Do you know? Who are you?: Do you know?

By spunky on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 12:23 pm:

    A young teenage girl was about to finish her first year of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat but her father was a rather staunch Republican.
    One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to taxes and welfare programs. He stopped her and asked her how she was doing in school.

    She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA but it was really tough. She had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party. She didn't have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying.

    He asked, "How is your friend Mary." She replied that Mary was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never studied, but was very popular on campus, went to all the parties all the time. Why she often didn't show up for classes because she was hung over.

    Dad then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office and ask why she couldn't take 1.0 off her 4.0 and give it to her friend who only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a 3.0 GPA.

    The daughter angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair, I worked really hard for mine and Mary has done nothing".
    The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party".

    Old I know, but love it anyway

By dave. on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 12:27 pm:

    that makes my pussy so wet.

By spunky on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 12:35 pm:

By TBone on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 12:39 pm:

    Selfish Bitch.

By semillama on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 12:43 pm:

    I love how much Republicans hate poor people. It just oozes out of their pores.

By spunky on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 12:49 pm:

    Wow! You prove that mud slinging and lying really do pay off in campaigns! You beleive republicans want to cut down every tree, poison the world's water supply, and steal lolly pops from babies too, don't you?

By kazu on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 01:23 pm:

    That grade argument doesn't work because it assumes that people who earn less must not work as hard as people who earn more. Go tell that to my grandfather you asshole.

    What utter horseshit.

    True story, when I was on a committee that helped distribute grant money we had applications from all of the many departments in the University. We had enough money to give out 10 grants and we had about 40 applications. We could have cut the desicion process in half if we just gave it to the students with the highest GPAs.

    But we didn't. We knew that some departments inflated their grades (you know, how some companies pay managers more than their assistants...but who is to say that the former works harder and thus deserves more). But that also doesn't mean that applicants in grade inflated departments wouldn't have gotten that 4.0 otherwise. We couldn't control that. So what we did was examine each application which included project descriptions and recommendations because we knew that one number (either on a grade transcript or a pay check) indicates very little about how hard people work.

    So, that's not the BEST example, but that one is even stupider.

    Lots of people who worked their asses off in engineering departments got 2.0s, but they also got better jobs than the 4.0s in English.

    Does that have anything to do with hard work?

    Spunky, a random snide comment here and there proves no such thing. Idiot.

    And I would say no, that republicans, being invested in the big bad toothpaste industry would want the babies to keep the lollypops.

By kazu on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 01:24 pm:

    correction: "that wasn't the BEST example, but the one Spunky posted was even stupider"

By patrick on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 01:40 pm:

    ha ha ha ha ha ha

    smart chicks rule

By patrick on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 01:40 pm:

    moreover, i love it when kazuuey gets her (as J would say) tits in a tangle.

By kazu on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 01:41 pm:

    And I think that, if access to food in the dining hall, a bed in the dorm room, and medical attention in the infirmary were based on grade point averages, you might have people working harder. You might also have groups of students willing to share grade points because of how unfair that system would be.

    Of course, this is what a lot of people who recieve scholarships have to deal with.

By kazu on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 01:42 pm:

    thanks patrick.

By semillama on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 02:05 pm:

    Once again let me point out that I am the luckiest guy in the world.

    See you tomorrow sweetie!

By kazu on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 02:14 pm:

    I didn't mean to imply that scholarships were unfair, just to point out that some people need to maintain a certain grade point average to keep their funding.

By patrick on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 02:21 pm:

    really kazu, no clarification is needed.

    you so thoroughly whipped his figurative ass that you could have misspelled half your post and it wouldnt matter.

    let the uncomfortable silence ensue.

By spunkyu on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 03:00 pm:

    who's uncomfortable?
    I can recognize a joke when I see one.
    Taking lolly pop's out of babies mouths, really.

    I don't think sem thinks that for one minute.

    That is an old joke

    "I'm a politician Jack. When I am not kissing babies on the cheek, I am stealing their lolly pops" I can't remember what movie that came from, I want to say a Clancy Novel, but will never forget that line.

    And as far as the parable I posted at the begining, you guys are the ones who read into the story that it was showing any animosity to the poor. I think rather it shows that liberals, for the most part, fel that you should be able to be do whatever pleases you, and still receive the same "benefits" as those that choose to earn it.

