Yes, I believe the government has a "duty" to help thos ein need because it is the moral thing to do...
Governments are not moral.
Never said that...
That's why we have welform/safety nets... because we consider it our duty to help those who need it.
.
It doesn't matter what you think you said. You tried to apply moral values to government, it has none. By the same token I believe that abortion is immoral but I DEMAND that my government protect it as a right. Governments are not moral.
whembly wrote: Or likely they'll either work with the Patient Accounting dept to either work out a reduced payment option, or the facility would write them off.
Yeah, if the person is seen to have so few assets that the cost of pursuing the debt is greater than the expected amount to be recovered, they'll write it off. And then there's all those hospitals that receive tax breaks to provide care to people who can't pay for it.
And then there's the hundreds of thousands of people who just bankrupt over medical debts they can't pay.
My question is why accept all of that, but then freak out when people suggest a system where all of the waste in the above is sidestepped, just by giving people medical coverage in the first place?
Exactly. The American taxpayers and insurance policy holders wind up paying the costs of emergency care anyway, in the forms of increased premiums, increased hospital costs, and tax write offs for hospitals caring for the uninsured.
So why do we do it the stupid way by denying uninsured people the cheap kind of care- preventive care, which they can get if they have healthcare covered? Instead we only let them have emergency care, which is always vastly more expensive.
One of the universally accepted rights of man is the right to life, the right to health follows directly from the right to life. If you believe that health is not a right then at some point you have to admit life is not a right
That there's a very strange change in thinking. When a person is at the emergency ward with a gunshot, there's no debate on the issue. It's come on in, we'll treat you. But if that person has a long term illness somehow whether or not they're treated becomes a debatable point.
Right... you got it.
Dats the way it works here...
But, that isn't the debate per se...
Its if you can afford the insurance. THATS the crux of the issue.
Here's the disconnect...
Realize that the healthcare industry is a SERVICE industry... as cold as it sounds, they're working for a paycheck.
Enter the government... it creates rules/regulation that makes the entire system inherently inefficient...
Americans pay for the innovations / advance research that we pay through the nose (and ironically, the rest of the wold benefits, but pay waaay less for a variety of reasons. So, you can thanks us!)...
We are also the most unhealthiest folks on the planet... that adds even more of a burden to healthcare...
And I'm sure I'm forgetting things...
The facts are: It's a complicated situation... and government throwing more money at the same thing may not be the answer... heck, *I* don't have an answer...
Except maybe crash Az's house to leach off of the Candian Medicare system!
whembly wrote: Or likely they'll either work with the Patient Accounting dept to either work out a reduced payment option, or the facility would write them off.
Yeah, if the person is seen to have so few assets that the cost of pursuing the debt is greater than the expected amount to be recovered, they'll write it off. And then there's all those hospitals that receive tax breaks to provide care to people who can't pay for it.
And then there's the hundreds of thousands of people who just bankrupt over medical debts they can't pay.
My question is why accept all of that, but then freak out when people suggest a system where all of the waste in the above is sidestepped, just by giving people medical coverage in the first place?
I think I've made my point in other threads against the ACA act... 'cuz, it's just a bad bill.
Like I said earlier, just trash the whole system and go the Canadian model! It's gotta be more efficient than what we have now.
sebster wrote: I think it's more that Republicans in the last few years have managed to put themselves in a rhetorical position that they don't actually believe. [...] You know how I keep saying the the Republican Party simply lacks an intellectual foundation to their party?
I have to disagree. I think we must assume sincerity even if it has sinister implications. Maybe especially in that case.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Like I said earlier, just trash the whole system and go the Canadian model!
That is indeed a preferable solution. In order to make it happen, I suggest you vote Democrat.
sebster wrote: I think it's more that Republicans in the last few years have managed to put themselves in a rhetorical position that they don't actually believe. [...] You know how I keep saying the the Republican Party simply lacks an intellectual foundation to their party?
I have to disagree. I think we must assume sincerity even if it has sinister implications. Maybe especially in that case.
It's not just the last few years, either. Couple of quotes regarding the passage of Social Security, and Medicare, respectively:
John Taber, (R, NY) wrote:Never in the history of the world has any measure been brought here so insidiously designed as to prevent business recovery, to enslave workers.
Ronald Reagan, 1961 wrote: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.
Yup. Since Social Security and Medicare were passed, we've all been living under "the lash of the dictator".
So why do we do it the stupid way by denying uninsured people the cheap kind of care- preventive care, which they can get if they have healthcare covered?
Emotional attachment to a particular set of ideals that are being manipulated for the profit of others.
sebster wrote: I think it's more that Republicans in the last few years have managed to put themselves in a rhetorical position that they don't actually believe. [...] You know how I keep saying the the Republican Party simply lacks an intellectual foundation to their party?
I have to disagree. I think we must assume sincerity even if it has sinister implications. Maybe especially in that case.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Like I said earlier, just trash the whole system and go the Canadian model!
That is indeed a preferable solution. In order to make it happen, I suggest you vote Democrat.
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, and currently its not a right and I don't believe it should be. And I seriously doubt there will ever be enough traction to get an amendment made to the constitution to make it so.
The government's job is to protect you from other governments and from each other. its not its job to keep you from dying of disease.
So a guy turns up in an emergency ward, and he's got a bullet in his stomach, but he's got no insurance and no money and you think what? Best to just put him away from the hospital and let him bleed out?
He doesn't have the right to be treated. Doctors however have the obligation to treat him due to the Hippocratic oath, plus whatever moral responsibilities people have.
The Doctors also have the right to charge him for the treatment.
He will be treated and charged for that treatment. It may put him in deep debt that may take years to pay, but he will be treated.
Its not nice for sure. Its horrible, but thats how the world works.
Why should I pay for someone elses misfortune?
If I'm going to pay into a system, I want it to be towards my own care. I also want to have the choice in the matter, not be forced by the government to do something I may or may not need. In fact, the statistics show I will probably never need it.
I think you should win a special award for having said the most foolish thing in a thread dedicated to the most foolish thing Mitt Romney has said so far.
I want you to print your comment out and keep it safe. Hang on to it. Trust me. Because you will change your entire attitude under one of the following conditions: 1. You get sick (1 in 7 people will get some form of cancer in their lives) 2. Someone in your family gets sick. 3. You get into a car accident, etc. 4. Someone in your family gets into a car accident, etc. 5. Your home catches fire. ...I hope you get the idea now. If not, When you're a little older, you'll understand once health care starts to be a thing you have to worry about.
The system you pay into is for your own care, and the care of everyone. It's a rising-tides-lifts-all-ships sort of deal. Otherwise, why bother to pay for any services at all? Odds are you'll never need the fire department, either. But if/when you do, I bet you'll be Goddamn dancing when they show up.
The type of system you seem to prefer is what is commonly referred to as a "savings account" at your local bank, and I think you'll find that in your lifetime there is a better-than-average chance that you will never be able to save up enough money to pay for any type of serious medical treatment out of pocket.
Grey Templar wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Government's job is to defend the citizen's from other governments/each other and to keep order. Thats it. Anything else is not needed.
You can say it all you want, it doesn't make it true. Government does what the electorate demands of it. If the electorate demanded that government melt 1,000,000 plastic cups every month and throw the whole lot into the ocean, then that would be what government does.
Thats because portions of the electorate think the Government is supposed to take care of them in all areas of life. The electorate treats the government like its their parents or something.
There is what a government is supposed to do, and then what the government does because the people pulling the strings said so. The people pulling the strings can be wrong.
