Notices
Results 1 to 58 of 58

Thread: Democratic Socialism (US)

  1. #1 Democratic Socialism (US) 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    My Brand of Socialism (US)

    We are supposed to be a citizens government as the Constitution dictates.
    The aversion of the conservatives to Democratic Socialism and replacing it with corporate
    socialism is a clear violation of our Constitution and its intent of serving the people.

    Our Constitution (CN) has outlawed the self serving individuals like kings, dictators,
    emporers, popes and any other 'self serving' individuals like capitalists and criminals.

    The most logical way to do this is by reforming the electoral system to get rid of the
    corrupting dollar influences that the wealthy and the corporations have used to get
    control of the politicians.

    This can be done with the ‘Public Financing of Our Elections’ with the private dollars
    banned from this government function.
    Private dollars, which buy advertising, are NOT free speech and therefore can be
    legally banned.
    Through this process, the politicians would be free from having to solicit these corrupting
    dollars and direct their attention to the citizen issues. Once we get the servants of the
    citizens into office, we can then push through a socialist platform such as the
    one below, which I would advocate.

    My idea of a Socialist government would be to promote the following:

    Guarantee jobs for all citizens.......... No unemployment!

    Guaranteed pensions for all citizens.............For workers, management personnel,
    government employees and any other responsible citizens.

    Guaranteed health care.............For all citizens and including all credited healthcare
    practitioners such as Naturopathic doctors, acupuncture as a substitute for analgesics
    and etc. .

    And any other essential needs at a reasonable subsistence level.
    All the details would be formatted by citizen committees.
    The wonderful thing about this program is that one would not need to save any money.
    They can spend it all to contribute to a thriving economy that creates jobs.

    With this system, they would not need religion either since this security is what people
    need and want.

    Corporate and wealthy hoarded dollars (surplus) DO NOT contribute to a thriving
    Economy.
    Our current economy is a lopsided one where the people that do the least have the
    highest incomes while the workers have had their incomes reduced to a barely
    subsistence level.
    There are only two sources of ‘real tangible wealth’ (RTW). These sources are Nature
    as a commodity and the worker produced tangible goods.
    RTW is what we see and feel like the skyscrapers, bridges, highways, automobiles,
    homes and etc.
    While on the other hand, the conservative capitalists creations are all in their heads.
    This is not tangible wealth. Therefore, workers deserve better and a fairer distribution
    of the RTW that they create.

    However, in this Socialist state, ‘free enterprise’ would be allowed and government
    supported. But there would be limitations on this accumulated wealth as determined
    by the citizens.
    Income taxes would be graduated on SURPLUS income only from a rate of about 95%
    for the top earners to a bottom rate of about 5% for the minimum wage earners.
    Any other details can be worked out to restore our economy to a more balanced state...

    Of course, all these reforms would result from the government financed and modified
    electoral system in accordance with the Constitutional mandate of the ballot box and
    not through any revolutionary means by radical communists or coup d’etat power
    conspiracies. .

    Cosmo


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Cosmo; You post is too wide ranging for a comprehensive response, however I will address a couple issues...

    The US is made up of 50 separate and independent governments, limited only to the Constitution, its amendments and the laws that can be drawn from those meanings. What you suggest, violate nearly all those laws and eliminate *State Rights*. No single issue mentioned, could in the end become law, for the founders intended use of *Checks & Balances* or the process to amend that original intent.

    You mentioned the*Electoral System*, which is used ONLY, for the electing of two people every four years, has nothing to do with any other
    election system. Even here, the elector's which are voted on by the public in each State and are State Representatives who represent their State at a Special Meeting. They are not obligated to even follow the peoples decisions, though traditionally have. The system was set up, when male property owners were the only voters and the founders were concerned with decisions they could make. We now only limit voting to those under 18.

    Our Constitution does not outlaw anything having to do with Royalty, Corporations, religious people or in fact criminals. Age 35 and born in this Country (with exceptions) are the requirements. The electorate does this job and has not always been perfect.

    Lets say, people earning 50k were in the 5% tax bracket and any one earning over 1M were taxed 95%. About what would be required to pay for such a government. The lower bracket would keep 47,500 and the higher earner would keep 50,000. What incentive is there for anyone to advance in any way. Education, exploring ideas or advancing any agenda concerned with a society...


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    "With this system, they would not need religion either since this security is what people
    need and want. "

    sounds like marx

    usa allows emperors because emperor Norton was emperor and he dissolved congress and both politicul parties


    http://www.sfhistoryencyclopedia.com...tonJoshua.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I think it is touching that Cosmo's political views are as disjointed and as far from convention as his views on the Big Bang.

    This, of course, does not mean he is wrong about either.

    Nor does it mean he is right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Jackson:

    The US Constitution is the CN of today, not the origiinal one that did not have all the Amendments added.

    I believe in Evolution and therefore, I believe in todays CN with all its Amendments.
    Our CN has 'matured'.

    However, it is still being ignored because of religious loyalties and dollar influences.

    So we DO need reform. That is why I promete my politicall solution to the current problems that are facing our nation today. So I hope the US citizens get the message here.

    Under the republicans that cater to these dollar influences and religious fanatics, our country is floundring with todays problems like a balooning budget and national deficit/debt, shrinking dollar on the international market, outright chauvinism shown among the democrats and republicans promoting their religions is an insult to our Constitution and what it stands for today.

    That is why we 'need' political 'reforn', not religious reform.

    I could go on promoting my views but time is limited, so I will close this for now.''

    Holmes:

    This Norton character is of biblical origin, not of our current CN and what it teaches.
    The followers of the bible today are the source of all the problems in our country and throughout the world. Who needs it?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    The US Constitution is the same as was written. This the primary purpose, formation and operation of the Federal Government. The first ten amendments were from the same people who wrote the constitution and done so to emphasize rights of people over government. Each of those ten, were examples of how the amending process should work as well.
    In the next 225 years only 17 amendments have been added, many of which were issues argued in 1776. Slavery, womens rights or rights of people.

    What has changed, to some degree are the laws, which can be changed to accommodate social trends. The founders were aware of a changing society and allowed for change through amendments, not enacting laws to circumvent the intent of their document.

    "Problems of today" of course are subjective, different in each state and the opinion of each individual. Its up to the folks in a particular state to amend their individual Constitution, not the requirement of the other 49 to conform to the one. Culture/Traditions, no less different.

    As for republicans and/or Capitalism; Yes they (we) do believe in a Free Market system and feel it has been instrumental in the success of this country. We promote it world wide, in hopes other Nations can achieve what we have. World peace, if achievable, will come from advancements which can be, under this system. Democrat's however are not far off the reservation, only wanting in on the action.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson
    As for republicans and/or Capitalism; Yes they (we) do believe in a Free Market system and feel it has been instrumental in the success of this country. We promote it world wide, in hopes other Nations can achieve what we have. World peace, if achievable, will come from advancements which can be, under this system. Democrat's however are not far off the reservation, only wanting in on the action
    Capitalism believes in the 'free market system', when it gives them access to cheap labor.
    But when it comes to access for the seniors for cheap drugs, they are told to buy american.

    Capitalism does not create any tangible wealth as I have said before. In this case, they need workers (hands) to do it for them.
    With their 'dollar stuffing frenzy', they have created a lopsided economy that will lead to corporate bankruptcies if they do not learn to 'share the wealth' that workers produce. So I would like to inform them to dump their DSF.'

    When it came to the past prosperous economy, it was the 'inventors' and the governments licensing these patents that made the economy grow. Capitalism just stepped in and supplied the investment dollars they scrounged up to contribute their involvement in this growth.

    Anyway, like I said before, I do not oppose capitalism. I just would like to see 'limitations' as to how much they can skim off the economy.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Free Market, includes labor. Business that requires high concentrations of labor are forced to pay what the available work force demands. This can be through wages or benefits. High Tech Corporations are not importing labor from abroad because its cheap labor, but our educational system is not educating our people. Think you would agree...

    I can't argue the old folks and medication issue. Something would seem wrong when a person can save 50% by ordering the same medication from another country (Canada), receiving the same pill and produce by the same source. However *buy American* is based on safety factors where foreign produced medication, in many cases has been found not to be what said. The problem probably in *Patten Privileges*, making generic US producers ineligible to compete for years. Here, Congress has decided the producers of life saving drugs, should have a way to recoup the moneys spent to R&D the medication.

    Since you agree the system has worked, I see trouble in changing the system. The logical answer, would be to educate workers to participate in the investment side which many already do. The 60% or so that work for small business (nothing to invest in) should be allowed to invest through regulated mutual funds, rather than SS payments...IMO.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Free Market, includes labor. Business that requires high concentrations of labor are forced to pay what the available work force demands. This can be through wages or benefits. High Tech Corporations are not importing labor from abroad because its cheap labor, but our educational system is not educating our people. Think you would agree...

    I can't argue the old folks and medication issue. Something would seem wrong when a person can save 50% by ordering the same medication from another country (Canada), receiving the same pill and produce by the same source. However *buy American* is based on safety factors where foreign produced medication, in many cases has been found not to be what said. The problem probably in *Patten Privileges*, making generic US producers ineligible to compete for years. Here, Congress has decided the producers of life saving drugs, should have a way to recoup the moneys spent to R&D the medication.

