My question is - how can a great country like ours slide into the
toilet like this?

What's the end-point? We're all going to be collecting social security
disability payments once our unemployment payments run out?

If this keeps up, if we keep becoming disabled, then we'll be easy
pickings for Russia or China if they want to invade and take us over.

Our labor participation rate is at an all-time low (63.5%). What's with
that?

We used to be a great country. This is sickening...

==============================

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/8786...ing-disability

8,786,049: Yet Another Record for Americans Collecting Disability

(CNSNews.com) - The Social Security Administration has released new data
revealing that 8,786,049 American workers are collecting federal
disability insurance payments in September. That sets yet another record
for the number of Americans on disability.

The 8,786,049 workers taking federal disability in September is a net
increase of 18,108 from the 8,767,941 workers who took federal
disability in August.

Over the past 45 years, the number of American workers taking federal
disability payments has increased four-fold relative to the number
actually working.

In August 1967, 74,767,000 Americans were working (according to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics) and 1,152,861 were taking federal disability
insurance (according to the Social Security Administration). That means
that at that time there were about 65 Americans working for each worker
collecting disability.

In August 2012, 142,101,000 Americans were working and 8,767,941 were on
disability--meaning there were only 16.2 people working for each person
collecting disability.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), a record 88,921,000
Americans were “not in the labor force” in August. These were Americans
who were at least 16 years old, who were not in the military or in an
institution such as a prison or a nursing home, and who did not have a
job and had not actively sought one in the last four weeks.

Also in August, according to the BLS, only 63.5 percent of the civilian
population (those over 16, who were not in the military or in an
institution) participated in the labor force. That was the lowest level
of labor force participation in 31 years. To participate in the labor
force a person must either have a job or at least be actively trying to
find one.

We went through this topic already:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.home.repair/disabled$20nation/alt.home.repair/s0rjYV7lHx0/fGXzljDSqPkJ

and this is what I wrote then:


It used to be that when you got a job with a company
(and I don't necessarily mean a unionized company)
it meant that you had a job for the rest of your life
because there was a concept called loyalty,
which meant that you would be loyal to your company
and your company would be loyal to you with job security,
pensions and benefits and in any case
the more you worked in a certain job
the more experience you had
and that experience was appreciated
because it is irreplaceable and valuable
because it meant that having experienced employees dealing
with clients compelled the clients to become loyal
to the company in return.
The owners or CEOs of companies were
more concerned about their legacy
and heritage to their grandchildren
than they were about earning the option of
retiring to Bermuda rather than Florida with a yacht
rather than a boat. Somewhere along the line,
for some reason, the whole process of legacy,
heritage and tradition got replaced with carpe diem.
The employees saw that if their company wasn't going to be concerned
with the future of their employees
than they weren't going to be concerned
with the future of their companies
so the employees took the only option open to them:
Lying like their bosses and taking
federal disability insurance payments.
Now as citizens we are paying
the outsourced and outcast company employees
so that the CEOs can buy their ten room mansion
instead of their five room mansions when they retire.

On 9/18/2012 10:28 AM, wrote:
We went through this topic already:


But was it with schizophrenic new name every hour "home guy"?

On Sep 18, 2:24*pm, Willard Lazybe wrote:
My question is - how can a great country like ours slide into the
toilet like this?

What's the end-point? *We're all going to be collecting social security
disability payments once our unemployment payments run out?

If this keeps up, if we keep becoming disabled, then we'll be easy
pickings for Russia or China if they want to invade and take us over.

Our labor participation rate is at an all-time low (63.5%). *What's with
that?

We used to be a great country. *This is sickening...

==============================

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/8786...ord-americans-...

8,786,049: Yet Another Record for Americans Collecting Disability

(CNSNews.com) - The Social Security Administration has released new data
revealing that 8,786,049 American workers are collecting federal
disability insurance payments in September. That sets yet another record
for the number of Americans on disability.

The 8,786,049 workers taking federal disability in September is a net
increase of 18,108 from the 8,767,941 workers who took federal
disability in August.

Over the past 45 years, the number of American workers taking federal
disability payments has increased four-fold relative to the number
actually working.

In August 1967, 74,767,000 Americans were working (according to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics) and 1,152,861 were taking federal disability
insurance (according to the Social Security Administration). That means
that at that time there were about 65 Americans working for each worker
collecting disability.

In August 2012, 142,101,000 Americans were working and 8,767,941 were on
disability--meaning there were only 16.2 people working for each person
collecting disability.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), a record 88,921,000
Americans were “not in the labor force” in August. These were Americans
who were at least 16 years old, who were not in the military or in an
institution such as a prison or a nursing home, and who did not have a
job and had not actively sought one in the last four weeks.

