I didn't cherry-pick. If you had actually read the statement you were responding to, I had already parsed the difference. You then took one side of my parcing and applied it to the whole, I was attempting to correct your misreading.


News flash for ya...people aren't taking care of themselves NOW. You really think if care were free (or at least purchased in bulk) we'd just become more self-destructive out of rote? Come on.

A majority of americans would BE the taxpayers footing the bill. You really think that the only thing that keeps people working at all is our current healthcare system? You're probably also one of these people who believes having covered bus shelters encourages homelessness.

"Oh, I can quite my job and live out in the cold, but I get to sleep on a bench and be covered? Well sign me the fuck up!"

It's beginning to sound to me like you have no problem with the system at all... you have a problem with the people IN the system. If that's true, then why does it matter what we do? We're all apparently doomed by virtue of our nationality anyway.

You see? Now you're basically saying socialized medicine works, but that Americans are too lazy or dumb to take advantage of it.

I'm gonna put a stop to this lazy thing right now... Americans may have many problems, but laziness is not one of them. We have the longest work-week, the shortest vacation times, and the least amount of slack of any industrialized nation on earth. Our productivity as a people is the highest. The protestant work ethic which allows us to overfocus on production and not enough on basic needs like healthcare is the very thing which works in our favor when we actually roll up our sleeves and go to work on something new.

Okay, fair enough, I just meant that it was an insufficient explenation without adding that part of it.

So let me get this striaght, LESS government support in the form of healthcare is a way the government is pressing down on them MORE?

I'm not gonna fight the greedy thing, hell, I even agree on some level, but if we're greedy we should want cheaper medicine, instead we fight to defend the more expensive, clunky system we have now.

Silly. The thing that people forget is that when government IS doing its job, its often invisible. You only hear about the bad stuff and the waste. And even if that weren't true, its foolish to think that government is some immutable evil. Obviously our government and other governments have changed through out all of history. The only system that manking has tried and universally abbandoned is a system with no government at all.

Supply and demand isn't that huge or that complicated. If people want X then the value of X goes up. If the value of X is in a great enough supply however, then the value of X goes down preportionately. People's needs for goods and services are linked to the availability of those needs or services.

Yes, it can work on a huge scale of intricate links (i.e. the price of corn going up twice as much as the price of lettuce because it is both affected by both the price of the gas to transport it, and the increased demand for it due to its use in ethanol)


but it also works on a smaller more easilly percieved scale too (McDonalds hamburers are plentiful and in low demand, therefore their price remains low)

When I say that the laws of supply and demand don't apply to health care, I'm not saying they care isn't weighted by the same concerns as everything else, I'm just saying that those rules do NOT result in the best care for the largest number of people.

Then I've won this argument. If you agree that the system does not result in the best care, then how can you defend that system?

Because it results in better care than the system you advocate would. No hate but I think your being naive here. The system you advocate would be plagued with twice the amount of problems we have now and you would get shitter care for your frustrations.

__________________
You can never dent spiderwebs

One half of the division between two things that have been parced (i.e. divided) In effect I was making an argument that included the statement that corporate competition for the post office really is very different then corporate competition in medicine, the two are distinct. That's also what you said, so we're essentially in agreement here.

That's half-true. A socialized system would provide care for people that had not taken good care of themselves, but one way you and I are different is that I don't mind footing the bill for people who have behaved self destructively in the name of also footing the bill for people who have not behaved as such yet are still sick.

A system where we punch everyone in the face because some people shoplift is essentially what we have now. I want us to have the reverse, a system in which we treat everyone's injuries despite the fact that some people shoplift.

First of all, it sounds like you think the problem is Crack. Secondly, under a good socialized system where we treated drug use as a medical issue and NOT as a criminal issue, we might have a hope of keeping those Crackheads from existing to begin with.

Really? Because you said this:

You see that line about how the Americans would "lay around and have the tax payer foot the bill" that implies you think that more people would become unemployed as a result of socialized care.

If that is not what you are implying, then it means you think the 5-10% of the population now that is unemployed would be there either way, which is not much of an arugment against socialized care. You're basically saying it doesn't actually matter.

I have not stooped to name-calling once in this whole debate. You just did.

Obviously not, nor do I think everyone homeless is neccessarily the unforgivable human refuse that conservatives seem to think they are. The idea that there are incenstives or dis-incentives to be homeless is a tired idea, and the same goes for its application to socialized care.

However I will agree that my example was based on a local grudge I have with conservatives in my city, and should not have been thrown into this discussion.

