Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:
Go to school part time. Relying on the minimum wage to survive is not going to work. In the words of the Immortal Bard: "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life son."

So, you can't survive on minimum wage, but you can go to school part time while earning it? I'm no big city intellectual (that's a lie), but it seems to me that education requires one to be alive. If you can't survive on the minimum wage, then you sure as hell can't pay for an education while earning it. Now, its entirely possible that one can survive on the minimum wage (they can, but its hard), but your argument just doesn't hold water.

I did.

mattyrm wrote:I cant decide if i like politics or religion discussions the most.. you blokes always manage to bomb the threads.

Especially you Shuma, you must get custom made thread IEDs!

I basically jump on the grenades of ignorance that other posters throw down so that sebster or dogma don't have too. If people weren't saying new orleans natives were lazy or that minimum wage laws are stupid because you can hire illegals without reporting them I wouldn't have to come in and pull out the boxing gloves. I'm really much more moderate and reasonable then I seem, I just tailor my posts to fit the people or points I'm responding too and on this forum people post some mind blowingly stupid gak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:I did.

How much of your lifestyle was funded by your parents or the government? Also when was this? 1935?

Stormrider wrote:My comments about NO are perfectly illustrative of the failures of our Federal Government. The school buses are State Property, thus under the authority of the state and more importantly the City Of NO. The levees are maintained by the Corps of Engineers with money appropriated by the State of Louisiana. That fund to maintain the levees was gutted by state politicians (sound familiar? Social Security trust fund anyone?) for other programs and was effectively stolen. Since the area was declared a disaster zone by the US Government a couple of days later, only then did it become under their jurisdictional authority.

You just laid out the case for exempting the federal government from criticism with respect to the matter. Cognitive dissonance is a useful thing; I suggest you pay it more attention.

Stormrider wrote:
For minimum wage, all of the countries mentioned have much smaller populations than the US, so using that type of analysis automatically skews the data in favor of the smaller country. What's the median income of those countries compared to the US?

Explain to us how the size of the country is relevant to minimum wage laws.

Also, the median income in the states mentioned is, in all cases, lower than the median income in the US.

Stormrider wrote:
As for deficit spending, I oppose it utterly. I wasn't alive while Regan was president so I wasn't around to oppose it, '08 was my first election (voted for Bob Barr in protest of McCain). But, trying to argue that Regan and Bush and Clinton did it too is moot when you compare the numbers to Obama. It's like trying to put out a tire fire with more tires.

The point was made in order to counter your statement that deficit spending is a democrat thing, when it very clearly is not.

Shuma: The problem is that being confrontational rarely gets people to listen to you or consider your points.
I tend to find your posts entertaining though, so whatever

Frazzled wrote:I did.

So your argument is false, and it is possible to survive on the minimum wage; from which we can infer that the minimum wage exists in order to permit the survival and advancement of individuals.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I did.

So your argument is false, and it is possible to survive on the minimum wage; from which we can infer that the minimum wage exists in order to permit the survival and advancement of individuals.

It was easier back in the 60's when minimum wage gave superior real buying power and college costs were a fraction of their current extremely inflated levels.

Frazzled wrote:

Vene wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Wow, that's...that's one hell of a sentiment.

Its reality. You can't live on that amount, and at that level I can get better employees.
Wait, whats wrong with the statement in the first place? If you don't like the crap wages that are minimimum wage you improve your skills so you can get a better business.
thats why we have universities, technical schools, training programs, and union based journeyman programs. Thats how its supposed to work.

And it doesn't work, I'm college educated and getting paid gak because the economy is so bad. And how is somebody on minimum wage supposed to be able to afford to survive as well as go to school?

Go to school part time. Relying on the minimum wage to survive is not going to work. In the words of the Immortal Bard: "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life son."

I did a degree at evening classes while I worked full time as a mid-level manager.

ShumaGorath wrote:It's his fault for getting cancer? Wouldn't that depend on the type of cancer?

Weren't you just talking about straw man arguments? It's his fault for not having health insurance IF he could afford it. Unless he's been going through asbestos filled rooms going "asbestos! Ima eat some!" I think it's safe to say cancer is often something that happens and isn't something people always have control over. You can however get healthcare insurance. If you don't have it, and there was money in your budget to buy it but you decided to get a pool instead, that's your own fault and no one else'.

Not really an issue anymore, but then I don't like the idea of government telling people how to live their lives.

That being the combination of for profit healthcare system,

That's not a bad thing by default. The problem with profit systems is when you let them run out of control. But I don't think the fact that our healthcare system is for profit is any anyway core to the problem. There are issues that have radically increased costs of healthcare, and to maintain profitability, and by that continued existance, prices had to increase.

the cozy doctor/pharmaceutical relationship causing endemic overuse of specialized and non preventative care,

I agree with this. Also we have a rather sad shortage of doctors which worsens the problem.

and a middleman insurance system which generates profits based on coverage denial.

We didn't need a massive healthcare overhaul to fix that. You only need one law that doesn't let companies do it anymore. Allow them to make up the costs incurred by giving tax rebates for policy holders whose medical costs exceeded their premiums.

To adress the problems with the system would require a new system, and people didn't want the public option.

I don't like the public option, but I'd prefer it to what we got. Public options are expensive. Look at europe. They can barely afford it and the quality of care sucks. I lived in England when my dad was deployed there. It took me five months to see a doctor in 1997, and from what I hear from old friends it hasn't changed. Here in the US, I can see a doctor within a week. So, we want to adopt Europe's system, and we expect it to be different? We don't even have to speculate. Look at Medicare/Medicaid. We've already seen that these programs explode in costs and that the service is of horrible quality. You pay for what you get. The US government sucks with money. Always has, always will. They can't run anything with efficiency or affordability (Look at the post office). Why exactly do we want to give more money and control over something as vital as healthcare to men and women who can't even seem to manage balancing a checkbook? Social programs need money to work, and I don't see hopes and dreams gaining any monetary value anytime soon.