Also in August, according to the BLS, only 63.5 percent of the civilian
population (those over 16, who were not in the military or in an
institution) participated in the labor force. That was the lowest level
of labor force participation in 31 years. To participate in the labor
force a person must either have a job or at least be actively trying to
find one.

It is to do with your system of government, greed, sense of
entitlement, ineptitude, and lack of education/moral values.

"Willard Lazybe" wrote

My question is - how can a great country like ours slide into the
toilet like this?

What do you mean, "a toilet like this"? The United States enjoys one of the
highest standards of living in the world. True, there are others with
higher standards, such as Germany, Australia, Canada, etc., but they're more
socialist than we are.

I think you way too much attention to radio and TV talkshows and not enough
to your own situation. I'd bet that your own economic and quality of life
situation is probably fine, but you've likely been propagandized into
thinking that it's falling apart.

Am I wrong? If so, why am I wrong?

On 9/18/2012 2:15 PM, David Kaye wrote:
"Willard wrote

My question is - how can a great country like ours slide into the
toilet like this?

What do you mean, "a toilet like this"? The United States enjoys one of the
highest standards of living in the world. True, there are others with
higher standards, such as Germany, Australia, Canada, etc., but they're more
socialist than we are.

I think you way too much attention to radio and TV talkshows and not enough
to your own situation. I'd bet that your own economic and quality of life
situation is probably fine, but you've likely been propagandized into
thinking that it's falling apart.

Am I wrong? If so, why am I wrong?



Romenyites are engaged in building a class warfare and resentment. One
side is Americans the other side are Bankers, and Business Owners that
see themselves as winners and everyone else as Leisurely welfare cheats.
Romney is building a class war of ideas and resentment with his Groups
as the Americans and everyone else as living off them.
We paid into SS and Medicare for our working lives. It is not welfare.
Disabled Veterans paid with chopped up bodies and sacrificed futures for
our Country. They are not welfare.
Romneyites formulated policies and laws shipping American jobs off shore
and butchering the dollar. They eliminated health care, pensions, and
profit sharing for Working Americans and out it in Globalists' Corporate
Raiders pockets.
Romenyites and their ilk rubbed their hands with glee when we gave them
billions in Banking and Corporate welfare. We paid for their islands,
mansions and filled their Cayman Islands sheltered and secret accounts.
How about them paying their share of taxes.
You thin you are one of his Constituents how many million did you give
for his support of your business welfare?

Willard Lazybe wrote:
My question is - how can a great country like ours slide into the
toilet like this?

What's the end-point? We're all going to be collecting social security
disability payments once our unemployment payments run out?

If this keeps up, if we keep becoming disabled, then we'll be easy
pickings for Russia or China if they want to invade and take us over.

Our labor participation rate is at an all-time low (63.5%). What's with
that?

Our opportunities were sold to to a lower bidder? What happened to
minimum wage?


We used to be a great country. This is sickening...

On 9/18/2012 4:15 PM, David Kaye wrote:


Am I wrong? If so, why am I wrong?



You are trying to have a sensible discussion with schizophrenic new name
every hour "home guy"

"George T" wrote in message
...
On 9/18/2012 2:15 PM, David Kaye wrote:
"Willard wrote

My question is - how can a great country like ours slide into the
toilet like this?

What do you mean, "a toilet like this"? The United States enjoys one of
the
highest standards of living in the world. True, there are others with
higher standards, such as Germany, Australia, Canada, etc., but they're
more
socialist than we are.

I think you way too much attention to radio and TV talkshows and not
enough
to your own situation. I'd bet that your own economic and quality of
life
situation is probably fine, but you've likely been propagandized into
thinking that it's falling apart.

Am I wrong? If so, why am I wrong?



Romenyites are engaged in building a class warfare and resentment.

What a TOTAL CROCK

Class warfare is an old, old tactic of the left, NOT the right
It's actually funny to hear a pinky accuse the right of what comes naturally
to the left.



One side is Americans the other side are Bankers, and Business Owners

Yup
Nothing has changed
The above goes back all the way to Marx



Rest of stupid pinky lies ignored

On 09/18/12 04:15 pm, David Kaye wrote:

My question is - how can a great country like ours slide into the
toilet like this?

What do you mean, "a toilet like this"? The United States enjoys one of the
highest standards of living in the world. True, there are others with
higher standards, such as Germany, Australia, Canada, etc., but they're more
socialist than we are.

If it's socialist to make sure that even the lowest-paid worker has
enough to live on and that nobody has to declare bankruptcy because of
outrageous medical bills, then Australia is "socialist" and has been
even when it had its most right-wing governments.