    Since you agree the system has worked, I see trouble in changing the system. The logical answer, would be to educate workers to participate in the investment side which many already do. The 60% or so that work for small business (nothing to invest in) should be allowed to invest through regulated mutual funds, rather than SS payments...IMO.
    Regarding the drug problem, drugs from Canada and Europe are of equal quality to the US product.

    Anyway, the current healthcare monopoly created for the US drug companies and other facilities are not equal to the Alternative Healthcare Practitioners because these AHP are superior to the US HC system in both cure rates and costs. They use 'natural' medicines.

    The current side effects of these drug treatments kill over 100,000 patients a year (JAMA). Another one and a half million are hospitalized because of the 'side effects' (JAMA) of these drugs. This is an example when capitalism has this closed monopoly to keep pushing their drugs on the public regardless of the ourcome of the treatments .

    Regarding retirement, do you expect a low income person to invest enough money in the market to retire on its earnings?
    Another problem with these investments is that the market does lose through capital losses occasionally.
    The safest investment is in the US system of SS and non other is equal.

    The conservative wars on unions that represent the workers is unjustified because our Constitution mandates a representation of its citizens and who is more deserving of this than the workers?

    Nuff said.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Influenza vaccines are produced in Canada and England, because of current regulations in the US on manufacturers today. The cost to research and development of any new product, entails billions in many cases, which has to be recouped. Grants and funding does come from government, to some extent but investors in this area nearly equals the entire US budget. I can't emphasize enough, the need for pharmaceuticals to remain independent.

    I have already agreed, their should be some relief for people, with fixed incomes and the poor. This in my opinion, could just as well come from States, rather than the Federal Government. Many do and even Wal-Mart has jumped on the issue...

    People mis-use drugs and IMO most are not needed in the first place. The treatment industry (Hospitals/Clinics etc) additionally overcharges to extremes. There are reasons, which could be remedied, but would get thrown off this forum, if I mention.

    "Educate", the premise of my statement on retiring comfortably. Yes, I think, any person could, millions have and most really want to. The problem is a new car, a boat or some object is always there to entice living the retirement dream that day, not 10-40 years down the road.

    I worked for GM, under Union Contract for a few years. Working on the line, one day a light bulb burned out and I replaced that bulb with a spare at my station. The line would shut down if I had not, with a cost of about 5,000 $ per minute in those days. My reward, from the Union was a week off w/o pay for doing what an electrician was required to do. Today 50 thousand plus members of those unions are receiving FULL pay for doing absolutely nothing, as plants shut down for lack of sales. While GM and Ford are losing 50 BILLION PER QUARTER, there competition workers are changing there own bulbs and working for going wages. Detroit has gone from the 7th best per capita family income, lowest welfare rate, to off the chart and highest welfare rate. I see nothing good that has come from organized labor in the past 50 years nor do I think conservatives had anything to do with it.

    I do understand you viewpoints however, but the days of isolationism are gone. There not coming back and we and our descendants are going to live in a world economy. We can't, as a Nation, survive alone or can any other Country. Going back to waring over commodities are also gone and IMO, I would rather they stay -gone-...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Jackson:

    I will admit that unions may have gone to extremes in protecting their jobs.
    But why question the tactics of unions?

    How aboiut the corporate CEO's skimming all those retirement or severence packages for themselves? They may not do this directly but they do pick the BoD's that serve them, don't they?

    Cobsidering that they do nothing but listen to their boards of directors for ideas and discussing business deals in a fancy gourmet restaurant or on a golf course.
    And for that they get multimillion dollar incomes?

    The failure of the Detroit auto industry is not the fault of the unions but instead, the CEO's that dragged their feet in correcting the defects in the cars?
    I used to keep track of the quality of the US cars and the Japanese cars and they corrected defects within a year or two.
    But in the US cars, these defects lingered for as long as six years before being corrected. So the problem for the loss of sales can be placed at the top management.

    Also, the spread between the top earners in the US and its workers is much greater that that in the Japanese industries.

    In the earlier years when the auto industry was enjoying good sales with the strong unions and highly paid CEO's, Ford built up a 'slush' fund of 7 billion and Chrysler had one of 9 billion.
    At that time, there was no announcement of GM's slush fund.

    Cosmo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Unions were of course, "good for society in there day". We have been hearing this for years and years. The tactics and motives of Organized Labor have changed from Labor concerns to survival. To do this they, more and more has been taken from the thriving business or captive government and teachers. Each case has proved bad for the society and making a class of people which is near a monarchy form of society (lifetime appointments to a JOB)...

    We have gone over CEO's compensation many times. Lets try a specific, but by no means the only one. Lee Iaccoca, a very successful employee of Ford, worked his way to CEO of that company. Fired the year, Ford earned its highest annual earnings per adjusted money values, because he couldn't get along with Mrs. Henry Ford. Chrysler a dieing company sought Mr. Iaccoca and he obliged. Worked for 1.00 per year, arranged an unheard of loan from government and pulled that out of Bankruptcy. His later wages and compensations were in line and well worth it to that Company. In short there are very few people who can run a major company and those people, now require more and more to attempt or in fact do the job...

    Every car, produced by GM or Ford has a near 2,000 dollars cost before heading onto the production line, for what Unions have required. This cost does not exist with Toyota or other domestic producers. GM and Ford, chose to produce larger truck style vehicles (PU=SUV's and the like) even Big Trucks and school bus chassis for awhile. I know the argument about small cars or the quality of their products, but hold little value in these arguments. Productivity of both, finally caught up with competition but not off the line. They are both showing profits outside the US where unions do not exist. Ford in India and GM in China are both very profitable.

    Keep in mind, over the years since auto have been, there have been hundreds of auto producers who have gone under. Nearly every one for labor cost, not necessarily product. GM, Ford and Chrysler, management
    have always linked management wages (non union) to those of the union workers, encouraged to a degree unions and allowed to grow by the unions per their contracts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Jackson:

    All you are doing is cheapening labor to the lowest level of subsistance.

    Are you telling me that those billionaires deserve those bloated incomes while the workers are being overpaid in the US here with those cheap wages?

    Like I said before, are those cheap workers in China and India going to buy American?

    Do you see what the government is doing now to give the 'sick' US economy a 'shot in the arm'?
    While Bush gave kickbacks to the taxpayers before, now he has to give them more kickbacks to prop up the economy.

    Your capitalism is not working here in the US.
    It is investing abroad to keep stuffing their multimillion dollar incomes that do not contribute to the mass purchasing power of our people (workers).

    If Ioccocca worked for one dollar, why cannot the current billionares do the same?

    Ioccoca was an exception to the upper management. The fact that he worked for one dollar just goes to show that they do not need those bloated incomes since they do not spend those dollars that approach 90% of their incomes.

    It is only the spenders that contribute to a thriving economy. The US economy, that is.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    No Mike, the worker IS the lowest paid and receives the least of the profit for a single reason. He/she has not, for whatever reason, advanced beyond that level. We are discussing at the corporate level, which few work in. The 70% of small business is where most work. They work, in general for a person or a few people who put all there money into a business and take the chance on losing everything put up. More than one in two will fail and rarely do the employees lose a thing, other than the job. At the corporate level, management loves nothing more than advancing current employees and most often the case. Most management comes from there, even in the case where the Unions are involved.

    Why China??? Use Japan, as we did 50 years ago. Japan makes cheap goods, Japan doesn't pay decent wage and later Japan was buying up the US and moved their factories to the US and around the world, for cheap labor or cost to manufacture. ITS A SOCIAL issue and works.

    Iaccoca, is one of many, if not most. Fred Smith, a worker for the US Postal service, tried to get his bosses to try a specific program. They refused, he quit and tried it himself. Before he could get the program started, he was unable to meet a payroll. Took his last 50k to Vegas and told his story. He won, and the next week Federal Express was born. The idea, not that complicated; Have all mail (freight) shipped to one point for redistribution around the country. The results, the largest package delivery system the world will probably ever know and the largest carrier of US Mail today. There are hundreds of people every day, that place everything they have on an idea and many more that are rewarded only by performance. Most of the earning of the CEO, CFO and other high management are from stock price increases.

    The Congressional Rebate (Economic Stimulus) and signed by GWB, is in short a political gimmick. The best bet would have been, just to make the Tax Cuts permanent, which would lift the markets by 20% in a few weeks and generate corporate spending the same day. Not doing this and the threat of abolishing those cuts or letting them expire have created this slow down, not the housing issue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    No Mike, the worker IS the lowest paid and receives the least of the profit for a single reason. He/she has not, for whatever reason, advanced beyond that level. We are discussing at the corporate level, which few work in. The 70% of small business is where most work. They work, in general for a person or a few people who put all there money into a business and take the chance on losing everything put up. More than one in two will fail and rarely do the employees lose a thing, other than the job. At the corporate level, management loves nothing more than advancing current employees and most often the case. Most management comes from there, even in the case where the Unions are involved.
    I am supportive of the small businesses. That is why I am complaining about the billionaires and multimillionaires as skimming all the wealth for themselves rather than sharing it with the people that create it.

