healthy civilization vs. leftist policies

[Bern80]

If a person is sick or old, they should be self reliant.

I see we don't read so well. Again I have not problem with social programs that help people that need help (which in a lot of cases includes the sick and old). So what point is it that you have completely missed this time?

 

[ronpaul2008]

It is the path to communism to tyranny of an unimaginable scale. Under the free market system USA had unquestionably the best health care in the world. If was affordable for all who worked. Church run hospitals provided free services for those who did not work. But guess what the government decided to step in and 'make it better' . Now 2/3 of all health care spending comes from the government. And the country is in a health care crisis. Hospitals are overrun, closing down, a complete mess. So what does the government say, oh just let us take it all over and it will be better. If you believe this your IQ is definately far less then 100.

 

[Jeepers]

OMFG... Not One conservative braincell was activated in this entire post... What was that presidential percentage post suppost to support.... who's ass was that other chart pulled from? Can conservatives be so wrong so often... seriously one has to wonder if you cats are liberals portrait conservatives as cartoonish freaks....

 

[Bern80]

OMFG... Not One conservative braincell was activated in this entire post... What was that presidential percentage post suppost to support.... who's ass was that other chart pulled from? Can conservatives be so wrong so often... seriously one has to wonder if you cats are liberals portrait conservatives as cartoonish freaks....

what on earth are you talking about? I think I've been pretty clear on everything I've said. I'm not sure how asking people to challenge themselves, not take the easy way out, etc. is not conservative. This isn't debate about what President's have done or the support they've received or holding up people as exceptios to rules. This is a debate about ideology, period.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Figured it'd be useful to know, that apprently Kirk is right.

Straight from the Horse's mouth: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf

Look up page 118, table 7.1 titled "Federal Debt at the End of the Year":

End of 1981: ~900,000,000,000
End of 1992: ~4,000,000,000,000

Reagan + George I: 3.1 Trillion

End of 1993: ~4,300,000,000,000
End of 2000: ~5,600,000,000,000

Clinton: 1.3 Trillion

(Estimate) End of 2008: ~9,900,000,000,000

George II: 4.3 Trillion

That's from the White House website. I'd say they are accurate figures.

I'll post something later about this idiotic Left-Right debate, but you guys might wanna look at the other charts in the website in the meantime.

 

[Chris]

It is the path to communism to tyranny of an unimaginable scale. Under the free market system USA had unquestionably the best health care in the world. If was affordable for all who worked. Church run hospitals provided free services for those who did not work. But guess what the government decided to step in and 'make it better' . Now 2/3 of all health care spending comes from the government. And the country is in a health care crisis. Hospitals are overrun, closing down, a complete mess. So what does the government say, oh just let us take it all over and it will be better. If you believe this your IQ is definately far less then 100.

You are living in a fantasy world. We have a healthcare crisis because our healthcare system is a bloated, patchwork, for profit system. It's purpose is to make money off the sick. EVERY OTHER WESTERN DEMOCRACY IN THE WORLD HAS UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE, AND THEY SPEND HALF PER CAPITA WHAT WE SPEND FOR HEALTHCARE. And they cover everyone, and their quality of healthcare is as good as ours.

 

[dilloduck]

You are living in a fantasy world. We have a healthcare crisis because our healthcare system is a bloated, patchwork, for profit system. It's purpose is to make money off the sick. EVERY OTHER WESTERN DEMOCRACY IN THE WORLD HAS UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE, AND THEY SPEND HALF PER CAPITA WHAT WE SPEND FOR HEALTHCARE. And they cover everyone, and their quality of healthcare is as good as ours.

There isn't a damn one of em that I want America to be like either !

 

[Bern80]

Figured it'd be useful to know, that apprently Kirk is right.

Straight from the Horse's mouth: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf

Look up page 118, table 7.1 titled "Federal Debt at the End of the Year":

End of 1981: ~900,000,000,000
End of 1992: ~4,000,000,000,000

Reagan + George I: 3.1 Trillion

End of 1993: ~4,300,000,000,000
End of 2000: ~5,600,000,000,000

Clinton: 1.3 Trillion

(Estimate) End of 2008: ~9,900,000,000,000

George II: 4.3 Trillion

That's from the White House website. I'd say they are accurate figures.

I'll post something later about this idiotic Left-Right debate, but you guys might wanna look at the other charts in the website in the meantime.

I could care less about charts. Kirk's numbers are right but who he is attributing responsibility to is wrong. Again he seemed to miss basic civics where they taught that it also takes congress to pass a budget.

Since you're calling the debate idoitic i can only imagine that makes you a left as well. And thus would have to be claiming there is no merit to the argument that says bail out policies and the general leftist trend toward an aversion free society is ultimately bad for a society.