It makes no sense for Americans to brag about how low their taxes are in
comparison to those of many other countries (all the while bitching
about how high their taxes are) when they have to pay out large sums of
their net income to profit-making entities (or to empire-building
"non-profit" entities) for services that are provided at no (or little)
extra cost in those other countries.

Perce

Willard Lazybe wrote:
My question is - how can a great country like ours slide into the
toilet like this?


The last eleven presidents, Truman thru Bush the younger, had a combined
total of 38 months in which unemployment exceeded 8%. The current
administration has had 43. Consecutive.

If people can't get work, they'll do whatever is necessary to put a few
beans on the table.

In article , George T wrote:

Romenyites are engaged in building a class warfare and resentment. One
side is Americans the other side are Bankers, and Business Owners that
see themselves as winners and everyone else as Leisurely welfare cheats.
Romney is building a class war of ideas and resentment with his Groups
as the Americans and everyone else as living off them.
We paid into SS and Medicare for our working lives. It is not welfare.
Disabled Veterans paid with chopped up bodies and sacrificed futures for
our Country. They are not welfare.


Does anyone know if any of the Romney sons have served their country in the
military?



Romneyites formulated policies and laws shipping American jobs off shore
and butchering the dollar. They eliminated health care, pensions, and
profit sharing for Working Americans and out it in Globalists' Corporate
Raiders pockets.
Romenyites and their ilk rubbed their hands with glee when we gave them
billions in Banking and Corporate welfare. We paid for their islands,
mansions and filled their Cayman Islands sheltered and secret accounts.
How about them paying their share of taxes.
You thin you are one of his Constituents how many million did you give
for his support of your business welfare?

"Atila Iskander" wrote in
:


"George T" wrote in message
...
On 9/18/2012 2:15 PM, David Kaye wrote:
"Willard wrote

My question is - how can a great country like ours slide into the
toilet like this?

What do you mean, "a toilet like this"? The United States enjoys one
of the
highest standards of living in the world. True, there are others with
higher standards, such as Germany, Australia, Canada, etc., but
they're more
socialist than we are.

I think you way too much attention to radio and TV talkshows and not
enough
to your own situation. I'd bet that your own economic and quality of
life
situation is probably fine, but you've likely been propagandized into
thinking that it's falling apart.

Am I wrong? If so, why am I wrong?



Romenyites are engaged in building a class warfare and resentment.

What a TOTAL CROCK

Class warfare is an old, old tactic of the left, NOT the right
It's actually funny to hear a pinky accuse the right of what comes
naturally to the left.

+1
Typical tactic of the left to accuse the right of what they are doing
themselves. Not only class warfare, but also race and gender warfare.



One side is Americans the other side are Bankers, and Business Owners

Yup
Nothing has changed
The above goes back all the way to Marx



Rest of stupid pinky lies ignored

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:11:52 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"George T" wrote in message
...
On 9/18/2012 2:15 PM, David Kaye wrote:
"Willard wrote

My question is - how can a great country like ours slide into the
toilet like this?

What do you mean, "a toilet like this"? The United States enjoys one of
the
highest standards of living in the world. True, there are others with
higher standards, such as Germany, Australia, Canada, etc., but they're
more
socialist than we are.

I think you way too much attention to radio and TV talkshows and not
enough
to your own situation. I'd bet that your own economic and quality of
life
situation is probably fine, but you've likely been propagandized into
thinking that it's falling apart.

Am I wrong? If so, why am I wrong?



Romenyites are engaged in building a class warfare and resentment.

What a TOTAL CROCK

Class warfare is an old, old tactic of the left, NOT the right
It's actually funny to hear a pinky accuse the right of what comes naturally
to the left.

That's precisely the left's tactic; accuse your enemy of doing what you're
*actually* doing. Right out of the left's bible (Alinsky's "Rules for
Radicals").

One side is Americans the other side are Bankers, and Business Owners

Yup
Nothing has changed
The above goes back all the way to Marx

....with a touch of Goebbels.

Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 09/18/12 04:15 pm, David Kaye wrote:

My question is - how can a great country like ours slide into the
toilet like this?

What do you mean, "a toilet like this"? The United States enjoys one
of the
highest standards of living in the world. True, there are others with
higher standards, such as Germany, Australia, Canada, etc., but
they're more
socialist than we are.

If it's socialist to make sure that even the lowest-paid worker has
enough to live on and that nobody has to declare bankruptcy because of
outrageous medical bills, then Australia is "socialist" and has been
even when it had its most right-wing governments.