    And calling me an idiot is really beneath you, Kazuu. I had more respect for you then that, and expected better of you.

By kazu on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 03:16 pm:

    "I think rather it shows that liberals, for the most part, fel that you should be able to be do whatever pleases you, and still receive the same "benefits" as those that choose to earn it."

    Well, the liberal in the story didn't seem to think that. And it was the republican father who posed such an idiotic and simplistic example to try to illustrate the ideological differences between democrats and republicans. That example proves nothing about how liberals feel about why we need to pay taxes and develop welfare programs. What if her friend had worked as hard as she did, but still got a 2.0? Maybe, it wouldn't right to share grade points, but Universities do use everyone's tuition money for developing programs like writing centers, tutoring, and other workshops, to HELP people, not to give handouts.

    Working hard is no guarantee, if there aren't enough jobs for everyone and if the industry and market cannot sustain jobs, then I think that the government can and should help it's citizens.

    What and how individuals do with that help or what they think they are entitled to is irrelevant. You can't legislate that. What you can do is try to implement programs which do not foster dependency, but taking IT ALL AWAY is only going to make things worse.

    If your response to Sem's comment about dishonesty and mudslinging was made in jest, then perhaps I was wrong for calling you an idiot. But, it's difficult to tell with you spunky and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way.

By spunky on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 03:22 pm:

    maybe you should be more careful before using the term idiot to describe someone else.

By semillama on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 03:30 pm:

    No comment.

By TBone on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 03:35 pm:

    It doesn't "show" it so much as "suggest" it. As a parable, it doesn't prove anything.
    And the suggestion is wrong, of course. And as Kazu pointed out, the analogy is flawed as well. It operates on the assumption that both grades and paychecks have a direct relationship to how hard-working someone is.
    Conservatives consider certain things to be "benefits", while Liberals will call them "needs".
    Can you see my fingers wagging?
    And as Kazu also pointed out, many Liberals really would be willing to give grade points to others if it were actually something you could give.
    I dont' know where you keep getting it that we Liberals would become professional couch potatoes if we had our way. Keep calling us lazy, and you'll probably keep getting names thrown at yourself.
    You of all people should be aware that laziness isn't the only reason some people don't make enough to cover basic needs. Many of the "Liberal" concepts that I support would not directly bendefit me, but would take money from my pocket. And I still support them. Reconsider that statement about Liberals.

By kazu on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 03:36 pm:

    Spunky, I do not think you are an idiot, even if I think the example is. Regardless, I said that in direct response to your response to Sem because it made me angry. I know you weren't trying to insult him, but it sounded so vicious, I assumed you were trying to be mean. I would expect that if something I said to eri made you angry you would react similarly.

    I'll admit it was misplaced. So, I'm sorry I said that.

By on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 03:39 pm:

By TBone on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 03:39 pm:

    Kazu said it better again.

By kazu on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 03:41 pm:

    I didn't post that link, even though the "Results of your Search" page makes it look like I did.

By J on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 03:45 pm:

    I did it just for the hell of it.

By spunky on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 04:00 pm:

    When I made 4.60 an hour at taco bell, I lived in a duplex that cost me $175 a month, did not run the air, and walked to work. I also ate 95% of my meals at work. A mode of tranportation was not a "need", and neither was air conditioning. I lived alone, so had no one to answer to but myself. If I had been married with children, then I would have looked at a second job.
    There are PLENTY of jobs that pay below $10 an hour out here. They go unfilled, and unemployment stays high. If someone took that job, and had children, then I would be far less opposed to helping them with healthcare and daycare expenses and even food assistance, beacause the mother or father or both were out there trying. That's all I would ask.

    The subject in the fictional story was partying, never in class, and chose to not even study. That was the way the author wrote it, so arguing with me about that is really not very productive.

    But if we were to assume that the kid was studying her ass off and still not making the grade, then I would suggest another field of study, not reducing the grades of other students to cover her deficiency.

    Never is it morally acceptable to take something from someone who earned it and give it to someone who did not.

    Allow that person that earned it CHOOSE to give it, but do not take it from them without their permission.

By J on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 04:01 pm:

    I put a question mark in for my name,but it didn't show up.Don't want you to think I did that to make it look like you posted it,I'm too computer stupid kazoo.

