![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 5 to 29 of 29. Go back in thread:
Posted by AuntieMel on March 7, 2006, at 22:17:37
In reply to Re: random discourse on mortality, redirect if nec. » zeugma, posted by 838 on March 6, 2006, at 17:07:26
"I know. I am just very surprised that so many are...
But once again... Nobody here was offended - were they?"Well, if you noticed I did protest the block.
But - there have been other things you have said that rubbed me the wrong way. Was it me being over sensitive, or was it you being insensitive? Who knows. Does it really matter in the end?
But anyway, maybe if I give you a bit of background you might understand a bit.
Imagine doing a lot of traveling. Imagine that before you go to *anywhere* you have to do research to see if that part of the world is particularly anti-American (or anti-NewZealand in your case)
Imagine that you know a lot of people who pretend to be Canadian because they are afraid.
Imagine what it is like to have someone cut in front of you on a sidewalk and spit on the ground in front of you, just because of where you are from.
Imagine not being able to go to just any tourist spot without some stranger telling you all about what is wrong with "you people."
It does get a bit old. And, I'll admit I have a tendency to get a bit sensitive when it seems we are all linked into one group.
But that doesn't mean I don't want to discuss policy with you.
Posted by zeugma on March 7, 2006, at 22:17:37
In reply to Re: Imagine » 838, posted by AuntieMel on March 7, 2006, at 10:59:52
But that doesn't mean I don't want to discuss policy with you. >>
Auntie Mel, I realize you were talking to 838. But if you want to discuss policy with me, you'll have to begin. Please say one policy of President Bush's that you are willing to defend, and I will respond.
I realize that you do not necessarily support President Bush. It's more of an open invitation to anyone to debate.
-z
Posted by zeugma on March 7, 2006, at 22:17:37
In reply to Re: random discourse on mortality, redirect if nec. » zeugma, posted by 838 on March 7, 2006, at 4:54:38
> > President Bush is quoted as saying that less regulation means less lawsuits, and less headaches for big business.
>
> Hmm. Well other countries have regulation without being litigious (or however you spell it)... But I don't really know what you are talking about.>>Sorry for not making myself, or President Bush's policy, clear. I was referring to a specific instance, of the Governor of New York's lawsuit against a federal agency for not meeting its own standards, and then juxtaposing it with a statement of President Bush's that is a paraphrase, and unfortunately I have neither a photographic memory nor the space in my apt. to keep stacks of newspapers, nor infinite time to surf the net in search of specific quotes.
I do not know how regulation of industry is seen in Australia or NZ, for example. In the US there is a strong belief in the free market, which is clearly an ideal (in the philosophical sense ) state- one can only approximate it in reality. One comes closer to it, theoretically, by removing as many obstacles to profit by businesses large and small that are imposed by government- one of which (an obstacle, the specific obstacle that is the cause of the Governor of New York's bout of litigousness) is not to use certain materials that are highly damaging to the environment. That is the application of the principle that I meant when I gave a rough paraphrase of President Bush's economic philosophy (my paraphrase, obviously my own interpretation). Suppose someone develops cancer as a result of being exposed to a toxin contained in an industrial product- e.g., the one suspected by the State of New York of being used by Federal workers in New York. That person then sues. Obviously this ties up the courts and potentially cuts into corporate profits. there are certain products listed by the Environmental protection Agency that are not legal, in that scientists know or suspect a causal relation to some kind of illness. Clearly if an unknown product is used it makes it that much harder to appeal to scientific evidence in a court of law that causality was involved and the corporation supplying the product was at fault. So the stance that the State of New York is alleging the Federal Government of taking is that they are insulating corporations from this kind of lawsuit by allowing corporations to conceal indredients in products used by government contractors. The corporations may also find it cheaper to make the product using the proscribed ingredients (those on the list of environmentally dangerous substances). That was quite a long-winded reply, but I am all for clarification, and the situation is actually quite explicable (I just wish I had more economy of words).
>
> Today... After a few beers I got up the courage to ask about the 'general atmosphere' after 9/11 and about the 'general atmosphere' about the Iraq situation and what the 'general atmosphere' was around my Iran comment (yes I repeated it). And... It is fair to say that the people I was talking to are fairly liberal... And yet... I could tell from their looks that there was something a bit funny...
