Don't other people also deserve health care, an education, housing, and respect?

[Carol]

And in 2009 it went poof again. There's more that the Presidential election. I think WNY was around 30%.

I doubt it was that high here, and my city deliberately holds its major office elections on even years. Unless there is a need for a local ballot initiative, the elections are typically the aldermen and school board members, as it was this year.

As such, I don't see that as a challenge for the nation as a whole. I see that as a challenge for those of us that are city residents to assess what we can do to get more of our citizenry involved in the elections of people that could very well impact our day-to-day lives more than the president does.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I cannot help but note that there is a considerable undercurrent here that is dragging the thread away from it's original intent.

As I often say in such matters, the points under discussion are of interest in and of themselves (event tho' you are so wrong it's not true, Cap'n ) but it would better serve all topics touched upon if they were discussed in their own threads.

This one is about theoretical better benefits and treatment for those who have served in a military capacity.

Suk, I'd love to, but so far Arni has been content to regularly insult me and slink away from actually you know, debunking or countering my actual arguments in the proper places. Of course, considering that this area's pretty random, it's hard to say anything is truly off topic, just outside the scope of good debate.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

It's clearly OK, because we do have social programs. If a successful case could be mounted against these it surely would have happened by now. Democracy doesn't mean that you personally get the government you (claim to) want.

So you're saying if a lot of people think it's ok, it is. Guess that makes looting ok, gang rape acceptable, etc.

BTW, you don't live in a Democracy. Might want to look into that misconception of yours.

Eh...they're British. People in the U.K. pay taxes; people in some parts pay less than people in others. As to the B.V.I., they're not paying for their own defense and foreign relations, for example. Also, according to that link, "photocopies of all of the tax laws of the British Virgin Islands would together amount to about 200 pages of paper". That doesn't sound tax-free. There's a payroll tax that replaced a previous income tax; there are real estate taxes. There's an EU tax.

Did you even read the linked article?

Incidentally, the recent financial news has been covering the pressure being placed on the British Caribbean territories to raise taxes:
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091029-715209.html
http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/bu...an-territories-under-pressure-to-raise-taxes/

I did. You asked a question. I gave an answer. I'm sorry Professor, what was the correct answer that you would have given me a passing grade for here? Fine, look at the UAE. Or does that one not count because they sit on oil reserves?

 

[Sukerkin]

Ah.

As the 'Random Acts' threads are your idea and they do indeed seem to land in a diverse variety of fields, then I suppose that thread drift is part of their intent?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Ah.

As the 'Random Acts' threads are your idea and they do indeed seem to land in a diverse variety of fields, then I suppose that thread drift is part of their intent?

Not really. It's more a place for me to drop random things as they come to me as topic foder. Some might fit other areas, some might not. I'd prefer the more serious ones to remain focused, but sometimes they will wander to interesting places.

 

[Gordon Nore]

Should I also have to hand out free asprins too to any lazy bum on the street? I think not.

Bob,

I'm referencing this quote -- not to pick on you -- but to pick on how we conventionally argue against social programming. When it comes to matters like education, it's likely a little late for the "lazy bum on the street." Health? The LBOMTS on the street may be a long-term street alcoholic, by this time having graduated from bottles with labels. There's a reason why he's forty and looks sixty. Housing? He isn't looking for housing -- he's looking for a flop for the night.

If we don't want to talk about social programming -- and if we are absolutely determined to derail that talk -- then bring up the LBOMTS. When you look at this guy, it's hard to imagine success social programming.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Bob,

I'm referencing this quote -- not to pick on you -- but to pick on how we conventionally argue against social programming. When it comes to matters like education, it's likely a little late for the "lazy bum on the street." Health? The LBOMTS on the street may be a long-term street alcoholic, by this time having graduated from bottles with labels. There's a reason why he's forty and looks sixty. Housing? He isn't looking for housing -- he's looking for a flop for the night.

If we don't want to talk about social programming -- and if we are absolutely determined to derail that talk -- then bring up the LBOMTS. When you look at this guy, it's hard to imagine success social programming.

We used to have a member here, Phil Elmore, who wrote some interesting articles on street defense, with some dealing specifically with handling hostile homeless. He had some ideas which some saw as well, crazy talk and paranoia and others as sensible and sane. I'm not going down that road.

I'm also not seeking to paint all homeless as any particular stereotype. I personally find the idea of living on the streets a scary one, and would hope that if it were to happen to me, that someone would open a door for me out of kindness or that someplace safe would be available to goto. I'm fully aware there are a good many good people, forced into such an existence by bad luck, and other unfortunate circumstance. These are not who I am referring to when I refer to "lazy bums".

It should be clear from my long term writing that I do not support welfare, free handouts, or other actions that support and encourage a "do nothing and slack off" lifestyle.

I do not view the mother of 3 collecting food stamps to subsidize her poor paying job while she seeks better a leech.
I don't view the guy just laid off his job needing a little buffer to get by until things pick up but who is actively looking a leech.
I don't view the systems which help our poor and elderly heat their houses in the winter as supporting mooches.