I'm surprised you didn't mention tort reform. A guy needs life saving surgery and is told he could die in the process. Please sign this document saying you won't sue us if complications occur in this extremely risky procedure. Complications occur. Doctor gets sued. Malpractive insurance pays for it. Doctor's premiums go up. Cost of healthcare increases. This upsets me more than anything else. It's the most obvious cause of increasing costs, and it wasn't addressed at all. There's also the insanity of spending millions of dollars on experimental treatments doctors know won't work or the use of chemotherapy on terminal patients who will be killed by the treatment faster than by the disease. The phrase Momento Mori seems to have been forgotten in the US. People die. It's part of life. I know it's hard and it sucks, but that's the way it goes, and sometimes we need to accept that there's nothing we can do about it.

Besides all that, there are ways to get more people access to healthcare that don't cost trillions of taxpayer dollars that don't and never will exist. Lower taxes on drug companies and make sure they pass those savings to consumers, tort reform, regulation against arbitrarily dropping holders, changes in medical policy to prevent the waste of money on pointless treatments. The bill even did the opposite of one of these. It imposes new taxes on the drug industry and the insurance industry, yet in the same breath, promises to make healthcare affordable? Yeah. History says that'll work out well. Some issues were addressed yes but the key ones were not, and some made worse. Another problem is that on it's bill congress hosed American business by requiring all employers to provide insurance to their employers if they have more than fifty employees. Corporations will be fine, most of them already do this- Oh wait. They're going to start dumping healthcare benefits to nothing since there's going to be a tax on good healthcare plans. But small business is going to collapse under the weight or end up laying off workers so they can get under the cut off value. This bill is going to have effects on an already week economy that could send us into another recession down the road and drive more jobs overseas as companies search for ways to maintain their profitability.

I'm no math genius but that doesn't add up to me. The healthcare reform bill is a good example of my issue with the US government of solving problems without actually solving them and making things worse in the process.

It also boils down to ideological differences on how the government should operate and what constitutes fairness. I don't believe it's the government's responsibility to provide healthcare, and I don't agree with my tax dollars being spent on it. Then there's the fact that any social program is inherently by its own nature unfair and discriminatory. Any government service should be available to all who pay into it, not just those whom the government has decided need more help than others. "You're rich you don't need our help." People wonder why the Tea Party is so angry? It's because they're the demographic that ends up hosed by the policies that are being passed. People too rich to get government help but too poor to afford it themselves. There is no such thing as a social program that is fair, which is why in my eye to government should stay out of it.

This is where the difference between Democrats and Republicans come into play. One believes it can help people by one means and the other thinks that's not the way to go about it. Saying one doesn't want people to be happy just isn't true. The two simply disagree on how to achieve the goal and the degree to which the goal can be achieved.

Yeah, long post. I'm full of them. But now I get to sit back and wait for someone to tear it apart while enjoying a nice lemonade.

Frazzled wrote:
Prior to Katrina storms were state issues. FEMA came after to help with support. It wasn't meant to be an emergency and long term recovery entity. Emergency response was local and state level issue. Its just that Nagin and Louisiana responded so ineptly they needed the Republican fed agency to blame. no the other hand FEMA was indeed just as incompetent in dealing with what they were supposed to be there for: long term relief and coorrdinating after an event. We had multiple mission trips there, and church members had family (this is on the Miss. side) and the incompetence/bureaucracy was staggering, just staggering. Evidently they didn't get better with the coastal areas hit with Ike.

The bold statements are contradictory.

Also, powerful storms have been federal issues for a long time (since FEMA was created); note Hurricane Andrew.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:
It was easier back in the 60's when minimum wage gave superior real buying power and college costs were a fraction of their current extremely inflated levels.

No doubt.

Weren't you just talking about straw man argument]Weren't you just talking about straw man arguments?

No, that was phryxis.

It's his fault for not having health insurance IF he could afford it. Unless he's been going through asbestos filled rooms going "asbestos! Ima eat some!" I think it's safe to say cancer is often something that happens and isn't something people always have control over. You can however get healthcare insurance. If your don't have it, that's your own fault and no one else'.

Not all packages, especially ones at low levels of cost will actually provide for much in the event that you get a life threatening disease such as cancer.

Not really an issue anymore, but then I don't like the idea of government telling people how to live their lives.

It's not so different from corporate america doing the same, and I'll disagree with you on governmental control at least insofar as healthcare is concerned. Americans have proven that they can't be trusted with their own health and safety. The obesity and diabetes epidemics show that handily. I would rather the government, which is at least ideally a body of power dedicated to providing for the people of america tell me that I have to have healthcare then I would corporate america which is pretty familiar with atrocities and pure greed giving me my options if something ever goes wrong.

That's not a bad thing by default. The problem with profit systems is when you let them run out of control. But I don't think the fact that our healthcare system is for profit is any anyway core to the problem. There are issues that have radically increased costs of healthcare, and to maintain profitability, and by that continued existance, prices had to increase.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of the idea of for profit healthcare, but it can work (in theory, it has not actually ever worked in practice on any modern national level). It's the combination of for profit with the other things I mentioned that make the profit engine start to cause immense problems (such as the specialist and overdiagnosis issues).

We didn't need a massive healthcare overhaul to fix that. You only need one law that doesn't let companies do it anymore. Allow them to make up the costs incurred by giving tax rebates for policy holders whose medical costs exceeded their premiums.

I would argue that we can not fix the problem and maintain private insurance. It's simply an unnecessary middleman which seems designed purely to stand between people and care. Removing them and replacing them with a tax and a public system removes many of the inefficiencies and problems that are caused by their existence. This is an area where competition does not breed superior care as all they are is a money collecting agency. They do something for a cost that logically should be done without the conflict of interests that profits generate (conflicts that are at the very core of the spiraling healthcare costs in this country). The insurance system is one of the major reasons we pay significantly more for worse care than many other developed nations.

I don't like the public option, but I'd prefer it to what we got. Public options are expensive. Look at europe. They can barely afford it and the quality of care sucks.