>
you can tell a lot by body language and such.> Then the topic moved to how I find it freaky that cops over here carry guns. I do. I'm not used to that. And that in Sydney there are billboard advertisments with a hotline to call if you have information on suspected terrorist activities and about how I burst out laughing the first time I saw that... And about how different... My culture is in general.
in New York we are subjected to random search of backpacks, we are surrounded by signs that say "If you see something, say something," we see pictures of unattended bags sitting ominously under seats. In the leadup to the Iraq war we witnessed the spectacle of Mr. Colin Powell brandishing a vial of a toxic-looking substance, and we were also assured that Saddam was an even more inviting target than Osama bin Laden. We were told by Mr. Dick Cheney that when we went into Baghdad, "we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." We heard many many things. You know, the United States is a large place, New York and Boston are not typical of the U.S. at all. But the Revolution was planned in Boston, that is where the first blows against foreign tyranny were struck. It is good to keep that in mind.
>
> And the moral of the story is that...
> There is more of an American bias here than you might think.
> And that no, I don't get it.
> I don't get it.>>well, see above. America? I have my doubts about the State of the Union. The motto of New Hampshire, one of the original Thirteen Colonies, is "Live free or die." New hampshire, Boston, New York... sorry, I have been thinking a lot about American ideals lately, and how they relate to secret courts and secretive government agencies and newspapers suing in order to print the news. >>
>
> And do I really want to?
>
> I don't know.
>
> Some things just seem clear to me.
> If cops carry guns then people will get shot.
> If there are billboards with a free hotline for 'suspected terrorist activities' then people will report things out of paranoia.
>I think I'm paranoid enough by now. The random searches went into effect on July 22, 2005. As it happens I was searched a day or two after the policy went into effect. It is not that I have such a flawless memory for dates, it is that the date "As of..." always prefaces a public announcement of the policy, broadcast throughout the transit system, and is written on the marker boards of every train station in New York, and on countless posters. It's a small thing, but it's like an apology for the policy, a reminder that this is one of the Thirteen Colonies and the motto of one of those Colonies, not far from here, is "Live free or die."
> I don't know.
>
> "Tis a funny world.
>
You must remember President Bush's poll ratings are the lowest of any President since these measurements began. This is just a fact, a most interesting fact.-z
Posted by zeugma on March 7, 2006, at 22:17:37
In reply to Re: random discourse on mortality, redirect if nec. » 838, posted by zeugma on March 7, 2006, at 16:52:29
Suppose someone develops cancer as a result of being exposed to a toxin contained in an industrial product- e.g., the one suspected by the State of New York of being used by Federal workers in New York>>
sorry. I meant, supplied to State workers by the Federal government.
-z
Posted by 838 on March 7, 2006, at 22:17:37
In reply to Re: Imagine » 838, posted by AuntieMel on March 7, 2006, at 10:59:52
> "I know. I am just very surprised that so many are...
> But once again... Nobody here was offended - were they?"> Well, if you noticed I did protest the block.
Yes, I did notice. I was most concerned about whether I may have offended you. But you said you weren't really offended and so I was just wondering whether anybody was or whether it was more that people *could* be. I don't know :-(
> But - there have been other things you have said that rubbed me the wrong way. Was it me being over sensitive, or was it you being insensitive? Who knows. Does it really matter in the end?
Yeah. Same with you though... Same with you. About people not working... That was hard for me too. Was I being over sensitive or were you being insensitive? Who knows. I don't think it really matters... Not if people get the chance to put things right. But when one gets blocked... Things are harder...
> Imagine doing a lot of traveling. Imagine that before you go to *anywhere* you have to do research to see if that part of the world is particularly anti-American (or anti-NewZealand in your case)
Even that is hard for me to properly comprehend... Because I don't think anybody is Anti-NZ. But... As I've been learning... It's cause we are at the *ss end of nowhere and with such a small population... We best not do anything other than peace keeping and diplomacy really... Someone said that he was sure things would be different in NZ if we were a bigger country more in the middle of things... And I guess he would be right. Sad. But correct. I can't comprehend that people would judge because of nationality... Really...
> It does get a bit old.
I'm sure it does! But then... You aren't really lumping me in with all that - are you? I'm really not anti-american. I applied to study in the US. I'd like to work there one day. I might even be able to manage a student exchange for one year :-) I know a lot of people from there. Have tutored a lot of people from there over on student exchanges. Have met a lot of people here on student / staff type exchanges. From all over. I guess people tend to me more liberal (whatever that means - left wing?) In an educational setting... But I don't have anything against 'American's' In general. I understand that there is a lot of diversity from within the country. Mostly... My ideas in terms of 'the american dream' and on taxation etc come from Nagel. And he is an American. So there is some irony...
