Jump to content

Menu

No Soda Bought With Food Stamps?


Recommended Posts

Look around. The West has generated immense wealth...

 

The closest we have come to healthy balance has happened right here in the West, in free countries with free markets.

 

Most Western countries have mixed economies.

 

Again, I repeat: How can anyone who has taken up homeschooling because of the FAILURE of public education think the government has the solutions? HOW?

 

I don't think the government has failed to educate people. I think the government does a far better job than the private sector would, and that our public education system has actually been very successful in creating educated citizens, and that people are far more widely and equitably educated than they were before we had public education (a cursory look at literacy rates will demonstrate that). That doesn't mean it's ideal, though, and if I can provide something more ideal, I will.

 

Again, your ideas sound good in theory. But I don't see how they'd play out in reality. Human nature makes unregulated, unfettered capitalism just as unworkable in practice as communism (which is not the same as the kind of Western-style socialism we see in most of the industrialized world or as a mixed economy). We have seen, in the last 30 years, what deregulation means: it means that people's greed will dictate their decisions, and we'll see wealth concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, not more. I don't think that's arguable. Nobody is suggesting that we move to communism, where the government owns all the means of production, just that the government has a role to play both in providing a safety net and in economic regulations to help make sure that the average worker actually does see the fruits of his or her productivity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 956
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

:lol: I rarely watch Canadian news. But when I do I find them more balanced than the tendency toward right and left wing news coverage in the USA.

 

I am speaking about my country. I'm an American. I work for an American company. I earn American dollars. I lived in the USA most of my life.

 

Good to know. That would have been something to preface your comments with when you began posting in this thread since your location is Canada.

 

*snicker* No.

 

Uh...This is so far wrong I don't even know where to start.

 

There's a start. Thanks Audrey. Cheryl, we even *gasp* get US stations and news.

 

Well...the idea that the media is all government owned and we're blind and ignorant to anything remotely not government spoon fed to the masses could be considered 'running down Canada'...and have you never read a heath care thread? :lol:

 

Okay ladies. I apologize about the media remark. I said "it is my understanding" because that is what I heard. I should have asked. Having biased media does not make the masses stupid but it would make the masses blind and ignorant in the true senses of those words, not the insulting senses of those word, kwim? It would make sense for a more socialist-type country to run down a capitalist country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having biased media does not make the masses stupid but it would make the masses blind and ignorant in the true senses of those words, not the insulting senses of those word, kwim?

 

Sort of like media outlets that try to convince Americans that Canadians live in a country where a free media isn't allowed? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many very poor people work very hard and very long hours and often more than one job. I understand business. It is very hard work, but honestly there are many hard working poor struggling that worked more than the 60 hours a week I put in to grow and maintain my business. The poor don't always get ahead by working hard.

 

You will have to remind me of where I said that. I don't recall saying anything like that.

 

Again, I apologize, I made a leap as to what you were saying. See, I don't see working 60 hours a week equal to needing assistance. Many CEO work 60 and more hours a week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your hope in the American Dream is not based in reality of contemporary times (and, frankly, I'm not sure it was accurate "back when", either). In post after post of yours, you posit working hard as the solution.

 

The *reality* is that it is quite possible to work hard at 1, 2 and even 3 jobs and not be able to move forward.

 

I'm in an odd situation right now where I "work" as a Therapist in my last semesters of my Masters. It is brain work; and I have worked hard (cerebrally, and time wise) to acquire the knowledge for this role. The actual work is easier, more gratifying, less draining, and in general "better" than most jobs I've had. Simultaneously, however, I am working for minimum wage as a library assistant. In the last 10 years, I have:

 

Managed/worked Fireworks stands

Run poker tournaments for a free (meaning they don't pay money to pay and it's not gambling) poker league

Cleaned an office building

Provided before and after school care at public schools

Owned and operated daycares

 

I worked harder, for less pay, less reward, and longer hours in the above than I do as a trained, credentialed therapist.

 

Working at or close to minimum wage is not a livable reality. My husband was just offered $7.75 an hour to work at Wal Mart (he is a former police officer and has a college degree in business).

 

I don't care what opinion you have of people, assistance, and abuse of the system. But your assumptions about working, hard work, and the financial reality are inaccurate and sometimes insulting. What millions of Americans are experiencing does not match your point of view.

 

 

 

Exactly. Thank you.

 

Why could you not make ends meet while working 3 jobs? Where was your money going? Were you living in a you couldn't afford? Did you have car loans instead of an older paid off vehicle? Did you have credit card debt? I'm not trying to pick on you, but you offered yourself as an example.