    Why China??? Use Japan, as we did 50 years ago. Japan makes cheap goods, Japan doesn't pay decent wage and later Japan was buying up the US and moved their factories to the US and around the world, for cheap labor or cost to manufacture. ITS A SOCIAL issue and works.
    As I said above, the Japanese have emphasized 'quality' in producing their product (CARS), rather than power and design as a marketing tool.
    It took 10 years for this to catch on amongst the American consumers.
    So quality outsold power and design.

    Iaccoca, is one of many, if not most. Fred Smith, a worker for the US Postal service, tried to get his bosses to try a specific program. They refused, he quit and tried it himself. Before he could get the program started, he was unable to meet a payroll. Took his last 50k to Vegas and told his story. He won, and the next week Federal Express was born. The idea, not that complicated; Have all mail (freight) shipped to one point for redistribution around the country. The results, the largest package delivery system the world will probably ever know and the largest carrier of US Mail today. There are hundreds of people every day, that place everything they have on an idea and many more that are rewarded only by performance. Most of the earning of the CEO, CFO and other high management are from stock price increases.
    So the Feds excell in package deliveries.
    I do not know how their prices compare to UPS or the US Postal service, but when I send mail, I use the USPS rather than Fedex. For packages, I used UPS.
    Strictly for convenience rather than preference of prices or deliveries.

    The Congressional Rebate (Economic Stimulus) and signed by GWB, is in short a political gimmick. The best bet would have been, just to make the Tax Cuts permanent, which would lift the markets by 20% in a few weeks and generate corporate spending the same day. Not doing this and the threat of abolishing those cuts or letting them expire have created this slow down, not the housing issue.
    As usual, cutting taxes and increased spending is not the solution for balancing the budget or stimulating the economy.
    Those that can 'afford' to pay higher taxes, should do so as a patriotic gesture, rather than hoarding the dollars that are not spent to promote jobs. Spreading this wealth increases the demand for goods and so increases the job availability.
    This is the solution for a more prosperous economy.
    Cutting taxes for the ultra rich does not help the market because these people do not spend all their dollars. So how do these hoarded dollars help the economy?
    The slowing down of the economy happened after the tax cuts were implemented. So these cuts did nothing for the economy.

    The Feds cut interest rates down to one of the lowest levels in years.
    This created a refinancing of mortgages and demand for houses as an investment.
    But this refinancing was for 'variable' mortgages, not fixed mortgages.
    Result?
    When the Feds started to raising the inertests rates on US dollars, the lenders started to raise the variable mortgage rates. So you know the result.
    Borrowers could no meet their higher inflated payments and are defaulting on these increases as a result. So the housing market started to sink.
    Also, the job market was shrinking as a result of outsourcing of jobs.
    So these problems are all the result of the free market world economy.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    There is no Corporation, that began as Big Business or a corporation. Even the giants of Microsoft or Google, were some persons dream the process to become what they are. Since you favor small business, are you suggesting business should be limited to income.

    The folks you seem so opposed to are in charge of thousands of employees, have to deal with millions of investors along with a board of directors and above all cater to and convince a public of there product or service. Once again, there are just so many people on the planet that can accomplish this task to the degree it must be done. I can't, nor can 99.99% of the working people or in fact most all the folks in small business. Why not take your frustrations out on Athletes or Hollywood where incomes far out rank corporate management, for a whole lot less work and in most cases a whole lot less real talent. I would still argue their right to this, but the importance to a society is much less.

    The Japan, I was talking about and you know this, was after WWII, when the US was bombarded with products from Japan. These sold for 1/10th what US manufacturers charged along with the process to where they dominate could well be the same for China, in the future.

    If at noon on day one, I want something delivered by 8AM the next day I will ship Fed Ex. Its never failed. I do use UPS, when time of no importance and save a considerable amount over USPS o FX. One point was, Federal Express is used by the postal service to move a great deal of the USPS mail and packages today. No one said the Feds do anything well...they do not.

    You support Small Business, but want to tax them more. I don't understand this. All people with large asset portfolios, have people to control their taxes. The vast majority of small business file and pay taxes the way any person does, not the corporate structure. Lowering the Corporate Tax is fine, but it would only allow a slight reduction in the cost of product or maybe a higher dividend for the investors. Income taxes have to do with most small business and up to a million or so cheaper than corporation the corporate tax rates. Corporate up to 39% and few deductions vs. 35% and many additional deduction, to say nothing of regulations avoided.

    During the 10+ years of the Housing BOOM, where prices went up and interest rates went down, the option for fixed 20-30 year loans did not disappear. People bought or chose to barrow at variable rates, thinking rates would go down and bought thinking values would go up. When values stabilized or retreated some and rates increased, the cost of those variables did increase. Thats been the way it works for ever and those with fixed rates did not get hurt. The choice was there for everyone.

    I still hold to the increased local and State Taxes on property, which no one seems to consider, as playing a larger role on defaulting loans. In many places, especially California and Florida (hardest hit), these taxes have tripled or quadrupled. Annual tax debt of 2,500.00 (for a 150,000 valuation) to 7,500.00 to 10,000 (on the same valuation---plus the increased valuation, not figured in) in ten years is quite an increase, which the added recent burden of 100-150.00 per month on the mortgage was just to much to handle. By the way local, state taxes and interest paid are all deductible on Federal tax returns and there is no sign of lost federal revenues. This tells me the majority were not paying taxes to begin with and maybe had no business buying homes or over bought.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    There is no Corporation, that began as Big Business or a corporation. Even the giants of Microsoft or Google, were some persons dream the process to become what they are. Since you favor small business, are you suggesting business should be limited to income.

    The folks you seem so opposed to are in charge of thousands of employees, have to deal with millions of investors along with a board of directors and above all cater to and convince a public of there product or service. Once again, there are just so many people on the planet that can accomplish this task to the degree it must be done. I can't, nor can 99.99% of the working people or in fact most all the folks in small business. Why not take your frustrations out on Athletes or Hollywood where incomes far out rank corporate management, for a whole lot less work and in most cases a whole lot less real talent. I would still argue their right to this, but the importance to a society is much less.
    The worlds largest corporation is run by a CEO that works for just $400,000 a year. So how do you explain that?

    The Japan, I was talking about and you know this, was after WWII, when the US was bombarded with products from Japan. These sold for 1/10th what US manufacturers charged along with the process to where they dominate could well be the same for China, in the future.
    I cannot dispute what you say but that does not sound realistic.
    You mean Japanese cars sold for one tenth the price of the US cars?

    If at noon on day one, I want something delivered by 8AM the next day I will ship Fed Ex. Its never failed. I do use UPS, when time of no importance and save a considerable amount over USPS o FX. One point was, Federal Express is used by the postal service to move a great deal of the USPS mail and packages today. No one said the Feds do anything well...they do not.
    I cannot comment here because I do not follow the industries relative merits except what happens openly in the public sector.

    You support Small Business, but want to tax them more. I don't understand this. All people with large asset portfolios, have people to control their taxes. The vast majority of small business file and pay taxes the way any person does, not the corporate structure. Lowering the Corporate Tax is fine, but it would only allow a slight reduction in the cost of product or maybe a higher dividend for the investors. Income taxes have to do with most small business and up to a million or so cheaper than corporation the corporate tax rates. Corporate up to 39% and few deductions vs. 35% and many additional deduction, to say nothing of regulations avoided.
    Well, you are defending the large corporations that avoid taxes. One figure is that 60% of the corporations do not pay taxes.
    The top rate of 35-38 percent for income taxes is not my version of prorating income taxes. Like I said, the billionaires can afford to pay income taxes on 'SURPLUS' incomes by up to 95%.
    The tax rebels are the ones that caused these top rates to be reduced to their current level.
    So the rest of the businesses and citizens have to make up this short fall in the budget.
    The wealthy talk with their dollars even though there is no need to do so.
    And they condemn the poor for getting government welfare!

    During the 10+ years of the Housing BOOM, where prices went up and interest rates went down, the option for fixed 20-30 year loans did not disappear. People bought or chose to barrow at variable rates, thinking rates would go down and bought thinking values would go up. When values stabilized or retreated some and rates increased, the cost of those variables did increase. Thats been the way it works for ever and those with fixed rates did not get hurt. The choice was there for everyone.

    I still hold to the increased local and State Taxes on property, which no one seems to consider, as playing a larger role on defaulting loans. In many places, especially California and Florida (hardest hit), these taxes have tripled or quadrupled. Annual tax debt of 2,500.00 (for a 150,000 valuation) to 7,500.00 to 10,000 (on the same valuation---plus the increased valuation, not figured in) in ten years is quite an increase, which the added recent burden of 100-150.00 per month on the mortgage was just to much to handle. By the way local, state taxes and interest paid are all deductible on Federal tax returns and there is no sign of lost federal revenues. This tells me the majority were not paying taxes to begin with and maybe had no business buying homes or over bought.
    I see no further reason to comment because the states were deprived of some federal funds plus the other shortages and increased 'security' costs incurred by the 9/11 capitalisms NWO clobbering.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Cosmo; Well, the worlds largest corporation is Wal-Mart. Lee Scott, the CEO earns about 1.2m per year and with misc. ends up about 22m each year. His retirement package is not public, but would think he will retire in comfort...