Posted by 838 on March 7, 2006, at 22:17:37
In reply to Re: random discourse on mortality, redirect if nec. » 838, posted by zeugma on March 7, 2006, at 16:52:29
> In the US there is a strong belief in the free market,
I don't really know what that is either... Is that about the govt butting out of regulating business... In the sense that it won't subsidise things to help businesses get started / get up off the ground... And it won't tax (or 'penalise') things to help the environment or to help give other businesses a chance?
I had heard... (You might want to correct me) That free trade... Typically what happened was the bigger country subsidised the businesses back home so that the prices could undercut the businesses in the smaller country so that people from the smaller country would go with imported over local product. Then... Eventually the local businesses go under... Then there is fairly much a monopoly and the prices can go up again (and the govt can stop subsidising the businesses exporting to the smaller country). I heard... That seemed to be a pattern with 'free trade'... The result was fairly much... Economic takeover type thing... Though the pattern is complicated by the appearance of choice... And typically it helps things along to employ 3rd world labour so it looks like the product is coming from somewhere else etc etc... If that is right... Then isn't subsidising.... Isn't offering tax breaks to certain products / businesses a form of regulation?
> is not to use certain materials that are highly damaging to the environment.
Oh. I don't know what to say...
:-(> you can tell a lot by body language and such.
Yeah. I thought they thought it was quaint how naieve I am...
But there it is. I find it hard to comprehend...
It is hard to know whether the measures are likely to help (should someone try something...) Or whether the measures are likely to prevent someone trying something... Or whether the measures are keeping it alive in the public's mind... Whether the measuers are helping pepole stay afraid thus making it more likely that the population will be more sympathetic to things such as... pre emptive strike to get the 'terrorists'... Hard to know... I laughted in sydney 'cause I thought it was a joke to start with. We had this campaign 'don't drink and drive' then in the hostels i saw these posters 'don't drink and fry' in the kitchen. i laughed. I thought it was a joke. Taking the piss. But apparantly tehy are serious... kitchen fires due to cooking while drunk is a very real problem... And apparantly the posters are serious too... I don't know... Paranoia or due caution? Hard to know... I just worry because I know in NZ the foreign minister accused someone of being a terrorist.. Or having affiliations with Saddam or somesuch. The guy had emigrated from there and used to work as a govt. engineer... He was hauled over the coals... He was put in quaranteen or security holding or something... He was cleared completely... And the point of the exercise??? Seemed to be to show the US that while we are not 'for you' in the sense of sending people to die for a war we don't believe in... We are 'for you' in the sense of being prepared to hunt out terrorists... He was cleared... But I'm sure he isn't so happy with having his face all over the news as a 'suspected terrorist'...> You must remember President Bush's poll ratings are the lowest of any President since these measurements began. This is just a fact, a most interesting fact.
Yeah.
A country divided... Thats what I was told...
And 'cause of the division...
The topic is fairly heated...Hmm.
I guess we don't really get that...
Maybe the MMP voting system has a bit to do with it...
Dunno...
Posted by zeugma on March 7, 2006, at 22:17:37
In reply to Re: Imagine » AuntieMel, posted by 838 on March 7, 2006, at 17:06:06
My ideas in terms of 'the american dream' and on taxation etc come from Nagel. And he is an American. So there is some irony...>>
Is there? The statement, that one can believe, truly believe, that 1 1=3 provided one undergoes sufficient torture was made by a British citizen, not an American. i find irony in that.
But we must remember too that Salem, Massachusetts was the scene of one of the great witch hunts. Though Massachusetts was a British colony in 1692 (I am in no way saying anything critical of the British nation, though it did treat Alan Turing rather poorly after he helped save it).
Turing did brilliant cryptography work, in addition to his fame as mathematician. I enjoy cryptic expression, and there are places where it is a virtue to be cryptic.
-z
Posted by James K on March 7, 2006, at 22:17:37
In reply to Re: random discourse on mortality, redirect if nec. » zeugma, posted by 838 on March 7, 2006, at 17:22:35
Obviously, this discussion goes on Political, and just as obvioulsley (sp) none of us have good luck there lately. Just wanted to say I'm following and with you on most.
There's a band I follow called "this bike is a pipe bomb". I just bought one of their 45's and debated their band name with my wife, then some college kid got his bike blown up and arrested by the authorities because he had their sticker on his bike. the band has been around a long time and their name refers to using bikes as a weapon against the gov. in terms of enviornment and dependence on major corporations etc. But there you have it. these are rough and scary times. for both sides.