 

We all have struggles in our lives and make bad decisions. As I've mentioned in thread, we had a vehicle repoed and almost lost our house once. Would you like to know why? Because we were trying to live above our means because we felt entitled to new things. Dh also made some extremely bad decisions before I came into the picture and we spent over 10 years paying for them. I've spent years analyzing my situation and I'm perfectly willing to accept blame for my part in it. When I was in college and on FS I was receiving FA, working as a work study and had another job. I had a credit card and $300/month phone bill with long distance charges. My FA would have covered living in the dorm, but I decided I wanted my own apartment and a car and a tv/vcr, etc. That was trying to live above my means. If I had stayed in the dorms I wouldn't have needed a car and could have watched tv in the common room. My choices caused me to struggle financially. I still didn't learn. I continue with the cycle of spending my whole paycheck and then moving on to credit cards to keep up a standard of living that I felt entitled to. Keep in mind, it wasn't an extravagant standard of living. I've never had a vacation as an adult.

 

Minimum wage jobs were never meant to raise a family on. They were meant for kids and as a stop gap. I'm not saying I'm better than anyone here. I'm saying that we need to take responsibility for the position we are in so that we can teach our children to do better than we did so we can break this cycle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I apologize, I made a leap as to what you were saying. See, I don't see working 60 hours a week equal to needing assistance. Many CEO work 60 and more hours a week.

 

What she is saying (and others are saying) is people can need assistance *despite* working 60 hours/week of hard physical labor and/or being educated. There are no guarantees. There are other things required to be successful, including a good portion of luck.

 

TeaTime-how can you use historical examples to point out how the US created wealth *while ignoring* historical tax data? Tax rates *across the board* are historically low, they are at their lowest rate in 60 years. The US government's revenue (as a percentage of the GDP) was lower last year than it was under Reagan. Are you saying Reagan was more of a socialist than Obama?

 

You hear people foaming at the mouth about corporate taxes, but they are expected to raise a third of what they did in the *fifties*.

 

You say the US corporate tax burden is forcing companies to leave the country, but our corporate taxes are lower than any other country in the OECD, we're down on the bottom with Turkey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having biased media does not make the masses stupid but it would make the masses blind and ignorant in the true senses of those words, not the insulting senses of those word, kwim?

 

Truer words were never spoken. Oh, were you referring to government-run media here? Have you ever watched BBC news?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's actually the polar bears that run everything up here. :w00t:

 

:lol::lol: I've heard they are REALLY mean though! They just look cute and cuddly! :lol::lol: Again, sorry, no insult intended. I could have worded my ignorance of your media better. :001_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Minimum wage jobs were never meant to raise a family on. They were meant for kids and as a stop gap.

 

Right. They have now become the norm for a lot of *families* because companies can get by with not paying a living wage. The government makes up the difference. This is as much corporate welfare as it is personal welfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sort of like media outlets that try to convince Americans that Canadians live in a country where a free media isn't allowed? ;)

 

Yep, but I didn't hear that about your media from our media. I heard it from my Dh. There, now the cat's out of the bag! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most Western countries have mixed economies.
Yep, and it is the capitalistic part that drives production, it is the socialistic part that seeps it away. That can work for a long time, but the balance has to be just right. But to me, the state of public education, SS, and medicare tells me all I need to know about the socialistic side. And that is based on my personal experience, what I see, not what the State tells me.

 

I don't think the government has failed to educate people. I think the government does a far better job than the private sector would, and that our public education system has actually been very successful in creating educated citizens, and that people are far more widely and equitably educated than they were before we had public education (a cursory look at literacy rates will demonstrate that). That doesn't mean it's ideal, though, and if I can provide something more ideal, I will.

There is just no dealing with this statement. I cannot disagree more. Your literacy stats are from the department of education, after all. That is the same place that has lied to me about almost everything I can think of. I had to find that out slowing by living my life and seeing reality.

 

But we will never know how the private sector would do, because the gov't has such a deadlock on public education that it will never be dismantled. And I can't even bring up or link the problems with it because I will get censured and banned for doing so. It is enshrined!

 

And that is another problem. With corporations I can vote every day. I can do so with dollars. They go extinct (until the gov't bails them out anyway) if enough people don't vote for them. There is a long, wonderful history of corporations rising and falling. But the repubs and dems live forever. :confused:

 

Again, your ideas sound good in theory. But I don't see how they'd play out in reality. Human nature makes unregulated, unfettered capitalism just as unworkable in practice as communism (which is not the same as the kind of Western-style socialism we see in most of the industrialized world or as a mixed economy). We have seen, in the last 30 years, what deregulation means: it means that people's greed will dictate their decisions, and we'll see wealth concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, not more. I don't think that's arguable. Nobody is suggesting that we move to communism, where the government owns all the means of production, just that the government has a role to play both in providing a safety net and in economic regulations to help make sure that the average worker actually does see the fruits of his or her productivity.

 

Your ideas are theories too, and the same applies. I am glad to hear no one is suggesting we move to communism. Please say that again. It makes me feel better. :tongue_smilie:

 

Government definitely has a role, but government is also strongly driven by greed - the worst form of greed, the greed for power. That makes the greed for money look like a nice, little lamb! That is also not arguable.