By semillama on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 04:27 pm:

    Qualify "plenty of jobs". Sounds like that's something you have to believe is true. Have you gone out and polled all the fast food joints? Have you gone out and identified all the supposed deadbeats out there? Conservatives seem to talk about these people all the time, but who actually knows anyone like that? I sure don't. I know they exist, but I'd be surprised if they were even 20% of the people who are on and need assistance.

    You never suggest how to distinguish between those who are trying and those who are not. I think to do so would require a large increase in funding for social services. Of course, find me a conservative who's gonna be willing to part with his hard-earned tax dollars for that (when they could be using that money to pay for weapons systems). Heck, even the Pentagon makes those recuperating soldiers at Walter Reed pay for their meals!

By kazu on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 04:39 pm:

    I can't think of anything else to say. You're missing the point. I'm only trying to argue with the content of the example because it is dumb.

    This argument is a little scattered, but I have to correct some papers, so I don't have time to back up anything with numbers or go back over my logic.

    The University has no way of knowing which of their low grade point students are partying or not. What they can do is provide resources for those who want to improve. In the University there are generally enough A's to go around. Okay there is grading on a curve and all kinds of other grade systems that make little or no sense.

    And another thing, not everyone has to get As to feel successful. Just as a lot of people are perfectly happy to have middle-class incomes, a lot of students are okay with 3.0s, but for those who lack the resources that other students have be it talent or educational background or whatever, the University should and does provide HELP so that they can attain that and graduate.

    This is where the comparison just breaks up as far as I am concerned.

    I don't have a reference, but based on stuff that I read at HBR even the most conservative economists agree that unemployment is inherent to capitalism, it cannot sustain 100% employment. That is why marriage and nuclear families and women stay at home is so essential, because that reduces the amount of "employable" people because it creates a system of dependency that is individual to the family unit.

    Now, I am not against Capitalism, but getting everyone into a two parent/one wage earner system is not going to happen. And even that wouldn't assure a class-less society. So, if there has to be a lower class or an unemployed class, we can either let die on the street or help them out.

    Just having "jobs" available doesn't mean that people can take them. Does everyone have the same access to these jobs? Are they evenly spread out amongst areas where there is high unemployment? And, given our current situation, why should ANYONE take a low-paying job if welfare pays more?

    You'd be willing to help those who "work hard" but how can that be legislated? And what kind of criteria should be in place to determine what makes someone "reasonably" unemployed?

By spunky on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 04:44 pm:

    it was in place before, at least in Missouri and kansas. You brought in your paystubs and birth certificates and rental agreements and all that.
    They checked with your employer to ensure you were still employed, then gave you food stamps and money to pay the utilites and the rent.
    If you became unemployed, they gave you a list of job openings in the area, and even set up interviews. They gave you a slip of paper that the interviewer had to sign to say you went, and then they would call the interviewer to see how it went.

By kazu on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 04:50 pm:

    That sounds like policing to me.

    In any case, I don agree that there should be checks and balances, but there will always be people who will slip through the cracks. And this is usually the teeny percentage that the media displays as "welfare queens" or what have you, people who "abuse" the system.

    But just because they abuse the system, doesn't mean that they are entitled to nothing at all. But that's just lil' ole' liberal me.

By kazu on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 04:51 pm:

    Argh! I do agree. There should be checks and balances in place.

By semillama on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 04:56 pm:

    Even the shiftless and stupid don't deserve to starve.

    They SHOULD have to work for me in the endless fields of high-potency habizopfropilus of which I should be the ruthless plantation owner, with space aliens mounted on wookies patrolling them with a keen and all seeing eye. But you can't live in a perfect world.

By spunky on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 05:01 pm:

    "You'd be willing to help those who "work hard" but how can that be legislated?"

    That's my objection, Kazu. You are now singing my song.

    Your answer?
    It cannot be done, so DONT DO IT.

    The LESS a government legislates, the BETTER it is.

    I would prefer that congress was only in session for 30 days a year, and the rest of the time back in thier local constituancies.

    The answer is not a bigger government.

By semillama on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 05:40 pm:

    Hmmm. so just give up, is your answer. How compassionate.