It makes no sense for Americans to brag about how low their taxes are in
comparison to those of many other countries (all the while bitching
about how high their taxes are) when they have to pay out large sums of
their net income to profit-making entities (or to empire-building
"non-profit" entities) for services that are provided at no (or little)
extra cost in those other countries.

We live in the "Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile" mentality.
Little is sacred, especially ethics. We are reaping what we, as a
society, have sowed. Perhaps too many lawyers and MBAs compared to folks
in engineering and the hard sciences starting back in the 80's.
Incentive matter--people chased the buck. Here in the midwest, kids play
football and basketball like it will provide them with a future. I know
of 3 kids in junior high that currently have broken arms from playing
football. The "dream" is still true--work hard (at the right things) and
there will most likely be a decent job ready. Sacrifice is not as
popular as it might be. Of course, employers are not being as
"benevolent" as they might be either--many are taking advantage of the
circumstances. The above is all just my opinion as of this moment. I'm
not looking for an argument! ; )

Bill



Perce

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote

If it's socialist to make sure that even the lowest-paid worker has enough
to live on and that nobody has to declare bankruptcy because of outrageous
medical bills, then Australia is "socialist" and has been even when it had
its most right-wing governments.

Indeed, Australia is socialist. The pure definition of socialism: "From
each according to ability; to each according to need." It is not an
oxymoron to say that a government that wanted to preserve a socialist state
would be conservative. It's conservative because they want to preserve the
status quo, even if that status quo is socialist.

"William Belazy" wrote

What - the fact that a huge portion of your heath-care system (medicare,
medicaid) is public doesn't make you some-what socialist?

I have no problem with socialism since some of the most desirable places to
live are socialist in part. Socialism is the mark of a civilization;
unbridled capitalism is the mark of a lack of civilization.

Socialist structures benefit us all: public streetlights, public streets,
public parks, public schools, public mail service, public water services,
public power, public transit, public interstate freeways. Our world would
be worse off without these expenditures of public money for the common good.

On Sep 18, 9:25*pm, George T wrote:
On 9/18/2012 2:15 PM, David Kaye wrote:



"Willard *wrote

My question is - *how can a great country like ours slide into the
toilet like this?

What do you mean, "a toilet like this"? *The United States enjoys one of the
highest standards of living in the world. *True, there are others with
higher standards, such as Germany, Australia, Canada, etc., but they're more
socialist than we are.

I think you way too much attention to radio and TV talkshows and not enough
to your own situation. *I'd bet that your own economic and quality of life
situation is probably fine, but you've likely been propagandized into
thinking that it's falling apart.

Am I wrong? *If so, why am I wrong?

Romenyites are engaged in building a class warfare and resentment. One
side is Americans the other side are Bankers, and Business Owners that
see themselves as winners and everyone else as Leisurely welfare cheats.
Romney is building a class war of ideas and resentment with his Groups
as the Americans and everyone else as living off them.
We paid into SS and Medicare for our working lives. It is not welfare.
Disabled Veterans paid with chopped up bodies and sacrificed futures for
our Country. They are not welfare.
Romneyites formulated policies and laws shipping American jobs off shore
and butchering the dollar. They eliminated health care, pensions, and
profit sharing for Working Americans and out it in Globalists' Corporate
Raiders *pockets.
Romenyites and their ilk rubbed their hands with glee when we gave them
billions in Banking and Corporate welfare. We paid for their islands,
mansions and filled their Cayman Islands sheltered and secret accounts.
How about them paying their share of taxes.
You thin you are one of his Constituents how many million did you give
for his support of your business welfare?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good post. And Mr Greed himself up for president.
So he can rob Americans even more thoroughly.
Amazing the dopey *******s that will vote for him.

On Sep 18, 11:43*pm, Bill wrote:
Willard Lazybe wrote:
My question is - how can a great country like ours slide into the
toilet like this?

What's the end-point? *We're all going to be collecting social security
disability payments once our unemployment payments run out?

If this keeps up, if we keep becoming disabled, then we'll be easy
pickings for Russia or China if they want to invade and take us over.

Our labor participation rate is at an all-time low (63.5%). *What's with
that?

* * Our opportunities were sold to to a lower bidder? *What happened to
minimum wage?





We used to be a great country. *This is sickening...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

American slaves will work for (next to) nothing.

David Kaye wrote:

If it's socialist to make sure that even the lowest-paid worker
has enough to live on and that nobody has to declare bankruptcy
because of outrageous medical bills, then Australia is "socialist"
and has been even when it had its most right-wing governments.

Indeed, Australia is socialist. The pure definition of socialism:
"From each according to ability; to each according to need."
It is not an oxymoron to say that a government that wanted to
preserve a socialist state would be conservative.