 

I gotta go. It think this thread has reached its half-life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. They have now become the norm for a lot of *families* because companies can get by with not paying a living wage. The government makes up the difference. This is as much corporate welfare as it is personal welfare.

 

Right, the government makes up the difference, whether through welfare or requiring companies to pay a "living wage". But it all goes back to choices made at the beginning of an adult's life. you=universal you in the following questions. Do you start a family before having the means to support that family? Do you insist on a standard of living that you cannot afford? Why not live at home until you can afford to rent or own a house? This is what I'm saying we should teach our children. Fiscal responsibility begins as soon as our children begin wanting "things". Personal responsibility should be taught across the board. Don't have s*x unless you are ready and able to support a family. Don't spend money you don't have or make commitments that you can't, right now, afford to pay for.

 

I'm afraid I'm not getting my point across, but I just don't have the words to explain it better. :glare:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, the government makes up the difference, whether through welfare or requiring companies to pay a "living wage". But it all goes back to choices made at the beginning of an adult's life. you=universal you in the following questions. Do you start a family before having the means to support that family? Do you insist on a standard of living that you cannot afford? Why not live at home until you can afford to rent or own a house? This is what I'm saying we should teach our children. Fiscal responsibility begins as soon as our children begin wanting "things". Personal responsibility should be taught across the board. Don't have s*x unless you are ready and able to support a family. Don't spend money you don't have or make commitments that you can't, right now, afford to pay for.

 

I'm afraid I'm not getting my point across, but I just don't have the words to explain it better. :glare:

 

It's not that you aren't getting your point across. It's that I disagree with you.

 

For example, I have a friend who lived in CA. He dh had a good job, she owned a small business. They afforded their lifestyle perfectly well for 15 years or so. The economy took a downturn. She lost her business. Her dh was laid off from his job. Their house lost so much of its value that the bank said they had to pay a windfall of something like $60k to make up the difference or the bank was going to take the house. They had never missed a payment. This was because the percentage between what they owed and what the house was now worth was too great. They had a lot of savings and they were able to make it up. However, they are really, really struggling now.

 

That's just one example. Bad things happen to people who are educated, who work hard, who do all of the right things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it all goes back to choices made at the beginning of an adult's life. you=universal you in the following questions. Do you start a family before having the means to support that family? Do you insist on a standard of living that you cannot afford? Why not live at home until you can afford to rent or own a house? This is what I'm saying we should teach our children. Fiscal responsibility begins as soon as our children begin wanting "things". Personal responsibility should be taught across the board. Don't have s*x unless you are ready and able to support a family. Don't spend money you don't have or make commitments that you can't, right now, afford to pay for.

 

:

 

Regarding the bold, no, it does not. Your questions don't related to my situation, or many millions of others, of educated, trained people working for low wages.

 

It's not that simple - at all - and your assumptions are, indeed, inaccurate and insulting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, the government makes up the difference, whether through welfare or requiring companies to pay a "living wage". But it all goes back to choices made at the beginning of an adult's life. you=universal you in the following questions. Do you start a family before having the means to support that family? Do you insist on a standard of living that you cannot afford? Why not live at home until you can afford to rent or own a house? This is what I'm saying we should teach our children. Fiscal responsibility begins as soon as our children begin wanting "things". Personal responsibility should be taught across the board. Don't have s*x unless you are ready and able to support a family. Don't spend money you don't have or make commitments that you can't, right now, afford to pay for.

 

I'm afraid I'm not getting my point across, but I just don't have the words to explain it better. :glare:

 

IMHO a lot of people do all of the things you listed and still fall through the cracks. You make it sound like all people who require assistance are financially irresponsible:( I get it that some people make mistakes but we all do make mistakes of one kind or the other. I don't like moochers either but why punish those who are responsible and who have fallen on hard times? It like punishing the whole class for a few bad apples. I still think the abusers are a minority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then stop blaming capitalism and bad mouthing capitalism. You inadvertently send out erroneous messages about America and capitalism by equating corruption with those terms. That is unhelpful and it is propaganda.

 

There is corruption everywhere not just in capitalism. Capitalism in America does promote the rich and put down the poor unfortunately. I stand by that statement with the historical record to back it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why could you not make ends meet while working 3 jobs? Where was your money going? Were you living in a you couldn't afford? Did you have car loans instead of an older paid off vehicle? Did you have credit card debt? I'm not trying to pick on you, but you offered yourself as an example.

 

We all have struggles in our lives and make bad decisions. Minimum wage jobs were never meant to raise a family on. They were meant for kids and as a stop gap. I'm not saying I'm better than anyone here. I'm saying that we need to take responsibility for the position we are in so that we can teach our children to do better than we did so we can break this cycle.