I do however view the previously mentioned Caddi owner, the 3rd generation welfare family, the people who could get jobs but instead sit at home and collect free money as leaches.

I fully support any and all actions that might require them to be tested for drugs, smoking cessation therapy, maintain a clean living area, comply with sobriety standards, as well as actually show up at job clinics, career counciling and civil service jobs (like trash collection, grass cutting, street sweeping, etc)

My arguments against social services is at the Federal Level.
States, Counties, Cities etc can provide whatever services to their citizens as their people will support.

If a person isn't willing to improve themselves though, I am hard pressed to support a free handout.

You can get 12 years of free education in most of the US. If Timmy won't read, won't show up, can't count to 21 without dropping his pants, why should we offer him another 4 years free? Better to open that slot to someone with ambition and a desire to learn that force someone there who will simply drag the others to their level of mediocrity.

Jeff argues repeatedly that we should take care of the less fortunate. To an extent I agree with him. We differ in the how and who. He is in favor of forcing me to give up a % of my labor so that his causes can be supported. My position is, let me choose who and what I support. His view is that the Federal Gov. should tax me in NY so that he can enjoy a lower medical bill half way across the country. I say the Federal needs to stay out of my business and stick to what it was intended to do which is clearly laid out in a simple 19 page document. If NYS wishes to continue to provide some of the highest social services in the country that is they business. With such however comes the highest tax burden in the nation, with businesses leaving left and right.

My argument against health care has been on 2 fronts.
1- It's not the job of the Federal. It's not.
2- It's wrong to require me to pay for part of an over priced candy bar (health care) else risk fine and arrest.

I agree with him, and others who say people need a low cost health plan. My point has been that while that is a noble goal, the method chosen to make it affordable is wrong, morally, ethically and legally.

You cannot win a war by fighting 1 front and ignoring the other.
Share the burden sure, but at the state not federal level.
Force prices down not by subsidizing them with over burdened tax payers wallets, but by driving the costs down to sane levels, fighting the incredible amount of waste, graft, inefficiency and favoritism in the current system.


My argument regarding the homeless is, unless you make being homeless illegal, you will always have those who choose to be so, in addition to those forced to it, and those who take to it by insanity.

 

[arnisador]

Would the "Dr." in the title of this thread be a swipe at me?

So you're saying if a lot of people think it's ok, it is.

I'm saying if the courts say it's OK then we abide by that. It's the rule of law.

Guess that makes looting ok, gang rape acceptable, etc.

Bob, the Argument Sketch was a parody, not an instructional manual.

You're unable to disagree with accusing other people of forcing you to do things at gunpoint or encouraging sexual assault or whatever extremist thought pops into your mind at the time.

We're done here. You've got rape on the mind and bring it up in every context, and frankly you're creeping me out.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Actually it's a Harry Potter rip, but hey take offense if you feel like it. I've refrained from taking any actual shots at you.

Of course, if you were paying attention, knew any real Civil War history you'd be familiar with Sherman's March, the Burning of Atlanta, the Rape of New Orleans, but they don't really spend much time on that in school, focusing on how great ol 'Honest Abe' is, how he freed all those slaves, and how nasty the South was being the only place in the US that had slaves.

Again, it all applies, but keep the head in the sand. Safer that way, lest you have to face unfortunate truths you just can't handle. (note, that's a shot, abet a minor one)

Tell me, do you also deny the Nazi atrocity, or are those ok to recognize since "Nazis are Bad." Or will you just make the usual "Godwin" comment? (note, that's a shot, abet a minor one)

My Civil War facts come from several sources, all quite respectable. Most of those I cite hold Phds. and are seen as experts in the field. I cite from public records, include quotations that can be fact checked.

My views on the role of government comes from the writings of the nations founders, as well as recognized Constitutional scholars today, and experts in fields such as law, history and economics..Many Phd's in there.

But please, keep making the deeper shots, and slinging the insults.
After all, it's better to attack the person than the argument right?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

In 1965, Congress added Medicare to the Social Security system, insuring medical
care for everyone over sixty-five years of age. Simultaneously, Medicaid, a cooperatively
administered and financed (state and federal) program, assured medical care for welfare
recipients and the medically indigent. These programs were not exactly what they were
represented to be. "Most of the government's medical payments on behalf of the poor compensated doctors and hospitals for services once rendered free of charge or at reduced
prices," historian Allen Matusow has observed. "Medicare-Medicaid, then, primarily
transferred income from middle-class taxpayers to middle-class health-care professions"

Source:
The Unraveling of America: A History of Liberalism in the 1960s
By Allen J. Matusow

He makes some interesting points in the book. I'm sure he made it all up though. Medicaid & Medicare work just fine, we just need more taxes to overcome the 60% overhead, corruption and fraud in the system.

 

[arnisador]

Tell me, do you also deny the Nazi atrocity

You're ****ing nuts.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Again, you attack me, rather than the argument.

Fine.

It's your usual tactic Jeff. Such a pity.

 

[MJS]

Admin Note

Thread moved to The Study, where it is better suited for this sort of topic. Also, lets keep the thread somewhat civil, as this is one of those 'hot topics' that can get out of hand quick.

