:But, most americans are so indoctrinated in the "all socialism is evil" thing that they won't even consider it. Just think about all that money from your paycheck that goes to medicare and all the federal and state money that gets dumped into medicaid already. think about it.
I've thought long and hard about it. The problem is not indoctrination that "all socialism is evil" but that socialism is the opposite of liberty and freedom. Consider:
1. If the government is responsible for everyone's health care, then that responsibility (and decision making) is removed from you.
2. Government can give you something only after it takes it away from someone else under threat of law.
3. The Founding Fathers of this country recognized government as a necessary evil and intentionally set up a system to keep it as small and limited in power as possible.
4. The Constitution of the United States does not empower the Fed in matters of Health Care.
So... government mandated and administered health care is beyond the scope of the charter documents of the country and counter to the ideals of freedom. Freedom is not just having a vote at the ballot box. Freedom is being able to chart the course for your life and being free to LIVE WITH THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE, good or bad.
I don't want a Nanny. I want Freedom. Freedom to travel, freedom to choose, freedom to fail, freedom to be responsible for the consequences of my choices.
agnosto wrote:But, most americans are so indoctrinated in the "all socialism is evil" thing that they won't even consider it. Just think about all that money from your paycheck that goes to medicare and all the federal and state money that gets dumped into medicaid already. think about it.
I've thought long and hard about it. The problem is not indoctrination that "all socialism is evil" but that socialism is the opposite of liberty and freedom. Consider:
1. If the government is responsible for everyone's health care, then that responsibility (and decision making) is removed from you.
2. Government can give you something only after it takes it away from someone else under threat of law.
3. The Founding Fathers of this country recognized government as a necessary evil and intentionally set up a system to keep it as small and limited in power as possible.
4. The Constitution of the United States does not empower the Fed in matters of Health Care.
So... government mandated and administered health care is beyond the scope of the charter documents of the country and counter to the ideals of freedom. Freedom is not just having a vote at the ballot box. Freedom is being able to chart the course for your life and being free to LIVE WITH THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE, good or bad.
I don't want a Nanny. I want Freedom. Freedom to travel, freedom to choose, freedom to fail, freedom to be responsible for the consequences of my choices.
While I understand your point of view and even share it to some extent and in some cases, I am a strong believer that there is nothing wrong with the government assisting its citizens. There's nothing in the constitution that says every child has the right to eat but we have free/reduced lunches and food assistance. There's nothing in the constitution that promises that poor children may receive free medical assistance yet we have medicaid, there is also nothing that says you have the right to a free education. None of these things are promised by the constitution but I doubt you'll find someone to say they should be done away with.
It is the basic responsibility of a government to care for the health and wellbeing of its citizens. I'm married, I don't have children. I pay taxes that go to services that support the children of others, services I do not benefit from. With your way of thinking, I should not be required to contribute to the education of children because I have none; I should be free of that burden. Being a citizen of a country means that you have to be larger than yourself; you have to partake in the concept of civic responsibility knowing full well that even though you do not directly benefit, you receive some benefit by increasing the wellbeing of the society you live in. I know that most Americans tend to be self-centered and egotistical but we must overcome this knee-jerk fanaticism and work together, for each other; if we don't, we're doomed to go the way of the Roman Empire but I fear our fall will be much faster.
ShumaGorath wrote:Well this last one makes sense, though doctors probably don't shop at wallmart.
Eh, my dad (ER doctor), grandad (GP), and fiance (vet) shop pretty much exclusively at Wal-Mart, or the HEB.
I'm glad to see the health care bill faltering. We need to be cutting back on our entitlement spending, not ramping it up. I would much prefer to see a plan for how to make Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid viable pay-as-you-go programs. I don't understand how this spending and generational theft can continue without grave consequences for the public. I've been reading a lot of literature lately about the early American republic, stuff like The Federalist Papers and a lot of Jefferson's letters, and it just reinforces in my mind this idea that the US government isn't an evolution of a vassal state like the European powers. Your personal well being isn't in the purview of the government, because US citizens were never owned by nobles. This slide into a fuedal state where everyone is provided for and controlled by 'the government' concerns me. Also- it's funny to read these old papers and see that Congress was just as bitter, partisan, and acrimonius then as it is now.