 

Your questions don't apply to me because of the judgment and assumption behind them. You don't realize the reality that minimum wage (and just over) are what is being offered to experienced, educated, trained, and qualified adults.

 

My situation (which is similar to many millions of others) is not because of bad choices. THAT is what you don't get. It's not lack of hard work.

 

Taking responsibility and doing whatever it takes is my middle name. Truly. If I posted my schedule over the last few years, you'd not believe it. But the thing is, I am not that different than millions of other families trying to survive, (and not luxuriously) on low wages.

 

There was NO WAY IN that hot place down south that I could have waited to pay for my Masters, for example, and still have my family make it without student loans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is corruption everywhere not just in capitalism. Capitalism in America does promote the rich and put down the poor unfortunately. I stand by that statement with the historical record to back it up.

 

:iagree: I love capitalism but I also believe it needs reasonable regulations due safeguard against abuses. The housing meltdown was caused by a relaxing of regulation on the banks which allowed them to knowingly give bad loans so that they could take their cut and pass the hot potato:glare:

 

I also think it is propaganda to constantly bash the government as well. Corruption and incompetence and favoritism/nepotism as well as goodness and excellence can be found in both the private and public sectors.

Edited by priscilla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought Canada had government run health care, as well as other government run industries?

 

My apologies about the media. Notice I said it was my understanding instead of stating unequivocally. It was very late here and I really shouldn't have still been on the boards! :D I had spent all day googling different things in this thread and my brain was hurting! :tongue_smilie:

 

Of course, you can have more than one government-run media station, but I get what you are saying.

I fail to see where universal health care has anything to do with capitialism. Indeed, the argument could be made that it benefits a capitialist society, in that the workers are kept healthy, and therefore more able to work and support themselves and their families.

Okay ladies. I apologize about the media remark. I said "it is my understanding" because that is what I heard. I should have asked. Having biased media does not make the masses stupid but it would make the masses blind and ignorant in the true senses of those words, not the insulting senses of those word, kwim? It would make sense for a more socialist-type country to run down a capitalist country.

Canada isn't a 'socialist-type country', anymore than wearing feathers would make you a chicken. See above.

Sort of like media outlets that try to convince Americans that Canadians live in a country where a free media isn't allowed? ;)

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fail to see where universal health care has anything to do with capitialism. Indeed, the argument could be made that it benefits a capitialist society, in that the workers are kept healthy, and therefore more able to work and support themselves and their families.

 

Canada isn't a 'socialist-type country', anymore than wearing feathers would make you a chicken. See above.

 

:lol:

 

:iagree: America has had some socialist programs such as social security and medicare happily co-exist with capitalism for over a generation now without our country turning into a marxist regime:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that you aren't getting your point across. It's that I disagree with you. .

 

:tongue_smilie: Got it, but I still say many are missing my point. And I intend no insult, offense or malice. I just disagree with many in this thread.

 

For example, I have a friend who lived in CA. He dh had a good job, she owned a small business. They afforded their lifestyle perfectly well for 15 years or so. The economy took a downturn. She lost her business. Her dh was laid off from his job. Their house lost so much of its value that the bank said they had to pay a windfall of something like $60k to make up the difference or the bank was going to take the house. They had never missed a payment. This was because the percentage between what they owed and what the house was now worth was too great. They had a lot of savings and they were able to make it up. However, they are really, really struggling now.

 

That's just one example. Bad things happen to people who are educated, who work hard, who do all of the right things.

 

Okay, why didn't they pay off their house when things were good? Why did they get such an expensive house? Why didn't they buy a smaller, less expensive house for cash instead of getting a mortgage? Those are all choices they made. I'm not making a judgment on them, just looking and cause and effect.

 

Regarding the bold, no, it does not. Your questions don't related to my situation, or many millions of others, of educated, trained people working for low wages.

 

It's not that simple - at all - and your assumptions are, indeed, inaccurate and insulting.

 

You are taking offense to my opinions and questions. I'm sorry you don't like them, but I'm only looking at pure cause and effect of people's decisions and choices.

 

IMHO a lot of people do all of the things you listed and still fall through the cracks. You make it sound like all people who require assistance are financially irresponsible:( I get it that some people make mistakes but we all do make mistakes of one kind or the other. I don't like moochers either but why punish those who are responsible and who have fallen on hard times? It like punishing the whole class for a few bad apples. I still think the abusers are a minority.

 

I understand that people fall through the cracks, but decisions and choices have consequences. I've not said to punish anyone. All of my post have been for reform of the FS system, not abolishing it. I also think churches and neighbors should willingly help those in need; I don't think the government should mandate that help or that there should be re-distribution of wealth.

 

Your questions don't apply to me because of the judgment and assumption behind them. You don't realize the reality that minimum wage (and just over) are what is being offered to experienced, educated, trained, and qualified adults.