    Let's apply that logic elsewhere. How about the war on terrorism? it can't be won, only perpetuated, seems like it's similar to welfare, so let's not do it. Hey, then we wouldn't need a whole new bureaucracy so less government! We could reduce the size of our military, so lower taxes! Hooray!

    and Kazu is in no way shape or form even remotely "singing your song." You don't seem to be able to even follow her melody, much less carry the beat.

By spunky on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 05:45 pm:

    forget it.

    Why oh why does it always end up arguing for more government dependence and not less?

    I just dont understand why you want total government control over everything.

By Lapis on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 05:51 pm:

    I just wrote out a long rant and then referred to better judgement and deleted it.

    If you're alive, sleeping and food should be rights. Healthcare should also be a right. We should be ashamed of ourselves if anyone can't pay rent because they have to pay off loans for a heart transplant or something.

    The government is too fat cat already. We need it to slim down. We need our taxes to go into programs assisting schools and the needy, not making breaks for the rich and padding politians' pockets.

    What if it were a requirement for those in office to spend at least one day a week in community service related to their position and non-administrative? They could see what happens with their own eyes and figure out what they could do in office to make things work more smoothly.

By TBone on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 05:52 pm:

    Plenty of jobs, eh? Not everywhere.
    Not where I live. Even minimum wage jobs are mighty scarce here. I don't know about everywhere else, but the job market is absolutely saturated here.

By patrick on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 06:07 pm:

    if it wasnt for big govenrment you probably wouldnt have a job right not spunk.

    and Im not sure anyone was saying the government should control everything.

    i just spent 15 god damn minutes of my life peeling the the motherfuckin warning labels off this new outkast. assholes. what a waste.

By Lapis on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 06:07 pm:

    Six months ago people were cramming for job interviews around here. They say the unemployment rate has gone down but I don't see it.

By spunky on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 06:09 pm:

    "If you're alive, sleeping and food should be rights. "

    No one denies the right to sleep.

    And you better go tell God and mother nature that they are wrong, because both of them make you work for your food.

    To provide the needs of a pre-designated group of people, and requiring another pre-designated group of people is creating class warfare all by itself.
    You cannot provide for the needs of one group of people and expect another group to pay for those costs and provide for themselves as well.

    Anyone remember a little thing called equality?

    Either everyone provides for their needs, or everyone's needs are provided for.

By spunky on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 06:14 pm:

    "if it wasnt for big govenrment you probably wouldnt have a job right not spunk.

    and Im not sure anyone was saying the government should control everything.

    i just spent 15 god damn minutes of my life peeling the the motherfuckin warning labels off this new outkast. assholes. what a waste."

    But that's just it. If you depend on someone to provide for you, you are beholden to their rules, you are restricted to what they provide, with no choices.

    And no, my job derives from national security, national defense. My job is one of the few actually called for by the constitution.
    I am a contactor because the feds realized that the unionized civillian workforce cannot be fired for poor performance, but ah! a contract can be pulled very easily.

    And you can thank parents who do not pay attention to what their children are listening to, and demanding everything be labeled by a federal rating commision for that label.

By Lapis on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 06:22 pm:

    Tell that to Portlanders. You can't sit on the lawn in front of city hall without getting arrested normally (there's a sit/lie law) but they just held an $80-per-plate picnic there.

    If you're homeless and don't have a place in a shelter you have to hide your camp in the bushes. The group that's trying to keep Dignity Village (a no-drugs, no-alcohol commune that the homeless began on their own) has been turned away from every potential site by the sellers (and dignity village has money to pay for it).

    I think everyone's needs should be provided for, but the question of needs that are provided is limited.

    Health care
    Cleaning facilities

    Anything above that should be paid for themselves.

    If you want to get people off the streets, the answer is not to push them off the streets, though it certainly is obvious. How about giving them a hot meal, a place to sleep, a shower in the morning, a place to secure their belongings and a way to get to a job interview so they can support themselves?

    Once a person was on their feet, they'd have to find a different place to live and cook their own meals. Simple as that.

By Rowlf on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 06:25 pm:

    "Wow! You prove that mud slinging and lying really do pay off in campaigns! You beleive republicans want to cut down every tree, poison the world's water supply, and steal lolly pops from babies too, don't you"

    no, they just want money. The poison, the clear cutting and the lollipop theft are just part of the process, part of the cycle of profit.

    not immoral, but amoral.