I've thought long and hard about it. The problem is not indoctrination that "all socialism is evil" but that socialism is the opposite of liberty and freedom. Consider:
Thats a pretty spurious argument. By that logic all laws are the opposite of liberty and freedom (which they are). Socialism is a meaningless strawman, and healthcare is no more an agent of control than taxation for military purposes or public education.
I'm glad to see the health care bill faltering. We need to be cutting back on our entitlement spending, not ramping it up. I would much prefer to see a plan for how to make Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid viable pay-as-you-go programs. I don't understand how this spending and generational theft can continue without grave consequences for the public. I've been reading a lot of literature lately about the early American republic, stuff like The Federalist Papers and a lot of Jefferson's letters, and it just reinforces in my mind this idea that the US government isn't an evolution of a vassal state like the European powers. Your personal well being isn't in the purview of the government, because US citizens were never owned by nobles. This slide into a fuedal state where everyone is provided for and controlled by 'the government' concerns me. Also- it's funny to read these old papers and see that Congress was just as bitter, partisan, and acrimonius then as it is now.
And when we go back to an economy based on fur trapping and tobacco and cotton plantations that will matter. It was also much less of a democracy back then.
quote] And when we go back to an economy based on fur trapping and tobacco and cotton plantations that will matter. It was also much less of a democracy back then.
Your ignorance about the early republic is APPALLING. It was primarily a shipping based economy. With Europe at war, the US made ridiculous amounts of money shipping to both sides as a neutral power. The protection of the neutral Stars and Stripes was far more valuable than any product produced in the country then. At that time, cotton plantations were not as profitable as they would become in 40 years, right before they were eclipsed by Egyptian imports during the Civil War. However, aside from betraying your breathless lack of command of US history, you are esentially right- we need to return to a paradigm where the average worker is responsible for his own well being. Do you think Jim Bridger was on W.I.C? And I bet he was a bit more hard up for food occassionally than most people drawing it today. Way to fail on knowing what the early US economy was like, dude. Awesome.
And yes, it was less of a democracy because the US is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. How do you not know that?
The Green Git wrote:
I've thought long and hard about it. The problem is not indoctrination that "all socialism is evil" but that socialism is the opposite of liberty and freedom.
Ok, so socialism is the opposite of liberty and freedom. That's not true by any means, as they aren't remotely comparable on a categorical level, but lets run with that notion for a bit.
The Green Git wrote:
So... government mandated and administered health care is beyond the scope of the charter documents of the country and counter to the ideals of freedom. Freedom is not just having a vote at the ballot box. Freedom is being able to chart the course for your life and being free to LIVE WITH THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE, good or bad.
I don't want a Nanny. I want Freedom. Freedom to travel, freedom to choose, freedom to fail, freedom to be responsible for the consequences of my choices.
So, you don't think the issue is that people have been indoctrinated to believe that all socialism is evil, but your apparent value set squarely places socialism opposite good on your spectrum of value; the end which is nominally referred to as evil. That fact, in conjunction with your clear misunderstanding of socialism (a political-economic philosophy cannot be in direct opposition to metaphysical ideas; especially one so broad as socialism), seems to indicate that your analysis is faulty on grounds of self-deception.
Silverthorne wrote:
And yes, it was less of a democracy because the US is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. How do you not know that?
It was also a democracy (well, polity is probably a better word), as indicated by the presence of popular elections. All the word Republic indicates is that the state being described lacks a hereditary sovereign. However, since popular elections are stipulated in the Constitution that is also, effectively, permanent feature.
Your ignorance about the early republic is APPALLING. It was primarily a shipping based economy. With Europe at war, the US made ridiculous amounts of money shipping to both sides as a neutral power.
Not as much as it made through agrarian farming and infrastructural buildup enabling it to tap the vast natural wealth of the continent (which it could then sell to all interested parties as a neutral power). As a part of gdp shipping exports overseas was never a major factor of the u.s. economy. Certainly profitable, but hardly the base of the national wealth.
The protection of the neutral Stars and Stripes was far more valuable than any product produced in the country then. At that time, cotton plantations were not as profitable as they would become in 40 years, right before they were eclipsed by Egyptian imports during the Civil
Their profitability or their impact? Being undercut is one thing, claiming that a foreign power (egypt no less) supplanted the u.s. cotton industry before the advent of mass freight shipping (Especially inland) is outright ridiculous.