Its the difference between ideal and non-ideal government. An ideal government will do exactly what I've pointed out. Have a military for defense, police forces to keep order, and finally public utilities(roads, schools, fire departments, etc)
A non-ideal government gets bogged down in what its electorate wants. They want tons of stuff and pay tax dollars to do it. Unfortunantly, unless only some people benifit from these extra things it costs too much money and the government goes into debt.
Grey Templar wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Government's job is to defend the citizen's from other governments/each other and to keep order. Thats it. Anything else is not needed.
You can say it all you want, it doesn't make it true. Government does what the electorate demands of it. If the electorate demanded that government melt 1,000,000 plastic cups every month and throw the whole lot into the ocean, then that would be what government does.
Thats because portions of the electorate think the Government is supposed to take care of them in all areas of life. The electorate treats the government like its their parents or something.
There is what a government is supposed to do, and then what the government does because the people pulling the strings said so. The people pulling the strings can be wrong.
Its the difference between ideal and non-ideal government. An ideal government will do exactly what I've pointed out. Have a military for defense, police forces to keep order, and finally public utilities(roads, schools, fire departments, etc)
What is the real difference between us using government to provide us with police, fire, and education services, and using it to provide healthcare? IMO a stronger argument can be made for healthcare being provided by government than education.
Virtually none of the electorate thinks "the Government is supposed to take care of them in all areas of life". That's the stupid thing Romney said. It's dumb, and wrong Most of the people to whom he attributed that attitude actually have jobs, or are retirees. And many people who are dependent on government services are opposed to them, or in denial that they're the very people benefitting from the programs they decry. Check out tonight's Daily Show. It was classic. Great closing quote from Craig T. Nelson: "I've been on food stamps and welfare. Did anyone help me out? No." It'd be hysterical if it wasn't so scary and sad.
Well people shouldn't be asking the government to do something that it wasn't designed or originally intended to do.
What was it originally designed and intended to do?
Medical care should be left to the people that are trained to do it, Economic matters should be left to the businesses and economists,
You're missing the whole point of government. Government is the mechanism by which a society gets the big stuff done that it needs done. Taking care of citizen's basic needs and economic matters have been functions of government since prehistory.
Politics ruins everything it touches. keep their grimy hands off as much as possable.
Sadly there is no way to do that. Politics are an inescapable part of being human and working in groups.
Medical care is different from Police, Fire, and Education because everyone has an equal need for the above 3. Not everyone has an equal need for healthcare.
And I do think people that choose not to use/never use public education should have the option to not pay for it. Homeschoolers, people that put their kids through private school, and those without kids shouldn't have to pay for other people's kids to go to school.
whembly wrote: Its if you can afford the insurance. THATS the crux of the issue.
I don't think anyone has suggested those who can pay for it shouldn't.
It then becomes an issue of building the most efficient possible system in which those who can pay for health insurance pay for it, while those who cannot are covered.
If you look around the world you'll find many such systems, such as Germany or Australia, and you'll be hard pressed to find a non-lunatic who thought the US model was best of all.
Realize that the healthcare industry is a SERVICE industry... as cold as it sounds, they're working for a paycheck.
Enter the government... it creates rules/regulation that makes the entire system inherently inefficient...
The problem is that isn't true, it's just a thing Republicans have been shouting for a long time.
The actual truth is that government regulation can make a system less efficient and more unwieldy, but the right regulation in the right circumstance can be needed to make it more efficient. Think about the fastest, most efficient pricing market the world has ever seen - the stock market. It's also the most tightly regulated market the world has ever seen.
Americans pay for the innovations / advance research that we pay through the nose (and ironically, the rest of the wold benefits, but pay waaay less for a variety of reasons. So, you can thanks us!)...
This is a wildly overstated claim. US medical research as a percentage of GDP is more or less on par with other first world nations, and what you develop is almost always monetised and therefore when the rest of us use it we pay (something which isn't true of all medical advances in other countries).
Where the US system drives its costs up comes from incredibly inefficient administration systems (bills from hospitals to insurers to private citizens, then payment back down the same chain), from a seperation between consumer and product (you might want to pay more to make sure something is covered, but your insurance is whatever your employer signed up for so any actual market benefit is lost), and from a system that simply lacks price sensitivity (massive freedom given to doctors to book whatever treatment he thinks will work, without any price mechanism discouraging over treatment).
The facts are: It's a complicated situation... and government throwing more money at the same thing may not be the answer... heck, *I* don't have an answer...
The answer isn't to throw more government money at it. The problem is how much of everyone's money is currently being drained into a system to deliver middle of the pack results.
The answer is to begin to reform each part of the system in the best way possible. Seperate insurance from employers, so the individual consumer has a choice in what they want covered and don't want to pay for. Develop a body that engages medical professionals to talk about what treatments are actually necessary for various problems, and have insurance companies sign on to cover those things but not any more elaborate, waste of money treatments. There's loads of other mini-solutions possible, that can be rolled out in a series of progressive reforms.
None of what I've said above is contraversial or difficult to understand. The problem is that conversation never happens, because so many right wing footsoldiers make so much noise about personal responsibility and other non-issues that they drown out sensible conversation on the issue.
Like I said earlier, just trash the whole system and go the Canadian model! It's gotta be more efficient than what we have now.
youbedead wrote: Why do people need an equal need for education fire and police
Because there is a bigger chance that you will burn down your house or get robbed than there is that you might get sick or break a leg at some point of course.
Grey Templar wrote: Medical care is different from Police, Fire, and Education because everyone has an equal need for the above 3. Not everyone has an equal need for healthcare.
Are you joking? Everyone needs healthcare. Only some people have a fire. And not everyone has an equal need for education.
Manchu wrote: I have to disagree. I think we must assume sincerity even if it has sinister implications. Maybe especially in that case.
I think that was the case. It was the Big Lie, all nonsense and noise thrown out about abortion, gay rights, government takeovers, socialism and all this other stupid stuff, to get the population to get out there and vote for the party. All the while the party just tracked along steadily, continuing to serve its wealth benefactors.
Same could be said for the Democrats, though the nonsense and noise issues were different.
But it appears that a generation of Republicans has now grown up hearing the Big Lie, and didn't get that wasn't really what it was all about. Those people are actually ending up in power now. I mean Michelle Bachman went from hiding in the bushes at a gay rally and running away when people noticing her, to a factional leader in the Republican Party.
youbedead wrote: Why do people need an equal need for education fire and police
Everyone needs to be educated to some level and everyone has a relativly equal risk for fire and crime. Not having these 3 also effects everyone around you.
health risks are extremely variable. disease may or may not be contagious. it may actually not need treatment. you may not even get sick at all. individuals may be extremely vigorous or sickly.
Healthcare is also personal. its very detailed and dependent on the individual circumstances. The government deals in the big picture. Fire and Police work are pretty much uniform accross the board, medical care is not.
Thats why the government shouldn't touch it. Bureaucratic nightmare.
Grey Templar wrote: Healthcare is also personal. its very detailed and dependent on the individual circumstances. The government deals in the big picture. Fire and Police work are pretty much uniform accross the board, medical care is not.
I am just going to safely assume that you have zero experience in fire or police work there.
another way of saying "I've got mine so feth you"?
I'll help you of my own free will. I'm not going to consent to being forced to do it though.
See the difference?
Charity is exactly that. Its supposed to be a free gift, not something that you are forced to do by the government.