Consider it cheerfully withdrawn.

Okay, I can agree to that. I will support whatever you suggest to fix the individuals who you think make this impossible.

Here I disagree. Lack of healthcare IS a crack in the foundation. If we fix that, we'll end up addressing many side problems. I will list them if you request it, but you seem perfectly intelligent, and I think you can figure 'em out for yourself.

Can you not see how hopelessly circular that is? Healthcare for everyone isn't part of our culture because we don't have it, and we don't have it because healthcare for everyone isn't part of our culture.

They aren't. Americans pay virtually the lowest taxes in the world of any industrialized nation.

Affirmative action isn't even a reality anymore, we've done away with it. And after much debate with myself, I've decided I'm glad for that... it was well intended, but it had the unfortunate effect of making it so that no minority could ever get a job without their qualifications being questioned by everyone around them, even if they were perfectly qualified. But this is a vastly different issue then what we're discussing here, since it has literally no weight upon taxes or healthcare.

As for welfare, our meager doll makes up a scant 1% of our federal budget and 2% or less in most states. It's laughable to lay societal ills at the feet of numbers like that.

While I hate to hand-feed you arguments that will be useful for your side in other discussions, we have some of the lowest unemployment here of any country. One of the trade-offs Americans have gotten for having such corporate favoratism is high availability of jobs, even if many of those jobs are total shit. If we're so lazy, why do so many of us work for so little?

This I find hilarious. So what you're saying, is that the reason we should not switch to a system in which some people don't pay into it because they're lazy, is because we need to defend our existing system in which some people work too hard because others are too lazy? Once again, it sounds like you're arguing that the only difference between a sozialized system and this system is that everyone would get access to healthcare. There'd be the same number of lazy fucks either way.

No, but the protestant work ethic did shape the system in which all of us work. "American" values tend to line up pretty neatly with the protestants that originally formed our laws.

Of course I do. You seemed to be suggesting American laziness was a key sticking point for the debate. I feel that if I can dispell from you the arbitrary idea that we're lazy, I can move the healthcare discussion forward.

Okay, what ways? We're less taxed and less regulated then most countries, and we even have a good number of freedoms that many others do not. How is our government pressing down on us in the big picture?

The first part of this is a very good point, and the best I can say to defend myself against it is that I seek the best medium possible. I do not want to live in any system that blindly rewards everyone at every crossroad, nor do I want to live in a system in which the unlucky are penalized. A good system has to be a marriage of the two, thus I say, set the minimum bar at health and well-being, then let the smart and lucky and hard-working get rich as they do now.

Your second part again relies on the idea that people in need deserve to be where they are, that I categorically reject. Some of us make worse choices than others, but that is not the only reason for the downfall of individuals, and conservative policies make it so much harder to pull one-self back into grace.

Immutable means unchangeable.

I agree with you here, but I think that has far more to do with two things:

1. We can't agree what we want government to do. The reason I come to boards like this or talk to people about these issues is that I'm trying to create greater consensus for the idea that government can and should do more for us. Not everything, not communism, just more than it's doing now.

2. Government programs that are designed to help people are starved for cash. An old republican tactic has been to cut somethings budget, decry that it no longer does what it used to do well as a result of those budget cuts, and then cut that budget even farther ad infinitum.

So many times over the years I've read about how we must cut all these "socialized" programs that are designed to benefit our citizens...school lunch programs...health care programs...etc and so on...I've seen where we might cut twenty or thirty or more programs over a number of years and then when we do the math, the savings is less than what we spend on Iraq in a week or two...where's the logic in that argument?

This was just a rhetorical side note...carry on.

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."

Pat Paulsen for President

*laughs* I agree with your rhetoric, I'm not arguing in favor of cutting social programs.

[
Will you mind when the taxes 70 percent of your income?
A system where we punch everyone in the face because some people shoplift is essentially what we have now. Not really, what we have now is every man for himself
t us to have the reverse, a system in which we treat everyone's injuries despite the fact that some people shoplift. Just say what you mean buddy, when you start equating shoplifting and healthcare I lose you



First of all, it sounds like you think the problem is Crack. Secondly, under a good socialized system where we treated drug use as a medical issue and NOT as a criminal issue, I agree, of course you would have to tackle that problem before your type of healthcare was even a feasible option. Thats exactly what I'm saying, not that your plan outright sucks but that it would be a mistake to try to do that in today's atmosphere. First fix the things that need to be fixed to have the plan run smoothly. Then institute the plan. Just don't pretend fixing things are easy because your talking decades of work from millons of people.
might have a hope of keeping those Crackheads from existing to begin with. I doubt that but you had the right idea.