However, aside from betraying your breathless lack of command of US history, you are esentially right-
Right. That.
we need to return to a paradigm where the average worker is responsible for his own well being.
By... What?
Do you think Jim Bridger was on W.I.C? And I bet he was a bit more hard up for food occassionally than most people drawing it today..
What the hell are you talking about jim bridger for? What does he have to do with anything? Am I going to go outside and make my lifestyle mountaineering? Are you high?
Way to fail on knowing what the early US economy was like, dude. Awesome
Coming from someone with what appears to be a basic lack of understanding of how economics of any period worked I'll take that with a grain of salt.
And yes, it was less of a democracy because the US is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. How do you not know that?
re·pub·lic [ri-puhb-lik] Show IPA –noun 1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. 2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth. 3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
How the feth do you not know what the word republic means. The constitution lays out the basis of the American Republic as a democracy. A democracy is a republic, and virtually all republics in history have been democracies. Our republic is a democracy. A CAR IS ALSO A VEHICLE.
we need to return to a paradigm where the average worker is responsible for his own well being.
By... What?
Presumably by doing away with medicaid, and certain elements of social security. Though that alone won't do anything useful with respect to the budgetary future, or taxation. In fact, the money thereby saved would probably be required to prop up medicare; along requisite increases in the age necessary to claim benefits.
dogma wrote:
Presumably by doing away with medicaid, and certain elements of social security. Though that alone won't do anything useful with respect to the budgetary future, or taxation. In fact, the money thereby saved would probably be required to prop up medicare; along requisite increases in the age necessary to claim benefits.
That would be career suicide for any politician that even suggests it.
dogma wrote:
Presumably by doing away with medicaid, and certain elements of social security. Though that alone won't do anything useful with respect to the budgetary future, or taxation. In fact, the money thereby saved would probably be required to prop up medicare; along requisite increases in the age necessary to claim benefits.
That would be career suicide for any politician that even suggests it.
agnosto wrote:
That would be career suicide for any politician that even suggests it.
That's debatable. Quite a few politicians within the Republican Party are suggesting exactly that, and the political department certainly favors that particular brand of reform.
Then again, the mob is dumb, so its quite possible that many would oppose it on grounds of 'government intervention' or some other such nonsense.
Your ignorance about the early republic is APPALLING. It was primarily a shipping based economy. With Europe at war, the US made ridiculous amounts of money shipping to both sides as a neutral power.
Not as much as it made through agrarian farming and infrastructural buildup enabling it to tap the vast natural wealth of the continent (which it could then sell to all interested parties as a neutral power). As a part of gdp shipping exports overseas was never a major factor of the u.s. economy. Certainly profitable, but hardly the base of the national wealth.
The protection of the neutral Stars and Stripes was far more valuable than any product produced in the country then. At that time, cotton plantations were not as profitable as they would become in 40 years, right before they were eclipsed by Egyptian imports during the Civil
Their profitability or their impact? Being undercut is one thing, claiming that a foreign power (egypt no less) supplanted the u.s. cotton industry before the advent of mass freight shipping (Especially inland) is outright ridiculous.
However, aside from betraying your breathless lack of command of US history, you are esentially right-
Right. That.
we need to return to a paradigm where the average worker is responsible for his own well being.
By... What?
Do you think Jim Bridger was on W.I.C? And I bet he was a bit more hard up for food occassionally than most people drawing it today..
What the hell are you talking about jim bridger for? What does he have to do with anything? Am I going to go outside and make my lifestyle mountaineering? Are you high?
Way to fail on knowing what the early US economy was like, dude. Awesome
Coming from someone with what appears to be a basic lack of understanding of how economics of any period worked I'll take that with a grain of salt.
And yes, it was less of a democracy because the US is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. How do you not know that?
re·pub·lic [ri-puhb-lik] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2.
any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3.
a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
How the feth do you not know what the word republic means. The constitution lays out the basis of the American Republic as a democracy. A democracy is a republic, and virtually all republics in history have been democracies. Our republic is a democracy. A CAR IS ALSO A VEHICLE.