Charity is obviously the panacea for all of our ails; why look at how few children go hungry, veterans go homeless, people die of curable diseases... charity does it all!
youbedead wrote: Why do people need an equal need for education fire and police
As far as education goes poor neighborhoods generally receive less money for education; it's the basic reason the War on Poverty is a dismal failure. Rich and middle class kids get good and ok educations while poor kids barely meet the minimums. Police and fire are a different bundle of bananas.
youbedead wrote: Why do people need an equal need for education fire and police
As far as education goes poor neighborhoods generally receive less money for education; it's the basic reason the War on Poverty is a dismal failure. Rich and middle class kids get good and ok educations while poor kids barely meet the minimums. Police and fire are a different bundle of bananas.
Why do people have a equal need for education fire and police and not health
Who said they didn't? Healthcare has historically been a luxury in most cultures. We are basically in the final stages of deciding in this country if the need for healthcare will be determined by individual wealth or societal ability to deliver it equally regardless of individual wealth.
youbedead wrote: Why do people need an equal need for education fire and police
Everyone needs to be educated to some level and everyone has a relativly equal risk for fire and crime. Not having these 3 also effects everyone around you.
health risks are extremely variable. disease may or may not be contagious. it may actually not need treatment. you may not even get sick at all. individuals may be extremely vigorous or sickly.
You don't need fire, police or healthcare until something goes wrong, and then you really need it - it goes from a good with little utility to one with utility equal to everything you own. With fire, police and health the sooner you get it the less you need to fix your problem. With fire, police and healthcare the more people who have it the less pressing everybody's else need is.
That's why all three are examples of products which line up very well with universal models of provision, and why the steady march of history has been towards such models, and away from direct user pay models (because that's the model that works).
That's what you have to look at. What happens when ideology is tried in the real world - what works and what fails. And then you look at history in a new light, and you start to see things as a broadly iterative process, moving to systems that work a little better than what was there before, with misteps rejected along the way.
And suddenly this 'always less government because government is wasteful' thing starts to look like empty rhetoric.
Thats why the government shouldn't touch it. Bureaucratic nightmare.
The present US system has greater bureacratic costs. Your ideology just does not match the real world.
Grey Templar wrote:Medical care is different from Police, Fire, and Education because everyone has an equal need for the above 3. Not everyone has an equal need for healthcare.
And in one statement you manage a declaration that you lack any understanding of what police work, firefighting or medical care entails.
Like I said once already. Save this thread. Cherish it, keep it close by. Print it and fold it up and keep it in your pocket.
And when you or a family member gets sick or injured, you can pull out the printout of this thread, and perhaps then you will recognize how juvenile your ideas of social services are.
I don't, however, wish you any harm. But 1 in 7 people in the US (with even greater odds if you're of lower socioeconomic status) will be afflicted with cancer in their lifetimes.
AustonT wrote: Who said they didn't? Healthcare has historically been a luxury in most cultures.
And air travel was the dream of mad eyed inventors. But then technology changed, and society changed with it.
We are basically in the final stages of deciding in this country if the need for healthcare will be determined by individual wealth or societal ability to deliver it equally regardless of individual wealth.
Not really. As has already been discussed, emergency healthcare is already provided regardless of the person's ability to pay.
What you are in the last stages of is a system that's had minor, shortsighted fixes added to it for about 60 years. The extent and nature of the changes to that system are up for debate, but the plain reality is that the mess of employer provided insurance interacting with private insurers interacting with hospitals interacting with patients is not a sustainable model given the expanding expectations of modern healthcare systems.
Going back on topic for a second here. Just to clarify - Romney's statements don't count as "class warfare", right? Stating that, unless you pay federal income tax, you're a victim who doesn't care about your life and has no personal responsibility - this is just straight talkin', right? Where is John Sununu on this?
Not giving something to someone is not the same as denying them from having it.
Yes it is.
Does this apply to the right enshrined in the Second Amendment, too? After all, if the government not giving you what you have a right to is the same as denying you what you have a right to, then all of our Second Amendment rights are being violated as we speak. Shall we start the campaign for a free gun for every American, like the Swiss?
Is there anything to the idea that since it is society that has deprived many of us of the ability to be truly self sufficient, society therefore has an obligation to care for those that cannot become such?
I mean, before civilization, people could hunt or gather whatever they could. Fight others for what they want, or work together, or whatever they chose.
For much of history, migrations, wars, colonization, and exploration have allowed the ambitous and/or impovershed to attain some property. For decades, the US government would give land to anybody that could farm it. If nothing else, for most of history the simple need for labor ensured at least sustinence to people able to work.
But now? You can't hunt or gather. You can't get what you want through banditry or raiding. You can't go someplace new and start a farm. mechanization and automation have reduced the need for labor. The move to service industries and skilled trades leaves many behind.
I mean, at some point we have to say that our society precludes complete self reliance (even if we ignore the need for care as a child).
Does this apply to the right enshrined in the Second Amendment, too?
Yes. Rights have never been absolute in America, we just pretend that they are because we like the word "freedom". Of course, what we really mean by "freedom" is "I want to do things I enjoy."
But now? You can't hunt or gather. You can't get what you want through banditry or raiding. You can't go someplace new and start a farm. mechanization and automation have reduced the need for labor. The move to service industries and skilled trades leaves many behind.
You can, but there is more resistance and, regarding the farm, human resistance.
We're transitioning from a society in which production requires no education to one in which it does. Conversely, education is often overemphasized because we're more concerned with checklists than interacting with people.
Further, even farms are becomming more and more automated. One farm near my current location is automated to the degree that one man can maintain over one thousand head without having to leave the control room.
In 'the old days' people in desperate straits could do things like milk cows and make a living. Not anymore. The move toward greater and greater automation is effectively destroying the worlds economy. Ironic, that.
BaronIveagh wrote: move toward greater and greater automation is effectively destroying the worlds economy. Ironic, that.
that's only true if competitive employment is a requirement to survive.
If everything is cheaper, which it would be as automation increases, then the cost of supproting "free riders" only goes down.
The very concept that work is a moral good is a relatively recent invention. Pre-Reformation, work was seen as, at best, a necassary evil. (Sloth, as a deadly sign, is more a matter of spiritual apathy).
We spend a lot of time as a society worrying how to maximize employment, instead of celebrating the liklihood that we could someday only make people that want more than the minimum actually work.
Romney seems intent on clarifying the economic argument on a broad and philosophical basis, rather than stay content to argue over details. Obama now has the same opportunity. The day after the release of the Romney tape, audio from a 1998 appearance by Obama at Loyola University surfaced in which Obama discussed his support for government redistribution. "I think the trick is how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution,” Obama said, “because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure that everybody's got a shot.”
Rather than embrace this statement, as Romney did his, the Obama campaign sought to distance themselves from it, insisting that it just referred to city government – even though Obama was at the time a state Senator. Compare this to Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic national convention, though, which promoted his policy that “asks the wealthiest households to pay higher taxes on incomes,” in order to restore an America where “everyone gets a fair shot and everyone does their fair share.” That sounds a lot like the redistribution Obama supported in 1998, right down to the same applause lines.
sebster wrote:everyone has a relativly equal risk for fire and crime.
Disagree.
Some neighborhoods in the U.S. would qualify as warzones in other parts of the world. They are in need of far more police service then some gated community in Romney land (for example)...
Problem is stopping crime in some of those neighborhoods isnt the priority, containment is...
Does this apply to the right enshrined in the Second Amendment, too?
Yes. Rights have never been absolute in America, we just pretend that they are because we like the word "freedom". Of course, what we really mean by "freedom" is "I want to do things I enjoy."
True, but not what I asked.
