Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

[jdinca]

Well, it is important to note that when you talk about poverty in America you are talking about people who tend too get fat more than people with higher incomes. In my grandfather's time people starved to death. So I do happen to think that we are getting richer. And I think the comment about there never being so little poverty is a valid one when you take that into account. Americans, even the poorest ones, have things that people in other countries envy. We have so much wealth that we can reach into our pockets and help out those that have less than us.

I have no problem reaching into my pocket to help those less fortunate, right up until I am forced to do so by the government.

 

[michaeledward]

Yet, I never considered myself at poverty, for collecting cans to have a bonus night at Taco Bell. I choose where to spend my money, and I did. I also made enough that after that short period of my life I was able to recover quite fast. Yet, by many standards, I was at poverty, (* not income for sure *) because I did not have a TV or VCR or Cable, or a land line, drove an old car with 160,000+ miles. While others who made lots less than me still went out to eat, and still had cable.

Mr. Parsons, as I understand it, you are employed as an engineer for the Auto Industry. Am I correct in that? I am just trying to find a time when someone with an engineering degree, who is gainfully employed, would qualify as being in poverty.

I find the proposition, preposterous.

Short term hardship does not equate to poverty. Especially when that short term hardship is brought about by a personal choice.

 

[Xequat]

But what about when the poverty is brought about by a personal choice? Every person who has the capability to get on their feet and walk around harassing people for money also has the ability to walk their lazy butt into McD's and get a job. Obviously, not every poor person is a panhandler, though, so don't get me wrong. The problem is that by continuously taking money out of our checks and giving it to people who made their own poor choices like to have a child out of wedlock, do drugs, etc, you are directly causing them to keep doing it. There's probably a better thread for this, but I haven't posted on it, so I'm not sure.

To your other point, Mike, I am more worried about the IVth Amendment right now with these guys after it came out about the Google thing. I have to go, but I'll find a source later. The gist of it is that the Government wants Google to turn over their searches and results to track pornography. That is so totally unconservative, I think I'm having an identity crisis, that is if conservative means holding to tradition (aka the Constitution,) as they claim. Kid woke up...later.

 

[sgtmac_46]

When I think of the elderly in this country who decide on medicinces versus food, then I think of poverty. I bring this up because the Baby Boomers who have not saved (* not saying all did not save just some *), and have their incomes decreased in retirement will see a decrease in standard of living, and possible evne poverty by theirs or others definition.

Of course, the REAL reason why elderly are 'forced' to decide between medicine versus food, is the fact that the state of Medicine in the US has produced a situation where new drugs are produced all the time that extend life well beyond what was possible just a few years ago. New advances, however, are expensive. A person in 1960 certainly wouldn't have to make the food or medicine choice....They'd just die, and wouldn't have to make any choice.

So, the 'food/medicine' dilemma is not a result of some insidious plot, but rather, the result of some good advances in medicine. The proponents of socialized medicine, however, see things in overly simplistic terms. 'Medicine too expensive, pharmaceutical companies greedy, must make cheaper'. However, that overly simplisitic mantra fails to understand the reality.

The U.S. pharmaceutical industry has achieved worldwide prominence through research and development (R&D) work on new drugs, and spends a relatively high proportion of its funds on R&D compared with other industries. Each year, pharmaceutical industry testing involves tens of thousands of new substances, yet may eventually yield fewer than 100 new prescription medicines.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs009.htm

One recent analysis suggests that when all relevant economic costs are taken into account, including costs from unsuccessful compounds, an average of about $800 million in R&D spending is incurred for each internally produced new compound reaching the market.(4) Most new compounds never make it to market, and research costs from the many failures are financed by sales from the few successes.

If competitors could immediately duplicate a new drug, then undertaking the long and costly development process would be unattractive. To entice drugmakers to undertake R&D, sales of new prescription drugs are protected by patents, which give drugmakers exclusive rights to make and market particular products, frequently for 10 to 14 years following FDA approval.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5406&sequence=0

Meanwhile, while the US produces a highly disproportianate amount of the world's new pharmaceuticals, Canada, often pointed to as a bastion of socialized medicine, produces very little.