 

My situation (which is similar to many millions of others) is not because of bad choices. THAT is what you don't get. It's not lack of hard work.

 

Taking responsibility and doing whatever it takes is my middle name. Truly. If I posted my schedule over the last few years, you'd not believe it. But the thing is, I am not that different than millions of other families trying to survive, (and not luxuriously) on low wages.

 

There was NO WAY IN that hot place down south that I could have waited to pay for my Masters, for example, and still have my family make it without student loans.

 

My questions don't apply to your situation? Umm, okay. They are pretty universal to almost anyone in America because the American lifestyle became based on credit in the '50s! Again, I'm talking about consequences to decisions and choices.

 

I fail to see where universal health care has anything to do with capitialism. Indeed, the argument could be made that it benefits a capitialist society, in that the workers are kept healthy, and therefore more able to work and support themselves and their families.

 

Canada isn't a 'socialist-type country', anymore than wearing feathers would make you a chicken. See above.

 

:lol:

 

Exactly my point. Universal health care is socialist. Government run industry is socialist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:iagree: America has had some socialist programs such as social security and medicare happily co-exist with capitalism for over a generation now without our country turning into a marxist regime:D

 

keep watching....wait another generation, especially if the American government keeps taking over private business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, why didn't they pay off their house when things were good? Why did they get such an expensive house? Why didn't they buy a smaller, less expensive house for cash instead of getting a mortgage? Those are all choices they made. I'm not making a judgment on them, just looking and cause and effect.

 

They are from California, there aren't any houses most people could pay cash for and raise a family safely in the neighborhood.

 

I also think churches and neighbors should willingly help those in need

 

I've helped run a church food bank. There were people who abused it. It is much easier for the government to figure out who needs help and who doesn't than a group without any access to financial records or anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm late to the party (but I brought snacks! ;) ) and I'm sure this thread has taken twists and turns all over the place. I can see both sides. I think there should be restrictions on what can be purchased with food stamp money, but I think the restrictions should be realistic and not necessarily punitive. What about maybe allotting a percentage of the FS amount for "junk food." Food Stamp benefits come on a debit-type card, right? And, clearly, the cards can be programmed to not allow non-foods to be purchased with them, so if they can program the cards for that, could they program the cards to allow X amount of dollars for soda, cookies, chips, etc?

 

Being on aid is demoralizing, for the most part. It was for me, anyway. I agree that people who receive assistance should make the best possible choices for feeding their families, but I think there should be a balance between what the gov't controls vs allowing people to make their own choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, medicare and ss means you have a socialist country, not a capitalist one, by your statement.

 

America is a mixed economy trending toward socialism. Many of us do not wish to move toward socialism because it cannot be truly attained without severe corruption and the creation of a class system.

 

They are from California, there aren't any houses most people could pay cash for and raise a family safely in the neighborhood.

 

 

 

I've helped run a church food bank. There were people who abused it. It is much easier for the government to figure out who needs help and who doesn't than a group without any access to financial records or anything.

 

Fair enough. I still stand by my opinions and have to grace to allow others their opinions. I have attacked no one personally for their opinions but have been attacked quite a bit (not by you Mrs Mungo, you've been beyond gracious and informative, thank you). Attacking each other is not going to solve this problem. Of course, discussion on an online message board isn't going to solve the problem either. :tongue_smilie: Obviously none of the viewpoints in this thread are the answer because we still have the problem. :001_smile: I'm really not trying to be snarky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our government is not taking over businesses. There were some bailouts to prevent a devastating depression in our country.

 

This is a matter of opinion. Letting the economy naturally take it's course instead of having government funded "free enterprise" and printing more money without collateral only serves to weaken the economy. It's the same as providing money to a drunk/addict; it's enabling the bad behavior to continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

America is a mixed economy trending toward socialism. Many of us do not wish to move toward socialism because it cannot be truly attained without severe corruption and the creation of a class system.

Well, then, I can honestly say that you've got a very wrong idea of Canada. Indeed, I'd say our health care strikes against a 'class system', since all ppl are entitled to the same quality of health care, regardless of income.

 

I also question your statement of 'creation of a class system'. Seems to me that rich/poor is a class system and very much exists in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have attacked no one personally for their opinions but have been attacked quite a bit (not by you Mrs Mungo, you've been beyond gracious and informative, thank you). Attacking each other is not going to solve this problem. Of course, discussion on an online message board isn't going to solve the problem either. :tongue_smilie: Obviously none of the viewpoints in this thread are the answer because we still have the problem. :001_smile: I'm really not trying to be snarky.

 

I never attacked you. I challenged the accuracy of your viewpoint and mentioned that your assumptions are insulting to the people who don't fit your perspective.

 

There has not been an attack in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a matter of opinion. Letting the economy naturally take it's course instead of having government funded "free enterprise" and printing more money without collateral only serves to weaken the economy. It's the same as providing money to a drunk/addict; it's enabling the bad behavior to continue.