Really? Because you said this:



You see that line about how the Americans would "lay around and have the tax payer foot the bill" that implies you think that more people would become unemployed as a result of socialized care. Ok well perhaps would should stop with the implications. The reason I wrote the prick comment was because I thought you implied I was dumb. But nevertheless I was not trying to imply that more people would become unemployed, I was talking about the people that are already unemployed or underemployed.
If that is not what you are implying, then it means you think the 5-10% of the population now that is unemployed would be there either way, which is not much of an arugment against socialized care. You're basically saying it doesn't actually matter. Yeah they will be around either way but I'm far from saying it doesn't matter. Right now they at least don't have the right to complain about the care they are receiving, under a plan that guaranteed them health care you would have to establish 50 call centers just to handle the incessant whining.

I have not stooped to name-calling once in this whole debate. You just did.
I already answered this. No harm meant either way so no foul.


Obviously not, nor do I think everyone homeless is neccessarily the unforgivable human refuse that conservatives seem to think they are. The idea that there are incenstives or dis-incentives to be homeless is a tired idea, and the same goes for its application to socialized care. This are to seperate issues, I'm not talking about homeless people, I agree thats a crock of shit, but being homeless is a little different than being without health care.

However I will agree that my example was based on a local grudge I have with conservatives in my city, and should not have been thrown into this discussion.

Consider it cheerfully withdrawn.



Okay, I can agree to that. I will support whatever you suggest to fix the individuals who you think make this impossible. I put most of the blame on politicians but alas, I have no suggestions on how to make morally bankrupt politicians moral.


Here I disagree. Lack of healthcare IS a crack in the foundation. If we fix that, we'll end up addressing many side problems. I will list them if you request it, but you seem perfectly intelligent, and I think you can figure 'em out for yourself. Case in point? The drug laws we were discussing above. That won't be fixed by instituting a new health care system. I can name a bunch of other problems that also fall into this category and that would damn such a system if they were not addressed first.


Can you not see how hopelessly circular that is? Healthcare for everyone isn't part of our culture because we don't have it, and we don't have it because healthcare for everyone isn't part of our culture. I disagree, other cultures find laziness and greed to be despisable traits while American culture doesn't seem to have a problem with them if not outright supporting them. This is why this type of system could not work in America as it is today.


They aren't. Americans pay virtually the lowest taxes in the world of any industrialized nation. Not if a plan like that is instituted in the wrong way. That stat will be long gone.


Affirmative action isn't even a reality anymore, we've done away with it. And after much debate with myself, I've decided I'm glad for that... it was well intended, but it had the unfortunate effect of making it so that no minority could ever get a job without their qualifications being questioned by everyone around them, even if they were perfectly qualified. I don't know where you got that idea because AA is alive and well in NC where I'm from.
t this is a vastly different issue then what we're discussing here, since it has literally no weight upon taxes or healthcare. It does serve a purpose, it shows that Americans are no longer self-sufficient and looking for a handout from the taxpayer to take care of their problems. And thats exactly the attitude that they would carry over to government health care.
As for welfare, our meager doll makes up a scant 1% of our federal budget and 2% or less in most states. It's laughable to lay societal ills at the feet of numbers like that. I bet that number accounts for a few trillon dollars, more than we will both make in this lifetime. A huge amount of money. If it could be cut out you would be saving trillons every year. TRILLONS.



While I hate to hand-feed you arguments that will be useful for your side in other discussions, we have some of the lowest unemployment here of any country. One of the trade-offs Americans have gotten for having such corporate favoratism is high availability of jobs, even if many of those jobs are total shit. If we're so lazy, why do so many of us work for so little? Because we don't have a choice, its that or a life of crime and punishment.



This I find hilarious. So what you're saying, is that the reason we should not switch to a system in which some people don't pay into it because they're lazy, is because we need to defend our existing system in which some people work too hard because others are too lazy? Once again, it sounds like you're arguing that the only difference between a sozialized system and this system is that everyone would get access to healthcare. There'd be the same number of lazy fucks either way. Exactly, you seem to the # of lazy fucks matter? The difference is whose paying for them. Right now it's on their own credit. In your system you put it on the backs of taxpayers. You act like thats nothing but thats once again trillons of extra dollars to saddle the taxpayer with.


No, but the protestant work ethic did shape the system in which all of us work. "American" values tend to line up pretty neatly with the protestants that originally formed our laws. Simply false, you mean white American values, many other minoritie's values are about as far as you can get from Protestant values.