Drugs sold in Canada, like cars sold in Canada, are cheaper because Canadians can't afford to pay more for them.
Furthermore, if U.S. lawmakers required drug makers to sell pharmaceutical drugs in America at Canadian or international prices, the likelihood is that prices would rise worldwide toward the U.S. level, since the United States is about half the world market for prescription drugs.

http://www.hooverdigest.org/043/roberts.html

Why is this? Because the US is footing the bill for other nations medical and pharmaceutical cost. The average American is paying for Research and Development costs for pharmaceuticals produced in the US, which are then sold abroad after the fact, mostly to governments who have costs controls....and don't produce new pharmaceuticals anywhere near the rate the US does. If Americans didn't foot the bill, either other nations would have to pay MORE for medicines (and eliminate the benefits of their 'socialized medicine' price fixing) or we'd see far less innovation and production of newer products within the US.

While many see the issue as a victory for the consumer over Big Pharma, legalized drug importation will prove to be bad news for all of us, depriving us of the blockbuster drugs that would otherwise be in our future.

Drugs are cheaper in Canada because international law treats prescription drugs differently from other consumer products. American drug makers are required under a 1994 international treaty to sell their medicines at drastically reduced prices to comply with an importing country's price controls. Any company that fails to do so risks losing its patent protection: its drugs can be stolen or copied. Thus, to comply with this treaty, U.S. companies slash prices for countries with price controls -- including most countries in the developed world. The purchasing countries are supposed to agree not to turn around and resell the drugs back to the U.S. But the pending Senate legislation will make this sell back legal.

http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.1248/healthissue_detail.asp

The answer isn't as simple as "Force those 'greedy' medical companies to sell cheaper". A disproportionate amount of medicine costs in the US goes right back in to Research and Development of new products.

It's part of the high cost of living longer. If we'd just stay at 1960's or 1980's or even 1990's medical technology, it would be much cheaper.

http://www.pacificresearch.org/press/opd/2004/opd_04-01-22sp.html

Those price controls prevent innovative pharmaceutical firms from reaping free-market rewards anywhere but in the United States. That is one reason why the world pharmaceutical industry, which 20 years ago was mostly based in Europe, has largely relocated to the United States. American manufacturers now account for 7 of the top 10 worldwide best-selling medicines, and 15 of the top 20. This reflects a large and growing disparity in research and development expenditures. In 1990, European pharmaceutical firms outspent American firms on R&D by approximately 8billion euros to 5 billion euros ($7 billion to $4.3 billion). In 2000, U.S. firms outspent European firms by 24 billion euros to 17 billion euros ($20.9 billion to $14.8 billion). Even traditional European firms, notably GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis, have moved many of their most essential operations to the United States.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/879jlaia.asp

The REAL problem is, however, we are footing the bill for the rest of the world, as the result of another international treaty, who then in turn accuse US of being 'greedy'.....what else is new?

 

[jdinca]

Mr. Parsons, as I understand it, you are employed as an engineer for the Auto Industry. Am I correct in that? I am just trying to find a time when someone with an engineering degree, who is gainfully employed, would qualify as being in poverty.

I find the proposition, preposterous.

Short term hardship does not equate to poverty. Especially when that short term hardship is brought about by a personal choice.

How do you feel about able bodied people living on welfare instead of getting a job because welfare pays better and has better benefits? How do you feel about women having another child, when they can't provide for the needs of the ones they already have, because it gets them a bigger check?

We have a certain segment of our poor population that are third or fourth generation welfare recipients, not because they can't work or there are no jobs but because welfare is easier and it has become a way of life.

 

[michaeledward]

How do you feel about able bodied people living on welfare instead of getting a job because welfare pays better and has better benefits? How do you feel about women having another child, when they can't provide for the needs of the ones they already have, because it gets them a bigger check?