 

Going to 2 wars and not paying for them was/is enabling as well. The tax cuts should have been rescinded as soon as we went to war.

 

It is wrong to pay for the wars and the housing meltdown caused by relaxing of regulation on the backs of the middle class and the poor IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like a lot of the most ardent proponents of capitalism are woefully misinformed about how capitalism actually works. For one thing, capitalism REQUIRES that there be a certain degree of unemployment (and that means that a certain amount of qualified, able, and seeking workers not have jobs). If there isn't a pool of surplus, qualified labor, wages would go up so much that profits would drop precipitously. In an "ideal" capitalist economy, you'd have about 3-5% unemployment. Again, that's not counting people who aren't looking for work (like SAHPs) or people who can't work (the elderly, the disabled, children). It's only counting those who want, need, and can do the work. So, for capitalism to create profits, we need 3-5% of the qualified labor force that wants/needs work unemployed at any given time.

 

Full employment is anathema to capitalism. In fact, full employment WAS proposed in the 1930s, and was resoundingly shot down as a terrible, socialist idea.

 

 

.

 

 

Capitalism does not require a certain degree of unemployment. In fact, the classical economists, such as Adam Smith argued that there would be NO invovluntary unemployment in a free market.

 

Full employment is NOT anathema to capitalism. However, full employment is not a zero rate of unemployment. Frictional unemployment is desirable, resulting in a 3% to 5% unemployment rate. These are individuals moving from one job to another job that better meets their skills, qualifications, etc. In this situation there is a balance between the job openings and the job seekers.

 

A zero rate of unemployment would mean that there is no mobility in the labor force. Would you want a 0% vacancy rate of housing? If so, when you decided that your current housing conditions did not meet your needs, you would have no option of moving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never attacked you. I challenged the accuracy of your viewpoint and mentioned that your assumptions are insulting to the people who don't fit your perspective.

 

There has not been an attack in this thread.

 

Uh, except for the ones that got deleted.

 

They were pretty vicious.

 

ETA: When you wrote, "There has not been an attack in this thread" I read it to mean by anyone towards anyone else. You (Joanne) have not had any replies deleted.

Edited by unsinkable
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why?

 

 

 

Why is this even a question? So, applauding the fact that someone chooses not to access government services and instead make their own way is now seen as wrong or abnormal? Wow. I think that says a lot about where we're headed as a nation.

 

ETA: As far as digging yourself out of a hole, we did the same. People do it all the time without the assistance of the government. I guess the difference between us is that I'm not sitting around bemoaning the fact that it could've been so much easier with assistance. I'm proud of us for having done it on our own.

Edited by Mejane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, then, I can honestly say that you've got a very wrong idea of Canada. Indeed, I'd say our health care strikes against a 'class system', since all ppl are entitled to the same quality of health care, regardless of income.

 

I also question your statement of 'creation of a class system'. Seems to me that rich/poor is a class system and very much exists in the US.

 

Russia is my example here for creation of the class system. Everyone in the country was forced to work for the common good. Every product was placed in country stores and given back to the people based on their "need". They ended up with 2 classes: the workers and the administrators. Compare that to America's congress who have their own retirement and health plans that not subject to the same laws as the rest of the country. America's congressmen make huge salaries and have most of their personal expenses paid for by the country. American are bearing 45% of the countries operating expenses! That is insane!

 

 

It is my understanding that in government run health care you must qualify for services. If you need a heart surgery but smoke, drink and eat a bad diet you might not qualify under a government run health care system. Certain procedures may not be covered under a government run health care system and the costs of obtaining it outside of the system are exorbitant. This is my understanding, not what I am stating as fact.

 

Here is what I am stating as fact: After the most recent health care act passed in America it became illegal to use my Dhs pre-tax dollars set aside from his paycheck to pay for vitamins, herbs, massages, and non-traditional healing procedures and treatments. Until this most recent HC act, these things were all okay to be paid for with these funds. This act is a move towards government health care and socialism. Part of this act makes it illegal to hire a worker without providing health care for him (in 2014) and paying for his portion of the HC plan. There are many more parts of this act that strip away personal and corporate freedoms, but I don't have time right now to dig out the paperwork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, then, I can honestly say that you've got a very wrong idea of Canada. Indeed, I'd say our health care strikes against a 'class system', since all ppl are entitled to the same quality of health care, regardless of income.

 

I also question your statement of 'creation of a class system'. Seems to me that rich/poor is a class system and very much exists in the US.

:iagree: I've lived in 3 countries and in my experience the USA is more class-based than the other 2 countries.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what I am stating as fact: After the most recent health care act passed in America it became illegal to use my Dhs pre-tax dollars set aside from his paycheck to pay for vitamins, herbs, massages, and non-traditional healing procedures and treatments. Until this most recent HC act, these things were all okay to be paid for with these funds. This act is a move towards government health care and socialism. Part of this act makes it illegal to hire a worker without providing health care for him (in 2014) and paying for his portion of the HC plan. There are many more parts of this act that strip away personal and corporate freedoms, but I don't have time right now to dig out the paperwork.