I hope 838 and zeugma, you can learn to discuss this (me too) without being blocked. Our anger can serve us in productive real life, but it doesn't serve us here.
James K
Posted by zeugma on March 7, 2006, at 22:17:38
In reply to Re: random discourse on mortality, redirect if nec. » zeugma, posted by 838 on March 7, 2006, at 17:22:35
I had heard... (You might want to correct me) That free trade... Typically what happened was the bigger country subsidised the businesses back home so that the prices could undercut the businesses in the smaller country so that people from the smaller country would go with imported over local product. Then... Eventually the local businesses go under... Then there is fairly much a monopoly and the prices can go up again (and the govt can stop subsidising the businesses exporting to the smaller country). I heard... That seemed to be a pattern with 'free trade'... The result was fairly much... Economic takeover type thing... Though the pattern is complicated by the appearance of choice... And typically it helps things along to employ 3rd world labour so it looks like the product is coming from somewhere else etc etc... If that is right... Then isn't subsidising.... Isn't offering tax breaks to certain products / businesses a form of regulation?>>
your summary shows, to my uneducated mind (philosophy of econmics baffles me, William Blake's "Holy Thursday" is about as far as I got to understanding how these things work, apparently Marx (Karl) got upset by what he saw in industrial England (though it must be said, and I believe he did say it, or Engels did) that England was the only place that let him say what he wanted to say (no small thing)). I don't know, your summary seems accurate, in that there used to be four coffee shops around Union Square under different ownerships and now there are still four but they are all Starbuck's. Naive economics, that's me, the one commodity I have given serious thought to is the coffee bean.
But since you know my desire for exactitiude, I will quote President Bush exactly. He said that the Republican Party was for the "haves and the have mores." He was joking. And we must not take anyone's joke literally. Or seriously. But we can wonder, who is the joke ON? And who exactly is laughing?
-z
Posted by zeugma on March 7, 2006, at 22:17:38
In reply to Re: random discourse on mortality, redirect if nec. » 838, posted by James K on March 7, 2006, at 17:36:49
I hope 838 and zeugma, you can learn to discuss this (me too) without being blocked. Our anger can serve us in productive real life, but it doesn't serve us here. >>
thank you James for your well wishes, and I wish the same to you. Cryptic. One must by indirections, find directions out...
-z
Posted by 10derHeart on March 7, 2006, at 22:17:38
In reply to Re: random discourse on mortality, redirect if nec. » 838, posted by zeugma on March 7, 2006, at 17:48:18
Posted by AuntieMel on March 8, 2006, at 9:45:31
In reply to Re: Imagine » AuntieMel, posted by zeugma on March 7, 2006, at 16:11:57
I'd love to debate, but I just can't think of a policy that I'd disagree with you on.
Which I guess is part of my point? He barely got half the vote the second time and less than half the first time, so it would be fair to say that he doesn't represent the thinking of all americans.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 8, 2006, at 9:49:15
In reply to Re: Imagine » AuntieMel, posted by 838 on March 7, 2006, at 17:06:06
"Yeah. Same with you though... Same with you. About people not working... That was hard for me too. Was I being over sensitive or were you being insensitive? Who knows. I don't think it really matters... Not if people get the chance to put things right. But when one gets blocked... Things are harder..."
I certainly wasn't talking about you when I was talking about not working.
I meant that I don't see where the world owes a living to anyone who *chooses* not to work.
You - with going to school and all - qualify as hard working to me. And I do think that a country owes it's people the best education possible.
Now if I could teach you how to budget.....
Posted by wildcard11 on March 8, 2006, at 10:15:08
In reply to Re: Imagine » zeugma, posted by AuntieMel on March 8, 2006, at 9:45:31
***Which I guess is part of my point? He barely got half the vote the second time and less than half the first time, so it would be fair to say that he doesn't represent the thinking of all americans.
EXACTLY!!!!
Posted by 838 on March 8, 2006, at 18:06:49
In reply to Re: Imagine » 838, posted by AuntieMel on March 8, 2006, at 9:49:15
> I certainly wasn't talking about you when I was talking about not working.
And I certainly wasn't talking about you when I was talking about peoples possibly being hypocritical...
:-)
> I meant that I don't see where the world owes a living to anyone who *chooses* not to work.
Ah. There it is again ;-)
> You - with going to school and all - qualify as hard working to me. And I do think that a country owes it's people the best education possible.