No- the US primarily didn't ship its OWN goods. Sure, lots of US goods were shipped, especially naval stores and foodstuffs, but primarily merchant fleets registered in the US shipped France's goods from the colonies to other nations, and back to France. As the war intensified, there were various dodges that had to be put on this, most notably that the goods had to touch US soil before they could be resold. Still- the single most profitable sector of the US economy wasn't the export of 'agrarian goods' it was duties and fees on shipping. Let's look at US wars after the revolution-- Tripoli, Quasi War, War of 1812. See a trend? All fought to protect the neutrality of shipping. Because it was the most important sector of the US economy. We were not a nation that made money mostly off of food we sold to others. That's flat out wrong. How can you even have an economy based on 'infrastructural buildup'? Especially in a very low tax rate- extremely decentralized, very rural nation? And the 'continent' at that point was inaccessible. More than 200 miles inland was total wilderness. Shipping WAS the basis of national wealth. That's a matter of historical record.
I'm referring to Egypt becoming the primary exporter of cotton to England's textile mills, not supplying US demand. Again, just a slim grasp on history would have prevented you from making that misunderstanding.
When did I describe how any economic model worked? Are you high? I called you out on your false statement that the early US economy was agriculturally based. I never positied any theory on any economic model. Reading, try it sometime. Maybe start with a history book.
A republic is not equal to a democracy. That's like saying a truck and a motorcycle are the same because they are both vehicles. Get it? Lightbulb? A republic and a democracy are both representative governments, they are not interchangeable terms. Nice talking to you.
@Silverthorne: Your view on the early American republic is accurate. And yes Shuma, we are a republic, and have always been one. We are not a democracy, that is basic fact. You are pointing to a change in the basic usage and definition of the words democracy and republic, which is a modern phenomena. During the founding days of our republic the Founding Fathers made it quite clear that they had a great disdain for democracy. The Federalist Papers often rail against democracy and point out the superiority of Republicanism, this is most evident from James Madison's Federalist Papers No. 10. Ben Franklin, as he was leaving the Constitutional Convention, when asked by a lady what he had done replied, "Given you a republic ma'am, if you can keep it." The basic point is that Republicanism and Democracy are not the same thing. Similar, but not nearly the same. That difference has been blurred in recent years, and this has led to much confusion and mislabeling.
Silverthorne wrote:
A republic and a democracy are both representative governments, they are not interchangeable terms. Nice talking to you.
No, that's wrong. All a nation must do in order to be a republic is possess a head of state who is not a monarch. That's it. Unless by 'representative' you only meant to indicate that a Republic must represent the interests of those who are invested in the state; ie. Senators, Congressmen, or...Representatives.
The US Constitution guarantees that the Federal government, and all states overseen by it, are republican in nature. It also, via the House, guarantees that the nation is democratically represented. We live in a democratic republic. There is no argument here, at all.
JEB_Stuart wrote:@Silverthorne: Your view on the early American republic is accurate. And yes Shuma, we are a republic, and have always been one. We are not a democracy, that is basic fact.
We're most certainly a sort of democracy now. Unless you won't consider any state a democracy unless its character is Athenian; ie. all citizens cast their stones. If that's the case, it explains a great deal about this dispute.
dogma wrote:We're most certainly a sort of democracy now. Unless you won't consider any state a democracy unless its character is Athenian; ie. all citizens cast their stones. If that's the case, it explains a great deal about this dispute.
Please clarify why you would say we are a democracy? Where does supreme power lie? It isn't with the people, it is with the US Constitution. How is this authority changed? Not by the people, but by the states and the Federal government. As I said in my post the two terms have always been defined and categorized separately, that is until recent times. I noted that they were similar, but not at all the same.
It would appear to me that although we live in a indirect democracy, the final say (at least to some degree), does indeed lie with the people. After all, we are the ones electing the officials to deal with any changes, no matter how slow that process is.
No, I am being serious. I am just clarifying what the definitions of the words are, and how they have been accepted for quite some time. The term democratic republic is a new idea, our country definitely wasn't founded as one. As I noted, our Founding Fathers had a genuine dislike for a democracy, and saw Republicanism as a far superior model of government. In modern times we have carelessly juxtaposed the two words, and have developed this cult of democracy. It may be just semantics, but I view that as important. Does that clarify my position at all?
JEB wrote:It may be just semantics, but I view that as important. Does that clarify my position at all?
I get what you are poking at, but it is definitely semantics. We live in a Democratic Republic, in modern times.
Emphasizing the fact that we are a Republic makes sense, as long as you do so with consideration of other factors. We do not live in a simple Republic, as I generally feel that is an impractical term used to gloss over 'inconsistencies' within a political system.