Per capita the quality of care is superior in most European states. We just spend significantly more. We could take our economic power and leverage it far better and yield far greater results with the systems that they are already using.

They can't run anything with efficiency or affordability (Look at the post office).

The post office made a profit for 90% of it's history.

I don't believe it's the government's responsibility to provide healthcare, and I don't agree with my tax dollars being spent on it.

And I believe what reality seems to be showing. that private institutions are incapable of providing healthcare to a nation. The concepts of health and profit are not really compatible ones.

This is where the difference between Democrats and Republicans come into play. One believes it can help people by one means and the other thinks that's not the way to go about it. Saying one doesn't want people to be happy just isn't true. The two simply disagree on how to achieve the goal and the degree to which the goal can be achieved.

I think the biggest issue is that healthcare reform has never been a conservative issue. They don't really care. They've attempted to block it every time it's ever arisen and they've never instituted even remotely successful overhauls when they are in power. The fixes are socialist in nature and conservatives hate that, no matter how badly the system is failing in it's current incarnation as opposed to other countries systems.

Stormrider wrote:
BTW, I have taken classes in economics and statistics.

No offense, but it really doesn't appear that way.

The post office made a profit for 90% of it's history.

In a bygone era where the US federal government had people who understood business running it. Now the federal government runs it directly, and we see what happens.

And I believe what reality seems to be showing. that private institutions are incapable of providing healthcare to a nation. The concepts of health and profit are not really compatible ones.

The concept of government and quality aren't really compatible either. I've dealt with the government all my life. It's never pleasant and it's never as simple as dealing with private enterprise. Then again I'm big on efficiency. Outside of the US military I see little in means of efficiency in the government. Needing to be profitable requires efficiency. When you don't have to be there's no requirement, which is how we end up with the eternal abyss government money seems to keep disappearing into. That's how the post office ended up where it is. At first, they ran it as a business, because they figured that's how it should be done. Then without realizing or even thinking off it, policies and changes came into play that destroyed efficiency because profit didn't need to be maintained, and the money just started disappearing. It's a natural effect that when you have a buffer, or no reason to succeed, you eventually stop trying. It goes downhill from there. Just like how domesticated animals slowly lose their ability to survive without human help, a business that no longer needs to be profitable stops trying.

We might be able to solve some of those issues by requiring the government to balance it's budget, but then these social programs will never get funded so it won't happen.

I think the biggest issue is that healthcare reform has never been a conservative issue. They don't really care. They've attempted to block it every time it's ever arisen and they've never instituted even remotely successful overhauls when they are in power. The fixes are socialist in nature and conservatives hate that, no matter how badly the system is failing in it's current incarnation as opposed to other countries systems.

Politicians never push when the issue at hand means nothing to their constituents. Democrats included. It doesn't mean they're trying to make people unhappy or that they don't care. It's just not the top priority. I would also argue that we need to establish by what criteria we determine failure. What some would constitute as a failing healthcare system others might constitute as one that just needs tweaking. Not complete overhaul that to them, seems to bring in a host of new issues.

LordofHats wrote: Outside of the US military I see little in means of efficiency in the government.

The US military is one of the most inefficient elements of the state.

LordofHats wrote:
Needing to be profitable requires efficiency.

No, not always. You can be both profitable, and inefficient. You won't be as profitable as possible if that is the case, but they are not mutually exclusive things.

LordofHats wrote:
We might be able to solve some of those issues by requiring the government to balance it's budget, but then these social programs will never get funded so it won't happen.

That sort of thing also creates a ton of issues with respect to recession and war.

In a bygone era where the US federal government had people who understood business running it. Now the federal government runs it directly, and we see what happens.

The vast majority of people seem to think that the post office is now losing money because people don't send letters any more. Which is true. We have cellphones and email and cellphones that do email. Thus all that massive infrastructure is now just spinning its wheels. The amount of mail being sent and received is a fraction now of what is was in it's heyday.

It has absolutely nothing to do with who is running it and everything to do with the fact that its an outmoded and underutilized organization.

The concept of government and quality aren't really compatible either.

Tell that to the military or police. Please avoid using such blanket statements in the future, they are abjectly strange and incorrect.

I've dealt with the government all my life. It's never pleasant and it's never as simple as dealing with private enterprise. Then again I'm big on efficiency. Outside of the US military I see little in means of efficiency in the government.

Funny thing. The military is the most inefficient government beuracracy we have, it's all in your perspective on the issue.

When you don't have to be there's no requirement, which is how we end up with the eternal abyss government money seems to keep disappearing into. That's how the post office ended up where it is.

To think, we got this far before your posts disappeared into the land of buzzwords and non sensical rhetoric. We actually had a conversation going.

We might be able to solve some of those issues by requiring the government to balance it's budget, but then these social programs will never get funded so it won't happen.

A balanced budget is bad for economic growth in service based economies. You just need to control borrowing so that it doesn't massively excede growth. Surpluses are nice in theory, but they don't actually get a whole lot done in practice. Usually they are just the side effects of level policies and strong economics (such as the Clinton surplus or the Chinese surplus.)

Politicians never push when the issue at hand means nothing to their constituents. Democrats included. It doesn't mean they're trying to make people unhappy or that they don't care. It's just not the top priority. I would also argue that we need to establish by what criteria we determine failure. What some would constitute as a failing healthcare system others might constitute as one that just needs tweaking. Not complete overhaul that to them, seems to bring in a host of new issues.

It's never been a top priority for the conservative voting block, it polls high, but it's a political deathnote and it's not something most conservative administrations have been seemingly willing to attempt. By their namesake conservatives tend to side with adjusting the status quo, which doesn't work in a situation so badly broken as our healthcare system.

dogma wrote:The US military is one of the most inefficient elements of the state.

That depends on whether you're talking about the actual military or military spending. The US Military is extremely efficient. US military spending is not, but that is more based in politics than in the military. There's a lot of redundant spending in the military from congress, mostly in pork barrel projects. The actual armed forces however strive of being as efficient as they can be. Combat demands it.