MJS
MT Asst. Admin

 

[Makalakumu]

Bob. I mean this as a serious question. Have you spent any meaningful amount of time around people who are really, truly homeless? I mean, the guys who are actually living on the streets, taking refuge when they can in shelters and eating in souplines? Because I have and my experience and impression of people who are homeless is very, very different from yours.

Most of the homeless are mentally ill. When the states shut down their mental hospital system, these people end up on the streets. Just go down to your local bridge sit around a few fires. See for yourself.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Note: Topic changed to reflect the OP and not the random wandering it originally had.

 

[JDenver]

No one ever needs to speak of such matters as if they were virtual or hypothetical. They exist in the real world, here and now.

Countries for which healthcare and education are truly a priority include such awful places as Sweden and Denmark. In those countries they suffer with some of the highest literacy rates, standards of living and life expectancies while also enduring the lowest rates of crime and homelessness.

Case closed?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Cuba out ranks the US in literacy. It doesn't mean their system is superior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate

The US currently spends the most per person on health care.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-person

The problem is, you can't just continue to throw money at the problem without dealing with the causes of the problem.

On education, the US currently offer the most free education, 12 years.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_ave_yea_of_sch_of_adu-education-average-years-schooling-adults

While the US mandates 12 years, some nations such as Germany mandate 13.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_dur_of_com_edu-education-duration-of-compulsory

Some interesting rankings here http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Education-education

What I'm seeing is the US spends a ton of money on education, yet we end up rather mediocre on the charts. Can it be that just spending doesn't fix the problem?
You need students willing to learn and excited about learning, something I rarely saw in my classmates when I was in school, and something I rarely saw in the kids I dealt with over the years.


The US spends a huge amount on health care, but only a small portion actually goes towards patient care. The majority is absorbed by a bloated system, corruption, inflated prices and other non-patient-friendly things. Only by reigning in the costs and cutting back the corruption can you fix the system. It doesn't need more money, it needs less BS in the system.

 

[Steve]

My arguments against social services is at the Federal Level.
States, Counties, Cities etc can provide whatever services to their citizens as their people will support.

Back in the 60's, this was pretty much how things were. Each State was left to its own devices where welfare programs were concerned. The result was that some states were more generous than others. The generous states became destinations for people in need, then the burden for supporting these more generous programs became onorous for the folks in that state, causing these programs to often face cuts in benefits or the possibility of raising taxes to continue to fund the increasing number of people. It was seen in the early 70's as a national responsibility to attempt to provide a modest but consistent level of assistance to people who are blind, disabled or aged who are also in financial need. Supplemental Security Income was signed into law. States could then and can now opt to provide additional funds to SSI recipients as a supplement to the federal SSI payments. I see the federalization of SSI as necessary then and now.

Beyond SSI, I can't think of too many other social support programs that are Federal. Medicaid is funded by the Federal government, and there are guidelines so that the programs are largely consistent, but each State has latitude to run the program as it is seen fit. Food stamps, general assistance, TANF... all State programs.

Education is a big topic. I'll agree with you that spending isn't always the answer, but that's because better educating our kids is a very complex puzzle to solve. It's intellectually dishonest to suggest that one side is oversimplifying the issue only to do the same in another direction.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Don't other people also deserve health care, an education, housing, and to be treated with respect?

Each of these probably deserve their own thread and discussion, but the short answers IMO are....

Health care is not a right, though ethically I feel if one is able to be and is a productive & contributing member of society then they should be afforded care. I don't think that families that are struggling and "following the rules" should have to worry about how to pay for their kids doctor visit.

Education is a necessity to any nation based on freedom. Without it, no free nation can survive. Thomas Jefferson stressed the importance of this quite often. As such, I personally feel that both Technical and Classical 2 year degrees should be offered to citizens without much cost if any granted certain provisions are met.

Housing? Shouldn't be a problem if you've complied with the "Education" portion... and are a contributing & productive member of society (not including those that simply can't).

I'm a firm believer that a little respect goes a long way, but you have to respect yourself first.

Housing and food are available in most communities to the needy, but as already stated many do not take advantage of those and other services designed to help the less fortunate get back on their feet.

Goodwill Industries is huge where I live. They offer job training as well as other services... but some people won't go.

Did it occur to you that some people chose to be bums? It's about choice in the end and you can't force someone to come in off the street and make something of themselves.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Funny that with all the trillions in dollars collected in taxes and distributed to the poor in the form of free housing, food, and health care, not to mention job training, that since the inception that the poor class has been growing at an insane rate. 2/3's of people accepted into the Job Corps didn't even bother to finish a free job training program. Less than 44% of the 1/3 who did complete the program found a job, and only 12% found one in their field. Most were in the minimum wage range.

Not bad for a program that cost the US taxpayer $21,333 per body.

The year prior to the introduction of Medicaid poor families had a higher admittance rate at hospitals. Since it's inception, it's reduced or eliminated countless pro-bono programs, and encouraged the current out of control climate of health costs.

In 1971, NYC alone had 1.1 MILLION people on welfare, more people than the total populations of 15 states. I shudder to think what that number is today, where my state tax dollars are being funneled.