"The conditions of Castro and Chavez is no doubt chearing for the right wingers tho" cuban refugees and defectors are cheering, for sure. it is obvious that neither you nor they are rushing to the socialist paradise. I would think that freedom loving people would be cheering the news of their ill health. what are you?
the poor have never had it so good in the US. unlike other countries, they can survive without working. the norm for families is free health care, free schools and free housing. what is their contribution to society?
They consume a lot and a lot of people consuming a lot means big spending at MacDonalds etc. so the shareholders are happy and spend more.. I mean how much food can you eat however rich you are. I can't disguise the fact that I am pretty unhappy with the policies of the left and right for last decade or so. They both make beginners mistakes and aren't brought to book hardly at all. The likelyhood of a middle party which is competent is remote as ever.
"They consume a lot and a lot of people consuming a lot means big spending at MacDonalds etc. so the shareholders are happy and spend more.. " according to you consuming is their contribution to society. it is as if taking taxes from productive people in the private sector is the right thing to do because they don't how to spend their money.
They fill football stadiums, prisons etc. If the world was entirely populated by rich people they wouldn't be rich as opposed to the poor anymore. Just a few lonely people. Probably unable to put a car togethor or run an electricity company etc. They might get their hands dirty !!!!!!!!!!!!
Scat. I have a different take on this. I agree with you that what they said is true, however it is misleading. Simpson-Bowles failed to focus sufficiently on the main sources of our deficits. I don't want to go into a lot of detail here because more numbers are posted elsewhere. But the bottom line is this: there are two areas of major U.S. expenditure that are grossly out of whack with the other industrialized nations. These are, as I'm sure you know, defense and medical care. We in the U.S. spend 2.8 Trillion per year on medical care, while the average per capita expenditure of the other industrialized nations is half ours with a better outcome. We could save 1.4 Trillion a year by doing what other nations do. We spend nearly as much on defense as all other nations combined. By bringing our defense expenditures down by 50% we would still be spending ten times per capita what most other industrialized nations spend, and save about 425 billion per year. There is a fundamental problem with our system of private sector insurance for the young and healthy and Medicare for the old and infirm. Medical care, sadly, is not a good fit to the capitalist mold because demand for medical services is quite inelastic. Because of this it's extremely difficult to provide the competitive environment in the medical sector that capitalism needs to function well to everyone's benefit. I'm not saying it's impossible to provide enough competition, but I'm beginning to think perhaps it is. By bringing the costs mentioned in the first paragraph in line with other advanced nations, which might require that we go to a single-payer medical care system and direct much of the defense industry to other areas, there would be more than enough money to lower our public debt to a very reasonable level in a decade or two and still provide high quality medical care and security from foreign threats. We would probably end up with Medicare for everyone and we wouldn't have to touch Social Security other than to follow the actuaries recommendations. I am very upbeat on the future of the U.S., because I am convinced there is still, in spite of recent financial calamities, off-shoring, etc, plenty of productivity and resources in our economy to solve our problems. The solutions are right before our eyes, if only we would open them. We will have to adjust both medical and defense spending eventually, we might as well get a start on it now. We have plenty of money in the public sector, but we are spending it unwisely.
I think nothing much will change for the better because of the same sort of people are getting elected. With the same sort of interests - feathering their own nests. Change the system and elect those that care about the country's problems somehow. Not just the lowest common denominator - like Bush, who hadn't got a clue really. The US could easily be taken over by the military on the usual excuse of the incompetence of the civilian politicians. Think about a one party state like China and get things going maybe ?
That's pretty radical Humpy. I think we can fix things by the usual route. First you have to form a consensus, then it takes well-informed voters getting involved and demanding change. It's a slow cumbersome process sometimes, but eventually we change. Women's rights, repeal of prohibition, integration, abortion rights, and now decriminalization of marijuana are all examples of this process. It is going to happen. It is just a matter of time. U.S. citizens stopped a major war (Vietnam) that their government was insisting on fighting against their wishes. If they can do that, they can do most anything! As a matter of fact, we are in the process of forming a consensus on gun control as I right this. Big changes are coming. It is just a matter of time.
Let's hope they get on with it then. Might take some more massacres before there is any gun enforcement though. How about a system whereby people can earn extra votes by being better educated etc. ? and lose votes by being convicted of a crime ? Even have Congress elected by the over 50s only. Thus getting some experience of life first before voting ?