    #2 Exxon/Mobile followed by Royal Dutch/Shell, British Petrolium, GM, Toyota, Daimler Chrysler, Chevron, Conoco Phillips and Total (Gas/diesel/convenience store).

    Warren Buffett, does work for very little, think is about 400k, but is worth 50 Trillion, so couldn't be him. I do know CEO's in many countries do work for much less than their US counter parts, but then so are the requirements...

    After the War, Japan made little things from scraps left there by the military. But they sold, eventually leading to larger products in the 50's and 60's. Work was outsourced as well, which eventually led to electronics, auto's and the Japanese Owned Corporations. Those original products sold for 10 cents on the dollar. Paper weights, book ends and such.

    I am defending nothing, because nothing needs defending. Most business in the US beyond small business make very little to no money for the volumes concerned. Corporation, that become profitable do pay taxes, but those taxes are built into there cost of operations. That is corporations pay nothing, their customers and investors do...

    You might like to check out NASDAQ Small Caps or The Pink Sheets or any penny stock listing. About 20k such firms, you can invest in from .0001 cent per share on up. 99% plus make no money, never have and only a few will ever. They make up 80% of Corporations and don't pay taxes, because they don't make a profit...

    I don't know why any corporation, would condemn people for taking welfare. Most are dependent on people to buy there products which this welfare provides the dollars to do just that. Many, if not most corporate heads are in fact the liberal foundation of the Democrat Party. Sorros and Buffett, just a couple.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Jackson

    The whole Walmart family are all billionaires. So this should tell you that they have HUGE profit margins to become billionaires.

    Warren Buffet is not a trillionaire. He was a billionaire that transferred about 30 billion to William Gates non-profit charitable organization.
    Buffet made practically all his money by simply playing the stock market.
    He was primarily a gambler.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Jackson

    The whole Wal Mart family are all billionaires. So this should tell you that they have HUGE profit margins to become billionaires.

    Warren Buffet is not a trillionaire. He was a billionaire that transferred about 30 billion to William Gates non-profit charitable organization.
    Buffet made practically all his money by simply playing the stock market.
    He was primarily a gambler.

    Cosmo
    Buffett worth, a typo...think you knew that. Speaking of trillions, its said BH has about 15 trillion in cash or liquid assets (Gold-silver-bonds).

    You are correct on Buffett, but your wording is mis-leading. Buffett took his money and any others who CHOSE to invest in his wisdom. I did not, had the choice and could be worth many millions today if I had. You likewise had a choice. Gambling however on the future of industry, like Coke, Pepsi, KFC and most of todays big names in industry is not likened to a trip to Vegas. If in the 80's you invested 20k in Berkshire/Hathaway and stayed with it the value today would be 3 million. There are much better examples for us older folks, such as IBM, MMM or a number of up-starts of the 40's and 50's which 1k dollar investment per year would have made you millions, along with an annual income.

    This takes me back to "education of the public" or some control over your SS payments. It would serve the young, better to encourage them to invest in industry, rather than condemn industry for wealth of many folks.

    The Walton family is just another example of the above as Pop Sam, gave stock to his family instead of money, which taxes are due only on the sales of that stock. Joe Kennedy, did much the same with a Trust Fund and most those bad evil capitalist had/have similar plans set up on their death. The Walton Family combined is worth about 65 Billion, just ahead of Gates...One more thing on Sam Walton; While working for the 5-10 store Kresge he tried to get them to build stores in small town USA. They said no, so he started what has become Wal-Mart, think in the 50's. The company now has a million plus employees, with stores around the world.
    Through stock option plans the company has made many of its employees worth a few million, which nearly all have had some choice in the matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Jackson

    The whole Wal Mart family are all billionaires. So this should tell you that they have HUGE profit margins to become billionaires.

    Warren Buffet is not a trillionaire. He was a billionaire that transferred about 30 billion to William Gates non-profit charitable organization.
    Buffet made practically all his money by simply playing the stock market.
    He was primarily a gambler.

    Cosmo
    Buffett worth, a typo...think you knew that. Speaking of trillions, its said BH has about 15 trillion in cash or liquid assets (Gold-silver-bonds).

    You are correct on Buffett, but your wording is mis-leading. Buffett took his money and any others who CHOSE to invest in his wisdom. I did not, had the choice and could be worth many millions today if I had. You likewise had a choice. Gambling however on the future of industry, like Coke, Pepsi, KFC and most of todays big names in industry is not likened to a trip to Vegas. If in the 80's you invested 20k in Berkshire/Hathaway and stayed with it the value today would be 3 million. There are much better examples for us older folks, such as IBM, MMM or a number of up-starts of the 40's and 50's which 1k dollar investment per year would have made you millions, along with an annual income.

    This takes me back to "education of the public" or some control over your SS payments. It would serve the young, better to encourage them to invest in industry, rather than condemn industry for wealth of many folks.

    The Walton family is just another example of the above as Pop Sam, gave stock to his family instead of money, which taxes are due only on the sales of that stock. Joe Kennedy, did much the same with a Trust Fund and most those bad evil capitalist had/have similar plans set up on their death. The Walton Family combined is worth about 65 Billion, just ahead of Gates...One more thing on Sam Walton; While working for the 5-10 store Kresge he tried to get them to build stores in small town USA. They said no, so he started what has become Wal-Mart, think in the 50's. The company now has a million plus employees, with stores around the world.
    Through stock option plans the company has made many of its employees worth a few million, which nearly all have had some choice in the matter.
    To get back to the subject matter is to have a guaranteed job for life or 30-40 years and a guaranteed pension.

    I have no desire to be wealthy or to live a luxurious lifestyle.
    I am not driven by chauvinism as the bible teaches.

    I even work harder here in retirement that requires no work except to do my own house work and etc.
    I do not have a secratary to do my typing of what I promote on the internet. So I work harder than any capitalist does since they have their servants and office personel to work for them.

    So they do nothing but use their brains to avoid work by using others for their personal enrichment.
    Therefore, IMO, they do not earn the dollars they help themselves to.

    I also use my brains to represent the US citizens as our Constitution dictates.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    The worst two groups in the US for efficiency or productivity are government employees and the teaching profession. Both jobs by contract are all but guaranteed for life, with various forms of retirement packages. As a society we pay dearly for both...

    I just wrote about your personal example, on another thread. Although we do not agree on most social or domestic issues, much should be and is admired by me and I am sure any friends/family you may have.

    The one thing I do not understand, is why having lived through the periods you have, which I have to a large degree, you do not understand that government cannot replace character, drive, imagination or the personal spirit. These things and personal responsibility were so much of that past and missing in so many today.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    The worst two groups in the US for efficiency or productivity are government employees and the teaching profession. Both jobs by contract are all but guaranteed for life, with various forms of retirement packages. As a society we pay dearly for both...

    I just wrote about your personal example, on another thread. Although we do not agree on most social or domestic issues, much should be and is admired by me and I am sure any friends/family you may have.

    The one thing I do not understand, is why having lived through the periods you have, which I have to a large degree, you do not understand that government cannot replace character, drive, imagination or the personal spirit. These things and personal responsibility were so much of that past and missing in so many today.
    Well, I guess we can go on and on and resolve nothing.

    Our argument here is really a religious issue because the bible teaches 'chauvinism' while our US Constitution teaches/outlaws self serving individuals as the bible teaches.

    My solution for the current economic problem is to limit the runaway skimming of 'excessive unneeded' dollars off the US economy that has created this great inequity of wealth distribution that is currently sinking our economy into a 3rd world economy.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Your probably correct; Neither of us is going to change the others mind and although your thread has received a lot of 'views' no one seems to have additional comment.

    On religion, however; Most teach humility, sharing and much of what you believe. The Constitution, really teaches nothing, but protects the individual from actions of government. Redistribution, from tidings or dividends would seem to fit both...

    Third world countries, suffer from extremes of what you talk about, as do the elite where Monarchy or Communist governments control. Riches to the few and nothing for the rest and no choice allowed to participate...

    Have followed this topic on Hypo some and noted the same people that oppose you there, opposed a similar thread opposing my thoughts some time back...To argue or discuss for the sake of it, rather from conviction seems to me to be a wasted of time. At least your views are constant, in other words...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Your probably correct; Neither of us is going to change the others mind and although your thread has received a lot of 'views' no one seems to have additional comment.

    On religion, however; Most teach humility, sharing and much of what you believe. The Constitution, really teaches nothing, but protects the individual from actions of government. Redistribution, from tidings or dividends would seem to fit both...

    Third world countries, suffer from extremes of what you talk about, as do the elite where Monarchy or Communist governments control. Riches to the few and nothing for the rest and no choice allowed to participate...

    Have followed this topic on Hypo some and noted the same people that oppose you there, opposed a similar thread opposing my thoughts some time back...To argue or discuss for the sake of it, rather from conviction seems to me to be a wasted of time. At least your views are constant, in other words...
    I have been denied responding to posts on Hypography.

    Craig is the culprit.