The poster you were responding to asked if the government not providing the actual, tangible benefit included in the right - health care, in this case - was the same as denying it. In other words, we live in a country where everyone who wishes can go out and buy healthcare if they so choose, just like a gun. Your contention is that the government not providing health care is the same as denying the right to health care. Is the government not providing guns the same as denying the right to guns?
Manchu wrote: @Kovnik Obama: I don't think you are being clear. In fact, I think you are purposely being unclear and evasive. You cannot be anymore offended by the accusation than I am by the poor argumentation I accuse you of.
The cognitive dissonance in this statement is staggering. You reverting to attacks on my eloquence instead of actually agreeing that we see things differently speaks poorly of you. You denying the attack, in the same sentence you actually claim that it's my intent to be unclear, is above all bad form.
You understand that humans have basic needs. You refuse to say humans have rights to those basic needs except that a government agrees to provide them.
Rights, if we speak about something real, something effective, are legal fictions. Without a legal medium, provided either by the government or the traditional structures of the society in question, they mean nothing. They are just wishes. How is that unclear?
I respond that human rights arise from basic human needs and just like those needs exist independently from government action or inaction.
Of course they do. But they do not, by themselves, as needs, provide their fulfilment. That's what positive rights do.
Your retort is a stand-alone reference to historicity and an alleged correlation between pragmatic scientific definitions and social positivism as if these things are self-evidently relevant.
That was only a retort to your absolutist statement about humanity. That what's 'human' is dependant on the context should be self-evident to anyone with an education. 2300 years ago, a human was nothing more than a speaking animal (or a half-god).
BaronIveagh wrote: In 'the old days' people in desperate straits could do things like milk cows and make a living. Not anymore. The move toward greater and greater automation is effectively destroying the worlds economy. Ironic, that.
No. It doesn't "destroy the economy"; automation generally increases efficiency, resulting in greater output of goods vs. cost of goods, and assuming that markets are efficient (which they mostly are in the US) the goods are then made cheaper or with increased value. That's economic growth.
What wide-spread automation does do, generally, is increase wealth concentration because intellectual property and the development of process becomes more valuable than the means of production. A manufacturing job goes from plugging bolts into a thingamajig on an assembly line to a trained technician monitoring a process. Because the role is now more complex, the barrier to entry is higher or more exclusive. Entire new industries are created, like the 'tech sector'.
What exactly 'is' Facebook? Is it anything more than a bunch of electricity in a server bank somewhere, overseen by a couple hundred technicians? Obviopusly it is, but why is this company worth as much as General Motors? This is massive wealth concentration (print media employed gazillions more than FB ever will), but it's also an obvious example of wealth creation (new "industry") and wealth re-positioning.
In "the old days" people could milk cows and make a living. In the current times, that's still completely possible--you can survive nearly indefinitely on nothing but potatoes, butter, and tapwater--however we've redefined the basic standards of living to include stuff like Facebook.
AustonT wrote: Who said they didn't? Healthcare has historically been a luxury in most cultures.
And air travel was the dream of mad eyed inventors. But then technology changed, and society changed with it.
We are basically in the final stages of deciding in this country if the need for healthcare will be determined by individual wealth or societal ability to deliver it equally regardless of individual wealth.
Not really. As has already been discussed, emergency healthcare is already provided regardless of the person's ability to pay.
What you are in the last stages of is a system that's had minor, shortsighted fixes added to it for about 60 years. The extent and nature of the changes to that system are up for debate, but the plain reality is that the mess of employer provided insurance interacting with private insurers interacting with hospitals interacting with patients is not a sustainable model given the expanding expectations of modern healthcare systems.
All you have done here is validate my point. If you have no money you still have access to emergency care, but not preventative or periodical care. In other words income=level of care. Good work.
d-usa wrote: Society will spend lots of money keeping you right at the edge of death, but it will not spend less money keeping you healthy to begin with.
It's almost as if this is the root of the problem...
This is just more empty sentiment. What say we get back to the grist, eh?
Rights, if we speak about something real, something effective, are legal fictions. Without a legal medium, provided either by the government or the traditional structures of the society in question, they mean nothing. They are just wishes.
A legal fiction is a concept created by the law. The phenomenon of rights predates the existence of positive law, regardless of the conceptualization/articulartion of that phenomenon. Human rights arise from the universal quality of human nature. The dignity of the person is not a product of a court or other governmental institution. Human rights, in order to be human rights, cannot be derived positivistically.
2300 years ago, a human was nothing more than a speaking animal (or a half-god).
Don't be absurd. I suppose you'd also have to say that internal organs (much less the double-helix structure of DNA) did not exist 2300 years ago. Try to understand that just like the structure of DNA, human rights are not something that we invented but rather something that we discovered.
Seaward wrote: Your contention is that the government not providing health care is the same as denying the right to health care. Is the government not providing guns the same as denying the right to guns?
You misunderstood me, or perhaps I didn't express myself well. To not give a person X if they want X is to deny that person X. The government presently denies people that want the right to healthcare the right to healthcare. They also deny the people that want government funded weaponry government funded weaponry.
I was trying to make a very fine-grained distinction.
Manchu wrote: A legal fiction is a concept created by the law. The phenomenon of rights predates the existence of positive law, regardless of the conceptualization/articulartion of that phenomenon. Human rights arise from the universal quality of human nature. The dignity of the person is not a product of a court or other governmental institution.
That's right, they are the product of a religious institution. Which isn't even supporting the concept of Human Rights anymore. That was Jean-Paul II's greatest acheivement, and it was against the wish of the College. The Church is now reverting to the traditionnal vision of natural rights. Alain Seriaux's Natural Right very well illustrate this.
Human rights, in order to be human rights, cannot be derived positivistically.
Of course they can be. Pragmatically. Which goes back to my assertion that pragmatic scientific definitions have helped positivist legal fictions to gain the upper hand since the 18th century.
Don't be absurd. I suppose you'd also have to say that internal organs (much less the double-helix structure of DNA) did not exist 2300 years ago. Try to understand that just like the structure of DNA, human rights are not something that we invented but rather something that we discovered.
Huge difference between a concept and a material object. The concept of human rights didn't exist 2300 years ago, it was inoperant.
Manchu wrote: I am talking about a phenomenon rather than a concept.
Things are either material or ideal. Phenomenon are the same way (well, going back to the original meaning of the term, it'd all be ideal, but let's leave Kant out of it). No matter how you see it, a Right is not a tangible thing. It's an idea, or a concept, I'm sure someone somewhere would like to argue a difference between those two, but that's beside the point. Rights do not exist until a human conceive of them. Until they are applied at a governmental level, they are his alone.
I'd very much like to see some citation regarding John Paul II abandoning natural law rhetoric on the issue of human rights.
Jean-Paul II didn't abandon it. He introduced it to the Church, who'se College was against it because dignity was derived from men's moral nature, and not from the 'fact' that he is God's chosen creature. Benoit XVI is driving the Church away from the position Jean-Paul II had been able to impose. And I can't quote Sériaux right now, am at work.
Positivism is not very influential regarding the study of human rights.
You're again mixing up moral positivism and legal positivism. Legal positivism states that a Law is a Law only because a legal authority declares it so. Moral positivism states that something is only good because it was pronounced as such by a governing body. You can have whichever form of morality you want, and still have legal positivism. And it's the system in which you live. In which everyone in the Western world lives. To state that it's not very influential is just incorrect.
I do not cleave the world into actual and imagined based on the presence or absence of molecules. I think that is absurd.
Jean Paul II no more introduced natural law arguments to the church on the issue of human rights nor any other issue than he did the Eucharist.