Ah. But you see the academic year finishes up in October and doesn't get underway until March. So... What to do in between? Technically... I suppose one is meant to get a job... What do I do? I go on the dole. So... I choose to not work over the summer. I choose to go on welfare. I am supposed to be 'actively seeking work' but I'll fully admit that it is not for nothing that I am sure to classify myself as a disabled general labourer ;-)
> Now if I could teach you how to budget.....Hmm. I'm getting more on scholarship now than I've ever seen :-)
I think I should be saving 'cause I might be able to get to the US for a year...
But... Australasia has a binge drinking culture ;-)
Posted by sleepygirl on March 8, 2006, at 18:56:16
In reply to Re: Imagine » AuntieMel, posted by 838 on March 8, 2006, at 18:06:49
there's lots of binge drinking in the US too ;-)
Posted by 838 on March 9, 2006, at 2:44:33
In reply to Re: Imagine » AuntieMel, posted by 838 on March 8, 2006, at 18:06:49
My point there Auntiemel is that yes, you were in fact talking about me. Because there have been (and no doubt there will be) times in my life when I could work and yet I choose not to.
And do I expect the government of my country of citizenship to support me? You bet.
Do I consider it a human right?
Yep.
Do I consider it an entitlement?
Yep.
In fact... The NZ government considers it a right / entitlement too. They encourage people (via tv and radio adds and via posters) to check out their 'entitlements' (yep, they call them that) with work and income new zealand.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 9, 2006, at 8:16:31
In reply to Re: Imagine, posted by 838 on March 9, 2006, at 2:44:33
But don't you think there is a difference between not getting a summer job (geez, even I'll admit that you do need some time to recharge) and not working for the rest of your life?
I can't imagine what would happen if everyone had that choice. Why would anyone work?
Now, on budgeting - my mantra is save 10% of what you make. So, just go binge drinking 10% less and put the rest away...
Posted by 838 on March 9, 2006, at 17:55:47
In reply to Re: Imagine » 838, posted by AuntieMel on March 9, 2006, at 8:16:31
> But don't you think there is a difference between not getting a summer job (geez, even I'll admit that you do need some time to recharge) and not working for the rest of your life?
i would think that if i planned not to work for the rest of my life... then there would be something seriously wrong. because... what you get on welfare is very literally only just enough to get your basic needs met. and sometimes... one can struggle even with that... so it is not like people can live happy lives eating out and drinking coffee and driving a car and going to the movies and travelling around the country on welfare. not unless people are ripping off the system by working under the table (ie without the govt. knowing about it). so... why on earth would someone want to just scrape through life... only just getting their basic needs met... when they could get into some training course... and come out with some kind of reasonable job and / or come out with some job that is sheer slog but that they get lots more money off?
i would say... that there would be something wrong... something along the lines of depression... (whats the point i can't do anything useful anyway) or anxiety (i'm too damned terrified) or whatever.
i guess thats my take. and so with those people... i think the govt should continue to meet their basic needs for the rest of their life if need be - yes... but I think one better still is for the government to put MORE money into these people in the form of courses and activities and community workers etc etc. to find them something they would like to do... to talk to them about things they would like to do with the money they can earn (perhaps they have always wanted to go overseas somewhere on a holiday or to buy a car or something).
i agree that it is a bit of a social problem when people don't want to work and choose to stay on welfare for the rest of their life... but i think that just cutting them off from all support is likely to make the situation worse (they will probably turn to crime to meet their basic needs and that impacts WORSE on the rest of society imo).
also... little help...
and there might just be something that they can do (maybe with a little training) that can help them feel better about themselves etc.
but...
when i think of the working poor...
those struggling to make ends meet on minimum wage...
those struggling to meet their basic needs on minimum wage...
you can't really introduce a welfare system where people can get their basic needs met for free...because i wouldn't do the minimum wage however many hours slog per day in crappy work conditions probably being treated like crap with no real prospects for improvement... i wouldn't do that if i could get my needs met on welfare.
i'm not sure what to say...
to the best of my knowledge...
in NZ EVERYONE is best off working...
(though to be fair there is this problem of being on the dole working part time might be better off than working full time especially if you are looking at minimum wage... solution? work part time and do a course. then you will be earning more and it won't be an issue...)
> I can't imagine what would happen if everyone had that choice. Why would anyone work?
>
> Now, on budgeting - my mantra is save 10% of what you make. So, just go binge drinking 10% less and put the rest away...