As I understand it, the word "democracy" had become something of a pejorative at the time of the United States' founding, following Plato and Aristotle's criticisms of it.
However, Jefferson founded the Democratic-Republican Party quite early in our history, didn't he?
Orkeosaurus wrote:However, Jefferson founded the Democratic-Republican Party quite early in our history, didn't he?
He founded a party to oppose the Federalists, but he did not name it the Democratic-Republican Party. He referred to himself, as did the vast majority of the party, as Republicans, and is largely considered to be a member of the "Old Republicans" which were the staunch adversaries of the Federalists, such as Alexander Hamilton. Madison and Jefferson continually referred to it as the Republican party to their deaths, and the term Democratic didn't start to appear in the name until 1802, and even then it was due only to local elements and was a gradual change.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Please clarify why you would say we are a democracy?
A democracy is a system of government under which authority, ultimate or otherwise, is derived from the populace.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Where does supreme power lie? It isn't with the people, it is with the US Constitution.
Documents can't possess anything, as they lack the requisite animation. People can use documents as a means of expressing power, but the document itself does nothing.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
How is this authority changed? Not by the people, but by the states and the Federal government.
Which are representatives of the people, from whence all authority originates. We live in a representative democracy.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
As I said in my post the two terms have always been defined and categorized separately, that is until recent times. I noted that they were similar, but not at all the same.
Yes, they have been. However, the fact that the two terms have distinct meanings does not indicate that they cannot together reference a single, real thing.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Please clarify why you would say we are a democracy?
A democracy is a system of government under which authority, ultimate or otherwise, is derived from the populace.
That's too vague of a definition to be serviceable. Afterall, a military junta gets it's authority from a part of the populace, namely thugs with guns. A monarch's authority is empowered by the martial strength of his vassals, who are a part of the populace. Any system of government dervives authority from some segment of the populace, and no government has a total franchise of all people living withing it's borders. With these two conditions in play, the definition you provide is too vague to be of any use. Of course authority is derived from the populace- otherwise there would be no authority because there would be no people to exert authority with or on.
A republic is a representative government were not all the leaders are chosen by popular vote. In our own system, only one branch of government, the legislature, is determined by a direct popular vote. Even within the legislature, the franchise of the private citizen is not very powerful compared to the influence of organizations with a lot of money. This is especially true in light of the recent overturn of campaign finance reform in the supreme court. Since only 33% of our government is determined by popular vote, we don't meet the definition of a democracy.
Silverthorne wrote:A republic is a representative government were not all the leaders are chosen by popular vote. In our own system, only one branch of government, the legislature, is determined by a direct popular vote. Even within the legislature, the franchise of the private citizen is not very powerful compared to the influence of organizations with a lot of money. This is especially true in light of the recent overturn of campaign finance reform in the supreme court. Since only 33% of our government is determined by popular vote, we don't meet the definition of a democracy.
33% of our federal government, plus the POTUS, and many of the other positions are picked by these two parts of our federal government. Speaking of this, in what other way would someone receive a high level government position, without the consent of our elected officials?
On top of this, we elect various state officials, mayors, and many other positions of power. The amount of involvement by the people, varies quite a bit from state to state as well. All of this combined puts us squarely within democratic terms.
The Green Git wrote:I've thought long and hard about it. The problem is not indoctrination that "all socialism is evil" but that socialism is the opposite of liberty and freedom. Consider:
1. If the government is responsible for everyone's health care, then that responsibility (and decision making) is removed from you.
Unless its Medicare, at which point any possible reform to healthcare will take it away.
2. Government can give you something only after it takes it away from someone else under threat of law.
Only to the extent that society is a zero sum game, and given the advances in the material well-being of all citizens over the last few centuries that’s obviously not true. Instead we need to consider that the welfare of all can be improved and enhanced through mutually beneficial relations. We know that the market can be relied on to produce many of these relations, but outside of the wangrods at the Chicago school there is sound recognition that the market has blindsides.
The provision of healthcare is one such area.
3. The Founding Fathers of this country recognized government as a necessary evil and intentionally set up a system to keep it as small and limited in power as possible.
So when are you shutting down that standing army?
4. The Constitution of the United States does not empower the Fed in matters of Health Care.
What part of the constitution empowers the Federal Government to administer airline traffic?