Neither moral nor legal positivism is influential in the development of human rights theory. For the umpteenth time, the power of the rhetoric is that there is a law to which all people must respond regardless of the circumstances of government, i.e., what some sovereign does or does not wish to acknowledge.
Manchu wrote: I do not cleave the world into actual and imagined based on the presence or absence of molecules. I think that is absurd.
So to you, the sentence 'Santa Claus exists' is impossible to elucidate. Huh. Bertrand Russell would like to have a word with you.
Jean Paul II no more introduced natural law arguments to the church on the issue of human rights nor any other issue than he did the Eucharist.
Oh, have you had the time to read up Sériaux's book, in the last 25 minutes? Human Rights and Natural Law are not synonimous. Up until the 60s, the position of the Church was for an older definition of Natural Law that didn't support (modern) Human Right as they are enumerated in the Universal Declaration.
Neither moral nor legal positivism is influential in the development of human rights theory exactly because human rights. For the umpteenth time, the power of the rhetoric is that there is a law to which all people must respond regardless of the circumstances of government, i.e., what some sovereign does or does not wish to acknowledge.
Which are still dependant on an institution to be upheld. Anyhow, you'll notice that on the subject of Healthcare, the Declaration is a whole lot silent. I doubt that a case could be presented to the U.N regarding the crimes against humanity that the U.S have done against countless sickened people, or do you actually think that it isn't so?
I studied natural law at the Catholic law school where I received my juris doctorate. I don't need to look up Seriaux in 25 minutes. I think you'll find one of the principal authors of the UDHR was Jacques Maratain, a teacher and friend of Paul VI. You might also like to look at a 1963 encyclical by John XXIII called Pacem in Terris.
The rest of your post does not constitute a response to my points.
Manchu wrote: I studied natural law at the Catholic law school where I received my juris doctorate. I don't need to look up Seriaux in 25 minutes. I think you'll find one of the principal authors of the UDHR was Jacques Maratain, a teacher and friend of Paul VI. You might also like to look at a 1963 encyclical by John XXIII called Pacem in Terris.
The rest of your post does not constitute a response to my points.
Neither does yours. And it's 'Maritain'.
I hope you laughed manically as you posted this nonsensicle dribble.
It's the aristotelian conception of man. An animal with Logos. Since Logos was the domain of the Gods, it attributed half-godhoodness to humanity.
This is only to illustrate that what's conceived as a 'human' is very context dependant.
sebster wrote:everyone has a relativly equal risk for fire and crime.
Disagree.
Some neighborhoods in the U.S. would qualify as warzones in other parts of the world. They are in need of far more police service then some gated community in Romney land (for example)...
Problem is stopping crime in some of those neighborhoods isnt the priority, containment is...
Check your quotes, I didn't say that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote: All you have done here is validate my point. If you have no money you still have access to emergency care, but not preventative or periodical care. In other words income=level of care. Good work.
No, because to compare 'we can't treat you because it's 1458 and we don't even know what the hell that thing growing on the side of your head is' with 'we won't treat you because you can't materially reward us' is simply wrong.
Despite your insistance otherwise, humanity is a charitable animal. We care for those in need. We build social systems that care for those in need.
To claim that we once didn't have the capability to do so, therefore we shouldn't now is a complete load of nonsense.
olympia wrote: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." No?
Not quite. It's more "Go and look after yourself and try and be as prosperous as you can in this capitalist system we invented, but if you really get in need we won't let you die of treatable disease or starve to death."
It's somewhere between "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" of communism and "feth you I've got mine" of pure capitalism.
Manchu wrote: I do not cleave the world into actual and imagined based on the presence or absence of molecules. I think that is absurd.
I know you're approaching this from an experience with God, but even that is closer to imagination than actuality. We can all touch the table with little demand, but we can't all touch God.
olympia wrote: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." No?
Sadly in this case it's more like:
"... it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject." - Ayn Rand (But Honest! Paul Ryan doesn't believe that stuff, no matter what he said last year.)
I know you're approaching this from an experience with God, but even that is closer to imagination than actuality. We can all touch the table with little demand, but we can't all touch God.
Well, let's try something I think that most of us will agree exists: Life. (not living things, but rather the characteristic that makes them 'alive'.) It's not biochemistry, as that continues after death, and life occurs in wildly differing forms who have little in common. So what is life? What stops existing when one dies? It undeniably exists, but what is it exactly?
When the Montgolfier brothers first took to the sky there was no science of aeronautics already in place. They just happened to notice that laundry drying by a fire tended to float up. Perhaps in time, Science will even solve what Life and God are.
dogma wrote: Hobbes and Rousseau disagree with that.
Because they would disagree about what a human right is.
dogma wrote: We can all touch the table with little demand, but we can't all touch God.
Not to be punny, but that's immaterial. The issue is whether non-tangible things exist beyond our perception of them (as if the same question could not be asked of tangible ones).
Manchu wrote: Not to be punny, but that's immaterial. The issue is whether non-tangible things exist beyond our perception of them (as if the same question could not be asked of tangible ones).
I can prove they do right now.
Time.
We do not directly perceive time, only it's effect on the universe around us, as every three dimensional object is, technically, the shadow of a 4 dimensional tesseract. *I*, the person writing this, exist simultaneously at all points of my timeline, however, *I* can only actually perceive a small sliver of it (ie the present). Yet the 4th dimension is just as much a part of 'reality' as height, width, and depth.
2300 years ago, a human was nothing more than a speaking animal (or a half-god).
AustonT wrote:
I hope you laughed manically as you posted this nonsensicle dribble.
It's the aristotelian conception of man. An animal with Logos. Since Logos was the domain of the Gods, it attributed half-godhoodness to humanity.
This is only to illustrate that what's conceived as a 'human' is very context dependant.
Interesting, thats not too different from how we see man today. Animal in that we (mostly) believe in evolutionary ancestry, yet with sapience which we use to make a wide gulf between us and the animals in terms of weight of value, authority, and culpability.
As for the 'half-divine' part of humanity, most major religions would agree with you. Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity do so directly. Islam and Judaism do so indirectly. it can otherwise also be found in the breadth of ther gulf we place between ourselves and the animals of which we are akin. Similar in many respects to the gulf between a man and a god.
However I would not add all that to form a conclusion that 'a human was nothing more than a speaking animal (or a half-god)' at any time. AustonT had good reason to query this.
Kilkrazy wrote: What have you guys got against a low end supermarket?
A lot of people rely on them for basic nutrition.
So what if the Queen doesn't shop there?
Nothing wrong with Iceland. My favourite supermarket, I know people who work in the industry and Iceland treats its staff a whole lot better than other chains do. In addition the prices are low, pack sizes and they are cheaper for the basics.
AustonT wrote:
A POUND FOR EGGS?!?!? A full pound are you kidding? How much is milk?
Eggs are expensive, go elsewhere and they cost even more.
Milk is £1 for 2 litres as said, cheapest place I know. Usual price for milk is £1.20-1.40 for 2 litres, though some supermarkets do a two for £2 offer. Bread is also cheaper.
I pay $1.60-1.90/gal for milk and generally about 1.20 for eggs although lately I've been buying organic jumbo eggs which are much more expensive. You guys are paying bananas prices...bananas.
/threadjack
dogma wrote: Hobbes and Rousseau disagree with that.
Because they would disagree about what a human right is.
Actually, both would disagree that they even exists. But they were still enormously influential.
Not to be punny, but that's immaterial. The issue is whether non-tangible things exist beyond our perception of them (as if the same question could not be asked of tangible ones).