    The first post of this thread reads like a Promise Keepers brochure.

    And yes, sorry, but most Republicans hate the poor. As Rush insists, the poor simply "don't want to work", rather than "can't work", "lost their job", etc. Of course if there are a number of people who abuse the system people like Limbaugh are going to feel ripped off and assume its everyone... funny too spunk your analogy is to a drunk. why not go for broke and use a drug addict. way to implicitly state your own hate for the poor yourself. that analogy is akin to the 'homosexuals/dogs' stance on gay marriage.

    oh wait. I know why Limbaugh thinks these people abuse the system. BECAUSE HE DID HIMSELF.

    also compare ongoing corporate welfare to 'regular' welfare, and remember 70& of those on welfare get off within two years... but you are sold welfare as if those on it are terminally lazy. Oh too happy to let people drown from circumstance.

    and I'll second kazoo about grades. In my class, the teachers were hard industry types and nobody, in this, the most well known art school in the country, placed high enough to win the 'silver medal'. Of course in the business course, 80% of them got the award. However the business course is standard community college fare. Same award, different standards. Not an accurate comparison at all.

By patrick on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 06:28 pm:

    why gotta go and bring god into it bitch?

    "And no, my job derives from national security, national defense. My job is one of the few actually called for by the constitution."

    to the exact scope and degree? no. not really.

    if thats the case i could justify feeding the homeless as a national security interest. the homeless and hungry could always leave and join an army that feeds them and invade.

By dave. on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 06:31 pm:

    2.0 sucks.

By Lapis on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 06:34 pm:

    With forks!

By Nate on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 08:41 pm:

    haha rowlf quoted rush limbaugh to make his point. dittohead.

By TBone on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 10:14 pm:

    I just don't get it, spunk. It's not like we're handing out brand new cars and fabulous prizes. I guess you'd rather would starve and, as Scrooge put it, "decrease the surplus population."
    There's no perfect solution, spunk. But we can do something.
    What if you couldn't find a job?

By agatha on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 10:27 pm:

    That analogy also assumes that people who have money deserve it. There are many many many people who either end up in money because of their families, or they do dishonest things to get their money. I can name about ten republicans right off the top of my head that earned their money dishonestly. So, no, they didn't work hard to get it, as the oh-so-lame analogy at the top of this thread would imply.

By dave. on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 10:29 pm:

    he's just doing the black/white conservative thing again. conservatives hate gray.

    spunky, where would you rather live, mexico city or stockholm? you wanna cut support for people who can't support themselves and de-regulate everything and this place will resemble mexican barrios before long.

    i prefer stockholm, where you pay taxes through the ass but it's a pretty and pleasant place to exist.

By semillama on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 10:14 am:

    A lot of conservatives really only like WHITE, dave. I think that has been proven time and again.

By Hal on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 10:50 am:


    Oh, and prozak in the water supply. God I'm a genius, I'm full of great ideas.

By spunky on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 11:48 am:

    I am afraid somehow I misrepresented myself.
    I would never deny anyone the basic needs of life.
    And if you think that because someone conciders himself or herself as conservative, that means s/he would deny the basic needs of life, purposefully for his/her own designs, I am not talking to you, beacause you suffer from your own delusions, and there is no way to talk you back down to reality.

    Until humanity, on a global scale, comes to no longer be compelled by personal aquistion, or personal gain, we will be caught in this paradox.

    When you talk about food being free to the end user, you have to think about who will pay for it and how.
    Because you are not talking about the simple act of going out to your garden and picking your vegetables, and placing them in a bucket in your front lawn for whomever needs them.
    We do that now. When I lived in Topeka, it was nothing to drive down a residential street and see a bucket with a sign on it that said free corn or free tomatoes or what ever, because if a family had grown more then they could use themselves, they more often then not gave the extras away. We thought it was a sin to waste, and if we did not need it, there were others that did. And the vast majority of people we interacted with were republicans, conservatives, and this was how we thought.
    You would have to preserve that life style. A close knit community that cared about eachother.
    We helped build houses, repair barns, mow an elderly ladie's yard, take her trash out for her, bring her a hot meal when she could not get out and get it herself. If a family was having a difficult time, it was not uncommon to see a bag of groceries sitting on the front porch without any card or anything saying who it came from.
    Small town doctors actually cared more about the community then driving a fancy car. He most often charged cost and not profit. Because the health of an individual was seen as an important component of the entire community.
    This is how I would love to live again.