So... government mandated and administered health care is beyond the scope of the charter documents of the country and counter to the ideals of freedom. Freedom is not just having a vote at the ballot box. Freedom is being able to chart the course for your life and being free to LIVE WITH THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE, good or bad.
The freedom to get sick, have your insurance cancelled on a technicality, and join the ranks of Americans declaring bankruptcy due to medical costs.
Silverthorne wrote:… it just reinforces in my mind this idea that the US government isn't an evolution of a vassal state like the European powers. Your personal well being isn't in the purview of the government, because US citizens were never owned by nobles. This slide into a fuedal state where everyone is provided for and controlled by 'the government' concerns me. Also- it's funny to read these old papers and see that Congress was just as bitter, partisan, and acrimonius then as it is now.
Dude, seriously, what? First up, in Europe you weren’t owned by your noble, you were each attached to the land. You might be thinking of serfs in Russia, who were directly owned by their lord. Even then, you couldn’t sell the serf as if he were a slave. Second up, if you think there was ever a meaningful duty of care of the nobility towards the peasantry you need to seriously reconsider your understanding of history, starting with enclosure. As soon as the nobility realised a system of production that could exclude a majority of the peasantry it did so.
Then you have to consider that the US was for much of the twentieth century a far more progressive state than much of Europe. The US, for instance, was a very early adopter of healthcare coverage, which is part of the reason the current system is so dysfunctional – your system is generations old and badly in need of reform.
Silverthorne wrote:Your ignorance about the early republic is APPALLING. It was primarily a shipping based economy.
While I haven’t read much on US economic history, I’ve read some interesting stuff arguing that shipping in general is exaggerated in economic history studies. The primary tool of all history is source documents, and shipping was heavily and consistently documented in a variety of logs much economic history tends to focus on that. The result, as argued in a few things I’ve read, is general bias towards shipping and similar trade, and a bias away from cottage industry.
Anyhow, I’m not disputing your central argument, which is an interesting one, just (hopefully) adding something else to consider.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Similar, but not nearly the same. That difference has been blurred in recent years, and this has led to much confusion and mislabeling.
Political definitions are slippery things, because they’re tools of the political debate. People will look to redefine terms on the fly to gather whatever ammunition for the political arguments. Look at how the left and right wings will argue for democracy or republicanism when the Republicans were in control, and how they’ll quickly change sides when the Democrats take over.
Personally, I think the issue is best resolved by avoiding the war of ever shifting definitions, and just talking about the actual substance of an issue.
Silverthorne wrote:A republic is a representative government were not all the leaders are chosen by popular vote. In our own system, only one branch of government, the legislature, is determined by a direct popular vote. Even within the legislature, the franchise of the private citizen is not very powerful compared to the influence of organizations with a lot of money. This is especially true in light of the recent overturn of campaign finance reform in the supreme court. Since only 33% of our government is determined by popular vote, we don't meet the definition of a democracy.
Uh, Australia has two of its three branches of government, the judiciary and the Governor General, appointed by measures completely outside of election. Whereas the US presidency, while not a direct vote is still determined by election. So would we be more Republicanny than you?
It’s very odd that you’re arguing the appointment of the judiciary as evidence for the US being a distinctly Republican state. Direct election of citizens into public office is, in fact, a peculiarly American thing. The rest of us have our politicians elected and everyone else appointed by the politicians, the US system that allows for direct election of rubbish collectors and district attorneys is a real curiosity to the rest of us. If Republicanism is a measure of how much of you government is directly elected or not, then the US becomes the more Democratic and the least Republican nation on Earth, which is a bizarre result and very good grounds to re-examine your argument.
No- the US primarily didn't ship its OWN goods. Sure, lots of US goods were shipped, especially naval stores and foodstuffs, but primarily merchant fleets registered in the US shipped France's goods from the colonies to other nations, and back to France. As the war intensified, there were various dodges that had to be put on this, most notably that the goods had to touch US soil before they could be resold. Still- the single most profitable sector of the US economy wasn't the export of 'agrarian goods' it was duties and fees on shipping.
Firstly, an economy is not solely it's exports unless it's primarily an export driven economy. Those didn't even begin to exist until the advent of mass shipping (They were in fact virtually impossible without a very specific national model, primarily a colonial one). Differentiate the two. It's important when you're talking about economics, especially historically, to understand what an economy is. You apparently don't.