If your tax dollars go to fund the military, the police departments,
fire departments, ambulance and emergency services, grade-school and
high-school teachers - then why can't the services provided by doctors
and hospitals be seen as extensions of those services?

What makes it socialism if you have some level of gov't negotiate the
fee schedules for doctors and pay them for services they provide to the
public just like you do for teachers, police, military, firemen, etc?

On Sep 19, 1:41*am, "David Kaye" wrote:
"William Belazy" wrote

What - the fact that a huge portion of your heath-care system (medicare,
medicaid) is public doesn't make you some-what socialist?

I have no problem with socialism since some of the most desirable places to
live are socialist in part. *Socialism is the mark of a civilization;
unbridled capitalism is the mark of a lack of civilization.

Then why is it that relatively unbridled capitalism, as
compared to those socialist countries, lifted more
people out of poverty, resulted in less unemployment,
and made the USA the most powerful country in the
world?




Socialist structures benefit us all: public streetlights, public streets,
public parks, public schools, public mail service, public water services,
public power, public transit, public interstate freeways. *Our world would
be worse off without these expenditures of public money for the common good.

I have no problem with roads. I do have a problem with
an administration running ads to promote getting more
people to apply for food stamps. See the difference?

On Sep 18, 9:44*pm, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:
On 09/18/12 04:15 pm, David Kaye wrote:

My question is - *how can a great country like ours slide into the
toilet like this?

What do you mean, "a toilet like this"? *The United States enjoys one of the
highest standards of living in the world. *True, there are others with
higher standards, such as Germany, Australia, Canada, etc., but they're more
socialist than we are.

If it's socialist to make sure that even the lowest-paid worker has
enough to live on and that nobody has to declare bankruptcy because of
outrageous medical bills, then Australia is "socialist" and has been
even when it had its most right-wing governments.

It makes no sense for Americans to brag about how low their taxes are in
comparison to those of many other countries (all the while bitching
about how high their taxes are) when they have to pay out large sums of
their net income to profit-making entities (or to empire-building
"non-profit" entities) for services that are provided at no (or little)
extra cost in those other countries.

Perce

Yes it does, because I would much prefer to pay for
those services privately, where I have a choice as to
whether I want them or not and who I choose to provide
them. How about we have govt provide dinner for
you every night and you eat what they give you. Sound
good?

On Sep 19, 1:37*am, "David Kaye" wrote:
"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote

If it's socialist to make sure that even the lowest-paid worker has enough
to live on and that nobody has to declare bankruptcy because of outrageous
medical bills, then Australia is "socialist" and has been even when it had
its most right-wing governments.

Indeed, Australia is socialist. *The pure definition of socialism: "From
each according to ability; to each according to need." *It is not an
oxymoron to say that a government that wanted to preserve a socialist state
would be conservative. *It's conservative because they want to preserve the
status quo, even if that status quo is socialist.

Obviously you have no understanding of what
conservative means today in the USA. Hint: It's not
about preserving the status quo.

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:01:20 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

Good post. And Mr Greed himself up for president.
So he can rob Americans even more thoroughly.
Amazing the dopey *******s that will vote for him.

harry, no one gives a rat's ass what you think about American politics. ...or
anything else, for that matter.

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 08:36:03 -0400, Bob Barker wrote:

David Kaye wrote:

If it's socialist to make sure that even the lowest-paid worker
has enough to live on and that nobody has to declare bankruptcy
because of outrageous medical bills, then Australia is "socialist"
and has been even when it had its most right-wing governments.

Indeed, Australia is socialist. The pure definition of socialism:
"From each according to ability; to each according to need."
It is not an oxymoron to say that a government that wanted to
preserve a socialist state would be conservative.

If your tax dollars go to fund the military, the police departments,
fire departments, ambulance and emergency services, grade-school and
high-school teachers - then why can't the services provided by doctors
and hospitals be seen as extensions of those services?

Federal dollars *SHOULDN'T* go for anything in that list except the military.

What makes it socialism if you have some level of gov't negotiate the
fee schedules for doctors and pay them for services they provide to the
public just like you do for teachers, police, military, firemen, etc?

It's a forced, direct, transfer of money from one citizen to another. It
should come under the fourteenth, if not a dozen other places in the
Constitution.

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 06:04:14 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 19, 1:37*am, "David Kaye" wrote:
"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote

If it's socialist to make sure that even the lowest-paid worker has enough
to live on and that nobody has to declare bankruptcy because of outrageous
medical bills, then Australia is "socialist" and has been even when it had
its most right-wing governments.