    But on a national level, as a national policy, that could never work. And the instant you MANDATE these actions, the instant you are going to see it all go away.

    Yes, I want to see it like that all over the US, but I know reality will prevent that from happening.

By kazu on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 12:10 pm:

    Spunky, you don't get it. Human nature hasn't changed at all. The fact is, human "nature" has never been driven solely by personal aquisition or gain. Our "nature" is complex and at times contradictory, and SHAPED (not caused) by the particular historical/social/economic/cultural circumstances into which we are born.

    The fact is, no one, save for a few communal-tree-hugging hippies want to institutionalize the culture that you described above. And I'm not sure even they do either.

    What most of us want is for the government to examine the social structure as it is and create programs through which people can access their basic needs. Some people will be lazy and take advantage, but most won't. There should be established parameters, but these programs have to be flexible as well, because there are going to be circumstances where people are stuck and need a little more (be it actually money or an exception to a rule) than others.

    When Amartya Sem (nobel prize winning economist) did his research on famine in India, he found that these famines were not caused by a lack of food, but of legal means for people to get food. That is a structural problem that needs to be remedied. It's not the same in the US but the basic principle is.

    It is going to take time and money and creativity. Isn't that something that drives people, or is that just for the artsy types? This issue is nothing new, sociologists and political economists (liberal and others) have done enormous amounts of research on this. There are people willing to work hard on this.

    But (to bring it back to "reality") Bush will have none of this. He wants to institute "marriage" lessons, not daycare to help welfare mothers keep jobs, not education to help them get the skills they need to find jobs, not food and shelter so that they and their families can have something while they get on their feet. He wants to legislate a marriage plan and "reward" people (women) for getting married so that husbands (who are likely going to be poor or working class) can take the responsibility instead of the government.

    When we talk about change and helping people WE look at the structures that exist. WE look at demographics and statistics. You, on the other hand, are content to live in your fantasy world.

By spunky on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 12:46 pm:

    So you looked at the consequences of conscripting doctors and nurses into government service?
    And what exactly is your definition of health services? Would your focus be on treatment or education and prevention?
    You would have to find a way of managing costs, restricting access to emergency facilities for non-emergencies, keep the costs of medication and supplies under control, while encouraging innovation for better medicines and procedures, including research. This would all have to fall under the umbrella of the federal government, and you would have to modify the constitution to cover these rights that were not previously outlined.
    Further, if the federal government were to start providing day care services, then federal guidelines for daycare facilities would have to negate any state guidelines, and these facilites would have to appply for federal accreditation.

    "famines were not caused by a lack of food, but of legal means for people to get food. That is a structural problem that needs to be remedied. It's not the same in the US but the basic principle is. "

    What structure are you referring to? FDA? American Grocerers Association? Future Farmers of America? Is it illegal for you to get food from certain sources? Or are you referring to health codes?

    "It is going to take time and money and creativity. Isn't that something that drives people, or is that just for the artsy types? This issue is nothing new, sociologists and political economists (liberal and others) have done enormous amounts of research on this. There are people willing to work hard on this."

    Umm, how about starting small?
    How about making sure it does not cost $12 for a comb durring a hospital stay. How about funding private research so the pharmecutical companies do not have to include the cost of research and development in the price of it's products?
    Stopping Wal-Greens from changing a prescription amount in order to make more off of the insurance companies? Educating the public on when a visit to the ER is needed and when it is not.
    I would support normal check ups being provided, and life saving surgeries to be covered by a national program, but not every visit to the ER for a runny nose or 99 degree temp.
    Get more education out.
    Start working on prevention of STD's so treatment will not be necessary.

    Social Security and Medicare are already in place to take care of those that cannot afford private insurance. If we can find a way of getting cost of care down, then we can put more people on these programs.

    The rights of liberty are paramount because individuals are ends in themselves. We are not instruments of society, or possessions of society. And if we are ends in ourselves, we have the right to be ends for ourselves: to hold our own lives and happiness as our highest values, not to be sacrificed for anything else.