Let's look at US wars after the revolution-- Tripoli, Quasi War, War of 1812. See a trend? All fought to protect the neutrality of shipping. Because it was the most important sector of the US economy. We were not a nation that made money mostly off of food we sold to others. That's flat out wrong. How can you even have an economy based on 'infrastructural buildup'? Especially in a very low tax rate- extremely decentralized, very rural nation? And the 'continent' at that point was inaccessible. More than 200 miles inland was total wilderness. Shipping WAS the basis of national wealth. That's a matter of historical record.
We were primarily a nation that made money by exploiting natural resources that we then sold to ourselves. The most common jobs were agriculture. This is not rocket science, the vast majority of american wealth didn't come in on ships once the population of the continent stabilized. The majority of luxuries came from overseas for a period of years, but the real growth of American wealth was not generated via overseas shipping lanes. You'll note that I've never once given a date to any of my arguments, and you have not given one to yours. We didn't all live by the sea by the time the war of 1812 came around.
And when we go back to an economy based on fur trapping and tobacco and cotton plantations that will matter. It was also much less of a democracy back then.
How you can repeatedly assume I don't know American history off of this comment floors me.
I'm referring to Egypt becoming the primary exporter of cotton to England's textile mills, not supplying US demand. Again, just a slim grasp on history would have prevented you from making that misunderstanding.
Or maybe just maybe you could state something in coherent fashion, so that I don't have to assume you're piloting your computer drunk.
When did I describe how any economic model worked?
You didn't, and you still don't seem to know. I suspect you haven't attempted to describe the economic model of the early U.S. because you don't actually understand how it functioned, only knowing that shipping played an important role. You might also be under the assumption that I know how it works, and that you don't need to describe it; but were that the case you likely wouldn't constantly be implying that I lack education in the subject.
I called you out on your false statement that the early US economy was agriculturally based. I never positied any theory on any economic model. Reading, try it sometime. Maybe start with a history book.
Yes, and what percentage of u.s. citizens were farmers in the year 1812?
A republic is not equal to a democracy. That's like saying a truck and a motorcycle are the same because they are both vehicles. Get it? Lightbulb? A republic and a democracy are both representative governments.
Actually virtually all democracies historically have been republics, as the original meaning for republic was:
"state in which supreme power rests in the people," from Fr. république, from L. respublica (abl. republica)
This nation has been a democratic republic since it's inception, the terms are not mutually exclusive.
they are not interchangeable terms.
No, but they can both be used to commonly cover the same political entities.
Nice talking to you.
Not really.
That's too vague of a definition to be serviceable. Afterall, a military junta gets it's authority from a part of the populace, namely thugs with guns. A monarch's authority is empowered by the martial strength of his vassals, who are a part of the populace. Any system of government dervives authority from some segment of the populace, and no government has a total franchise of all people living withing it's borders. With these two conditions in play, the definition you provide is too vague to be of any use. Of course authority is derived from the populace- otherwise there would be no authority because there would be no people to exert authority with or on.
Yes, thats why it's important to avoid being hyper literal when discussing political theory. By the same semantical logic all forms of governance are derived solely from the people because our nations are not being run by turtles. Republic has a vague meaning because it has and always will have a vague meaning. It had one from the start.
Since only 33% of our government is determined by popular vote, we don't meet the definition of a democracy.
Actually we do. We meet every single dictionary definition of one created in the last century and we fulfill the historical terminology which breaks the word down in "strength of the districts people" or power vested in and practiced by citizenry. What we don't meet is the silverthorne happy hour definition, in which essentially only "Direct Democracies" are democracies. So I guess switzerland.
sebster wrote:
Globalisation has allowed for more complex international production chains. It is a lot easier to put capital into a new electronics plant in Burma than it was thirty years ago.
More than that, though, the skill level across the world has grown markedly. Electronics and the manufacture of consumer goods used to be a high skill activity, it was done in the West despite our high salaries because no-one else was capable of doing it. But now most countries are capable of building and managing a plant that can produce such goods.
The trick to the whole issue is that all of that is actually a good thing. I understand it doesn’t feel like it during poor economic times, but the only way to sustain the standard of living we’re used to in the West is to focus on high skilled work – doing what the developing world cannot and charging a premium for it - R&D, high level manufacture (aircraft and the like), financial services – these are industries that are driven by technical expertise, not low wage levels.