 

[watermark]

Diuretic thought this would be an interesting discussion so here goes.

With the mortgage bail out and Obama championing universal health care I have to wonder the path the left is leading us down.

Very broadely the left seems to continually enact policies that shift personal responsibility from the individual to government. The ramificaations of which are staggering.

As a rule we become smarter, grow stronger, by meeting and overcomeing challenges. Our behavior is governed by the things that negatively impact us. We learn not to repeat behaviors that have a negative impact on us. The ol' the young child doesn't learn it'll hurt to touch the hot stove until he/she burns themselves on the hot stove. Yet in burning themselves the child has gained knowledge. A type of knowledge that is irreplaceable from just say mommy telling you that's gonna hurt. You won't even be curious about it anymore. You now know what will happen if you touch the hot stove, so you don't it again.

The left seems to be overly preoccupied with keeping people from 'burning' themselves. The mortgage bail out is a prime example. How are homebuyers going to learn not to take loans they have financial business taking out, if the government is just going to bail them out? How are banks going to learn to not approve such high risk loans, if the government is going to bail them out?

Under something like universal heatlhcare, how is removing the financal burden of healthcare an insentive for people to change their health habits?

All of these things make us weaker as a civilization because we are prevented from experiencing and responsibily dealing with the consequences of our actions. We don't have to deal with adversity anymore. It's like getting an A for effort. I got an A for trying to learn but not actually learning. Meanwhile the person who actual did learn has just be shown he really didn't need to put that kind of effort forth because he could have gotten an just for trying.

Conservatives: simple logic for simple minds.

Australia is doing just fine. They have not collapsed. Their economy is strong. Denmark has a huge welfare state and their GDP per capita is on the verge of surpassing Americas. Maybe we need to rethink what in the past conservatives have self-labelled "common sense".

 

[watermark]

Dumb ass!! that graph shows Debt as a % of GDP and there for goes down with the growth of GDP.

Your other favorite link. ReaganBushDebt.org is a completely biased propaganda link, and you sit here and try to claim the high ground while calling everyone else liars. Pretty sad dude.

Wealth adjusted debt is a more accurate measure of debt than inflation adjusted debt. Wealth tends to grow over time faster than inflation. If I had $50,000 of debt, but my income just went up a million dollars, I'm not as bad off as whenever I had $20,000 in debt and my income was $10,000 a year. Inflation adjusted debt will always rise with time but it's not an accurate picture. It only proves how much of a dumbass you really are that you fail to grasp this simple concept.

GDP growth, BTW, was not high in the seventies, whenever wealth adjusted debt was going down.

 

[Chris]

I could care less about charts. Kirk's numbers are right but who he is attributing responsibility to is wrong. Again he seemed to miss basic civics where they taught that it also takes congress to pass a budget.

Since you're calling the debate idoitic i can only imagine that makes you a left as well. And thus would have to be claiming there is no merit to the argument that says bail out policies and the general leftist trend toward an aversion free society is ultimately bad for a society.

You need a history lesson. The Republicans in Congress combined with a few dixiecrats passed the budget proposed by Reagan.

And Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, said the tax cuts were a "trojan horse" to reduce taxes for the rich.

 

[Diuretic]

Diuretic thought this would be an interesting discussion so here goes.

With the mortgage bail out and Obama championing universal health care I have to wonder the path the left is leading us down.

Very broadely the left seems to continually enact policies that shift personal responsibility from the individual to government. The ramificaations of which are staggering.

As a rule we become smarter, grow stronger, by meeting and overcomeing challenges. Our behavior is governed by the things that negatively impact us. We learn not to repeat behaviors that have a negative impact on us. The ol' the young child doesn't learn it'll hurt to touch the hot stove until he/she burns themselves on the hot stove. Yet in burning themselves the child has gained knowledge. A type of knowledge that is irreplaceable from just say mommy telling you that's gonna hurt. You won't even be curious about it anymore. You now know what will happen if you touch the hot stove, so you don't it again.

The left seems to be overly preoccupied with keeping people from 'burning' themselves. The mortgage bail out is a prime example. How are homebuyers going to learn not to take loans they have financial business taking out, if the government is just going to bail them out? How are banks going to learn to not approve such high risk loans, if the government is going to bail them out?

Under something like universal heatlhcare, how is removing the financal burden of healthcare an insentive for people to change their health habits?

All of these things make us weaker as a civilization because we are prevented from experiencing and responsibily dealing with the consequences of our actions. We don't have to deal with adversity anymore. It's like getting an A for effort. I got an A for trying to learn but not actually learning. Meanwhile the person who actual did learn has just be shown he really didn't need to put that kind of effort forth because he could have gotten an just for trying.