No, not always. You can be both profitable, and inefficient. You won't be as profitable as possible if that is the case, but they are not mutually exclusive things.

That only works in a economic situation like that in the US, where everything strives from the consumers wasting money on company A's useless gizmo for whatever reason Company A puts in its advertising.

That sort of thing also creates a ton of issues with respect to recession and war.

And wild reckless uncontrolled spending isn't equally bad?

ShumaGorath wrote:The vast majority of people seem to think that the post office is now losing money because people don't send letters any more. Which is true. We have cellphones and email and cellphones that do email. Thus all that massive infrastructure is now just spinning its wheels. The amount of mail being sent and received is a fraction now of what is was in it's heyday.

It has absolutely nothing to do with who is running it and everything to do with the fact that its an outmoded and underutilized organization.

Not true. Look at FedEx and UPS. Both companies in the same business as USPS that are striving. It's not a coincidence that the private for profit business' are now succeeding where the government run business has completely failed to adapt to the market.

Tell that to the military or police. Please avoid using such blanket statements in the future, they are abjectly strange and incorrect.

I mentioned the military. And I would never call the police efficient. There's a lot of waste in the police force and they're already underfunded as it is.

Abjectly strange? Superflous words won't help when you don't have a leg to stand on. It's a blanket statement but in general it's true. Government is not efficient.

Funny thing. The military is the most inefficient government beuracracy we have, it's all in your perspective on the issue.

So we praise the military one moment for it's quality, and call it inefficient the next? That seems like a conflict to me. I mean the actual military. Not the civilian sections of the DoD that massive amounts of money are wasted on.

To think, we got this far before your posts disappeared into the land of buzzwords and non sensical rhetoric. We actually had a conversation going.

I apologize for disappointing you. I'm not the best at explaining what I'm trying to say. Still, you could attempt to respond, or you could back out and talk about a non-issue.

A balanced budget is bad for economic growth in service based economies. You just need to control borrowing so that it doesn't massively excede growth. Surpluses are nice in theory, but they don't actually get a whole lot done in practice. Usually they are just the side effects of level policies and strong economics (such as the Clinton surplus or the Chinese surplus.)

Over my head. I read up on economics but I'm not an expert. I would however argue that Clinton's surplus was not in fact Clinton's surplus. He benefited from an improved economic situation in the late 90's that resulted from lowered taxes from the previous two administrations. Clinton's policy did little more than take advantage of a good situation. Not to say he was a bad leader. For all intents and purposes I'd say Clinton was one of the better Democrats to make it to president in the last few decades, but he doesn't deserve all the credit.

It's never been a top priority for the conservative voting block, it polls high, but it's a political deathnote and it's not something most conservative administrations have been seemingly willing to attempt. By their namesake conservatives tend to side with adjusting the status quo, which doesn't work in a situation so badly broken as our healthcare system.

Status quo? Now who is using buzzwords and rhetoric? Conservatives by their own nature favor smaller government. It has nothing to do with wanting things to stay as is. It has to do with not wanting big government running things. Because conserviaives oppose expanding social programs, Democrats have been using the "status quo" to attack conservatives for a long time because they can sell the idea that conservatives think things are just fine to their constituents. Status quo has nothing to do with it. They just don't like big government. That is what is incompatible with the currently passed healthcare reform and conservative thinking. But like I said before. There are solutions to problems that don't involve expanding government.

HOWEVER, I will say that I no longer believe the Republican party represents the desires of conservative voters. The Bush administration did the exact opposite of what the conservative block wanted; expanded government by a lot. I don't think the Republicans have managed to keep in line with their official platform since then. Part of it is that they like the Democrats have become swept up in the rhetoric storm, and the other part is that I just don't think any of them are very good politicians. The Democrats right now play politics a lot better than the Republicans do, and the Republicans attempts to play the game better have damaged their standing among their own constituency at the national level. Conservatives keep going for them because, well, what's the alternative?

LordofHats wrote:
That depends on whether you're talking about the actual military or military spending. The US Military is extremely efficient. US military spending is not, but that is more based in politics than in the military. There's a lot of redundant spending in the military from congress, mostly in pork barrel projects. The actual armed forces however strive of being as efficient as they can be. Combat demands it.

Military spending is the only thing relevant to this conversation, as there is no fiscal component to combat.

LordofHats wrote:
That only works in a economic situation like that in the US, where everything strives from the consumers wasting money on company A's useless gizmo for whatever reason Company A puts in its advertising.

Advertising is not intrinsically related to the sustainability of corporate inefficiency. Please attempt to make comments of substantive merit.

LordofHats wrote:
And wild reckless uncontrolled spending isn't equally bad?

Even if it is to be thought of in that light, the solution is not to trade one bad thing for another bad thing; doing so is reactionary stupidity.

dogma wrote:Military spending is the only thing relevant to this conversation, as there is no fiscal component to combat.

Who said I was talking about fiscal efficiency to the exclusion of forms of efficiency? The armed forces were an example of something I find efficient. When I spoke of the armed forces I meant the actual combat elements of the military. That was probably my fault for not being specific. It's taken in my family that when we say military we mean soldiers and combat elements.

Advertising is not intrinsically related to the sustainability of corporate inefficiency. Please attempt to make comments of substantive merit.

You missed the point. Corporate inefficiency only works so long as you have a lot of incoming money. It works in the US because of the huge role consumption plays in our economy. If we weren't as heavily consumption based as we were, companies that wanted to survive wouldn't be able to be as inefficient as they are. Remember the buffer I mentioned a few posts back?

I'll point to GM and the auto industry as an example. Decades ago when the US automakers were rolling in cash, Unions kept getting their piece of the pie. Then when the US companies came under increased pressure from foreign makers, problems began to occur. Unions had damaged the ability of automakers to remain efficient, and over the past two decades we've seen these companies unable to adapt to changing economics and their inefficient elements caused them to collapse. Now look at Ford. Ford renegotiated with it's union and eliminated the requirement to pay workers even when the factories were shut down. That requirement was a huge hurt on American automakers, as when demand was down they couldn't slow production as it was cheaper to keep making cars than to shut the lines down and still pay your workers. Ford and their Union tossed that, and now look. Ford is seeing record profits as a part of its renegotiations and improved efficiency between Ford and its union.