 

OTOH, yesterday I sat through a health insurance presentation at one of my jobs. Because of the changes made during the Obama administration, my daughter's Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis can no longer be considered preexisting. When her Dad allowed the insurance to lapse, and did not tell me, it was a nightmare. She's now on (collective gasp) children's medicaid, but if she weren't, one of her meds is $1500 a MONTH.

 

However, my pending medical issue is preexisting - no matter what it may be, which severely delays my following up.

 

A fair universe it is not, in spite of hard work, motivation, intention, and choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never attacked you. I challenged the accuracy of your viewpoint and mentioned that your assumptions are insulting to the people who don't fit your perspective.

 

There has not been an attack in this thread.

 

I was viciously attacked by someone other than you and called them on it. Both their attack and my post regarding it were deleted.

 

You and others have accused me of being judgmental and have attacked my opinions. I have not attacked anyone's opinions, just stated and defended mine.

 

ETA: I have also apologized when I offended someone and made incorrect assumptions.

Edited by Cheryl in NM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia is my example here for creation of the class system. Everyone in the country was forced to work for the common good. Every product was placed in country stores and given back to the people based on their "need". They ended up with 2 classes: the workers and the administrators. Compare that to America's congress who have their own retirement and health plans that not subject to the same laws as the rest of the country. America's congressmen make huge salaries and have most of their personal expenses paid for by the country. American are bearing 45% of the countries operating expenses! That is insane!

 

 

It is my understanding that in government run health care you must qualify for services. If you need a heart surgery but smoke, drink and eat a bad diet you might not qualify under a government run health care system. Certain procedures may not be covered under a government run health care system and the costs of obtaining it outside of the system are exorbitant. This is my understanding, not what I am stating as fact.

 

Here is what I am stating as fact: After the most recent health care act passed in America it became illegal to use my Dhs pre-tax dollars set aside from his paycheck to pay for vitamins, herbs, massages, and non-traditional healing procedures and treatments. Until this most recent HC act, these things were all okay to be paid for with these funds. This act is a move towards government health care and socialism. Part of this act makes it illegal to hire a worker without providing health care for him (in 2014) and paying for his portion of the HC plan. There are many more parts of this act that strip away personal and corporate freedoms, but I don't have time right now to dig out the paperwork.

IMHO I would consider researching this more since some of the things you say are inaccurate.

 

There is no employer mandate for healthcare.

http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/increasing_choice_and_saving_money_for_small_businesses.html

 

Also government run healthcare does not make you qualify for services. My father had open heart surgery on medicare. He is obese and he smoke in his life. No problem and medicare saved his life. I have taken care of many, many people on medicare who have not taken care of themselves for whatever reason and they are not denied care as is right. I have only ever heard of some restrictions on transplants since they are scarce resources.

 

I also want to say we are not Russia.

 

Finally, healthcare reform will invigorate businesses IMHO. I want to see healthcare reform taken a step further and see medicare for all Americans:D What a blessing that will be:)

Edited by priscilla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia is my example here for creation of the class system. Everyone in the country was forced to work for the common good. Every product was placed in country stores and given back to the people based on their "need". They ended up with 2 classes: the workers and the administrators. Compare that to America's congress who have their own retirement and health plans that not subject to the same laws as the rest of the country. America's congressmen make huge salaries and have most of their personal expenses paid for by the country. American are bearing 45% of the countries operating expenses! That is insane!

 

 

It is my understanding that in government run health care you must qualify for services. If you need a heart surgery but smoke, drink and eat a bad diet you might not qualify under a government run health care system. Certain procedures may not be covered under a government run health care system and the costs of obtaining it outside of the system are exorbitant. This is my understanding, not what I am stating as fact.

I would suggest that you don't equate Canada with Russia. Your understanding of how our health care works is very flawed. Not being insulting or snarky, but its simply incorrect. My grandmother is a lifetime smoker, wine drinker, breast cancer survivor x2, and has never, EVER been denied any medical treatment. Period.

 

Again, just b/c we have universal health care does NOT make us a socialist country. It is possible to take care of all our citizens in regards to accessing medical care while still having a capitialist based system. Really, in terms of capitialism, etc, the US and Canada aren't that different overall.

 

You have far more qualifying to do with insurance cos than we'd ever thought of. I've never qualified for any procedure in Canada, my Dr says its needed, it happens. Closest I've gotten to the insurance health care model is dealing with WCB.

 

I was also under the impression that obtaining health care not covered by insurance can and has bankrupted ppl in the US. Is that wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compare that to America's congress who have their own retirement and health plans that not subject to the same laws as the rest of the country.