Under something like universal heatlhcare, how is removing the financal burden of healthcare an insentive for people to change their health habits? [/[/QUOTE]

Universal healthcare doesn't remove a financial burden on most people if it's funded by taxation on income and that's the model I'm used to. Well, it's not so much a financial burden when it's done that way. And those on welfare or self-funded retirees get less of a financial burden. But the purpose of universal health care isn't to use a financial impost to encourage a healthy lifestyle (eg a good diet and avoidance of foods that are, if consumed too much, can be deleterious to health), it's to make health care available to everyone, regardless of income.

I think healthy habits are learned (just as unhealthy habits are learned) as children but also they're reinforced (healthy and unhealthy habits I mean) as adults in various ways. This might sound very middle-class but I really think education of children and adults is a better approach to encouraging healthy habits.

The problem with arguing that there should be a financial burden on people to live healthily is that it only affects the poor and possibly the middle class. Anyway, as I said, I don't think it's a valid argument.

But on your points about learning to overcome adversity. It's true, adversity is good for us – to a point. And again, without wanting this to seem to be a “bash the rich” exercise, the wealthy and extremely wealthy don't have to worry about adversity. Suggesting that the wealthy and extremely wealthy actually have to face up to real and not imagine or exaggerated adversity reminds me of those great lines from Milton's Areopagitica:

I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary but slinks out of the race, where that immortal garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat. Assuredly we bring not innocence into the world, we bring impurity much rather; that which purifies us is trial, and trial is by what is contrary

I don't think the left are trying to create a dependent nation and I certainly don't think universal health care creates a dependent nation. However, I agree that the nanny state is not good for us as individuals or as societies – but then I suppose that how we define “nanny state” is important.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You need a history lesson. The Republicans in Congress combined with a few dixiecrats passed the budget proposed by Reagan.

And Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, said the tax cuts were a "trojan horse" to reduce taxes for the rich.

Wrong again. Once again retard go look at what Reagan proposed and Congress passed EVERY year he was President. You will find that, true to their word, for every dollar Reagan added to the military they added to social Programs. NOT ONE budget in Reagan's years was ever passed as he submitted, they were all increased by the democrats. The debt created while Reagan was President is easy to lay at the Democratic Congress's feet. They caused and they are to blame.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

I could care less about charts. Kirk's numbers are right but who he is attributing responsibility to is wrong. Again he seemed to miss basic civics where they taught that it also takes congress to pass a budget.

Since you're calling the debate idoitic i can only imagine that makes you a left as well. And thus would have to be claiming there is no merit to the argument that says bail out policies and the general leftist trend toward an aversion free society is ultimately bad for a society.

Well, I never took an American Civics class, but from what Wiki tells me, the way it works is that the President "makes" the budget plan, Congress modifies it and approves it, and then the President signs it into law... which would make both parties pretty much equally to blame for deficits, I guess.

I'm calling the debate idiotic because of this stark black and white Left/Right dichotomy that some people are so in love with. What's the "Right"? What's the "Left"? The terms are pretty meaningless unless you define them. And how do you get an "unbiased" definition of it? You'd say "The right means democracy, less government and individual responsibility, while the Left means tyranny and government-controlled everything." Someone of the left might say "The left means government-funded social services and internationalism, while the right means corporate oligopolies and extreme inequality of wealth". And what's the Far Right, and what is the Far Left? Is the Far Right the savage imperialism of the PNAC or of Libertarians? Is the Far Left the Stalinist Communist Parties or are they Anarcho-Syndicalists or the Socialist Libertarians? These things couldn't get farther away.

Think of it in issues. What is Protectionism? Is protectionism Left or Right? Is Reagan a Rightist? He was one of the most protectionist and statist presidents of recent times. Or so-called "Free Trade", is that Right or Left? Is Bill Clinton a Leftist (I certainly don't think so, but let's just say so for simplicity's sake), yet he was one of the most "free-marketeering" presidents in recent times. Internationally, they were both criminally interventionist, is that left or right?

Or take the "radical fringe" candidates of both parties. Kucinich and Ron Paul were both basically on the fringe, yet their foreign policy agendas were way closer to each other than say, Hillary's or Guiliani's. Unrelated, but again, look up info on "Libertarian Socialism" (originally Anarchism, before everyone started relating it to punk rockers and idiots) and you'll see it advocates the same end as libertarianism; end or radical decrease to government all together, and liberation from the oppression and ruin of the state.

It's not good to retain like sacred scripture this Cold War era definitions of things like "they are left and we are right" and put a world of difference against another. It is better to look at things issue by issue, not resort to some wild generalization that makes no sense.