Posted by AuntieMel on March 10, 2006, at 9:54:03
In reply to Re: Imagine, posted by 838 on March 9, 2006, at 17:55:47
There is a huge difference (in implication, at least) between
"And do I expect the government of my country of citizenship to support me? You bet."
and
"literally only just enough to get your basic needs met. and sometimes... one can struggle even with that... so it is not like people can live happy lives eating out and drinking coffee and driving a car and going to the movies and travelling around the country on welfare"
Big, big difference. When I read the first one I thought "yeah, and I'm paying for it" When I read the second one I thought "well, of course, no one should be allowed to go hungry"I guess the only possible debate we would have would be what a person's "basic needs" are.
Clean clothes that fit - or designer jeans.
Good wholesome food - or steak.
Safe housing - or ...well, you get my drift. And of course there are degrees in between.
And I agree that most would work if they could move their standard of living from column "a" to column "b" - assuming they are healthy enough to work.
I firmly (as you do) believe people need help when they are down. And you will probably find that 99% of Americans feel the same way.
And most Americans would agree that a person not working because of a disability or because they are in a training program should get a better standard of living than column 'a.'
Where Americans disagree - as do most of the world I guess - is *how* that aid is to get to the person needing it.
I'm not one that thinks it should all come from the private sector, but there is a good argument that the private sector is a lot more efficient than the government is. And Americans are, for the most part, very giving people.
Like I said, when Katrina hit NO, there was a line outside the Astrodome of people looking for a family to take in. Other lines with food, clothes, volunteers who only had time. They were turning people and donations away because they had too many? You, literally, had to "know somebody" to be able to get into the dome to help.
Same with many, many other small and large disasters.
Volunteers tutor those who can't read. Build houses for those who need them. Donate to food banks.
In fact we probably give more that way than if they raised taxes to pay for the same things.
The government does have a welfare system, and like you say it doesn't pay much at all. But I think we do a fair job of filling in the gaps.
And we do it without resentment.
Posted by 838 on March 10, 2006, at 22:53:21
In reply to Re: Big, big difference » 838, posted by AuntieMel on March 10, 2006, at 9:54:03
Ah. I guess by 'welfare' I'm always talking basic needs. To the best of my knowlege... No welfare country tries (or wants) to have it so that people are better off on welfare than they are working! I've never thought that 'people have the right to welfare' implied anything other than 'people have the right to have their basic needs met whether they choose to work or not'. But yeah, someone has to pay for it that is true...
> When I read the first one I thought "yeah, and I'm paying for it" When I read the second one I thought "well, of course, no one should be allowed to go hungry"
No one should be allowed to go hungry... Even if that means the working people have to pay to feed those who would go hungry otherwise?
I think so. Just checking understanding...
> I guess the only possible debate we would have would be what a person's "basic needs" are.Typically... Food, shelter, education, health, i think that is about it...
> Clean clothes that fit - or designer jeans.
Is that really debated?
> Good wholesome food - or steak.
Some places consider steak to be good wholesome food... The rub is that typically 'good wholesome food' (fruit vegetables and stuff that is relatively unprocessed) is a whole heap more expensive than the cheapest processed crap that people who aren't wealthy typically have to live on (whether they are working or not...)
> Safe housing - or ...
> well, you get my drift. And of course there are degrees in between.Yeah. Is this really controversial though?
I guess it is... Took a while to get to the 'people have the right to have their basic needs' bit... I guess people will haggle over 'basic too'. Generally... I would think it would be common sense (but maybe not). life saving operation - need. plastic surgery (elective) not a need. and so on...
> And I agree that most would work if they could move their standard of living from column "a" to column "b" - assuming they are healthy enough to work.yeah. though... it is also true that some choose not to. and i think that we should still continue to meet their basic needs. some people who choose not to... consider themselves artists or dancers or poets or whatever... you get street art and decent graffitti and street mime and stuff... these people do it for free... because that is what they want to do with their time and they ARE putting something back into the community. they choose to be poor... they could work and earn more... but they would rather have their time. it is a lifestyle choice. i think they should be supported. then there are people who sit in front of the tv all day. typically... depression. i mean... jeepers... i don't know of one happy camper who sits in front of the tv all day. other pepole... don't believe they can do anything worthwhile... other people... have serious drug addictions etc. i don't think we should let them starve either...