When there is surplus money inefficiency breeds, but when a company is really pushed to maintain profitably they become more efficient. The government doesn't react in the same way.

Now, the Unions aren't all to blame in the collapse the auto industry. It's also the CEO's fault for not adapting to change in the market.

And really. Substantive merit? You couldn't have used some simpler wording there? Forgive me. Usually when I see people start throwing out odd words it reeks of arrogance. It irks me.

LordofHats wrote:Even if it is to be thought of in that light, the solution is not to trade one bad thing for another bad thing; doing so is reactionary stupidity.

So then we agree spending needs to be limited by some form?

LordofHats wrote:
Who said I was talking about fiscal efficiency to the exclusion of forms of efficiency? The armed forces were an example of something I find efficient. When I spoke of the armed forces I meant the actual combat elements of the military. That was probably my fault for not being specific. It's taken in my family that when we say military we mean soldiers and combat elements.

Why would you be concerned about the general efficiency (itself a nebulous concept) of anything in the context of a conversation regarding the fiscal policy of the federal government?

LordofHats wrote:
You missed the point. Corporate inefficiency only works so long as you have a lot of incoming money. It works in the US because of the huge role consumption plays in our economy. If we weren't as heavily consumption based as we were, companies that wanted to survive wouldn't be able to be as inefficient as they are. Remember the buffer I mentioned a few posts back?

Yes, in a less prosperous economy fewer corporations would be able to survive, and workers are not able to draw higher wages. That's not a point regarding consumer demand, its simply a fact of all economic systems. You're basically reinforcing the point I made initially.

LordofHats wrote:
And really. Substantive merit? You couldn't have used some simpler wording there? Forgive me. Usually when I see people start throwing out odd words it reeks of arrogance. It irks me.

I have a large vocabulary which I use freely. I'm not particularly concerned with the odd emotional associations you might have with certain words, and I will not undertake the effort to adjust my writing style in order to accommodate you.

LordofHats wrote:
So then we agree spending needs to be limited by some form?

If you're referencing a sort of statutory limit, then no. I think a statutory limit on spending has the potential to be disastrous for the US.

dogma wrote:Why would you be concerned about the general efficiency (itself a nebulous concept) of anything in the context of a conversation regarding the fiscal policy of the federal government?

It was an example of something I find efficient. If efficiency is something I have a problem with in government, it seems proper to bring up something I find efficient. The military is the first thing that popped into my mind.

LordofHats wrote:Yes, in a less prosperous economy fewer corporations would be able to survive, and workers are not able to draw higher wages. That's not a point regarding consumer demand, its simply a fact of all economic systems. You're basically reinforcing the point I made initially.

And efficiency plays a roll in this. We've been sidetracked anyway. The point was that private enterprise from my view maintains a better degree of financial efficiency than the government does.

LordofHats wrote:I have a large vocabulary which I use freely. I'm not particularly concerned with the odd emotional associations you might have with certain words, and I will not undertake the effort to adjust my writing style in order to accommodate you.

You don't have too. It was one of those errant thoughts I have a habit of putting out there. As much as I love efficiency I also love simplicity. Less is more sensei always said. It stuck. Words not usually used in casual conversation always strike me as unnecessary unless it's some form of jargon necessary for the discussion at hand.

LordofHats wrote:If you're referencing a sort of statutory limit, then no. I think a statutory limit on spending has the potential to be disastrous for the US.

I don't mean forcing a balanced budget if that's what you mean. When you say statutory limit do you mean any limit or just certain kinds of limits? EDIT: And if it is the later what kind of limits do you believe to be preferable?

ShumaGorath wrote:

It's his fault for getting cancer? Wouldn't that depend on the type of cancer?

The problem is that you can't prove it is someone's fault for getting cancer. Lets say someone comes down with lung cancer, and they smoked two or three packs a day for 40 or 50 years. You have no proof at all that smoking caused that cancer. You can really only talk in terms of risk factors. Furthermore, tobacco use is another thing that is part of the poverty cycle. You didn't say this, but the idea of not paying for something that was likely caused by someone's behavior comes immediately to mind. I don't think that is the best way to reduce health costs when people are going to continue to do it. That is what an addiction is. Perhaps a harm reduction strategy is the way to go.

Honestly, they're both the same. They disagree over things just because they want to make it seem like they don't want the same things, but they're really the same thing: Politicians.

LordofHats wrote:

dogma wrote:Why would you be concerned about the general efficiency (itself a nebulous concept) of anything in the context of a conversation regarding the fiscal policy of the federal government?

It was an example of something I find efficient. If efficiency is something I have a problem with in government, it seems proper to bring up something I find efficient. The military is the first thing that popped into my mind.

LordofHats wrote:Yes, in a less prosperous economy fewer corporations would be able to survive, and workers are not able to draw higher wages. That's not a point regarding consumer demand, its simply a fact of all economic systems. You're basically reinforcing the point I made initially.

And efficiency plays a roll in this. We've been sidetracked anyway. The point was that private enterprise from my view maintains a better degree of financial efficiency than the government does.

LordofHats wrote:I have a large vocabulary which I use freely. I'm not particularly concerned with the odd emotional associations you might have with certain words, and I will not undertake the effort to adjust my writing style in order to accommodate you.

You don't have too. It was one of those errant thoughts I have a habit of putting out there. As much as I love efficiency I also love simplicity. Less is more sensei always said. It stuck. Words not usually used in casual conversation always strike me as unnecessary unless it's some form of jargon necessary for the discussion at hand.

LordofHats wrote:If you're referencing a sort of statutory limit, then no. I think a statutory limit on spending has the potential to be disastrous for the US.