    I think many people are afraid to assert their rights and interests as individuals, afraid to assert these rights and interests as moral absolutes, because they are afraid of being labelled selfish. So it is vital that we draw certain distinctions. What I am advocating is not selfishness in the conventional sense: the vain, self-centered, grasping pursuit of pleasure, riches, prestige, or power. Genuine happiness results from a life of productive achievement, of stable relationships with friends and family, of peaceful exchange with others. The pursuit of our self-interest in this sense requires that we act in accordance with moral standards of rationality, responsibility, honesty, and fairness. If we understand the self and its interests in terms of these values, then I am happy to acknowledge that I am advocating selfishness.

By patrick on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 01:07 pm:

    Spunk, you can do your own reading, but at times, in various parts of the world, notably India, famines of the past were often caused by the fact that cash crops replaced substanance crops. Like coffee instead of rice. Coffee produced in conjunction with wealthy american buyers. Coffee that the government of India made lots of tax revenue from.

    its shameful that in a country as rich as the US anyone should be underfed, in ill health with no care and denied education due to lack of money.

By spunky on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 01:13 pm:

    who is being denied education?
    yes, it is a horrible thing that there are people going hungry, maybe we should divert some money from paying farmers NOT TO FARM (hidden as droubt releif) to food programs or pay the farmers to grow crops to feed the hungry? maybe use the produce to provide free lunches at school, or go to local soup kitchens, or something like that.
    There are certainly ways to accomplish this AND help the economy.

By dave. on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 01:13 pm:

    is that like substanance abuse, patrick?

By patrick on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 01:29 pm:

    spunk, have you seen how much it will cost to send your daughters to college?

    if thats not a near impossible wall to climb, i don't know what is.

    grrrrr suck it dave.

    hey speaking of education and shit dave. have you mapped out a plan for cleo?

    nico's parents are starting a 529 for her. thats really nice an all, but its really really narrow. what if she decides she doesnt want to attend a 4 year? what if she wants to take a few years off? 529s are very limited in how they are used. I was considering starting one, but now im not sure its best way. its entirely possible that within 18 years Congress could close the window on the tax-free status it currently enjoys. Thats entirely possible.

    So, I m curious what ideas you have for the matter.

    We want to have a shit load of money to send her to college or at least send her on her way of self discovery, be it a time abroad, investing in some sort of proprietorship or here at school or a combination thereof. We want to give her the options neither of us had.

By dave. on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 02:24 pm:

    we got no plan cause we got no cash flow.

    so she better either be real purty and marry a rich guy or real smart and get scholarships.

By kazu on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 02:38 pm:

    I'm not going to bother with your questions Spunk, I don't have time for a term paper. A lot of this I'm pulling out of my ass so bear with.

    You base your opinions on what it means to be a "liberal" by the half-assed wussy politicing of democrats. It is much more complicated that that when you actually get down to citizens. They have a certain job to do and are working with limited mechanisms. They have to make compromises. And they're pussies.

    Most of your suggestions, Spunky, are discussed by various liberal and leftists critics and activists. Who is it that raises farming issues? Who analyzes the difference between manufacturing and selling costs?

    Sociologists and political economists work on both the macro and micro levels. As far as starting small, lots of grassroots organizations are working within communities. They leave issues concerning policy and legilslation to other people. There is a lot of conflict between all of these groups. Many of the people I read, do not want to rely on the government, and no one in Women's Studies wants the government policing private life. You seem to think the "liberals" want to control private life, but a truly "liberal" government would not institute Big Brother or other such policing policies.

    As far as $12 combs go, you can't just say, let's make some things less expensive without taking into consideration the myriad of economic forces involved. If they cut that comb's price in half, someone is going to lose that revenue and that is going to effect on more than just patients in the hospital who can now afford combs.

    Unfortunately, the government is already implicated in the problem even for the smallest, community oriented, narrowly focused groups. They have laws to abide by, funding mechanisms that are regulated by law, and limited access to funds. And no, it isn't the government's job to hand out money to everyone, but I think some kind of active "participation" or "knowledge" or "acknowledgement" of issues would lead to significant structural changes. Lost of organizations do this all the time, but few, if any, stray from the basic model, say for example, corporations don't move away from capitalism, even as they make enormous changes in the structure of the workforce. Similarly, the government doesn't have to take on a new political (and economic) structure, to make structural changes.