We have a certain segment of our poor population that are third or fourth generation welfare recipients, not because they can't work or there are no jobs but because welfare is easier and it has become a way of life.

I think you need to define welfare for me. There are too many social programs that you seem to be referencing in these questions. The welfare reform act of 1996 limited total 'welfare' to 5 years for an adult recipient.
I question the propositions you are putting forward. They are nice anectdotes, but I don't believe they are factual.

Kinda like Reagan's Welfare Queen ... .with 10 S.S numbers; it made a great story, but it was never true.

 

[jdinca]

I think you need to define welfare for me. There are too many social programs that you seem to be referencing in these questions. The welfare reform act of 1996 limited total 'welfare' to 5 years for an adult recipient.
I question the propositions you are putting forward. They are nice anectdotes, but I don't believe they are factual.

Kinda like Reagan's Welfare Queen ... .with 10 S.S numbers; it made a great story, but it was never true.

I'm talking about getting a check in the mail and not lifting a finger to do anything to earn it. I'm talking about free health care, paid for by the taxes of those who do work. For those who are truly unable to provide for themselves, I really don't have an issue.

My "anecdotes" are taken from actual people I've come into contact with in my line of work. Reality, not statistics. You have every right not to believe them if you so choose.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I think you need to define welfare for me. There are too many social programs that you seem to be referencing in these questions. The welfare reform act of 1996 limited total 'welfare' to 5 years for an adult recipient.
I question the propositions you are putting forward. They are nice anectdotes, but I don't believe they are factual.

Kinda like Reagan's Welfare Queen ... .with 10 S.S numbers; it made a great story, but it was never true.

Never true? That's funny, I know several of these 'non-existent' people personally. I can provide you with names an address if you want to verify that these ladies actually exist.

Of course, i'm sure you'll just prefer to 'believe' they aren't 'factual'.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I'm talking about getting a check in the mail and not lifting a finger to do anything to earn it. I'm talking about free health care, paid for by the taxes of those who do work. For those who are truly unable to provide for themselves, I really don't have an issue.

My "anecdotes" are taken from actual people I've come into contact with in my line of work. Reality, not statistics. You have every right not to believe them if you so choose.

What you should be talking about is trading the food stamps for money to buy cigarettes and beer (not to mention drugs). But, again, michael won't belive that's 'factual'.....despite the fact that it's a completely common occurance....Though not so much anymore since the EBT cards came out in place of foodstamps, or rather, it's a more complicated process.

 

[michaeledward]

I'm talking about getting a check in the mail and not lifting a finger to do anything to earn it. I'm talking about free health care, paid for by the taxes of those who do work. For those who are truly unable to provide for themselves, I really don't have an issue.

My "anecdotes" are taken from actual people I've come into contact with in my line of work. Reality, not statistics. You have every right not to believe them if you so choose.

Well, go over to those actual people and ask them which federal program is delivering that check to them. Then we can continue the conversation.

And, anyone can walk into an emergency room, anywhere in the country and be treated. Our taxes do not pay for that treatment. What pays for that treatment is our Health Insurance. Health Insurance is not a tax. It is an elective expenditure that is offered by many employers and selected by many employees.

Now, there is a federal program for the poor, Medicaid, which may be what you are referring to when you describe one who is "truly unable to provide for themselves". The Medicaid program is paid for by a broad based payroll tax. Of course, Medicaid is always on the chopping block, so that we may purchase some new, fancy weapon system.

But don't worry, future revenue funding for Medicaid is proposed to be on cigarettes ($0.40 / pack), so you won't have to pay that additional tax ... just stop smoking.

Now, are there too many people on Medicaid ... you bet, currently, about 44 million people rely on Medicaid. That's one of every six Americans. So, let's talk about Universal Healthcare. It's not that hard. All you have to do is realize, it is already taking place (as you posit), and then we can discuss intelligent alternatives.