Define properly 'exist'. Fictive entities exists once they are formulated. They were possible since forever, or since their paradigm was adopted. Some fictive entities (like quantities) are easily manifested to our cognition. We can say, by a stretch of langage, that they exist indepedantly from the subject, since it's easy to think that the subject is somehow built around their perception.
The idea that we should entitle every humans with Rights based on a general conception of what man needs, in bare minimum, to have dignity, isn't so. Evidence being the relative youth of human rights rhetoric.
“Romney gave 30% of his income last year to charity. Yes, he’s clearly a greedy, selfish one-percenter who doesn’t care about the poor.”
If youreally care, you don’t give money yourself. You get the government to force other people to give. That’s what true compassion is all about. Just ask Joe Biden.
That's why people are asking for older tax returns. If you look at politicians their spending changes when they know they are being watched and judged.
Tax returns before he decided to run are going to tell us a lot more than a year of money spend when he knew he would be judged.
Over the past 20 years he is supposed to have given a shade over 13% of his adjusted earnings to charity. So no 30% is not average for him but it seems not exactly out of character either.
AustonT wrote: Over the past 20 years he is supposed to have given a shade over 13% of his adjusted earnings to charity. So no 30% is not average for him but it seems not exactly out of character either.
Auston, that "nearly" 30% figure was only for '11.
It has to do with under claiming his donations to keep some sort of promise to keep his tax rate at 13% or something. I'm in class and honestly Romneys taxes and giving are roughly above wondering what ants are thinking on my give a gak list...sorry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: When his dad ran for office he released 12 years of returns. In fact his dad set the standard for transparency in tax returns for candidates.
Yeah remember president Romney? So I guess maybe that wasn't a great idea. Did Obama by chance show 12years of returns? I'm actually asking, again, don't care.
George Romney was a force for moderation and inclusiveness in the Republican Party. There's really no use in comparing him to his son now that Mitt wants to be president.
This election is one of the few times in the last 10 years that I could actually see a new political party forming unless the Republicans can shed themselves off the cancer that is the Tea Party.
The Republican Party of 10 years ago, maybe a hair more moderate, without the crazy antics of the Tea Party would really be a nice option to have.
No, not 10 years ago. How about Bush I? I could probably vote Republican if the party was in step with that. Sadly, the party wasn't even when he was in the White House.
If they donated a lot and got a 14% rate, but their average annual rate is 20%, then I am going to assume that he didn't always donate so much when nobody was looking.
Since whembly opened the door that his charity contributions are relevant.
d-usa wrote:This election is one of the few times in the last 10 years that I could actually see a new political party forming unless the Republicans can shed themselves off the cancer that is the Tea Party.
I think the cancer of the religious right is more important to remove so we have to go pre-1980 at least.
I've said it before and I'll say it again I would like BOTH parties to split. We need a national dialogue with a multitude of voices so red vs blue doesn't make compromise impossible.
d-usa wrote:If they donated a lot and got a 14% rate, but their average annual rate is 20%, then I am going to assume that he didn't always donate so much when nobody was looking.
Since whembly opened the door that his charity contributions are relevant.
Like I said 13% over 20 years is nothing to sneer at, considering his considerable wealth Id be willing to bet he donated more than Vince Young lost.
In any event it makes Harry Ried look like an idiot for claiming he paid no taxes and demanding he release his taxes. Explains why we never saw the "hacked" records if they even had them.
AustonT wrote: In any event it makes Harry Ried look like an idiot for claiming he paid no taxes and demanding he release his taxes. Explains why we never saw the "hacked" records if they even had them.
Harry Ried has never needed any help to make himself look like an idiot.
d-usa wrote: If they donated a lot and got a 14% rate, but their average annual rate is 20%, then I am going to assume that he didn't always donate so much when nobody was looking.
Since whembly opened the door that his charity contributions are relevant.
I thought it was always relevent?!? oops...
Just don't open that Roman Polak door! Oh Gawd... not THAT door!
Like I said 13% over 20 years is nothing to sneer at, considering his considerable wealth Id be willing to bet he donated more than Vince Young lost.
But his average is 20% over the last 10 years or so. So if he has some years with 13% then he probably has some years with 27%.
My take was more on his charity. Since giving 30% is what brought him down a lot, and since whembley made it a point to talk about his charity, then we can assume that he didn't give as much in the years he didn't release.
I am not that impressed at his donations considering he knew this would get released and he would be watched. So he had an incentive to be more giving.
Of course every elected official, including Obama, is doing the same thing.
Like I said 13% over 20 years is nothing to sneer at, considering his considerable wealth Id be willing to bet he donated more than Vince Young lost.
But his average is 20% over the last 10 years or so. So if he has some years with 13% then he probably has some years with 27%.
My take was more on his charity. Since giving 30% is what brought him down a lot, and since whembley made it a point to talk about his charity, then we can assume that he didn't give as much in the years he didn't release.
I am not that impressed at his donations considering he knew this would get released and he would be watched. So he had an incentive to be more giving.
Of course every elected official, including Obama, is doing the same thing.
See that youtube I posted... (has nothing to do with this thread, but it's an excuse to post that fething awesome fight)
AustonT wrote: In any event it makes Harry Ried look like an idiot for claiming he paid no taxes and demanding he release his taxes. Explains why we never saw the "hacked" records if they even had them.
Harry Ried has never needed any help to make himself look like an idiot.
Fine... here's a recap since evidently *I* opened that door...
- In 2011, the Romneys paid $1,935,708 in taxes on $13,696,951 in mostly investment income.
- The Romneys’ effective tax rate for 2011 was 14.1%.
-The Romneys donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011, amounting to nearly 30% of their income.
-The Romneys claimed a deduction for $2.25 million of those charitable contributions. The Romneys’ generous charitable donations in 2011 would have significantly reduced their tax obligation for the year. The Romneys thus limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the Governor's statement in August, based upon the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13% in income taxes in each of the last 10 years.
-Joe Biden, by comparison, gave an average of $369 per year before people started noticing.
- In each year during the entire 20-year period, the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes.
-Over the entire 20-year period, the average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.20%.
-Over the entire 20-year period, the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate was 13.66%.
-Over the entire 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income.
-Over the entire 20-year period, the total federal and state taxes owed plus the total charitable donations deducted represented 38.49% of total AGI.
-During the 20-year period covered by the PWC letter, Gov. and Mrs. Romney paid100 percent of the taxes that they owed.
Sooo
Can we let this faux-outrage die?
There are easier things to criticized Romney on...
Seriously, coming from the king of the right wing blog posts.
The guy who just a few days ago posted a link that complained that the President of "hope and change" is now suddenly running on a message of "hope and change"?
Seriously, coming from the king of the right wing blog posts.
The guy who just a few days ago posted a link that complained that the President of "hope and change" is now suddenly running on a message of "hope and change"?
That was yesterday dude... He ran on "hope and change" to get elected, then goes on Univision says "I can't change it on the inside"... there's a disconnect, that's ALL I was saying.
Here's more:
So, let’s just take a second here to process this. Mitt Romney, who is ostensibly uncaring, out-of-touch, and disdainful of poor people, gave more than 13 percent of his income (amounting to millions and millions of dollars) over twenty years to charity, and didn’t even always take the full tax deduction. (The bastard!) By at least one count, the average effective federal tax rate for Americans is 11 percent — and Romney’s average annual rate was 20 percent, also amounting to millions and millions of dollars that went into the federal government’s coffers. He has done nothing wrong or shady, unless you consider being a wildly excellent businessman to be a vice, and the finger-pointers now look pretty darn dumb.