> And most Americans would agree that a person not working because of a disability or because they are in a training program should get a better standard of living than column 'a.'
really? over here... disability and training program is little better (training programs a little worse... disability a little better) than the unemployment benefit. basic needs. all these people (in nz) get basic needs (and sometimes that is tricky)
> Where Americans disagree - as do most of the world I guess - is *how* that aid is to get to the person needing it.oh.
> I'm not one that thinks it should all come from the private sector, but there is a good argument that the private sector is a lot more efficient than the government is. And Americans are, for the most part, very giving people.private sector? how do you mean?
> Like I said, when Katrina hit NO, there was a line outside the Astrodome of people looking for a family to take in. Other lines with food, clothes, volunteers who only had time. They were turning people and donations away because they had too many? You, literally, had to "know somebody" to be able to get into the dome to help.
right. and... my guess would be... that over time... that would dry up. if you leave things like this as a discretionary matter... then there has to be a campaign to keep it in peoples faces or people... forget. i guess my issue with leaving it to personal choice is thta some people opt out. i don't think they should be allowed to opt out. they have a duty to help the society that has helped them... if it is personal then some people give too much and some others give not enough. and also... is the money well spent? the idea behind govt agency is that there is a central budget thing. they figure out how much will go to health and how much to education and how much to social services (welfare) etc etc. also... labour is trying to give all parents 20 hours of free daycare per week... that is going to cost a bomb... but if it relied on donations... the notion is that there can be money put into preventative campaigns as opposed to clean ups. the idea is also that... businesses may seem more efficient... if they think they are inefficient... they hire another manager... who manages to lay off a couple staff (to justify their job) and so it goes on... i'm not convinced the private sector is more economical or whatever... but then given the current administration... i wouldn't be happy giving more to them. i mean... bombs seem to be prioritised over increasing the minimum wage... or over giving everyone in the country adequate health cover or whatever... given teh priorities... i wuldn't be very happy giving tax dollars to them...
> Volunteers tutor those who can't read. Build houses for those who need them. Donate to food banks.
we hae volounteer organisations too...> In fact we probably give more that way than if they raised taxes to pay for the same things.
really? with 10% of the country having over half the wealth I find that hard to believe... I think... you are focused on the middle class once more. the idea is to tax most from those who have most... when you have peopel living in billion dollar mansions... it might seem nice when they donate a million or two but what percentage is that of their income? might well compare to me giving one dollar when i was on welfare. and that dollar might have made the difference between a bus home and a 40 minute walk. how much does it cost to take a limo with your own driver on a 40 minute ride do you think? is this making any sense...
Posted by 838 on March 10, 2006, at 23:03:24
In reply to Re: Big, big difference » AuntieMel, posted by 838 on March 10, 2006, at 22:53:21
A - starving people
B - basic needs
C - little better off...
D - middle class
E - upper middle
F - rather wealthy
G - top 10% (own over half the wealth of the whole damned country)so...
whether you are A or B is a matter of... begging on the streets and relying on the goodness of strangers? i think that is is more dignified to get a welfare deposet in your bank account than it is to beg on the street... and the difference between A and B can be touch and go for the working poor... minimum wage and lots of mouths to feed...
In terms of charity... I bet D and E contribute more (percentage wise) than any other group...
While G contributes a million or so (very little percentage wise) and get blasted all over tv and the paper as a message of how generous americans are...
the idea is to have an incremental taxation system...
tax most from the people in G
have heard a bit of that goes on already...
but when you have 10% of the country with over 50% of the wealth... i would say the taxation should be a bit more severe...
but... there are ways of getting around taxes if you are wealthy enough to get your self / business a good tax lawyer - eh?
so once again D and E get hit the hardest.
D and E dont' realise that if more was taken from G (and lets face it they can stand to lose a lot and still be richer than the rest of the people in teh country if that is important to the people in the country...)
But if more was taken from G and given to A to bring them up to B and working A and B to bring them to C and C to bring them...
You can do it. Adjust things...
Remember...
G (a group of 10% of the population) have over half the wealth of the whole country.
It could be done.
Or... D and E can continue to dream of getting lucky and getting into G themselves...
Hmm.
Posted by 5 on March 11, 2006, at 1:14:16
In reply to Re: Big, big difference » 838, posted by AuntieMel on March 10, 2006, at 9:54:03
sorry auntiemel.
i shouldn't post here.
i'll only upset people or whatever...
and end up getting myself blocked.
sorry...
i shouldn't have allowed myself to get lured back in.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 13, 2006, at 18:04:35
In reply to Re: Big, big difference » AuntieMel, posted by 838 on March 10, 2006, at 22:53:21
For 838 (or agent838 - could you go back to your old name, I like it better)
DON'T be sorry about posting this! I find it a great discussion. I just hope you aren't taking what I say too personally!