But, it seems every time the topic comes up, the Medical Industrial Complex rollsout all the reasons why it would be bad for everyone. And, if the writing on the wall indicates that "it" is going to happen, the Medical Industrial Complex spends a couple of hundred million lobbying congress for a Perscription Drug Benefit that won't allow the Federal Government to negotiate prices ....

Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

 

[sgtmac_46]

Well, go over to those actual people and ask them which federal program is delivering that check to them. Then we can continue the conversation.

Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

Obfuscate and spin, obfuscate and spin, obfuscate and spin. Logical fallacy warning. 'If you can't tell me WHICH federal assistance program they are making a living from, then they can't be on federal assistance'.

I love to watch a master at work.

The good news is that welfare isn't like it used to be, thanks to reform. You can't just sit home and collect a check anymore. It's more complicated, but still exists.

Now, are there too many people on Medicaid ... you bet, currently, about 44 million people rely on Medicaid. That's one of every six Americans. So, let's talk about Universal Healthcare. It's not that hard. All you have to do is realize, it is already taking place (as you posit), and then we can discuss intelligent alternatives.

But, it seems every time the topic comes up, the Medical Industrial Complex rollsout all the reasons why it would be bad for everyone. And, if the writing on the wall indicates that "it" is going to happen, the Medical Industrial Complex spends a couple of hundred million lobbying congress for a Perscription Drug Benefit that won't allow the Federal Government to negotiate prices ....

I love your little catch phrases 'Medical Industrial Complex'. You guys can't throw away a cliche can you? I guess it helps to have fantasy bad-guys running around to hate, in order to foment the 'revolution'.

At any rate, i've already illustrated how the US foots the bill for the majority of pharmaceutical research in the world. With price fixing and socialized medicine, we're sure to pretty much slow down or halt the rapid process of research and development for new life saving and sustaining drugs. But who cares, as long as it's cheap, right?

Sorry, if it's a choice between paying the 'Medical Industrial Complex' and continue to receive rapid medical advancements, or sign up to be part of some socialized medical boondoggle, i'll take the complex, please. One is getting results, at a price, the other is just designed to make us feel more 'socialist' and buy votes.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Personally, I'm a registered Libertarian.

I've found that many of the people I know that claim to be Democrats or Republicans don't actually conform to either party's platform. Thier beliefs are more along the lines of the Libertarians.Uh......

If people would check the info, platforms, etc.... many would find they don't agree with the party the continously vote for.

Stop being spoon fed...think for yourself.. and investigate the issues before you vote. Voting is a privilege. In a democratic ( or should I say Capitalistic Republic) you have a responsibility not only to yourself and your family, but to your fellow man to make an educated decision. That means finding out the facts for yourself. Not simply accepting what the status quo tells you.

I'm completely against wealth distribution. Why? I'll put it to you the same way one of my college proffessors put it to me. You studied your butt off, made sacrifices and made an A on your exams. However, your final grade is a C. Why? Because other students, that didn't get an A (they say they didn't have time to study, etc) deserve some of your points. Therefore, your score, along with others that made sacrifices, have to be redistributed to the other students so that everyone passes. How would you feel then? Your A becomes a C because other students didn't have what it took to get an A or simply didn't care enough to try. Now tell me honestly, how do you view socialism?

 

[michaeledward]

Never true? That's funny, I know several of these 'non-existent' people personally. I can provide you with names an address if you want to verify that these ladies actually exist.

Hey ... aren't you a police officer? You have the names and addresses of people who you know to be breaking the law, and you are offering to tell me who they are?

Well ... that's just dumb ... Go and arrest them.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Hey ... aren't you a police officer? You have the names and addresses of people who you know to be breaking the law, and you are offering to tell me who they are?

Well ... that's just dumb ... Go and arrest them.

I must have hit a nerve, he's getting testy.