Indeed, Australia is socialist. *The pure definition of socialism: "From
each according to ability; to each according to need." *It is not an
oxymoron to say that a government that wanted to preserve a socialist state
would be conservative. *It's conservative because they want to preserve the
status quo, even if that status quo is socialist.

Obviously you have no understanding of what
conservative means today in the USA. Hint: It's not
about preserving the status quo.

Today's conservative is yesterday's (classical) liberal.

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:04:38 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

On Sep 18, 11:43*pm, Bill wrote:
Willard Lazybe wrote:
My question is - how can a great country like ours slide into the
toilet like this?

What's the end-point? *We're all going to be collecting social security
disability payments once our unemployment payments run out?

If this keeps up, if we keep becoming disabled, then we'll be easy
pickings for Russia or China if they want to invade and take us over.

Our labor participation rate is at an all-time low (63.5%). *What's with
that?

* * Our opportunities were sold to to a lower bidder? *What happened to
minimum wage?





We used to be a great country. *This is sickening...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

American slaves will work for (next to) nothing.

You work for the Queen (much less than nothing).

wrote

Obviously you have no understanding of what
conservative means today in the USA. Hint: It's not
about preserving the status quo.

Obviously you have no understanding of how to read because I wasn't talking
about what conservative means in the USA at all. I was talking about how a
socialistic country such as Australia could have a conservatrive government
that is trying to keep the status quo, that is, socialist policies. I
wasn't addressing the USA at all.

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
...
On 09/18/12 04:15 pm, David Kaye wrote:

My question is - how can a great country like ours slide into the
toilet like this?

What do you mean, "a toilet like this"? The United States enjoys one of
the
highest standards of living in the world. True, there are others with
higher standards, such as Germany, Australia, Canada, etc., but they're
more
socialist than we are.

If it's socialist to make sure that even the lowest-paid worker has enough
to live on and that nobody has to declare bankruptcy because of outrageous
medical bills, then Australia is "socialist" and has been even when it had
its most right-wing governments.


1) The basic presumption that government somehow owes people a minimum
wage is nutty
That really is not and should never be the role of a government
2) People have faced "outrageous medical bills before this century"
The notion that I should pay for some stranger's medical care, in
part or in whole, because such as you declare that (magically) they have a
right to any an all medical care that they need no matter the cost is
outrageous.
If you feel some duty in that regard, go for it
But don't force others to live up to it too



It makes no sense for Americans to brag about how low their taxes are in
comparison to those of many other countries (all the while bitching about
how high their taxes are) when they have to pay out large sums of their
net income to profit-making entities (or to empire-building "non-profit"
entities) for services that are provided at no (or little) extra cost in
those other countries.


YAWN
When you're done spewing ignorant propaganda, do come back
You might have something worth reading

wrote

Yes it does, because I would much prefer to pay for
those services privately, where I have a choice as to
whether I want them or not and who I choose to provide
them.

Good luck with that. What happens when the high-wattage streetlamp outside
your home costs about $300 a year to power and maintain? Are you going to
pay for it ALL out of your own pocket, or are you going to join with your
neighborhood in providing streetlamps for the entire neighborhood?

So many rightwingers have no idea how much it costs to provide the services
they take for granted and that there's no way they'd ever pay for them out
of their own pockets.

Oh, it's happened many times where governments have gone broke, such as the
town of Hollister here in California. Sure, people mowed the lawn in front
of the library FOR A WHILE, then got tired of it and stopped. So, for some
time the grass was growing tall and brown, creating a fire hazard. I
believe they finally passed a tax increase to allow the town to provide at
least some fundamental services.

"Bob Barker" wrote in message
...
David Kaye wrote:

If it's socialist to make sure that even the lowest-paid worker
has enough to live on and that nobody has to declare bankruptcy
because of outrageous medical bills, then Australia is "socialist"
and has been even when it had its most right-wing governments.

Indeed, Australia is socialist. The pure definition of socialism:
"From each according to ability; to each according to need."
It is not an oxymoron to say that a government that wanted to
preserve a socialist state would be conservative.

If your tax dollars go to fund the military, the police departments,
fire departments, ambulance and emergency services, grade-school and
high-school teachers - then why can't the services provided by doctors
and hospitals be seen as extensions of those services?


Turn that around
Why should they be ?
And where do you actually stop extending those services ?


What makes it socialism if you have some level of gov't negotiate the
fee schedules for doctors and pay them for services they provide to the
public just like you do for teachers, police, military, firemen, etc?

Nope
What makes it socialist is that the government has defined that EVERYONE has
a right to it, no matter what they cost, and everyone else, at least the
taxpayers MUST pay for it.