    On my Brand of Socialism, I asked the question of whether Buffy believes in a 'balanced budget'? Did not get a response.

    What is your opinion?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    deleted by author...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    quick check, indicates its probably *Jay* and for a response in 'Theory of Everything'. Your RP points were wiped out, but no indication of being banned. Craig, is the only moderator I trust on that forum. Its a closed click bunch, still involved would be Infinite Now. Please check you PM there, to see if a reason was offered.

    Really don't think it was over your thread 'Socialism', as most there would have to agree with you in part. Buffy, is a died in the wool, Liberal, Graduate of Berkley SF and has made no bones about it, and is an administrator. Tormad is the law, but gives in to any of the moderators.
    Well, thanks for the info. My latest and most active critics are Buffy and than Craig.
    I got 3 reprimands from Craigs opinions that are wrong as was Buffy's
    prior one accusing me of being a sexist and racist that she used by 'TWISTING' my criticisms of the OT that I portrayed as sexist, chauvinist and racist. So in this case, she was completely wrong.
    Craig accused me of not providing sources for my opinions.

    On that post, I used Plancks Quantum science as a source but without any details and I used Bohr's HA theory that is fully credible as portrayed in all the physics books.
    So just mentioning Plancks and Bohrs names does not constitute a source for my postings? Nonsence.

    Yesterday, I answered some posts but they refused to post my replies.
    So it looks like I am banned for now and possibly permanently.They have not informed me of being banned or for how long.

    I think dollars and cents are involved here because I cannot contribute much of anything since I am not able to do so.
    I thought about it but find that there is not much information to do so.
    Before I contribute, I would only do so by check and I need an address to do that.
    Anyway, with the current problem, this would not be practical.

    BTW, you did not answer the question about a balanced budget?
    Buffy didn't either.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    deleted by author...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    deleted by author..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Cosmo; Received Email from member of Hypo, in reply to mine to him. He assures me being a sponsor has nothing to do with members access to the forum. He said sponsors are subject to rules, as well...He also said, your current status is active, but if you are still restricted in replying to post, those are from infractions, which expire in June.

    Mike, it is apparently over Einstein and Special Relativity. You should get used to using 'IMO' or somehow establishing the accepted views of the scientific community, opposed to yours. With this in mind, you might check out Physics Forums which if nothing else will add to you educational efforts. There are daily changes in all areas including Cosmology. I spend about 30 minutes a day reviewing comments, but have yet to sign on. Just use to learn...

    I am using your thread for this, because you are not very good in checking your PM file...Good luck.
    Thanks a lot for the info.
    However, regarding my version of science is based on 'truth' as I see it and I cannot switch to gain approval of the other followers of power science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    .......deleted by author
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Cosmo; Have deleted all my post on Hypo. They were for you only and nobodies business. Whats went on today over there is simply garbage, which I find disgusting. Some of those folks should have been around in the 50-60's, when nearly every one argued R-SR or GR....many still doing....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Cosmo; Have deleted all my post on Hypo. They were for you only and nobodies business. Whats went on today over there is simply garbage, which I find disgusting. Some of those folks should have been around in the 50-60's, when nearly every one argued R-SR or GR....many still doing....
    Well, I have been banned again for 3 days by Craig(?) for providing my own solutions for science without references.

    I have studied astronomy, physics and cosmology for more than 20 years and have a thorough understanding of the subjects discussed.

    So I use my own background data base for replies or my own library..

    Seems like 'free speech' is not allowed on that site.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34 Re: Democratic Socialism (US) 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    My Brand of Socialism (US)

    We are supposed to be a citizens government as the Constitution dictates.
    The aversion of the conservatives to Democratic Socialism and replacing it with corporate
    socialism is a clear violation of our Constitution and its intent of serving the people.

    Our Constitution (CN) has outlawed the self serving individuals like kings, dictators,
    emporers, popes and any other 'self serving' individuals like capitalists and criminals.

    The most logical way to do this is by reforming the electoral system to get rid of the
    corrupting dollar influences that the wealthy and the corporations have used to get
    control of the politicians.

    This can be done with the ‘Public Financing of Our Elections’ with the private dollars
    banned from this government function.
    Private dollars, which buy advertising, are NOT free speech and therefore can be
    legally banned.
    Through this process, the politicians would be free from having to solicit these corrupting
    dollars and direct their attention to the citizen issues. Once we get the servants of the
    citizens into office, we can then push through a socialist platform such as the
    one below, which I would advocate.

    My idea of a Socialist government would be to promote the following:

    Guarantee jobs for all citizens.......... No unemployment!

    Guaranteed pensions for all citizens.............For workers, management personnel,
    government employees and any other responsible citizens.

    Guaranteed health care.............For all citizens and including all credited healthcare
    practitioners such as Naturopathic doctors, acupuncture as a substitute for analgesics
    and etc. .

    And any other essential needs at a reasonable subsistence level.
    All the details would be formatted by citizen committees.
    The wonderful thing about this program is that one would not need to save any money.
    They can spend it all to contribute to a thriving economy that creates jobs.

    With this system, they would not need religion either since this security is what people
    need and want.

    Corporate and wealthy hoarded dollars (surplus) DO NOT contribute to a thriving
    Economy.
    Our current economy is a lopsided one where the people that do the least have the
    highest incomes while the workers have had their incomes reduced to a barely
    subsistence level.
    There are only two sources of ‘real tangible wealth’ (RTW). These sources are Nature
    as a commodity and the worker produced tangible goods.
    RTW is what we see and feel like the skyscrapers, bridges, highways, automobiles,
    homes and etc.
    While on the other hand, the conservative capitalists creations are all in their heads.
    This is not tangible wealth. Therefore, workers deserve better and a fairer distribution
    of the RTW that they create.

    However, in this Socialist state, ‘free enterprise’ would be allowed and government
    supported. But there would be limitations on this accumulated wealth as determined
    by the citizens.
    Income taxes would be graduated on SURPLUS income only from a rate of about 95%
    for the top earners to a bottom rate of about 5% for the minimum wage earners.
    Any other details can be worked out to restore our economy to a more balanced state...

    Of course, all these reforms would result from the government financed and modified
    electoral system in accordance with the Constitutional mandate of the ballot box and
    not through any revolutionary means by radical communists or coup d’etat power
    conspiracies. .

    Cosmo
    I decided to bring this topic up again because of the slumping state of our US economy that is moving into a ressession.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    MB

    This is my view of a working Democracy as mentioned in the other thread.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1
    I respect the democrats because they want to see every American have the right to vote and actually have their votes counted in contrast to the conservative republicans who want only the wealthy and powerful to have that right. Looking at their most recent speeches, in PollclaSh. The republicans want the status quo and forget that we are still working to make this a more perfect union. Yes, the right-wing republicans would prefer to return to the days of slavery and when they "won" the Southwest from Mexico. The truth hurts sometimes but if what I'm writing hurts you then you must surely be a ultra right-wing republican.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by sundaeGURL
    I respect the democrats because they want to see every American have the right to vote and actually have their votes counted in contrast to the conservative republicans who want only the wealthy and powerful to have that right. Looking at their most recent speeches, in PollclaSh. The republicans want the status quo and forget that we are still working to make this a more perfect union. Yes, the right-wing republicans would prefer to return to the days of slavery and when they "won" the Southwest from Mexico. The truth hurts sometimes but if what I'm writing hurts you then you must surely be a ultra right-wing republican.
    Agreed!
    All the people issues are supported by the Democrats.

    The donkey is the hardest working animal with those heavy loads they are required to carry in Mexico.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38 Re: Democratic Socialism (US) 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    My Brand of Socialism (US)

    My idea of a Socialist government would be to promote the following:

    Guarantee jobs for all citizens.......... No unemployment!

    Guaranteed pensions for all citizens.............For workers, management personnel,
    government employees and any other responsible citizens.

    Guaranteed health care.............For all citizens and including all credited healthcare
    practitioners such as Naturopathic doctors, acupuncture as a substitute for analgesics
    and etc. .

    And any other essential needs at a reasonable subsistence level.
    All the details would be formatted by citizen committees.
    The wonderful thing about this program is that one would not need to save any money.
    They can spend it all to contribute to a thriving economy that creates jobs.

    With this system, they would not need religion either since this security is what people
    need and want.
    I would like to see health insurance seen as a basic necessity similar to the need for police and fire fighters. Imagine if you had to pay the police to show up when your house was being robbed.


    Corporate and wealthy hoarded dollars (surplus) DO NOT contribute to a thriving
    Economy.
    Our current economy is a lopsided one where the people that do the least have the
    highest incomes while the workers have had their incomes reduced to a barely
    subsistence level.
    There are only two sources of ‘real tangible wealth’ (RTW). These sources are Nature
    as a commodity and the worker produced tangible goods.
    RTW is what we see and feel like the skyscrapers, bridges, highways, automobiles,
    homes and etc.
    While on the other hand, the conservative capitalists creations are all in their heads.
    This is not tangible wealth. Therefore, workers deserve better and a fairer distribution
    of the RTW that they create.
    I think "Tangibility" is a really bad criteria to use to decide what's important. All the pieces of an automobile engine come together to create something more than the sum of its parts. Because an engineer made it so. That may not be tangible, but it's very real.