Through trade we can get low skilled nations to do the low paying work, while a significant portion of our populations can move into high paying industries.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Increase job training for highly technical fields and encourage upper level education by providing better aid to applying students. The factories aren't coming back and we aren't a production economy. We are a service and technology economy that is too stupid to realize it. We should capitalize on what we have (more colleges than the rest of the world combined) and stop trying to breathe life into a dead body.
^These two are on the right track. I'm going to touch on some other points.
1. Healthcare. My perspective is that the sole purpose of government-funded healthcare should be to maximize worker productivity. If you take that position as a given, why provide healthcare for retirees, or working-age adults who are no longer collecting unemployment insurance (just using that as an indicator that they probably won't return to work anytime soon)? Cut them out and you could save billions.
2. Information Management. This is partly, but not solely, related to healthcare. Our record-keeping standards for personal health history, among other things, are in the frickin' Dark Ages. A standardized national system should have been started 10 years ago. Any law enforcement agency can tap into a database to keep track of felons, but I have to hand-carry a paper copy of my med docs when I move from base to base? Really? It's even worse for Joe the Plumber if he hasn't had a check-up in 10 years, and decides to switch hospitals. The old one probably lost his records in some archive, and now the new one doesn't know he reacts negatively to some crazy medication and he dies. Shoulda looked that up on a computer. The Department of Veterans Affairs is leading the way with this, as everything I've done with them seems to be a in a database that can be looked up, and some (but not all) information is accessible across multiple hospitals, whether I had a check-up in Philadelphia or X-rays in Gainesville. Imagine that, a government-run healthcare organization is a model of efficiency and cutting edge technology....
3. Urban Planning/Zoning. The layout of our country is massively inefficient. Just because we have available land, doesn't mean we should spread out to use it all. We have people who commute 45 minutes from housing developments to low-density industrial parks on the other side of the city. This induces:
90 minutes of wasted time per day
fuel & vehicular maintenance costs
road maintenance costs
environmental degradation
That all adds up to considerable economic and social inefficiencies. Part of this is a cultural affinity for owning a plot of land with a house on it, and that needs to change (not sure how). If we properly designed cities with decently spacious flats, access to considerable greenery/parks/public spaces, and work opportunities within walking distance (or other short commute), life in a comparatively high-density city would be more palatable. Properly insulated urban structures should also have a lower net energy drain on our national power infrastructure, with higher ambient winter temperatures reducing the need for heating while the insulation reduces the cubic-meter costs of summertime cooling.
All of this serves to reduce costs and by extension reduce the burdens on the economy that impair our productivity and competitiveness.
I've got other stuff I was going to rant about but it's late and I'm sleepy.
Silverthorne wrote:
That's too vague of a definition to be serviceable. Afterall, a military junta gets it's authority from a part of the populace, namely thugs with guns.
Its vague by intention. I have no interest in any notion of democracy which equates to "that which I like".
Silverthorne wrote:
A monarch's authority is empowered by the martial strength of his vassals, who are a part of the populace.
A part of. Not the entirety of.
Silverthorne wrote:
Any system of government dervives authority from some segment of the populace,
Segment is a nice word, no?
Silverthorne wrote:
and no government has a total franchise of all people living withing it's borders. With these two conditions in play, the definition you provide is too vague to be of any use. Of course authority is derived from the populace- otherwise there would be no authority because there would be no people to exert authority with or on.
It doesn't matter what the reality of the franchise is. We're debating political theory, which boils down to that which is claimed.
Silverthorne wrote:
A republic is a representative government were not all the leaders are chosen by popular vote.
No, a Republic is a system of government in which the head of state is not a sovereign. That is the definition of the word, whether you like it or not.
Silverthorne wrote:
In our own system, only one branch of government, the legislature, is determined by a direct popular vote. Even within the legislature, the franchise of the private citizen is not very powerful compared to the influence of organizations with a lot of money. This is especially true in light of the recent overturn of campaign finance reform in the supreme court. Since only 33% of our government is determined by popular vote, we don't meet the definition of a democracy.
Because 33% of our government is determined by popular vote, we are a democracy. Majority is irrelevant. All that matters is categorical consistency. And, again, reality is irrelevant to questions of theoretical dispute.
rant over 