Of course I do. You seemed to be suggesting American laziness was a key sticking point for the debate. I feel that if I can dispell from you the arbitrary idea that we're lazy, I can move the healthcare discussion forward.

I doubt you can do that, I see the laziness everyday.
Okay, what ways? We're less taxed and less regulated then most countries, and we even have a good number of freedoms that many others do not. How is our government pressing down on us in the big picture? Perhaps pressing down is the wrong phrase, would you understand manipulating better?


The first part of this is a very good point, and the best I can say to defend myself against it is that I seek the best medium possible. I do not want to live in any system that blindly rewards everyone at every crossroad, nor do I want to live in a system in which the unlucky are penalized. A good system has to be a marriage of the two, thus I say, set the minimum bar at health and well-being, then let the smart and lucky and hard-working get rich as they do now.

Your second part again relies on the idea that people in need deserve to be where they are, that I categorically reject. Some of us make worse choices than others, but that is not the only reason for the downfall of individuals, and conservative policies make it so much harder to pull one-self back into grace. Your right here but I think most people in need are in need because of their own poor choices.



Immutable means unchangeable.



I agree with you here, but I think that has far more to do with two things:

1. We can't agree what we want government to do. The reason I come to boards like this or talk to people about these issues is that I'm trying to create greater consensus for the idea that government can and should do more for us. Not everything, not communism, just more than it's doing now.

2. Government programs that are designed to help people are starved for cash. An old republican tactic has been to cut somethings budget, decry what it low longer does what it used to do well as a result of those budget cuts, and then cut that budget even farther ad infinitum.[/quote] I gotta go but I'm gonna post on this again.

__________________
You can never dent spiderwebs

I think a hard cap at about 50% for the absolute top earners in the country should be the hardest left I'm ever willing to go, but I also believe in a non-regressive tax structure.

But a socialized health-care system wouldn't put us at 70% anyway, the highest in the world isn't that much.

Fair enough. The problem with that arrangement is that it leads to a situation in which once someone has the upper hand, they can keep it, no matter how deplorable their behavior or choices, and crush reasonable people who are on the bottom accordingly.

Okay: I'm saying I want a system that errs on the side of treating the undeserving rather than the side of mistreating those who do deserve better.




I do not concur. Tackling healthcare is the only feasible option for addressing that problem.

Quote:

Thats exactly what I'm saying, not that your plan outright sucks but that it would be a mistake to try to do that in today's atmosphere. First fix the things that need to be fixed to have the plan run smoothly. Then institute the plan. Just don't pretend fixing things are easy because your talking decades of work from millons of people.

We may simply have to agree to disagree here. I believe many of the problems you state as being underlying, are actually either symptoms of the underlying problem of shitty health care, or at best, part of a cycle which can best be addressed by getting to the care first.

Agreed, if I have to read any conjugation of the word "imply" again, my eyes will bleed, and there will be no competant healthcare to help me.

But my point is this:

Not THAT many people are unemployed here. If you think a major difference between working socialized systems in other countries and here is unemployment, then you ignore the facts.

*laughs* You do paint a picture. But do you really think people will whine more about care they recieve then the fact that they cannot get care at all?

Okay, I suppose I should say "Poor" rather than homeless.


Well if you have no solutions, help me by elaborating on what you think the problem is: How do you think politicians created the people you feel make socialized care a poor choice for this country?

Well, I would be glad to discuss your list of problems that fall into that category.

As for the example we have on the table, drug laws, I think that if socialized care were available, people who were addicted would have a far easier time getting treatment for that, which would do something to cut into the overall number of users.

I agree drug law needs to change, but I see no compelling reason these changes could not be done in tandem or in opposite order from what you're suggesting. In fact, one could argue that if the number of crackheads truly do end up placing a strain on the system, THAT will be a better incentive to get drug laws changed then any of our current ones.


Well I will agree that the "greed is good" mentality is a frequent crutch to our way of life, I do not feel laziness falls quite into the same category.

In either case, creating greater social supports will help people to understand the value of such support, and ultimately reduce the value we place on greed.


Fair enough. I agree we shoudln't do it in the wrong way. When you've illustrated either how to do it the right way, or at least better clarify why a socialized system would collapse if attempt to impliment it before fixing other societal ills, then I will give that perspective greater credence.


It was ruled unconstitutional in a large number of state cases, I'm surprised NC wasn't one of them. My liberal home of Washington State ruled against it.

Huh. So you think giving minorities jobs means they're unwilling to work?

What relevance does that have to anything? Let's say we cut out all welfare and gave that back to the taxpayer. Our taxes would go down 1%. That 1% would represent only 30 dollars to people in my tax bracket, or one dollar and twenty five cents every paycheck. That's what you're worried about? A measly two-fifty a month? Really? That's the breadbasket in which society's ills sit?

I feel that you have misplaced priorities, if this is how you really see the world. In order to support your view, you'd have to believe that practically no one was ever out of work for reasons beyond their control, even transitionally.

But you've JUST said that we DO have a choice in the form welfare. If we really see welfare as a viable alternative to working, then that coudln't be true.

Which is it? You can only pick one.


But right now we already pay too much for our healthcare. While welfare is only costing you 2.50 a month, healthcare costs average out to no less than 50 dollars a paycheck per person, and that's just if you're single with no kids.

Let me give you a choice: which of these two options is better?

1. Everyone working pays 50 a month for insurance, and those who do not work get no healthcare.

2. Everyone working pays 10 dollars a month for insurance, and those who do not work still get healthcare even though they haven't worked for it.

Is it really worth working against your own financial self-interest just to make sure lazy fucks get their comeupance? Are you the classic example of the American who sticks a fork in himself a hundred times just so no one can make a canoe out of his skin?


yes, but they aren't the ones in charge, now are they?


Of course I do. You seemed to be suggesting American laziness was a key sticking point for the debate. I feel that if I can dispell from you the arbitrary idea that we're lazy, I can move the healthcare discussion forward.

Really? I don't, so that can only lead me to believe that both of our anecdotal evidences are inadmissable. (I put more of mine below)

Okay, what ways? We're less taxed and less regulated then most countries, and we even have a good number of freedoms that many others do not. How is our government pressing down on us in the big picture? Perhaps pressing down is the wrong phrase, would you understand manipulating better?

That's a classic divide between liberal and conservative. I've met too many good people in my life to believe it. Some of them were even poor.

I look forward to it.

(Note: I will not be back till monday, so feel free to take your time and really clobber me for my return)

[QUOT



First of all, it sounds like you think the problem is Crack. Secondly, under a good socialized system where we treated drug use as a medical issue and NOT as a criminal issue, I agree, of course you would have to tackle that problem before your type of healthcare was even a feasible option. Thats exactly what I'm saying, not that your plan outright sucks but that it would be a mistake to try to do that in today's atmosphere. First fix the things that need to be fixed to have the plan run smoothly. Then institute the plan. Just don't pretend fixing things are easy because your talking decades of work from millons of people.
might have a hope of keeping those Crackheads from existing to begin with. I doubt that but you had the right idea.


Really? Because you said this:



You see that line about how the Americans would "lay around and have the tax payer foot the bill" that implies you think that more people would become unemployed as a result of socialized care. Ok well perhaps would should stop with the implications. The reason I wrote the prick comment was because I thought you implied I was dumb. But nevertheless I was not trying to imply that more people would become unemployed, I was talking about the people that are already unemployed or underemployed.
If that is not what you are implying, then it means you think the 5-10% of the population now that is unemployed would be there either way, which is not much of an arugment against socialized care. You're basically saying it doesn't actually matter. Yeah they will be around either way but I'm far from saying it doesn't matter. Right now they at least don't have the right to complain about the care they are receiving, under a plan that guaranteed them health care you would have to establish 50 call centers just to handle the incessant whining.

I have not stooped to name-calling once in this whole debate. You just did.
I already answered this. No harm meant either way so no foul.


Obviously not, nor do I think everyone homeless is neccessarily the unforgivable human refuse that conservatives seem to think they are. The idea that there are incenstives or dis-incentives to be homeless is a tired idea, and the same goes for its application to socialized care. This are to seperate issues, I'm not talking about homeless people, I agree thats a crock of shit, but being homeless is a little different than being without health care.

However I will agree that my example was based on a local grudge I have with conservatives in my city, and should not have been thrown into this discussion.

Consider it cheerfully withdrawn.



Okay, I can agree to that. I will support whatever you suggest to fix the individuals who you think make this impossible. I put most of the blame on politicians but alas, I have no suggestions on how to make morally bankrupt politicians moral.


Here I disagree. Lack of healthcare IS a crack in the foundation. If we fix that, we'll end up addressing many side problems. I will list them if you request it, but you seem perfectly intelligent, and I think you can figure 'em out for yourself. Case in point? The drug laws we were discussing above. That won't be fixed by instituting a new health care system. I can name a bunch of other problems that also fall into this category and that would damn such a system if they were not addressed first.


Can you not see how hopelessly circular that is? Healthcare for everyone isn't part of our culture because we don't have it, and we don't have it because healthcare for everyone isn't part of our culture. I disagree, other cultures find laziness and greed to be despisable traits while American culture doesn't seem to have a problem with them if not outright supporting them. This is why this type of system could not work in America as it is today.


They aren't. Americans pay virtually the lowest taxes in the world of any industrialized nation. Not if a plan like that is instituted in the wrong way. That stat will be long gone.


Affirmative action isn't even a reality anymore, we've done away with it. And after much debate with myself, I've decided I'm glad for that... it was well intended, but it had the unfortunate effect of making it so that no minority could ever get a job without their qualifications being questioned by everyone around them, even if they were perfectly qualified. I don't know where you got that idea because AA is alive and well in NC where I'm from.
t this is a vastly different issue then what we're discussing here, since it has literally no weight upon taxes or healthcare. It does serve a purpose, it shows that Americans are no longer self-sufficient and looking for a handout from the taxpayer to take care of their problems. And thats exactly the attitude that they would carry over to government health care.
As for welfare, our meager doll makes up a scant 1% of our federal budget and 2% or less in most states. It's laughable to lay societal ills at the feet of numbers like that. I bet that number accounts for a few trillon dollars, more than we will both make in this lifetime. A huge amount of money. If it could be cut out you would be saving trillons every year. TRILLONS.



While I hate to hand-feed you arguments that will be useful for your side in other discussions, we have some of the lowest unemployment here of any country. One of the trade-offs Americans have gotten for having such corporate favoratism is high availability of jobs, even if many of those jobs are total shit. If we're so lazy, why do so many of us work for so little? Because we don't have a choice, its that or a life of crime and punishment.



This I find hilarious. So what you're saying, is that the reason we should not switch to a system in which some people don't pay into it because they're lazy, is because we need to defend our existing system in which some people work too hard because others are too lazy? Once again, it sounds like you're arguing that the only difference between a sozialized system and this system is that everyone would get access to healthcare. There'd be the same number of lazy fucks either way. Exactly, you seem to the # of lazy fucks matter? The difference is whose paying for them. Right now it's on their own credit. In your system you put it on the backs of taxpayers. You act like thats nothing but thats once again trillons of extra dollars to saddle the taxpayer with.


No, but the protestant work ethic did shape the system in which all of us work. "American" values tend to line up pretty neatly with the protestants that originally formed our laws. Simply false, you mean white American values, many other minoritie's values are about as far as you can get from Protestant values.


Of course I do. You seemed to be suggesting American laziness was a key sticking point for the debate. I feel that if I can dispell from you the arbitrary idea that we're lazy, I can move the healthcare discussion forward.

I doubt you can do that, I see the laziness everyday.
Okay, what ways? We're less taxed and less regulated then most countries, and we even have a good number of freedoms that many others do not. How is our government pressing down on us in the big picture? Perhaps pressing down is the wrong phrase, would you understand manipulating better?


The first part of this is a very good point, and the best I can say to defend myself against it is that I seek the best medium possible. I do not want to live in any system that blindly rewards everyone at every crossroad, nor do I want to live in a system in which the unlucky are penalized. A good system has to be a marriage of the two, thus I say, set the minimum bar at health and well-being, then let the smart and lucky and hard-working get rich as they do now.

Your second part again relies on the idea that people in need deserve to be where they are, that I categorically reject. Some of us make worse choices than others, but that is not the only reason for the downfall of individuals, and conservative policies make it so much harder to pull one-self back into grace. Your right here but I think most people in need are in need because of their own poor choices.



Immutable means unchangeable.



I agree with you here, but I think that has far more to do with two things:

1. We can't agree what we want government to do. The reason I come to boards like this or talk to people about these issues is that I'm trying to create greater consensus for the idea that government can and should do more for us. Not everything, not communism, just more than it's doing now. It can't without a massive overhaul.
2. Government programs that are designed to help people are starved for cash. An old republican tactic has been to cut somethings budget, decry what it low longer does what it used to do well as a result of those budget cuts, and then cut that budget even farther ad infinitum.[/quote] I gotta go but I'm gonna post on this again.[/quote] We have too many government programs designed to help people. America was built by people that were willing to help themselves

__________________
You can never dent spiderwebs

Erm, we've already been over this bit. Misquote?