    The workers themselves may have actually built the engine, but certainly credit is due as well to the person who planned the machine, and figured out all the details like where the iron would come from, where the tools to forge it would come from, and told each worker what their specific, tiny role in the process would be.

    Mexico has all the available labor and natural resources we do up here in the USA, but it doesn't come together in the same way. A lot of that is corruption in their system, but the form that corruption takes is often the suppression of their most talented entrepreneurs.

    Corrupt local officials in Mexico love to target businesses, without really thinking through how much the business can pay and still stay in business. They look at the gross profits and just see themselves as another expense. The only real way around it is to know someone at the top.

    They can target a worker all they want, and it won't put the worker out of business.


    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    I
    I worked for GM, under Union Contract for a few years. Working on the line, one day a light bulb burned out and I replaced that bulb with a spare at my station. The line would shut down if I had not, with a cost of about 5,000 $ per minute in those days. My reward, from the Union was a week off w/o pay for doing what an electrician was required to do. Today 50 thousand plus members of those unions are receiving FULL pay for doing absolutely nothing, as plants shut down for lack of sales. While GM and Ford are losing 50 BILLION PER QUARTER, there competition workers are changing there own bulbs and working for going wages. Detroit has gone from the 7th best per capita family income, lowest welfare rate, to off the chart and highest welfare rate. I see nothing good that has come from organized labor in the past 50 years nor do I think conservatives had anything to do with it.
    Giving either group, management, or labor, too much say ultimately leads to bad effects. Some unions actually even benefit their employers by standardizing and ensuring the skill sets of all new hires. Often the prohibited tasks are based on things the union doesn't want to have to guarantee their workers will know how to do.

    It can go too far, of course. Changing a light bulb is something any intelligent person knows how to do, and preventing that kind of silliness requires us to spend some effort at keeping things in balance so they don't get out of hand.

    Also, a union with too much power can get to be like those corrupt officials in Mexico. They see the gross profits, but they're not always willing to consider what other expenses the company has than just paying them, or their projections will tend to be wildly optimistic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by sundaeGURL
    I respect the democrats because they want to see every American have the right to vote and actually have their votes counted in contrast to the conservative republicans who want only the wealthy and powerful to have that right. Looking at their most recent speeches, in PollclaSh. The republicans want the status quo and forget that we are still working to make this a more perfect union. Yes, the right-wing republicans would prefer to return to the days of slavery and when they "won" the Southwest from Mexico. The truth hurts sometimes but if what I'm writing hurts you then you must surely be a ultra right-wing republican.
    First, let me welcome you to this forum. There is no way, you or Cosmo, and myself will agree on most domestic issues, but do/would enjoy the challenge.

    Neither Party, is opposed to counting every persons vote, so long has perceived legal and a legitimate expression. The controversy enters when this perception becomes blurred.

    I am not sure what Mexico and Slavery, have to do with the republican party. Best I recall, Lincoln was a republican and post 'Civil War' the Southern States were a solid Democratic Block. If its the sale of parts of California/NM/Texas or the later Gadsen Purchase, I accepts the decisions, just as the French Louisiana Purchase or the Russian Alaska Purchase. I hope your not inferring if a large influx of Russians move to Alaska, they have some special rights...

    Republican, conservative or not, many independents and a good block of Democratic Conservatives, generally believe in Constitutional Government, which makes for small FEDERAL Government and believe the States are responsible to the people of THEIR State. Democrats tend to believe, answers to all domestic PROBLEMS are the responsibility of the Federal Government.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    kojax; Health Insurance is considered a basic need and is made available to every person in the US. There are special programs for every extreme case, imaginable and under disability, Medicaid or Medicare there is no person that could not be covered, if wanted. The problems enter on afford-ability and the sacrifice needed by most (18-55 yo) to obtain and maintain the insurance (buying the insurance or a new car or what have you). Then you have a snowball effect, where the more government protects the more its used and not always for good or legitimate purpose.
    Even here most is only paid 80% or so by government and that 20% rarely gets paid, nor does the emergency care for many of the 18-55 yo, persons in this country legally for reason or illegals.

    Its said, unions were good for there day. I don't actually agree, especially after WWII. There were 10's of thousands of small Companies, which since 1945 (some before) have gone out of business, not able to compete under Union contracts. A very large number of Auto Companies and we have no idea how many that if had survived, be the leaders in industry today. IMO; Unions in the past and government today, have made personal responsibility a bad phrase...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Kojax
    I think "Tangibility" is a really bad criteria to use to decide what's important. All the pieces of an automobile engine come together to create something more than the sum of its parts. Because an engineer made it so. That may not be tangible, but it's very real.
    The designers and the engineers create the drawings and tooling to create the final product.
    These are 'tangible' creations.

    The capitalist is just an organizer to bring the qualified people to build the product.

    So I do not deny them some credit. The government can do the same thing.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    kojax; Health Insurance is considered a basic need and is made available to every person in the US. There are special programs for every extreme case, imaginable and under disability, Medicaid or Medicare there is no person that could not be covered, if wanted. The problems enter on afford-ability and the sacrifice needed by most (18-55 yo) to obtain and maintain the insurance (buying the insurance or a new car or what have you). Then you have a snowball effect, where the more government protects the more its used and not always for good or legitimate purpose.
    Even here most is only paid 80% or so by government and that 20% rarely gets paid, nor does the emergency care for many of the 18-55 yo, persons in this country legally for reason or illegals.

    Its said, unions were good for there day. I don't actually agree, especially after WWII. There were 10's of thousands of small Companies, which since 1945 (some before) have gone out of business, not able to compete under Union contracts. A very large number of Auto Companies and we have no idea how many that if had survived, be the leaders in industry today. IMO; Unions in the past and government today, have made personal responsibility a bad phrase...
    Jackson

    There are about 40%of the people without heath insurance.

    The US is the only industrialized nation without a Universal Health Plan.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    40% of the US population is about 120 million, three times the highest estimate I have ever heard, for uninsured. Of the 30-45m estimates I have heard, 20 million are estimated migrant workers or folks visiting the US, legally or not. The remainder, by choice do not obtain insurance and rely on mandated emergency care or have the means to pay as you go.

    Do you really want to thrash out the problems, ALL those industrialized nations are having, the taxes they pay, the quality or the waiting periods for even critical care. Why would any one promote equalizing down US care to that of these examples. There are reasons today, why 50% of our medical doctors are foreign born.

    If States are inclined to promote some form of 'mandated' purchase of insurance or provide a form of universal care, with in their state, thats fine with me. We mandate auto insurance for the car (unpaid balance) and liability. We already pay taxes for police (all forms) and fire protection, through property taxes etc...

    What you and many are promoting is 'Federal Government Control' which would automatically bring in Unions and contract labor on a National Basis. Since in NYC, were 'cost of living is very high, the supporting medical personnel (aids/nurses/etc) would set the standards for places where cost of living is a tenth that of NYC, just one example. You have no idea how much less it cost to get sick in a small NM town, compared to NYC, today...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Mandating might not be a bad idea. Most of the concern about universal health care is children. An adult who fails to think ahead largely deserves what they get, so long as health insurance was possible within their salary, and there the programs are a good idea.

    The worry is that foolish parents might not insure their children. Maybe it would be wise to have something universal for everyone under 18, and have it partially carry over in some way to cover any pre-existing condition that emerges in that time.

    Or just mandate it, and take anyone's children away who fails to purchase health insurance for them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by Kojax
    I think "Tangibility" is a really bad criteria to use to decide what's important. All the pieces of an automobile engine come together to create something more than the sum of its parts. Because an engineer made it so. That may not be tangible, but it's very real.
    The designers and the engineers create the drawings and tooling to create the final product.
    These are 'tangible' creations.

    The capitalist is just an organizer to bring the qualified people to build the product.

    So I do not deny them some credit. The government can do the same thing.

    Cosmo
    I was kind of making a metaphor. The capitalist is like an engineer in the sense that they create/define the business structure that gives everyone jobs. Otherwise they wouldn't have jobs. They could work if they wanted, but nobody would pay them for it if the work wasn't being done for some kind of a company. Basically, the capitalist is why a worker's work is useful.

    Of course, some people independantly contract their labor. I might liken them to a worker who both designs and builds their own engine. Some such people exist, but they are the exception, not the rule.

    Working for a company that doesn't know how to compete in the market place is like building a very poorly designed engine. Nobody is going to want to buy your final product, even though you're doing the exact same amount of work that it would take to build a very well designed engine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    40% of the US population is about 120 million, three times the highest estimate I have ever heard, for uninsured. Of the 30-45m estimates I have heard, 20 million are estimated migrant workers or folks visiting the US, legally or not. The remainder, by choice do not obtain insurance and rely on mandated emergency care or have the means to pay as you go.

    Do you really want to thrash out the problems, ALL those industrialized nations are having, the taxes they pay, the quality or the waiting periods for even critical care. Why would any one promote equalizing down US care to that of these examples. There are reasons today, why 50% of our medical doctors are foreign born.