I don't mean forcing a balanced budget if that's what you mean. When you say statutory limit do you mean any limit or just certain kinds of limits? EDIT: And if it is the later what kind of limits do you believe to be preferable?

there is really only one method of eliminating national debt and thats massive tax increases and greatly reduced spending on everything, both of which would be absolutely disastrous or we recognioize that deficit doesn't equal the end of the world.

LordofHats wrote:
It was an example of something I find efficient. If efficiency is something I have a problem with in government, it seems proper to bring up something I find efficient. The military is the first thing that popped into my mind.

I think ultimately my issue with your line of reasoning is that you are concluding that the military and private corporations are efficient simply because they operate in conditions which you believe to be demanding with respect to efficiency. This appears to me as false necessity.

LordofHats wrote:
I don't mean forcing a balanced budget if that's what you mean. When you say statutory limit do you mean any limit or just certain kinds of limits? EDIT: And if it is the later what kind of limits do you believe to be preferable?

When I say statutory limits I am referring to legislation that restricts the ability of the state to spend money.

I don't consider any limit to be useful.

Not true. Look at FedEx and UPS. Both companies in the same business as USPS that are striving. It's not a coincidence that the private for profit business' are now succeeding where the government run business has completely failed to adapt to the market.

They failed to adapt because they don't fulfill the same roles. The post office isn't a business, it's a government organization with a specific mandate and role. It's not a multinational package delivery business with hundreds of smaller subsidiaries and it's fingers in dozens of other industries like Brown is. If the post office was to have a current functional role in modern society it would be a government ftp server/mail client. In the end of the day the freedoms of communication it ensured have simply been replaced with modern business oriented alternatives. The government could provide for national cell bandwidth and many argue that governmental attempts at improving internet access are in many ways a fulfillment of the original post office agenda. It doesn't matter who owns it, the post office isn't a for profit organization. It was an organization that ran at a profit until the times outmoded it use, but unless you advocate overhauling the post office into a competitive entry into the international package and freight industry (a very socialist/communist thing to want) then short of letting it die or reducing its capacity and letting it run more cheaply as the cheapest alternative to package shipping (it already is) then it's not going to get better.

I mentioned the military. And I would never call the police efficient. There's a lot of waste in the police force and they're already underfunded as it is.

Abjectly strange? Superflous words won't help when you don't have a leg to stand on. It's a blanket statement but in general it's true. Government is not efficient.

Organizations that are underfunded redirect wasteful spending as a matter of course. Just because they are a national organization doesn't mean basic principles of capitalism don't apply.

So we praise the military one moment for it's quality, and call it inefficient the next? That seems like a conflict to me. I mean the actual military. Not the civilian sections of the DoD that massive amounts of money are wasted on.

The vast majority of military spending is in the GI bill and veterans care along with acquisitions. The first two are the people, not the organization so you're wrong there and the third is usually considered necessary. DoD research projects actually make up a pretty small piece of the piechart when compared to soldier compensation or the cost and upkeep of equipment. As to the conflict, they perform their job very efficiently, but militaries by default are wasteful organizations given that they produce nothing tangible and always run at 100% profit loss. Thats the nature of government organizations though. The military buys tanks so that they can sit in lots. It buys aircraft so that they can sit on runways. It buys ships so that they can float around carrying tanks and aircraft. The vast majority of the american arsenal and military is at any time waiting for someone to attack us. It's an organizational style which, combined with immense secrecy and lack of oversight, becomes ludicrously expensive (as it is).

I apologize for disappointing you. I'm not the best at explaining what I'm trying to say. Still, you could attempt to respond, or you could back out and talk about a non-issue.

I did, I just don't like leaving several paragraphs unresponded too.

Over my head. I read up on economics but I'm not an expert. I would however argue that Clinton's surplus was not in fact Clinton's surplus. He benefited from an improved economic situation in the late 90's that resulted from lowered taxes from the previous two administrations. Clinton's policy did little more than take advantage of a good situation. Not to say he was a bad leader. For all intents and purposes I'd say Clinton was one of the better Democrats to make it to president in the last few decades, but he doesn't deserve all the credit.

Actually clinton raised taxes and cut spending in both the military and in civilian services during a time of rapid economic growth. he did the hat trick of less spending and more making which is what you need to do to balance a budget without causing a recession visibly (and economics is all about what people believe is happening rather than the reality).

Status quo? Now who is using buzzwords and rhetoric? Conservatives by their own nature favor smaller government. It has nothing to do with wanting things to stay as is. It has to do with not wanting big government running things. Because conserviaives oppose expanding social programs, Democrats have been using the "status quo" to attack conservatives for a long time because they can sell the idea that conservatives think things are just fine to their constituents. Status quo has nothing to do with it. They just don't like big government. That is what is incompatible with the currently passed healthcare reform and conservative thinking. But like I said before. There are solutions to problems that don't involve expanding government.

Conservatives have also presided over the majority of expanded governance and increased spending in the last 50 years. It's a conflict where rhetoric never materializes to actual reality. What conservatives oppose is progressivism which doesn't really have an inherent economic or governmental spending model.

HOWEVER, I will say that I no longer believe the Republican party represents the desires of conservative voters. The Bush administration did the exact opposite of what the conservative block wanted; expanded government by a lot. I don't think the Republicans have managed to keep in line with their official platform since then. Part of it is that they like the Democrats have become swept up in the rhetoric storm, and the other part is that I just don't think any of them are very good politicians. The Democrats right now play politics a lot better than the Republicans do, and the Republicans attempts to play the game better have damaged their standing among their own constituency at the national level. Conservatives keep going for them because, well, what's the alternative?

Historically conservatives have never been economically conservative. They espouse reductions in spending and then increase spending. When a reduction is required both parties are capable of understanding that fact and both do their best to attempt to do so, however middle interests always resist and in the end of the day it's easy to spend more but when you spend less thats taking food off peoples tables. It doesn't matter what end of the political spectrum those people live on, they don't want you taking gak off their table. Conservatives typically espouse tax cuts as the best methodology of doing everything involved with economics while democrats tend to wish to increase taxes while cutting spending at the same time. When you combine the concept of increased taxes wth the concept of a continuously growing economy the idea of the tax and spend liberal is created. It's a historical fallacy and conservatives have presided over just as much governmental growth while cutting taxes which creates large deficits. If liberals tax and spend then conservatives borrow and spend. This is evidenced in virtually every democratic presidency in the last thirty years as opposed to the following republican one. Raegan did a lot to feth this countries views of what good economics are.

And really. Substantive merit? You couldn't have used some simpler wording there? Forgive me. Usually when I see people start throwing out odd words it reeks of arrogance. It irks me.

Just caught this. Substantive merit means that you are doing or saying something that has both merit and substance. These aren't hard words. This is basic fourth grade english. Seriously.

What the feth

Frazzled wrote:

Vene wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Wow, that's...that's one hell of a sentiment.

Its reality. You can't live on that amount, and at that level I can get better employees.
Wait, whats wrong with the statement in the first place? If you don't like the crap wages that are minimimum wage you improve your skills so you can get a better business.
thats why we have universities, technical schools, training programs, and union based journeyman programs. Thats how its supposed to work.

And it doesn't work, I'm college educated and getting paid gak because the economy is so bad. And how is somebody on minimum wage supposed to be able to afford to survive as well as go to school?

Go to school part time. Relying on the minimum wage to survive is not going to work. In the words of the Immortal Bard: "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life son."

Explain to me how having a degree in chemistry makes me stupid. Oh, and just to be clear, I do make more than min. wage in the States, but min wage in some other industrialized nations is greater than my pay.

I basically jump on the grenades of ignorance that other posters throw down so that sebster or dogma don't have too.

It's all becoming clear now... You want to be on the same intellectual plane as they are, so when one of them responds to my post, you assume it means you have to "help them out." Since they're too kind to tell you: they don't need your "help."

If people weren't saying new orleans natives were lazy or that minimum wage laws are stupid because you can hire illegals without reporting them I wouldn't have to come in and pull out the boxing gloves.

Or, at least, threaten to tell one of your friends who would do it for you.

It's interesting though, I never said either of those things, and yet you had plenty of rhetoric for me... Is it possible you're less motivated by "grenades of ignorance" and more by making sure to keep your imaginary pecking order sorted?

It was easier back in the 60's when minimum wage gave superior real buying power and college costs were a fraction of their current extremely inflated levels.

Realistically if you're a college graduate and you're earning minimum wage, that's not so much a problem with the minimum wage as it is with the job market (and probably the whole economy) in general.

Minimum wage is also very geographic. If you live in Manhattan, you cannot get by on the minimum wage, period. If you live in rural Indiana, it's probably sufficient to at least get by on.

But I don't think the fact that our healthcare system is for profit is any anyway core to the problem.

I did some very brief review on this, and as far as I can tell there's simply not enough overhead in the costs of health insurance to justify the "free market bad" mentality that some have. According to the data I was seeing, healthcare insurace overhead is around 11%, and the industry's profits are about 3%. Some folks were saying that the healthcare insurance industry are vastly bloated and overcompensated, but even if that's true, it's not going to significantly reduce the costs. Take them out COMPLETELY, and it's only 11%.

The obesity and diabetes epidemics show that handily.

I agree, but what are you going to do? It's not like fat people don't know it's bad for them. So how does the government fix the problem? What corrective action can be taken? I can think of plenty, but none that will fly in this age of entitlement.

We also know how expensive obesity is. The more you socialize the cost of healthcare, the more I have to pay for some fatty's bad choices. How is that fair?

All that said, healthcare is a lifelong process. Workers change jobs, and thus insurance, more these days than in the past. It makes full life care less possible, and less appealing to insurance companies. That's an arugment in favor of a government managed program.

Historically conservatives have never been economically conservative. They espouse reductions in spending and then increase spending.

A Republican controlled Congress presided over the largest budget surplusses in recent history. Yes, that was Clinton, but it was also Republicans in Congress. So, I don't think it's a partisan issue so much as an issue with the current crop of idiots.

For example, Bush ran a deficit, and I was annoyed at how unconservative he was. Then Obama came along and made him look like a penny pincher. I think that Republicans are still more willing to be economically conservative, we're just in such a spiral of reckless spending it's hard to see anybody saving anything.

Raegan did a lot to feth this countries views of what good economics are.

I agree, he set the precedent of deficit spending more than anybody previous. That said, he was facing the cold war, and in many ways the manipulation of capital is the "weapon" that allowed us to win that war, which was essentially one of economics and physical combat by proxy only.

So, while he certainly created the precedent he had a real issue that demanded it, and it certainly didn't give everyone after him a free pass to spend so recklessly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

This is basic fourth grade english. Seriously.

Substantive merit is 4th grade English? No it's not. Try 12th grade, if that.

I'm not particularly interested in reading through four pages of posts about a political topic on a wargaming forum, but I will try to answer the OP's question.

Why are they trying to be bipartisan? Because that way Republican voters will feel less alienated and more represented. After all, would you want your government to completely ignore a large portion of the population? I wouldn't, even if they were the people representing my ideology.

Also, that way, people can't mud sling as much because their group was still part of the political process and is still partially responsible for what happens.

But, I think that when you mean "forceful" with their opinions, you mean ridiculously stubborn to the point of mind blowing frustration.

Although, just to comment on something that I saw about bailouts and Democrats... I'd just like to point out that Republicans had their own bailout too. Also, republicans should LOVE bailouts, they go hand in hand with their "trickle-down" economics. Taking money from everyone else and letting big-business have it and hope that they hire more people and pay them more instead of just increasing the salaries of the CEO and the big guys on top.

The post office isn't a business, it's a government organization with a specific mandate and role.

That's my point. It's not run as a business and becomes a bottomless pit of money. Non-profit or not, a business is a business. The problem with government run business is that when it runs out of money it doesn't die. It keeps sucking more in. Government agencies don't disappear just because there isn't the money to pay for them. As we've already seen, the government doesn't really seem to care if it has the money to pay for something or not. That's a long term problem.