 

[editec]

Diuretic thought this would be an interesting discussion so here goes.

With the mortgage bail out and Obama championing universal health care I have to wonder the path the left is leading us down.

Very broadely the left seems to continually enact policies that shift personal responsibility from the individual to government. The ramificaations of which are staggering.

As a rule we become smarter, grow stronger, by meeting and overcomeing challenges. Our behavior is governed by the things that negatively impact us. We learn not to repeat behaviors that have a negative impact on us. The ol' the young child doesn't learn it'll hurt to touch the hot stove until he/she burns themselves on the hot stove. Yet in burning themselves the child has gained knowledge. A type of knowledge that is irreplaceable from just say mommy telling you that's gonna hurt. You won't even be curious about it anymore. You now know what will happen if you touch the hot stove, so you don't it again.

The left seems to be overly preoccupied with keeping people from 'burning' themselves. The mortgage bail out is a prime example. How are homebuyers going to learn not to take loans they have financial business taking out, if the government is just going to bail them out? How are banks going to learn to not approve such high risk loans, if the government is going to bail them out?

Under something like universal heatlhcare, how is removing the financal burden of healthcare an insentive for people to change their health habits?

All of these things make us weaker as a civilization because we are prevented from experiencing and responsibily dealing with the consequences of our actions. We don't have to deal with adversity anymore. It's like getting an A for effort. I got an A for trying to learn but not actually learning. Meanwhile the person who actual did learn has just be shown he really didn't need to put that kind of effort forth because he could have gotten an just for trying.

this is so amusing.

The "left" the "LEFT?!"

So now George Bush II is part of the left-wing conspiracy?

You are either very stupid or very dishonest, Bern80.

 

[Bern80]

this is so amusing.

The "left" the "LEFT?!"

So now George Bush II is part of the left-wing conspiracy?

You are either very stupid or very dishonest, Bern80.

Again this isn't about politcal party or President's for me. I am no GW fan and really not happy with any of the republicans that voted for the mortgage bail out. I feel the Republican party has a lost its conservative way so to speak in a lot of cases.

 

[Ravi]

Well, I never took an American Civics class, but from what Wiki tells me, the way it works is that the President "makes" the budget plan, Congress modifies it and approves it, and then the President signs it into law... which would make both parties pretty much equally to blame for deficits, I guess.

I'm calling the debate idiotic because of this stark black and white Left/Right dichotomy that some people are so in love with. What's the "Right"? What's the "Left"? The terms are pretty meaningless unless you define them. And how do you get an "unbiased" definition of it? You'd say "The right means democracy, less government and individual responsibility, while the Left means tyranny and government-controlled everything." Someone of the left might say "The left means government-funded social services and internationalism, while the right means corporate oligopolies and extreme inequality of wealth". And what's the Far Right, and what is the Far Left? Is the Far Right the savage imperialism of the PNAC or of Libertarians? Is the Far Left the Stalinist Communist Parties or are they Anarcho-Syndicalists or the Socialist Libertarians? These things couldn't get farther away.

Think of it in issues. What is Protectionism? Is protectionism Left or Right? Is Reagan a Rightist? He was one of the most protectionist and statist presidents of recent times. Or so-called "Free Trade", is that Right or Left? Is Bill Clinton a Leftist (I certainly don't think so, but let's just say so for simplicity's sake), yet he was one of the most "free-marketeering" presidents in recent times. Internationally, they were both criminally interventionist, is that left or right?

Or take the "radical fringe" candidates of both parties. Kucinich and Ron Paul were both basically on the fringe, yet their foreign policy agendas were way closer to each other than say, Hillary's or Guiliani's. Unrelated, but again, look up info on "Libertarian Socialism" (originally Anarchism, before everyone started relating it to punk rockers and idiots) and you'll see it advocates the same end as libertarianism; end or radical decrease to government all together, and liberation from the oppression and ruin of the state.

It's not good to retain like sacred scripture this Cold War era definitions of things like "they are left and we are right" and put a world of difference against another. It is better to look at things issue by issue, not resort to some wild generalization that makes no sense.

You are correct, but perhaps you are overlooking the reason these labels exist...to get votes. It's very easy to scare one half of the populace with the boogeyman of the other half.

 

[manifold]

You are correct, but perhaps you are overlooking the reason these labels exist...to get votes. It's very easy to scare one half of the populace with the boogeyman of the other half.

Am I wrong to be concerned about fundies?

 

[Ravi]

Am I wrong to be concerned about fundies?

No, only wrong to believe the fundy label can be applied to people that are nothing of the sort.

 

[manifold]

No, only wrong to believe the fundy label can be applied to people that are nothing of the sort.