    If States are inclined to promote some form of 'mandated' purchase of insurance or provide a form of universal care, with in their state, thats fine with me. We mandate auto insurance for the car (unpaid balance) and liability. We already pay taxes for police (all forms) and fire protection, through property taxes etc...


    What you and many are promoting is 'Federal Government Control' which would automatically bring in Unions and contract labor on a National Basis. Since in NYC, were 'cost of living is very high, the supporting medical personnel (aids/nurses/etc) would set the standards for places where cost of living is a tenth that of NYC, just one example. You have no idea how much less it cost to get sick in a small NM town, compared to NYC, today...
    Jackson

    We now have a government mandated healthcare system that is the drug industry. Healthcare costs in the US are outrageously high.
    This system is waging war on the 'alternative' practitoners that are superior to the drug system.
    But they are not covered by the insurances whether it is medicare or private.
    One has to go to these alternative practitioners by paying out of their own pockets.
    So the drug system that is protected by the FDA is the only resourse for treatment for those that cannot afford the alternative.

    My idea of Universal Healthcare would include the alternative practitioners were the patient can choose his treatment options.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    FRONTLINE has a good documentary on a few health care systems around the world. Its available online on the PBS website and its called Sick Around the World

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...roundtheworld/


    click upper right area "Watch the Full Program Online"

    some of you might find it interesting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    We now have a government mandated healthcare system that is the drug industry. Healthcare costs in the US are outrageously high.
    This system is waging war on the 'alternative' practitoners that are superior to the drug system.
    But they are not covered by the insurances whether it is medicare or private.
    One has to go to these alternative practitioners by paying out of their own pockets.
    So the drug system that is protected by the FDA is the only resourse for treatment for those that cannot afford the alternative.

    My idea of Universal Healthcare would include the alternative practitioners were the patient can choose his treatment options.Cosmo
    Automobiles, housing and even computers range in price. Health care is no different and the quality you can afford is what you will get. There is no conceivable way, the top 10% of practicing medical doctors can treat the total population, nor is possible to elevate the 90% of less capable practitioners.

    However, all doctors are subject to liability and the cost to insure their diagnoses. To protect themselves and those cost, its much easier to test for everything, for what may be nothing, a simple problem or even their own first opinion. Tort reform, where some states have limited damages has been very effective, in not only cost, but doctors willing to practice in their states.

    Medication; Yes, the pharmaceutical industry in the US, has been charged with 'research and development', as well as the cost to produce the quality it does maintain. Up start companies in this area have a worse track record than restaurants and succeeding or failing on their first program or product to find new cures. In short, its already strained and any further attempts to control cost, will place an increasing death sentence on the total human population.

    You know, in many ways I agree on alternative medicine or the actual need for much of the medication currently used. The problem is, with the aging US population, more and more will become addicts of sorts for the remainder of their lives, this increasing for no less than 50 years. Since I also firmly believe, the mind controls longevity for humans, whether using it or being convinced something is working, changing the system for one group or another, is just not going to work.

    There are all kinds of alternative practitioners, from religious (rituals) to complex psychological healing, including dietary and natural medication.
    Myself, its a six pack (beer) each night to not only sleep, but to eat a little and cut out some pain. I don't think any medical association or any government would approve my alternative practice bu its works for me and maybe a few million others.

    Ice; The American medical system, has some problems, is not perfect but by no means broken. In most places there is no waiting period for major surgery or treatment of any life threatening problem. You might wait a few days for minor problems or a week or so for cosmetic surgery, but then there are just so many practicing doctors.

    Preventative medicine, is a noble idea and worth attention. The problem is what preventative ideas are worth there cost. The major world wide problem seems to be obesity, probably even simply being overweight. All the problems stemming from this including but not limited to, premature death, heart problems and diabetes are extremely costly and often for the reminder of a persons life. However, every one already knows this and very few change their eating patterns, exercise program or attempts to lose weight, other than for a cosmetic motive. Additionally, health is one subject still taught is every school and does little to no good.

    kojax; No child in the US is ever refused medical attention at any clinic or hospital and there are hundreds of Traveling Facilities touring the country, year round to test for one problem or another, vaccinate people or show off some new treatment...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    We now have a government mandated healthcare system that is the drug industry. Healthcare costs in the US are outrageously high.
    This system is waging war on the 'alternative' practitoners that are superior to the drug system.
    But they are not covered by the insurances whether it is medicare or private.
    One has to go to these alternative practitioners by paying out of their own pockets.
    So the drug system that is protected by the FDA is the only resourse for treatment for those that cannot afford the alternative.

    My idea of Universal Healthcare would include the alternative practitioners were the patient can choose his treatment options.Cosmo
    Automobiles, housing and even computers range in price. Health care is no different and the quality you can afford is what you will get. There is no conceivable way, the top 10% of practicing medical doctors can treat the total population, nor is possible to elevate the 90% of less capable practitioners.

    However, all doctors are subject to liability and the cost to insure their diagnoses. To protect themselves and those cost, its much easier to test for everything, for what may be nothing, a simple problem or even their own first opinion. Tort reform, where some states have limited damages has been very effective, in not only cost, but doctors willing to practice in their states.

    Medication; Yes, the pharmaceutical industry in the US, has been charged with 'research and development', as well as the cost to produce the quality it does maintain. Up start companies in this area have a worse track record than restaurants and succeeding or failing on their first program or product to find new cures. In short, its already strained and any further attempts to control cost, will place an increasing death sentence on the total human population.

    You know, in many ways I agree on alternative medicine or the actual need for much of the medication currently used. The problem is, with the aging US population, more and more will become addicts of sorts for the remainder of their lives, this increasing for no less than 50 years. Since I also firmly believe, the mind controls longevity for humans, whether using it or being convinced something is working, changing the system for one group or another, is just not going to work.

    There are all kinds of alternative practitioners, from religious (rituals) to complex psychological healing, including dietary and natural medication.
    Myself, its a six pack (beer) each night to not only sleep, but to eat a little and cut out some pain. I don't think any medical association or any government would approve my alternative practice bu its works for me and maybe a few million others.

    Ice; The American medical system, has some problems, is not perfect but by no means broken. In most places there is no waiting period for major surgery or treatment of any life threatening problem. You might wait a few days for minor problems or a week or so for cosmetic surgery, but then there are just so many practicing doctors.

    Preventative medicine, is a noble idea and worth attention. The problem is what preventative ideas are worth there cost. The major world wide problem seems to be obesity, probably even simply being overweight. All the problems stemming from this including but not limited to, premature death, heart problems and diabetes are extremely costly and often for the reminder of a persons life. However, every one already knows this and very few change their eating patterns, exercise program or attempts to lose weight, other than for a cosmetic motive. Additionally, health is one subject still taught is every school and does little to no good.

    kojax; No child in the US is ever refused medical attention at any clinic or hospital and there are hundreds of Traveling Facilities touring the country, year round to test for one problem or another, vaccinate people or show off some new treatment...
    The current US healthcare system is a monopoly supported by the Governments FDA.

    It is NOT a competitive business or more accurately, a service.

    If it was, most of the patients would opt for the services of the Naturopathic doctors since they do NOT dispense costly drugs or rarely if ever.

    The current monopoly needs that protection. It is more a business than a healthcare system.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    We now have a government mandated healthcare system that is the drug industry. Healthcare costs in the US are outrageously high.
    This system is waging war on the 'alternative' practitoners that are superior to the drug system.
    But they are not covered by the insurances whether it is medicare or private.
    One has to go to these alternative practitioners by paying out of their own pockets.
    So the drug system that is protected by the FDA is the only resourse for treatment for those that cannot afford the alternative.

    My idea of Universal Healthcare would include the alternative practitioners were the patient can choose his treatment options.

    Cosmo
    Part of the problem is that they keep finding new cures and treatments that weren't in existence a few years ago. It raises insurance costs because insurance companies become liable to provide treatments that previously didn't exist, and therefore didn't have to be provided.

    The sheer amount of money we're willing to spend as a society for each new cure translates into a higher price when that cure hits the market. It's mostly only patented drugs that cost a lot, and.... well they should.

    If something has been around for more than about 20 years for its patent to run out, then it will be cheaper. So really you only have to pay more for things your parents didn't have the option to buy in the first place.

    As for alternative medicine, I think the scientific community needs to either broaden it's approach to problems it faces, or concede some ground to those communities that will use the approaches it rejects. Most holistic cures cannot give a concise definition of why they work, but the better ones have a statistical tendency toward working. They often emerge out of sheer trial and error.... sort of like evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Cosmo; The FDA is charged with approving diagnostic systems and drugs.
    We can argue the limits of the authority, however in the case most all natural medication (herbs etc) or diet (liquid or vegetarian) they make no recommendation and cannot under law, unless it involves certain drugs.
    What your suggesting is they approve, what they have no authority to approve, placing the practice with in required medical insurance/Medicaid/Medicare jurisdiction. This will never happen, nor IMO should it be governments job to pick and choose from the hundreds of alternative practices, in a country where most are legal and practiced.