If this isn’t it, can somebody please explain to me exactly what it is that a “fair share” is supposed to look like? Are we supposed to detest rich people, or should we admire them? Will the real Barack Obama please stand up?
And these summary was notarized by PWC (Price Water Coopers).
Seriously, coming from the king of the right wing blog posts.
The guy who just a few days ago posted a link that complained that the President of "hope and change" is now suddenly running on a message of "hope and change"?
That was yesterday dude... He ran on "hope and change" to get elected, then goes on Univision says "I can't change it on the inside"... there's a disconnect, that's ALL I was saying.
So he has been consistent with his message. That it takes outside forces to make a difference. He has not changed at all. He is pushing for community involvement and urging people on the outside to contact their representatives. No "throwing in the towel" or anything crazy like that.
You don't post news, news consist of a factual reporting of what happened.
You post editorials. Almost every single thing you post is something that has been digested and spit back out to tell you what it must mean and how you should feel about it.
It is also easy to notice that you are providing links to your quotes less often now since you have been called out on that.
Once you quit copy pasting editorial pieces that tell you how you should feel and why you should be angry, then you will have more substance behind your arguments.
Once you quit copy pasting editorial pieces that tell you how you should feel and why you should be angry, then people might start taking you seriously again.
Once you quit copy pasting editorial pieces that tell you how you should feel and why you should be angry, then people might start taking you seriously again.
Edited by AgeOfEgos
Please direct me to MSNBC editorials I have posted.
If I post news it is almost always from CNN, it is almost always news (not editorials), and it is almost always sourced.
There are plenty of people here that are to the right of me, and I debate them because you can tell they actually read news and come up with their own conclusions. I don't have problems with people on the right or the left.
Just quit with the "I am outraged because this editorial/blog tells me I should be outraged" crap.
Seriously, coming from the king of the right wing blog posts.
The guy who just a few days ago posted a link that complained that the President of "hope and change" is now suddenly running on a message of "hope and change"?
That was yesterday dude... He ran on "hope and change" to get elected, then goes on Univision says "I can't change it on the inside"... there's a disconnect, that's ALL I was saying.
So he has been consistent with his message. That it takes outside forces to make a difference. He has not changed at all. He is pushing for community involvement and urging people on the outside to contact their representatives. No "throwing in the towel" or anything crazy like that.
I get that... and, yes that's what he's always preached. But what he said the other day contradicted that.
You don't post news, news consist of a factual reporting of what happened.
You post editorials. Almost every single thing you post is something that has been digested and spit back out to tell you what it must mean and how you should feel about it.
Really... news these days ARE basically editorials... just watch cable news network.
It is also easy to notice that you are providing links to your quotes less often now since you have been called out on that.
Fair enough... Manny asked me nicely .
Once you quit copy pasting editorial pieces that tell you how you should feel and why you should be angry, then people might start taking you seriously again.
Wow... to be taken seriously... that must be an opportant thing eh?
Once you quit copy pasting editorial pieces that tell you how you should feel and why you should be angry, then people might start taking you seriously again.
Once you quit copy pasting editorial pieces that tell you how you should feel and why you should be angry, then people might start taking you seriously again.
Edited by AgeOfEgos
Aside from the little yellow triangle. I frequently find myself opposed to Dusa on many issues, I wouldn't call him a moderate and I definitely wouldn't call him far left. If you were looking for the intelligent people, they just made up their mind to discard your opinion for the foreseeable future. There are plenty of people in the OT that reply to the poster and not the content and copy paste articles without bothering to read them: d-usa does not number amongst them.
...will it make any difference if either of them are elected and America goes swirly spectacularly? There's this funny thing in the US that they seem to think that thier internal politics are the be all and end all of the worlds politics. ('Most Powerful Man in the Free World' indeed. Everyone knows that the Presidency has been bought and paid for for years and the people with the real power are the one's pulling his strings.)
sourclams wrote: It's largely because of different, and more prohibitive regulations.
EUag practices are generally what the Left exalt with regards to crate/cage free, non-GMO food.
The result is food that is between 100% and 200% more expensive than in the US, and some that doesn't even exist, like grain-fed beef.
Those food prices don't look all that high to me up here in NH. $1.62 (the exchange rate I'm showing right now) is more expensive than the cheapest dozen eggs at my local supermarket, but cheaper than the cage-free or organic ones. We usually get the nicer ones, because they're fluffier and better-tasting than the cheap ones, even aside from any . I think I usually pay around $2.50 for a gallon of milk, buying the cheap stuff, as I drink a ton of skim milk and I'm not picky about it.
We definitely have more choices and cheaper options available. That's on the strength of the factory farming systems we use, about which some folks have reasonable concerns, often to do with sanitary and safety standards, and excessive use of antibiotics.
AustonT wrote: Like I said 13% over 20 years is nothing to sneer at, considering his considerable wealth Id be willing to bet he donated more than Vince Young lost.
AustonT wrote:In any event it makes Harry Ried look like an idiot for claiming he paid no taxes and demanding he release his taxes. Explains why we never saw the "hacked" records if they even had them.
I think Reid was just trying to provoke him into proving the claim wrong. They wanted to get the numbers out in the open, so Romney could be criticized on them.
The Romneys only claimed a tax deduction for $2.25 million of those charitable contributions to engineer a higher tax rate than they otherwise would have paid. This move was to “conform” to the candidate’s statement in August that he paid a federal income tax rate of at least 13 percent of his income in each of the last 10 years, R. Bradford Malt, Romney’s trustee, said in a statement released by the campaign.
At a Republican presidential debate in January, on the same night he released his 2010 tax returns, Romney scoffed at the notion that he would pay more taxes than he is legally required.
“You’ll see my income, how much taxes I’ve paid, how much I’ve paid to charity,” Romney said. “I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more. I don’t think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes.”
Campaign spokeswoman Michele Davis said in a statement that Romney “has been clear that no American need pay more than he or she owes under the law. At the same time, he was in the unique position of having made a commitment to the public that his tax rate would be above 13 percent. In order to be consistent with that statement, the Romneys limited their deduction of charitable contributions.”
That's funny. So if I understand this right, he owes less than 13% in taxes, and he claimed he pays more than 13% (they publicly stated this Spring they expected him to pay around 15%), so he deliberately claimed less of his deductions than he was legally allowed this year, to retroactively make his statement accurate. But to do that he had to contradict his public statements in the debates.
The Romneys only claimed a tax deduction for $2.25 million of those charitable contributions to engineer a higher tax rate than they otherwise would have paid. This move was to “conform” to the candidate’s statement in August that he paid a federal income tax rate of at least 13 percent of his income in each of the last 10 years, R. Bradford Malt, Romney’s trustee, said in a statement released by the campaign.
At a Republican presidential debate in January, on the same night he released his 2010 tax returns, Romney scoffed at the notion that he would pay more taxes than he is legally required.
“You’ll see my income, how much taxes I’ve paid, how much I’ve paid to charity,” Romney said. “I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more. I don’t think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes.”
Campaign spokeswoman Michele Davis said in a statement that Romney “has been clear that no American need pay more than he or she owes under the law. At the same time, he was in the unique position of having made a commitment to the public that his tax rate would be above 13 percent. In order to be consistent with that statement, the Romneys limited their deduction of charitable contributions.”
That's funny. So if I understand this right, he owes less than 13% in taxes, and he claimed he pays more than 13% (they publicly stated this Spring they expected him to pay around 15%), so he deliberately claimed less of his deductions than he was legally allowed this year, to retroactively make his statement accurate. But to do that he had to contradict his public statements in the debates.