Personally, I don't see why I should pay for medical services provided to
anyone else, PARTICULARLY when there is no built-in penalty against those
who choose to live an unhealthy lifestyle
You want to get fat, not exercise, eat junk food, smoke, drink, do drugs,
pump out babies to collect more welfare
YOU pay for the consequences.

wrote

Then why is it that relatively unbridled capitalism, as
compared to those socialist countries, lifted more
people out of poverty, resulted in less unemployment,
and made the USA the most powerful country in the
world?

When you think of socialist countries you think of dictatorships such as the
USSR, China, and Cuba.

When I think of socialist countries I think of democratic socialist
societies such as Italy, France, Germany, the UK, Norway, Finland, Sweden,
and many other countries. So, the argument isn't against socialism, it's
against dictatorships.

I have many friends from other countries. They prefer to live in those
countries and only visit the USA on occasion. My friend, Neil, has
excellent health care in Canada. Werner has no worries in Germany about his
health care, his employment, his home, anything. It goes on like that...

"Bob Barker" wrote

What makes it socialism if you have some level of gov't negotiate the
fee schedules for doctors and pay them for services they provide to the
public just like you do for teachers, police, military, firemen, etc?

Again, "From each according to ability; to each according to need."
Teachers, police, military, and fire fighters are all provided under a
socialist model.

Remember that there are communities where the government does NOT provide
fire righters. Instead people organize volunteer fire departments or pay a
subscription fee to have fire protection for themselves. The volunteer fire
departments have pretty much gone away because people no longer want to
volunteer to help out their community. So, most of these have been taken
over by the counties in which they were located.

And as for private fire protection, we all know how THAT comes out, "The
fire fighters watched the house burn down because the home owner hadn't paid
for service."

"David Kaye" wrote in message
...
"William Belazy" wrote

What - the fact that a huge portion of your heath-care system (medicare,
medicaid) is public doesn't make you some-what socialist?

I have no problem with socialism since some of the most desirable places
to live are socialist in part. Socialism is the mark of a civilization;
unbridled capitalism is the mark of a lack of civilization.


Funny how idiots like to come out with phrases like "unbridled capitalism"
Too bad it's a TOTAL CROCK, and an OUTRIGHT LIE to even try to imply it.



Socialist structures benefit us all: public streetlights, public streets,
public parks, public schools, public mail service, public water services,
public power, public transit, public interstate freeways. Our world would
be worse off without these expenditures of public money for the common
good.


Socialist structures are very different from rampant socialism
It's one of the way that socialists try to camouflage what they are doing
The bottom line is where does one STOP using public money for the ALLEGED
"public good"

And I won't even mention how MANY of the alleged "social structures" are
done much better when they are NOT done with "public money" under DIRECT
government control
Look at USPS vs UPS, Fedex et all
Look at private railroads vs government-run railroads
Look at Government run communications vs privately operated
communications

The government does much better when it limits itself to regulation
environments instead of getting in to run them

I'd word that, "the population".... when government limits itself... "

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Atila Iskander" wrote in message
...

The government does much better when it limits itself to regulation
environments instead of getting in to run them

Socialists blame capitalism when things go wrong, and credit government when
a little this or that goes right. I wonder what's with socialists, who think
government is better than free market?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Atila Iskander" wrote in message
...

"David Kaye" wrote in message
...

I have no problem with socialism since some of the most desirable places
to live are socialist in part. Socialism is the mark of a civilization;
unbridled capitalism is the mark of a lack of civilization.


Funny how idiots like to come out with phrases like "unbridled capitalism"
Too bad it's a TOTAL CROCK, and an OUTRIGHT LIE to even try to imply it.

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:57:42 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
...
On 09/18/12 04:15 pm, David Kaye wrote:

My question is - how can a great country like ours slide into the
toilet like this?

What do you mean, "a toilet like this"? The United States enjoys one of
the
highest standards of living in the world. True, there are others with
higher standards, such as Germany, Australia, Canada, etc., but they're
more
socialist than we are.

If it's socialist to make sure that even the lowest-paid worker has enough
to live on and that nobody has to declare bankruptcy because of outrageous
medical bills, then Australia is "socialist" and has been even when it had
its most right-wing governments.


1) The basic presumption that government somehow owes people a minimum
wage is nutty

Worse - He believes that government demands that *you* owe someone a living
wage.

That really is not and should never be the role of a government

Damned straight.

2) People have faced "outrageous medical bills before this century"
The notion that I should pay for some stranger's medical care, in
part or in whole, because such as you declare that (magically) they have a
right to any an all medical care that they need no matter the cost is
outrageous.
If you feel some duty in that regard, go for it
But don't force others to live up to it too

You'll never see medical care more expensive than when it's free.
Zero price = infinite demand.