Yes, no one should be allowed to go hungry *does* mean that this should come from the govt and that working people (and those who don't work 'cause they're rolling in it) should pay for it.
Don't get me wrong - I am *not* against welfare. I just don't agree that healthy people should be able to just *choose* not to work.
"The rub is that typically 'good wholesome food' (fruit vegetables and stuff that is relatively unprocessed) is a whole heap more expensive..."
Oh. Is it expensive there? Fruits and vegies are not too bad here - but meats are expensive.
But you are right that a lot of cheap food is high calorie and low nutrition.
"really? with 10% of the country having over half the wealth I find that hard to believe... I think... you are focused on the middle class once more. the idea is to tax most from those who have most... when you have peopel living in billion dollar mansions... "
It's a funny thing about Americans and taxes. Even though the upper 10% of the people got most of the tax break when we had a cut several years ago, it was the middle group that wanted it the most.
And when they started phasing out the inheritance (death) tax, it was mostly those who would never have to pay it that wanted it most. Many, many rich people *didn't* want it phased out. And I'd see letters to the editor from "average Joe" talking about how much we needed to get rid of it.
Go figure.
I think it's because a good chunk (most) Americans see there is a possibility of being rich someday? And when they get there they want to keep it?
I didn't want the tax break because I figured it would cut social programs (as it has) - but I'm considered a raving liberal (just don't tell my boss - liberals are unpopular down here in Texas.)
Posted by agent858 on March 13, 2006, at 18:37:16
In reply to Re: Big, big difference » 838, posted by AuntieMel on March 13, 2006, at 18:04:35
> DON'T be sorry about posting this! I find it a great discussion. I just hope you aren't taking what I say too personally!
lol, I'm not. Sorry about my tone.. pwpd (posting while period is due...)
;-)
> Yes, no one should be allowed to go hungry *does* mean that this should come from the govt and that working people (and those who don't work 'cause they're rolling in it) should pay for it.well then i guess we agree.
> I just don't agree that healthy people should be able to just *choose* not to work.hmm. should mothers be allowed to choose to stay at home and look after their kids? (that isn't paid work). should people be allowed to choose to donate their time to charitable organisations (and not get paid for it - so it doesn't count as payed work)? i think that healthy people should be able to just 'choose' not to work. but i would say that people who are just spending the day in front of the tv... well i find it hard to see how they are happy. how they can feel happy without contributing to society in some way... remember welfare is only about basic needs. i would guess that if a healthy person chooses not to work then either a) they have something to be doing that they feel very strongly / passionately about or b) they aren't really so healthy after all. because... when you can get more money for working and welfare only covers basic needs... why would someone choose to stay on welfare instead of working?
> Oh. Is it expensive there? Fruits and vegies are not too bad here - but meats are expensive.yeah. depends what you mean by 'bad' i guess... but it is cheaper to eat macdonalds and burger kind (or hungry jacks it is called here) than it is to get something healthier. it is cheaper to get heavily processed white breads then it is to get relatively unprocessed wholemeal breads. it is cheaper to get meat with a high fat content then it is to get lean meat. health food seems to be a luxury in comparison (pricewise). cheaper to get fruit and veges with pestacides than without. cheaper to get genetically modified produce than stuff that hasn't been modified. cheaper to get chicken packed full of steroids and anti-biotics than chicken that isn't etc...
so the poor people are more likely to be eating chemicals and antibiotics and steroids and food that has been modified in ways that we don't know what it is likely to do to us... that is a scarey notion... especially considering they have less access to health care...
> It's a funny thing about Americans and taxes. Even though the upper 10% of the people got most of the tax break when we had a cut several years ago, it was the middle group that wanted it the most.yeah. makes more of a practical difference to the middle group?
i wasn't just thinking of tax cuts... i was thinking about the difference between 'tax avoidance' and 'tax evasion' and strategic business expenses and charitable trusts and donations to charities etc that have people with good tax lawyers avoiding paying most of the taxes that they would be paying without the good tax lawyer...
> I didn't want the tax break because I figured it would cut social programs (as it has) - but I'm considered a raving liberal (just don't tell my boss - liberals are unpopular down here in Texas.)yeah. though i've heard austin is a 'small island of liberalism'. i'd like to go there one day :-)
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.