Yeah that was kind of interesting. Im left wondering if maybe his wife decided to send a bunch of money to charities and he wasn't aware of it...it seems unlikely. I wonder what the REAL reasons are behind the curtain but I doubt we'll ever know.
Mannahnin wrote: That's funny. So if I understand this right, he owes less than 13% in taxes, and he claimed he pays more than 13% (they publicly stated this Spring they expected him to pay around 15%), so he deliberately claimed less of his deductions than he was legally allowed this year, to retroactively make his statement accurate. But to do that he had to contradict his public statements in the debates.
Yeah that was kind of interesting. Im left wondering if maybe his wife decided to send a bunch of money to charities and he wasn't aware of it...it seems unlikely. I wonder what the REAL reasons are behind the curtain but I doubt we'll ever know.
I don't think there's anything mysterious about it.
He/his campaign thinks that paying less than they claimed they would will make him look dishonest. He's stuck having contradicted himself, so he had to choose either to pay less and stick to his guns on what he said in the primary debates when he was trying to sell himself to the Tea Party, or not take as much in deductions to look more like he's paying his fair share, to the members of the public who might feel 11% or 12% would be seriously taking the piss from a guy as fantastically rich as he is. Those are kind of the two options he's got in terms of presenting himself.
dogma wrote: We can all touch the table with little demand, but we can't all touch God.
Not to be punny, but that's immaterial. The issue is whether non-tangible things exist beyond our perception of them (as if the same question could not be asked of tangible ones).
I wasn't clear. I reject the philosophical question as to whether or not right exists independent of perception (though believe that they do not), and instead approach the issue pragmatically, much as follows:
There is a fundamental distinction between something that can be agreed to exist according to a physical sense, and one that cannot. You can question whether or not the tangible and intangible exist absent our perception of them, but the mode of engaging with the two is still fundamentally distinct; with one having a quality that is much closer to universality.
Rights, being intangible, find their existence debated much more often than we debate the existence of tables. This uncertainty means that, in a piratical sense, while rights may exist independent of our perception of them any right which is not agreed upon by consensus is irrelevant.
AustonT wrote: Over the past 20 years he is supposed to have given a shade over 13% of his adjusted earnings to charity. So no 30% is not average for him but it seems not exactly out of character either.
Wouldn't that basically be the 10% tithe and then not much else, on average?
And I'm having a hard time seeing even 30% as that wonderful, to be honest. It seems to me much closer to the bare minimum of what the truly rich should be giving. Once you've got enough money to have as many cars as you like, as nice a house as you care to own, the only reason not to give money to charity would be absurd greed or bloody minded misanthropy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: This election is one of the few times in the last 10 years that I could actually see a new political party forming unless the Republicans can shed themselves off the cancer that is the Tea Party.
The Republican Party of 10 years ago, maybe a hair more moderate, without the crazy antics of the Tea Party would really be a nice option to have.
The problem is that the Republican Party is playing a losing game, demographically speaking. Old, conservative white men are a declining demographic. The Republican answer to this in this decade has been to double down on this group, and make sure every last one of them turns out to vote. But each election they have to squeeze harder to get those participation rates up, to get voting numbers roughly equal to the Democrats.
They recognise the problem themselves, they're attempting to reach out to latinos and black voters, but so far the results have been woeful.
Something will break, sooner or later. Either they'll find a way make the conservative message resonate with someone who isn't a conservative, old white guy, or they'll face such massive electoral defeats that they'll have to change message.
Or possibly the Democrats will find some way to shoot themselves in the foot again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: Harry Ried has never needed any help to make himself look like an idiot.
I never figured out why conservatives went so hard at Pelosi, when they had Reid handing over so much material to work with. Pelosi is reasonably solid, and while simply by virtue of being liberal she says all kinds of things that conservatives love to be outraged over and pretend are ridiculous, there was never much substance in the attacks on her.
Whereas Reid is just an idiot, with next to no control over his senate, and with a long line of statements that are just bad politics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: But, why do we care about his tax return again?
Because there's a lot of concern that the very rich are able to pay very little tax. If a presidential candidate who happens to be very rich was paying very little tax, then that'd be a good way to highlight that problem.
Which is, of course, exactly what happened. An average rate of 14.1% is incredibly low for someone on the top end of income earners.
Not that Romney himself should be criticised for paying very little tax. It's nonsense to claim anyone should pay more tax than they legally have to. The point is that if the rich are paying very little tax, then the system has to change.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sourclams wrote: It's largely because of different, and more prohibitive regulations.
EUag practices are generally what the Left exalt with regards to crate/cage free, non-GMO food.
The result is food that is between 100% and 200% more expensive than in the US, and some that doesn't even exist, like grain-fed beef.
It is a combination of factors. The cost of land is a major issue.
The other issue is government involvement, but not like you'd assume (the cost to move to free range eggs over battery is pretty minimal, for instance). Rather, the issue is that in Europe there's a rather heavy amount of protectionism, defending European farmers from cheaper imports. As a result inefficient farm practices has been allowed to continue in the absence of real competition. But unlike your summary assumes, this isn't a left wing issue. Protection of farms has been put forward almost entirely by conservatives in Europe, not because it's a conservative issue but simply because rural voters tend to be conservative, and so conservatives put forward their issues. Politics is dirty like that.
Funnily enough, similar levels of interference exist in US agriculture, its just that the US being the US, their tendency has been to directly subsidise farming, put the price on the national credit card and keep the minority interests happy. This is a better way of doing things than the European model, modernisation in US agriculture has been far stronger than Europe, but its still pretty funny to hear an American talk about government involvement in farming.
According to the relevant definition of "tangible" time is tangible.
Ok, for the giggles, what's the relevant definition of tangible? Because by most definitions I know of, it's not, as we can only perceive it's effects on other things, not the item itself.
Not really. I can see braining an immortal and watching the shoulder stock fly off. I can braining an immortal with a 240 just to help cool the barrel down.
Jihadin wrote: Not really. I can see braining an immortal and watching the shoulder stock fly off. I can braining an immortal with a 240 just to help cool the barrel down.
Jihadin wrote: Not really. I can see braining an immortal and watching the shoulder stock fly off. I can braining an immortal with a 240 just to help cool the barrel down.
I've never had that problem, but I've also never had anyone get close enough to brain with it, either. At that range a short burst and you have two halves where one man stood. Mine's a Colt Overstamp (aka the 1928 Navy), rather than an A1 or M1A1, but it's got an RPB threaded barrel to mount a suppressor and black walnut grips and stock. I use her similar to the PPSh 41: a drum first and then switch to clips once the drum runs dry and always use jacketed rounds to reduce leading, you don't want her to jam on you.
Ok, for the giggles, what's the relevant definition of tangible? Because by most definitions I know of, it's not, as we can only perceive it's effects on other things, not the item itself.
Define real then, because that's not much of a definition. Science does have things that exist but are not, technically speaking, 'real', as most people would understand it.
Define real then, because that's not much of a definition. Science does have things that exist but are not, technically speaking, 'real', as most people would understand it.
Actual, or existential.
You're not speaking technically if you are speaking from "most people".
Yes, but they are not actually observing time. They're observing the relationship between thermodynamics, which can be perceived, and time, which can't. It's like a black hole. You can't actually perceive the black hole, only it's effect on other things.
BaronIveagh wrote: Yes, but they are not actually observing time. They're observing the relationship between thermodynamics, which can be perceived, and time, which can't. It's like a black hole. You can't actually perceive the black hole, only it's effect on other things.
Which is for all intensive purposes is the same thing, we can never actually observe anything if you really get deep anough