It makes no sense for Americans to brag about how low their taxes are in
comparison to those of many other countries (all the while bitching about
how high their taxes are) when they have to pay out large sums of their
net income to profit-making entities (or to empire-building "non-profit"
entities) for services that are provided at no (or little) extra cost in
those other countries.


YAWN
When you're done spewing ignorant propaganda, do come back
You might have something worth reading

Not going to happen.

On Sep 19, 4:02*pm, "David Kaye" wrote:
wrote

Then why is it that relatively unbridled capitalism, as
compared to those socialist countries, lifted more
people out of poverty, resulted in less unemployment,
and made the USA the most powerful country in the
world?

When you think of socialist countries you think of dictatorships such as the
USSR, China, and Cuba.

How would you know what I was thinking? For the record, I
would not limit the list to the above.



When I think of socialist countries I think of democratic socialist
societies such as Italy, France, Germany, the UK, Norway, Finland, Sweden,
and many other countries. *So, the argument isn't against socialism, it's
against dictatorships.

No, the argument is very much against socialism. I don't want the
USA to become like those socialist countries.




I have many friends from other countries. *They prefer to live in those
countries and only visit the USA on occasion. *My friend, Neil, has
excellent health care in Canada. *Werner has no worries in Germany about his
health care, his employment, his home, anything. *It goes on like that....

Good. Let them stay there and we will all be happy.
If all those countries are so smart and successful with their
socialism, why is it that the USA is the only super power and
has to do all the heavy lifting each and every time the world
has a crisis. Those **** ants could not even handle Libya
without the USA.

"David Kaye" wrote in message
...
wrote

Then why is it that relatively unbridled capitalism, as
compared to those socialist countries, lifted more
people out of poverty, resulted in less unemployment,
and made the USA the most powerful country in the
world?

When you think of socialist countries you think of dictatorships such as
the USSR, China, and Cuba.


Considering that socialism is a creeping cancer of increased government
involvement and control of every day life
The natural progression is toward dictatorship


When I think of socialist countries I think of democratic socialist
societies such as Italy, France, Germany, the UK, Norway, Finland, Sweden,
and many other countries. So, the argument isn't against socialism, it's
against dictatorships.


And compared to the US, they are in far WORSE shape thanks to all that
creeping socialism that has left them flat broke and I debt to their necks.
So no it's NOT about dictatorships
It's about socialism driving countries into the ground because less and
less people produce to pay for all those who don't
A very apt saying from Communist Russia was
"They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work"
Think about why that was so true.


I have many friends from other countries. They prefer to live in those
countries and only visit the USA on occasion. My friend, Neil, has
excellent health care in Canada. Werner has no worries in Germany about
his health care, his employment, his home, anything. It goes on like
that...


How nice
And yet the US is still the TOP destination for immigrants (legal or not)
who want to improve their lot
Why do you think those MILLIONS trump your few alleged friends ?

"David Kaye" wrote in message
...
wrote

Yes it does, because I would much prefer to pay for
those services privately, where I have a choice as to
whether I want them or not and who I choose to provide
them.

Good luck with that. What happens when the high-wattage streetlamp
outside your home costs about $300 a year to power and maintain? Are you
going to pay for it ALL out of your own pocket, or are you going to join
with your neighborhood in providing streetlamps for the entire
neighborhood?


YAWN
Another stupid factoid example.
YO ! DUMMY !
What do you think a municipal government is about and for ??
Street lamps in the appropriate places is one of them
This has NOTHING to do with socialism


So many rightwingers have no idea how much it costs to provide the
services they take for granted and that there's no way they'd ever pay for
them out of their own pockets.


So many right-wingers are so much smarter than pompous pinky nincompoops
likes you, who need stupid presumptions to justify your belief that you are
so much smarter than most anyone else.
I'll point out that in the US, it's the so-called conservatives who pay most
of the taxes that pay for a lo of those services you are babbling about.
How do we know that ?
Because a great many voters who vote Democrat/liberal/progressive just
happen to be on the left side of the earnings bell curve.
That's also why the Democrat/liberal/progressive just happen to pander
to them for their votes



Oh, it's happened many times where governments have gone broke, such as
the town of Hollister here in California. Sure, people mowed the lawn in
front of the library FOR A WHILE, then got tired of it and stopped. So,
for some time the grass was growing tall and brown, creating a fire
hazard. I believe they finally passed a tax increase to allow the town to
provide at least some fundamental services.


And do tell us what drove Hollister into bankruptcy ?