    Since I do agree, that your particular case history, is itself testimony to a successful single case, I could imagine a business interest. Many have formed, such as natural food stores and a thriving book market on other individual success through the years. PETA and some otherwise strange groups have adopted these practices, since they comply with their concepts for human behavior. I am sure the practitioners have a union or organization and pass on their findings. Unfortunately, there are (possibly) as many individual cases that failed, for what ever reason. I have wondered, why you don't write a book or booklet and publish it over the WEB or maybe even a publisher. Your 40+ year history in the practice, your age and apparent mental state, would be of major interest to a good many of the aging boomer's or young folks already leaning toward alternative lifestyles, food/medication etc...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackson
    Since I do agree, that your particular case history, is itself testimony to a successful single case, I could imagine a business interest. Many have formed, such as natural food stores and a thriving book market on other individual success through the years. PETA and some otherwise strange groups have adopted these practices, since they comply with their concepts for human behavior. I am sure the practitioners have a union or organization and pass on their findings. Unfortunately, there are (possibly) as many individual cases that failed, for what ever reason. I have wondered, why you don't write a book or booklet and publish it over the WEB or maybe even a publisher. Your 40+ year history in the practice, your age and apparent mental state, would be of major interest to a good many of the aging boomer's or young folks already leaning toward alternative lifestyles, food/medication etc...
    I wrote 2 books that did not sell.
    I do not have the spiritual saleability of a Joan Rawling. Besides, it costs money to publish, so writing on the internet is free.
    At least I can promote the truth that I write for the benefit of those that
    are interested in learning to think freely.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    No book venture has ever succeeded w/o some form of promotion. Frankly 99% of any other trademark requires good, solid promoting. It doesn't need to be favorable...Also whats needed, in any case is something unique about the subject or author (in this case), when so many folks can publish on the same subject. In many cases a 'ghost writer' is the ideal method, since many ideas expressed by the originator are hard for an audience to accept. Even a book jacket, is important. All this does cost and with additional quality or expertise the cost can get pretty high.

    Don't think any one is opposed to learning something new or hearing ideas that are new. I do think, how its presented is important. Since this is a weak point of mine, I try not to express many ideas which are not already out there, by others...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    If you want alternative medicine to be covered by health insurance companies, you have to not only argue that it's beneficial, but you have to go further and somehow make the case that denial of it would be negligent.

    Health insurance companies only pay for things they have to pay for, things that are absolutely necessary and you can't live without. They don't pay for "extras" like cosmetic surgery, or operations with a low success rate. Any surgery or treatment regarded as "elective" is likely to be excluded from coverage.

    If you started an organization that credibly documents the success rate of holistic or other alternative treatments, that would move things a lot further, but you'd have to be very careful to be objective. People would want to be very certain you're counting how many times it failed just as carefully as you count how many times it worked.

    There are a lot of hucksters in the holistic field, so if nothing else, people need a clear way to tell which cures are genuine. Technically, the FDA should be doing at least that much, but I don't see them getting around to it any time soon. Maybe if someone in the private sector started doing their job for them, and got some recognition for it, they might see the error of their ways....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    If you want alternative medicine to be covered by health insurance companies, you have to not only argue that it's beneficial, but you have to go further and somehow make the case that denial of it would be negligent.

    Health insurance companies only pay for things they have to pay for, things that are absolutely necessary and you can't live without. They don't pay for "extras" like cosmetic surgery, or operations with a low success rate. Any surgery or treatment regarded as "elective" is likely to be excluded from coverage.

    If you started an organization that credibly documents the success rate of holistic or other alternative treatments, that would move things a lot further, but you'd have to be very careful to be objective. People would want to be very certain you're counting how many times it failed just as carefully as you count how many times it worked.

    There are a lot of hucksters in the holistic field, so if nothing else, people need a clear way to tell which cures are genuine. Technically, the FDA should be doing at least that much, but I don't see them getting around to it any time soon. Maybe if someone in the private sector started doing their job for them, and got some recognition for it, they might see the error of their ways....
    The current healthcare system is a business and so their is great profit in the current government approved power system.

    People are waiting to get a prescription for their ills. So the doctors are only drug dispensers.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Well, the question, Cosmo, is whether it should be a business then?


    The private sector is typically more willing to make the hard decisions, like how many staff a hospital should have in order to stay within a reasonable budget, or what maladies to leave untreated.

    The public sector, on the other hand, is willing to do things that don't help the budget much, but which maybe need to be done.

    One thing I would like to see is more health insurance companies fusing vertically with health care providers, so both parts of the business are under one roof. The current adversarial system (where providers try to gouge insurers, and insurers try to gouge the providers back) doesn't seem to be working as well as it should.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Well, the question, Cosmo, is whether it should be a business then?


    The private sector is typically more willing to make the hard decisions, like how many staff a hospital should have in order to stay within a reasonable budget, or what maladies to leave untreated.

    The public sector, on the other hand, is willing to do things that don't help the budget much, but which maybe need to be done.

    One thing I would like to see is more health insurance companies fusing vertically with health care providers, so both parts of the business are under one roof. The current adversarial system (where providers try to gouge insurers, and insurers try to gouge the providers back) doesn't seem to be working as well as it should.
    First ofall, I believe in using GODS medicines. That means vitamins, minerals, herbs, hormones and any other natural healing agents.

    Another thing is that the current US healthcare system is not a free competitive system but a government granted monopoly to the resulting businesses that currently provide the healthcare services.

    So I think the Alternative practitioners should also be included in this healthcare system and that means the 'Naturopathic doctors primarily.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57 Socialisms, 4 very different Terms & Definitions 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7
    .

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    My Brand of Socialism
    Socialisms, 4 very different Terms & Definitions

    To avoid misunderstandings we use the term 'Socialism' no longer alone, but always together with an adjective. - As superordinate terms we use 'Democratic Socialisms' and 'Non-democratic Socialisms' (in the plural). 'Democratic Socialisms' = 'Social-democratic Socialisms' and 'Ecological (or Environmental or Green) Socialisms'. - 'Non-democratic Socialisms' = 'Communistic Socialisms' and 'Anarchistic Socialisms'.

    1. Social-democratic Socialisms (normally in the plural)
    Social-democracy is the name for an international democratic socialist movement which has a vision of a fair and human social order in a strong state based on just distribution of resources and employment, sustainable economic and ecological growth, equality of women and men, and non-violent relationships. This vision is not an ethereal dream, but is instead a realistic goal for daily political work. Social-democrats do not refer to > Marxism, and "Socialist" parties in "Latin" countries are usually social-democratic parties. The Socialist International is social-democratic, too.

    2. Environmental Socialisms (normally in the plural)
    The term "Environmentalism" designates a political attitude of respect for environment and is also used for democratic political movements that are known by the name "Greens". "Sustainable Development" occupies the center of their daily political action. This theory has ecological, economic and social goals. Therefore Greens" normally are socialist parties. In Western Europe Marxists often join a Green party.

    3. Communist Socialisms (normally in the plural)
    The ideal of Communism is a classless society in which social differences are waived and produced goods belong to the community. This goal presumes the abolishment of the "private property of the means of production" and its "socialization", or as some will say, "nationalization". Communist parties often see no other possibility than to struggle against a dictatorship (and for their revolution) by force of arms (e. g. Nepal, Philippines ). We also know numerous authoritarian communist parties. There are monopolies of a communist party in China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam, and a communist government has been installed in Moldavia. In other countries communist parties (> Marxist branch) are non-violent and democratic.
    - Marxist Communism is a philosophical, economic and social theory. The excrescences of "Capitalism" - according to Marx and Engels - are the cause for the "class war". They demand the seizure of power by "revolution" and "dictatorship of the proletariat". The adherents of Marxism are called "Marxists".
    - Leninist Communism is a branch of Marxism developed by Lenin, first dictator of the former Soviet Union; it refers to theory and practice of the use of power. Leninism served Stalin to justify his repression.
    - Stalinist Communism spreads Stalins ideas and practices as second dictator of the Soviet Union. The adherents of Stalinism are called "Stalinists".
    - Maoist Communism was developed by Mao, first dictator of the People's Republic of China. It is based on the fathers of Communism - Marx and Lenin. The fact that Maoism appoints "fathers" corresponds mainly to Chinese thinking and culture. For a social-democrat it isnt necessary to follow fathers and their ideologies. He or she trusts the reason of each party member.

    4. Anarchist Socialisms (normally in the plural)
    The aim of Anarchism is the destruction of the state. Anarchism rejects hierarchies. On the ruins of the state, the Anarchists intend to build a new society in which individuals cooperate freely and have the same rights. In an anarchist society party structures arent necessary. Anarchists can be non-violent (e. g. the Amish in the USA) or very violent (e. g. arson attacks in the suburbs of France 2005).

    Rolf Oberhaensli Lucerne
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/virglobenglish/files/

    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    To All:

    You will notice that MBoS has a provision for free enterprise.

    It would even provide financial startups for new ideas (inventions) and beneficial services to the citizens.

    But rather than having capitalism control government with our current electoral system, it would be separated from these influence dollars by reforming the election of our public servants to have the government 'finance' the electoral process and 'shut' out the influence dollars (private donations).

    With this kind of system, the government would then 'control' capitalsm rather than the other way around as it exists nowadays.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •