I have been denied private health insurance.

Off topic discussions. Feel free to talk about anything here.

Moderators: Ironman, Jungledoc, ianjay, stuward

Post Reply
frogbyte
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm

Post by frogbyte » Sun Mar 07, 2010 9:02 pm

Ironman wrote:Those laws happened from the mid to late 19th century. They didn't all happen the same year or anything. They were still before the innovations in productivity.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. That has nothing to do with my original point that the short work week and relative lack of child labor in the US is the result of modern productivity. It has nothing to do with any laws.
Ironman wrote:That is not big. If you adjust for inflation there really hasn't been much of an increase in a very long time.
The number is a % of GDP - you can't adjust it for inflation, and it's climbed to the highest of all time other than WWII. So, second biggest of all time is still "big" in my mind, and you're advocating it get bigger, so you're a big-government advocate.
Ironman wrote:Besides that, what can you cut? Social security, medicare and the military combine to make up almost 90% of the budget.
So cut all 3.
Ironman wrote:The trade gap doesn't help much either.
There we need to abolish the IRS and switch to a national sales tax, so imports don't evade taxes and have a cost advantage when sold here.
Ironman wrote:I wonder if you just don't understand what all this reform entails. Maybe you're just against the public option?
Ironman wrote:I agree with your last point for the most part. I think medicare/medicaid and any public option or expansion of those programs should reimburse at a higher rate. With increased efficiency and no more of those uninsured emergency room visits that go unpaid, it shouldn't be a problem.
Admittedly there have been so many bills that it's impractical to know them all, but the last Senate/House bill was planning to cut medicare/medicaid reimbursement rates in order to make up other new costs. You can argue we have to do it since the nation is bankrupt, but it won't help people on those plans. Expanding those plans, or a public option, would be even worse.
Ironman wrote:Poverty in general causes so many social ills.
Poverty doesn't cause most social ills - social ills cause poverty. By today's standards, 200 years ago virtually 100% of the US population would be considered destitute. If poverty caused social ills, there would have been a total societal breakdown.

User avatar
frigginwizard
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:44 pm

Post by frigginwizard » Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:09 am

frogbyte wrote:
Ironman wrote:Poverty in general causes so many social ills.
Poverty doesn't cause most social ills - social ills cause poverty. By today's standards, 200 years ago virtually 100% of the US population would be considered destitute. If poverty caused social ills, there would have been a total societal breakdown.
By making a comparison you cease to be talking about poverty in the true sense of the word, and instead are referring to relative poverty.
Frankly the idea that "social ills" cause relative poverty or vice versa, is simply a matter of your definition of social ills.

Rucifer
Member
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:21 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Rucifer » Mon Mar 08, 2010 12:29 pm

Ryan A wrote: You guys seem to keep twisting the statements ever so slightly every time you say something so you can argue an easier position.
And your proof of this...? My argument was the fact that frogbyte was so pro capitalism in one statement, saying how it fosters productivity (which I don't completely disagree with), and then in another statement in the same post stating how the capitalist country we are living in is on the verge of bankrupt. I don't see how that is twisting words considering I used his own quotes.

Rucifer
Member
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:21 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Rucifer » Mon Mar 08, 2010 12:43 pm

frogbyte wrote:
Ironman wrote:
Ironman wrote:Poverty in general causes so many social ills.
Poverty doesn't cause most social ills - social ills cause poverty. By today's standards, 200 years ago virtually 100% of the US population would be considered destitute. If poverty caused social ills, there would have been a total societal breakdown.
You can't judge based off what things were like 200 years ago compared to now. It's relative to the standard of living of the time. I really don't even understand how you can say societal ills cause poverty. It's a cycle that starts WITH poverty. If you don't have money, generally you don't get a good education, which means you can't generally get a good job. I will admit there are those that can break the cycle but they are few and far between, just as there are those who start off as rich and goof up. But even in a "free" country, the percentage of people that maneuver between wealth classes isn't much higher than a caste based society. Blaming societal ills for causing poverty is acting like there's something innately wrong with these people living in these areas, which means you are in the minority if you look at the world and how the majority of people live in poverty.

User avatar
frigginwizard
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:44 pm

Post by frigginwizard » Mon Mar 08, 2010 2:21 pm

Rucifer wrote:
frogbyte wrote:
Ironman wrote: Poverty doesn't cause most social ills - social ills cause poverty. By today's standards, 200 years ago virtually 100% of the US population would be considered destitute. If poverty caused social ills, there would have been a total societal breakdown.
You can't judge based off what things were like 200 years ago compared to now. It's relative to the standard of living of the time. I really don't even understand how you can say societal ills cause poverty. It's a cycle that starts WITH poverty. If you don't have money, generally you don't get a good education, which means you can't generally get a good job. I will admit there are those that can break the cycle but they are few and far between, just as there are those who start off as rich and goof up. But even in a "free" country, the percentage of people that maneuver between wealth classes isn't much higher than a caste based society. Blaming societal ills for causing poverty is acting like there's something innately wrong with these people living in these areas, which means you are in the minority if you look at the world and how the majority of people live in poverty.
You cant really say what you just did while simultaneously completely disagreeing with frog. By calling it a cyclical phenomenon you acknowledge that the beginning causes the end and the end causes the beginning.

So it comes down to an argument of which came first, and I would contest that without far more definition and structure than this conversation has you cannot pin down which started it.

frogbyte
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm

Post by frogbyte » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:04 pm

Rucifer wrote:Blaming societal ills for causing poverty is acting like there's something innately wrong with these people living in these areas, which means you are in the minority if you look at the world and how the majority of people live in poverty.
Societal problems are self-perpetuating to a degree. It's not an innate attribute of the individual, but people that come from a broken home tend to create future broken homes. I submit that that's the case regardless of income level. I also submit that broken-homed individuals will then proceed to be less affluent than average.

User avatar
TimD
In Memoriam: TimD
In Memoriam: TimD
Posts: 3129
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:04 am
Location: Va Beach, Va

Post by TimD » Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:50 pm

frogbyte wrote:
Rucifer wrote:Blaming societal ills for causing poverty is acting like there's something innately wrong with these people living in these areas, which means you are in the minority if you look at the world and how the majority of people live in poverty.
Societal problems are self-perpetuating to a degree. It's not an innate attribute of the individual, but people that come from a broken home tend to create future broken homes. I submit that that's the case regardless of income level. I also submit that broken-homed individuals will then proceed to be leFrogbyte, these days it really doesn't matter ss affluent than average.
Froggy, it really doesn't matter where or how you grew up these days. You can slam into poverty easily. My father got into a second marriage after Mom died, and she took him to the cleaners. Now, as a retired Navy SCPO, and having worked for Hughes 13 years after that, and saving a bunch, the Wall Street boys ate that crap up. California went into the crapper, so now I have my father, my ex=brother in law, and his girlfriend in house, and I'm supporting all of them. I grew up middle class, made some bucks and did the right thing trying to save, but with what's going on, there really isn't much middle class going on. I'm supporting 3 households, WITH a basal carcinoma that I can't afford to pay for out of pocket, with a very dwindling savings. I hate both the Republican (do nothing) and Democrat (spend the sky away) views. The tea parties have it right, in my book. Throw out the incumbents. Get the lobbists out of DC
and find some ways to get the high costs down, be it getting compatitive or having the Govt going with non-profits. Doc, I'd like to hear you chime in on this.
Tim

frogbyte
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm

Post by frogbyte » Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:31 am

Sure - it's easier to fall down than to climb up - didn't intend to imply otherwise.

Jebus
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1106
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:04 pm

Post by Jebus » Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:58 pm

I really do feel sorry for American's, having such horrible banks to deal with.

frogbyte
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm

Post by frogbyte » Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:58 pm

Are you referring to the idiots that gave people without jobs $500k mortgages? Depending on how it's crafted, I might be in favor of legislation that allowed for civil monetary liability for gross negligence on the part of employees that cause a company to go bankrupt. I don't think these morons would be so bold if they knew their own house could be taken away to pay off creditors if they helped cause their company to fail. Where it gets tricky is drawing the "gross negligence" line though.

User avatar
Ironman
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3991
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am

Post by Ironman » Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:32 am

frogbyte wrote:
Ironman wrote:Those laws happened from the mid to late 19th century. They didn't all happen the same year or anything. They were still before the innovations in productivity.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. That has nothing to do with my original point that the short work week and relative lack of child labor in the US is the result of modern productivity. It has nothing to do with any laws.
Ironman wrote:That is not big. If you adjust for inflation there really hasn't been much of an increase in a very long time.
The number is a % of GDP - you can't adjust it for inflation, and it's climbed to the highest of all time other than WWII. So, second biggest of all time is still "big" in my mind, and you're advocating it get bigger, so you're a big-government advocate.
Ironman wrote:Besides that, what can you cut? Social security, medicare and the military combine to make up almost 90% of the budget.
So cut all 3.
Ironman wrote:The trade gap doesn't help much either.
There we need to abolish the IRS and switch to a national sales tax, so imports don't evade taxes and have a cost advantage when sold here.
Ironman wrote:I wonder if you just don't understand what all this reform entails. Maybe you're just against the public option?
Ironman wrote:I agree with your last point for the most part. I think medicare/medicaid and any public option or expansion of those programs should reimburse at a higher rate. With increased efficiency and no more of those uninsured emergency room visits that go unpaid, it shouldn't be a problem.
Admittedly there have been so many bills that it's impractical to know them all, but the last Senate/House bill was planning to cut medicare/medicaid reimbursement rates in order to make up other new costs. You can argue we have to do it since the nation is bankrupt, but it won't help people on those plans. Expanding those plans, or a public option, would be even worse.
Ironman wrote:Poverty in general causes so many social ills.
Poverty doesn't cause most social ills - social ills cause poverty. By today's standards, 200 years ago virtually 100% of the US population would be considered destitute. If poverty caused social ills, there would have been a total societal breakdown.
You have GOT to be kidding me.... In what alternate reality does any of that make sense?

Actually my point was that it was because of laws. I guess you live in corporatist dogma land where things unfolded in some other way.

I wasn't referring to the % of GDP. THAT is misleading because of the trade deficit. Duh! I'm talking dollars, and yes it hasn't changed much when you adjust for inflation.

I agree with cutting the military. We do not need to be the world police. However cutting the other two would be very bad. You would be in for a political $h1tstorm the likes of which we have never seen before. Sending the message of "yea fv(k all the old people, let em die!" isn't a good idea.

This is utterly ridiculous. You would no longer be able to take into consideration the situations of different people. This would shift the tax burden completely on the lower and middle class. You would destroy your consumer base. These working and middle class people are the vast majority of the population, and therefore the vast majority of the consumer base. This would kill businesses, They would lose most of their business, and be forced to lay people off, which would in turn increase the problem with consumer spending. This would likely plunge the country into another depression. It might even render US currency valueless. You could end up with masses of starving people rioting and raiding stores.

Here you make baseless assertions.

The final point.....wow... I don't know what to say. It doesn't even make any sense. It sounds like the disjointed ramblings of a schizophrenic. What the hell does 200 years ago have to do with now? Virtually 100% of the population was not poor at any time anyway. As for reverse the cause relationship.... all I can think of is maybe you read conservapeida too much.... People start of poor with lack of opportunities and education and then LATER get into trouble. Apparently sociology is very different in the alternate reality you live in too....

User avatar
Ironman
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3991
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am

Post by Ironman » Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:51 am

TimD wrote:
frogbyte wrote:
Rucifer wrote:Blaming societal ills for causing poverty is acting like there's something innately wrong with these people living in these areas, which means you are in the minority if you look at the world and how the majority of people live in poverty.
Societal problems are self-perpetuating to a degree. It's not an innate attribute of the individual, but people that come from a broken home tend to create future broken homes. I submit that that's the case regardless of income level. I also submit that broken-homed individuals will then proceed to be leFrogbyte, these days it really doesn't matter ss affluent than average.
Froggy, it really doesn't matter where or how you grew up these days. You can slam into poverty easily. My father got into a second marriage after Mom died, and she took him to the cleaners. Now, as a retired Navy SCPO, and having worked for Hughes 13 years after that, and saving a bunch, the Wall Street boys ate that crap up. California went into the crapper, so now I have my father, my ex=brother in law, and his girlfriend in house, and I'm supporting all of them. I grew up middle class, made some bucks and did the right thing trying to save, but with what's going on, there really isn't much middle class going on. I'm supporting 3 households, WITH a basal carcinoma that I can't afford to pay for out of pocket, with a very dwindling savings. I hate both the Republican (do nothing) and Democrat (spend the sky away) views. The tea parties have it right, in my book. Throw out the incumbents. Get the lobbists out of DC
and find some ways to get the high costs down, be it getting compatitive or having the Govt going with non-profits. Doc, I'd like to hear you chime in on this.
Tim
It's interesting that you think that considering that when Clinton left office there was a surplus and when Bush left office there was a deficit over a trillion and we were in the midst of the biggest economic CF since the great depression.



Actually the problem is the marginal tax rates. The marginal tax rates used to be very high both in percentage and threshold. In the 50's and 60's for example when our economic prosperity was at it's highest, the threshold was so high that it affected only the people at the very top, and the amount was 90%. So everything you make over X amount is taxed a 90%. This kept greed in check. So the income difference between the highest and lowest paid in a company were around 40 times greater. This ensured a strong consumer base with money to buy things without using credit.

Compare that with now, the marginal tax is between 35 and 40% and it affects people who are barley even upper-middle class. This leaves greed unchecked and shifts the tax burden to those who can barley afford the necessities. Now you have the highest paid person in a company making more than 600 times as much as the lowest paid. You have a consumer base with virtually no capitol, and the economy is propped up by consumer credit. In other words, money that doesn't actually exist.


Nearly 90% of the budget is military, social security and medicare. Nobody wants to cut those. Therefore nobody wants to make any meaningful cuts to the budget. The republicans talk about a few million or a billion or 2 here or there. That's NOTHING. That's not even 1%, it's not even a drop in the bucket. It's more like an molecule in an otherwise empty ocean basin.

hoosegow
Veteren Member
Veteren Member
Posts: 2003
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:40 am
Location: Texas

Post by hoosegow » Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:49 am

Reading this debate is like listening two blind guys argue about what the color red looks like.

Rucifer
Member
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:21 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Rucifer » Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:07 am

I was arguing here and there until I realized that this is turning into the same argument as the investment topic a couple of months ago- its just different people arguing this time. Social issues need to be arithmetic- we need to have a solution's manual to point out the correct answers. No one argues with the solution's manual.

User avatar
TimD
In Memoriam: TimD
In Memoriam: TimD
Posts: 3129
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:04 am
Location: Va Beach, Va

Post by TimD » Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:26 am

hoosegow wrote:Reading this debate is like listening two blind guys argue about what the color red looks like.
Very astute observation, Hoose, but it does make for interesting and comedic reading.
Tim

Post Reply