As far as 'prosecuting anyone' it's a lost cause. The problem is so wide spread, quite frankly, most prosecutor's aren't that interested. Scamming the government is an age old practice. Take disability claims. If I had a dollar for every phony disability claim i've seen, i'd be able to retire. The government bureacracy doesn't care, unless it's so blatant as to be embrassing NOT to do something.

So long as they have the right paper work and the appropriate supporting documentation, they just rubber-stamp it and pay it out. People call federal offices all day long about people scamming disability claims and other claims, but rarely is anything done. Even in the most obvious cases, they usually just cancel their checks.

Sorry, michael, you miss again. What was actually 'dumb' was the belief that being 'against the law' always equates to getting arrested and prosecuted.

 

[michaeledward]

I must have hit a nerve, he's getting testy.

As far as 'prosecuting anyone' it's a lost cause. The problem is so wide spread, quite frankly, most prosecutor's aren't that interested. Scamming the government is an age old practice. Take disability claims. If I had a dollar for every phony disability claim i've seen, i'd be able to retire. The government bureacracy doesn't care, unless it's so blatant as to be embrassing NOT to do something.

So long as they have the right paper work and the appropriate supporting documentation, they just rubber-stamp it and pay it out. People call federal offices all day long about people scamming disability claims and other claims, but rarely is anything done. Even in the most obvious cases, they usually just cancel their checks.

Sorry, michael, you miss again. What was actually 'dumb' was the belief that being 'against the law' always equates to getting arrested and prosecuted.

So, are you telling me that "they" are doing things legally?

Or just that the law enforcement system is so broken, that it can't do its job?

 

[celtic_crippler]

Interesting.

I have police officers and social workers for students. I know for a fact that some people "act out" once every 4 months so they can get disability. They call it thier "crazy check." They know if they act out every 4 months (3 times a year) and get arrested and placed in the psycho ward for a day or two, they will get a disability check every month. The system is drastically abused.

 

[michaeledward]

Interesting.

I have police officers and social workers for students. I know for a fact that some people "act out" once every 4 months so they can get disability. They call it thier "crazy check." They know if they act out every 4 months (3 times a year) and get arrested and placed in the psycho ward for a day or two, they will get a disability check every month. The system is drastically abused.

OK ... we're getting closer.

disability check ... is that coming from the Social Security Administration?

What 'system' is it. Because if it is so easily abused, all good citizens will want it changed. So let's nail down what system is it? What program within the system is it?

 

[sgtmac_46]

So, are you telling me that "they" are doing things legally?

Or just that the law enforcement system is so broken, that it can't do its job?

Actually, it's a whole lot of both. That drunks and junkies can legally claim disability status to collect a check is an indication of legally broke system. That people report fraudulent claims of disability to the federal and state government, and nobody even cares enough to investigate is, again, evidence of a broke system.

That you think it doesn't exist, however, is simply evidence of the fact that you are being purposely obtuse.

By the way, for your information, it is not my job as a police officer to police disability claims. I have neither the jurisdiction or the power to police claims involving whether or not a government claim is, in fact, valid, much of which is a civil violation of law anyway. Unless the violation is aggregious, the penalties are simply having to repay the amount funded out.

 

[sgtmac_46]

OK ... we're getting closer.

disability check ... is that coming from the Social Security Administration?

What 'system' is it. Because if it is so easily abused, all good citizens will want it changed. So let's nail down what system is it? What program within the system is it?

You're not getting closer to anything. It's not a new problem, nor is it likely go away anytime soon.

If you're looking for the program, though, try SSI and SSD. And we wonder why social security is broke.

http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/legis_bulletin_021899.html

 

[celtic_crippler]

There is plenty of proof out there that countries that have tried and still hold on to Social Democricies are failing due to abuse and laziness. It only takes a little effort to discover it. It doesn't work!! You can't expect the people that provide for themselves and thier families to support everyone else. It simply will not work. When a small percentage works and is taxed heavily, and the majority recieve benefits from it...it's bound to fail. It's simple economics.