ShumaGorath wrote:Historically conservatives have never been economically conservative.

Conservative politicians yes. Conservative voters no. Hence why I said the Republican party no longer really represents conservative values and kind of leaves conservatives hanging in the wind looking around wondering what to do. They say they're all about the conservative values etc etc but then when they actually get into office they utterly fail at it or do just the opposite. I doubt the Republicans will be a viable political party much longer. They have their hardcore adherents who will do whatever they say just like the Democrats have, but most moderate conservatives seem pretty disillusioned these days. The Tea Parties existance is pretty telling of the split between conservative voters and their politicians. I foresee the Tea Party breaking off from the Republicans and being their own party years down the road (that or it just dies out in the next year or so, I haven't decided yet which I think is more likely). Either way, the situation doesn't seem much better, cause now I have to deal with people who won't stop talking about how Obama isn't really an American. Oh what fun .

I don't know. I watch conservative politicians and they're always doing or saying something stupid It's quite frustrating when you're choices are Democrats with political agenda's you don't agree with or Republicans who couldn't find their way out of an empty room with a door on each wall.

I did, I just don't like leaving several paragraphs unresponded too.

Meh. I don't blame you. They were several paragraphs of random babble.

Just caught this. Substantive merit means that you are doing or saying something that has both merit and substance. These aren't hard words. This is basic fourth grade english. Seriously.

I know what it means. I just don't see why you can't replace it with "meaningful." Most American's aren't like you and me and failed fourth grade english . Besides, like I said. I like it as simple as possible.

It's all becoming clear now... You want to be on the same intellectual plane as they are, so when one of them responds to my post, you assume it means you have to "help them out." Since they're too kind to tell you: they don't need your "help."

Yes, I pine for my parents sebster and dogma to one day accept me. If I hadn't jumped on the grenade, keep in mind, they still might have to be responding to you.

Or, at least, threaten to tell one of your friends who would do it for you.

It's interesting though, I never said either of those things, and yet you had plenty of rhetoric for me... Is it possible you're less motivated by "grenades of ignorance" and more by making sure to keep your imaginary pecking order sorted?

My imaginary pecking order is ludicrously convoluted and looks like a DoD powerpoint graph.

Realistically if you're a college graduate and you're earning minimum wage, that's not so much a problem with the minimum wage as it is with the job market (and probably the whole economy) in general.

Minimum wage is also very geographic. If you live in Manhattan, you cannot get by on the minimum wage, period. If you live in rural Indiana, it's probably sufficient to at least get by on.

Wasn't the argument how people were putting themselves through college and not about their prospects on minimum wage with a degree?

I agree, but what are you going to do? It's not like fat people don't know it's bad for them. So how does the government fix the problem? What corrective action can be taken? I can think of plenty, but none that will fly in this age of entitlement.

We also know how expensive obesity is. The more you socialize the cost of healthcare, the more I have to pay for some fatty's bad choices. How is that fair?

Social medicine includes increased preventative care, which in turn reduces diabetic and overweight populations. You either have to be willing to take a hit for the team to see the problem lesson or hold out for number one and watch the problem be exacerbated. It's very much a capitalist issue, cheap foods and flavor chemicals mixed with lax preventative care and expensive general checkups create a situation of spiraling obesity. You can actually see the exact same thing happening in china right now (though exchange over expensive healthcare with typically poor or unavailable). It's a difference in priorities, I would personally prioritize the health of the group over the individual liberties of peoples wallets. I've never been stringently anti tax, but according to most estimates preventative care saves money in the long run by preventing very costly diseases and conditions from becoming epidemic. In this specific case the business conclusion and the moral conclusion are aligned.

A Republican controlled Congress presided over the largest budget surplusses in recent history. Yes, that was Clinton, but it was also Republicans in Congress. So, I don't think it's a partisan issue so much as an issue with the current crop of idiots.

That same group voted against health care overhauls which has directly led to the spiraling costs of healthcare we currently enjoy. It's always been an issue of forethought, conservative policymaking is a reactionary thing. It's not a bad stance to take as it reduces effort and ensures greater gain in the short term, but when you aren't progressive in governance over time stagnation does and will occur as government functions become outmoded or begin to fail. Thats not to say that democrats act with more forethought, they are just willing to act on forethought more often (such as with attempted healthcare or environmental legislation).

For example, Bush ran a deficit, and I was annoyed at how unconservative he was. Then Obama came along and made him look like a penny pincher. I think that Republicans are still more willing to be economically conservative, we're just in such a spiral of reckless spending it's hard to see anybody saving anything.

Any president would have signed the recovery stimulus. Blaming it on obama is foolish, it was simply the reality of what was needed to stem a new depression. I fully expect spending levels to normalize and begin to drop over the next 14 years regardless of who is in the chair. The times simply demand it.






Automatically Appended Next Post this is in reference to lord hat:

That's my point. It's not run as a business and becomes a bottomless pit of money. Non-profit or not, a business is a business. The problem with government run business is that when it runs out of money it doesn't die. It keeps sucking more in. Government agencies don't disappear just because there isn't the money to pay for them. As we've already seen, the government doesn't really seem to care if it has the money to pay for something or not. That's a long term problem.

The mail service isn't really whats putting us in the red. It's a blip on the radar. What do you suggest they do to save it by the by? You sound like you want them to overhaul it to be competitive which would cause it to enter a market that it's charter never intended and which is outside of the U.S. governments role. Do you think we should let it die?

Conservative politicians yes. Conservative voters no.

Conservative voters vote for conservative republican politicians. Also I'm not sure how the conservative voting block is reducing governmental spending by voting for conservatives who increase government spending. Its a great shell game and reds are fantastic at controlling the media (the liberal media bias is one of their greatest creations of the last 30 years).

I know what it means. I just don't see why you can't replace it with "meaningful." Most American's aren't like you and me and failed fourth grade english . Besides, like I said. I like it as simple as possible.

The problem is that saying something meaningful and saying something of substantive merit are two different things. They have different meanings. It's not really Dogmas fault for being specific.