    I can't think about this anymore without having to start referring to books so I can throw in numbers and stats and better arguments and examples.

    I don't have time for that.

By kazu on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 02:39 pm:

    I meant that the democrats were pussies, not the citizens.

    Although many of them are.

By TBone on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 02:56 pm:

    As I understand it, the money that goes to farmers to grow less food is to keep from overproducing and driving small farms out of the market.
    I don't know if it works or if it's the right thing to do. Complex economics.
    I just did a bunch of googling on the subject and all I find are opposing theories. It's certainly a lot more complicated than getting cheap food if they produce more. No simple answer.
    I just don't know.

By kazu on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 03:05 pm:

    That's part of the problem. My area of study has little to do with economics per se, but just from what I read of other people (not all of whom are feminist or even academic leftists) every "issue" that arises can be made to seem small with a possible solution until you start to dig deeper into the complex economic and legal systems that it is attached to.

By spunky on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 03:11 pm:

    just like you said about the cost of a comb.
    The reason a combe costs $12? to help defer the costs of patient bills not being paid.
    Why are patient bills not being paid?
    Because of the high cost of service.
    You have a cycle that spins out of control, you have ER's filled with kids with the common cold,
    you have seniors that cannot afford prescriptions, and they are waiting for admintance into the full ER, and the cycle goes faster and faster.

By sarah on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 03:11 pm:

    that quote is from The Hunt for Red October.

By spunky on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 03:21 pm:

    Thanks Sarah, I thought it was..........

By Platypus on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 07:08 pm:

    Actually the group with the least access to healthcare is 18-25, fyi.

By beta on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 09:01 pm:

    i know this portion of the argument is over, but... i recruit for a market research company that is in the middle of a "growth spurt" and we have been hiring between 50 and 60 people per week for nearly a month. we pay $7-8 per hour, most of our potential employees are low-income, recently incarcerated or young, single parents.

    plenty of jobs to go around

    these people come to set up intevriews with me at all hours of the day, they wear their best clothes and type out resumes and they TRY so fucking hard to get a job here
    the only problem is that about 70% of the applicants neither read nor write well enough to conduct a rudimentary phone survey.
    most of them are also graduates of the nyc public school systems
    almost all of them are minorities
    most of them attended schools in poor neighborhoods

    many of the ones who DO get hired work 7 days a week, just to get by

By Rowlf on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 09:48 pm:

    "haha rowlf quoted rush limbaugh to make his point. dittohead. "

    Where did I stick up for Rush?

By Nate on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 10:01 pm:


The Stalking Post: General goddam chit-chat Every 3 seconds: Sex . Can men and women just be friends? . Dreamland . Insomnia . Are you stoned? . What are you eating? I need advice: Can you help? . Reasons to be cheerful . Days and nights . Words . Are there any news? Wishful thinking: Have you ever... . I wish you were... . Why I oughta... Is it art?: This question seems to come up quite often around here. Weeds: Things that, if erased from our cultural memory forever, would be no great loss Surfwatch: Where did you go on the 'net today? What are you listening to?: Worst music you've ever heard . What song or tune is going through your head right now? . Obscure composers . Obscure Jazz, 1890-1950 . Whatever, whenever General Questions: Do you have any regrets? . Who are you? . Where are you? . What are you doing here? . What have you done? . Why did you do it? . What have you failed to do? . What are you wearing? . What do you want? . How do you do? . What do you want to do today? . Are you stupid? Specific Questions: What is the cruelest thing you ever did? . Have you ever been lonely? . Have you ever gone hungry? . Are you pissed off? . When is the last time you had sex? . What does it look like where you are? . What are you afraid of? . Do you love me? . What is your definition of Heaven? . What is your definition of Hell? Movies: Last movie you saw . Worst movie you ever saw . Best movie you ever saw Reading: Best book you've ever read . Worst book you've ever read . Last book you read Drunken ramblings: uiphgy8 hxbjf.bklf ghw789- bncgjkvhnqwb=8[ . Payphones: Payphone Project BBS . torturechamber . . receipts . contact