 

This is *not true*, this is one of those rumors that people keep repeating.

 

I'm not sure exactly which rumors you've listened to, but here are some common misconceptions:

 

members of Congress receive full retirement after one term

 

Congress does not pay into Social Security

 

Congress is exempt from the health care bill

 

America's congressmen make huge salaries and have most of their personal expenses paid for by the country. American are bearing 45% of the countries operating expenses! That is insane!

 

Honestly, I'm not sure what this means? I can't figure out what you are saying here.

It is my understanding that in government run health care you must qualify for services. If you need a heart surgery but smoke, drink and eat a bad diet you might not qualify under a government run health care system. Certain procedures may not be covered under a government run health care system and the costs of obtaining it outside of the system are exorbitant. This is my understanding, not what I am stating as fact.

 

Are you talking about the health care bill recently passed or are you talking about something else? Because the new health care bill is not government run health care. That's not what it does, at all. If that's the impression you are under, this link might help.

 

Here is what I am stating as fact: After the most recent health care act passed in America it became illegal to use my Dhs pre-tax dollars set aside from his paycheck to pay for vitamins, herbs, massages, and non-traditional healing procedures and treatments. Until this most recent HC act, these things were all okay to be paid for with these funds. This act is a move towards government health care and socialism. Part of this act makes it illegal to hire a worker without providing health care for him (in 2014) and paying for his portion of the HC plan. There are many more parts of this act that strip away personal and corporate freedoms, but I don't have time right now to dig out the paperwork.

 

Many things allowed by the IRS have been restricted by the states and/or individual employers. Just as one example, if you get your doctor to prescribe vitamins, then the IRS rules allow your flex savings plan to pay for it, but not all states (or specific employers) will allow that. My understanding is that you can pay for any of those things as long as you find a doctor who will prescribe it for you.

 

Part of the reason for all of this? Once the health care bill fully kicks in, health care should be more affordable over all, that's the idea behind it.

 

This is money set aside *pre-tax* and they are funds matched by the government. So, I'm not sure how you can complain about that while saying food stamp recipients should not be able to choose for themselves? Every person who receives a government benefit of a different sort has said that their benefit is totally different. I honestly don't get that attitude? You are free to set aside a savings account on your own for medical expenses and use it for whatever you please. Wouldn't that be the responsible choice and capitalist way, according to your own statements?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cost of healthcare for our small business is so enormous, we are considering dropping it to stay afloat. 12,000 for my family ALONE, and we pay half the employee's coverage.

 

Had we pushed through universal coverage/public option when the iron was hot, we wouldn't having to be making these decisions and hurting these families.

 

Were some of the reforms good? Absolutely-pre existing being one of them-but the Ins. companies have punished us for those reforms.

 

So, which should we choose:

 

dropping healthcare

firing people

shutting the doors

 

Great choices, no?

 

Universal healthcare is not socialism, it's smart for the country, the people and the businesses.

Edited by justamouse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cost of healthcare for our small business is so enormous, we are considering dropping it to stay afloat. 12,000 for my family ALONE, and we pay half the employee's coverage.

 

Had we pushed through universal coverage/public option when the iron was hot, we wouldn't having to be making these decisions and hurting these families.

 

Were some of the reforms good? Absolutely-pre existing being one of them-but the Ins. companies have punished us for those reforms.

 

So, which should we choose:

 

dropping healthcare

firing people

shutting the doors

 

Great choices, no?

 

Universal healthcare is not socialism, it's smart for the country, the people and the businesses.

 

My graduate school is paying nearly $400 towards our coverage per family/employee. I will be able to get health insurance coverage (and dental and vision) for approximately $100 per month out of pocket. I am grateful (I haven't been covered in years) but it is still 10% of my monthly pay. And I can't afford to cover anyone else in my family.

 

I will think good thoughts for you as you make these decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO I would consider researching this more since some of the things you say are inaccurate.

 

There is no employer mandate for healthcare.

http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/increasing_choice_and_saving_money_for_small_businesses.html

 

Also government run healthcare does not make you qualify for services. My father had open heart surgery on medicare. He is obese and he smoke in his life. No problem and medicare saved his life. I have taken care of many, many people on medicare who have not taken care of themselves for whatever reason and they are not denied care as is right. I have only ever heard of some restrictions on transplants since they are scarce resources.

 

I also want to say we are not Russia.

 

Finally, healthcare reform will invigorate businesses IMHO. I want to see healthcare reform taken a step further and see medicare for all Americans:D What a blessing that will be:)

 

Here is a breakdown of some of the health care act enacted Dec. 2010:

In 2010 - a qualified small employer that pays health insurance premiums on behalf of its employees will qualify for a tax credit (taken from the SS coffers)

In 2011 - HSA, FSA & HRA funds can no longer be used to purchase over the counter medications, the penalty for using this money in this fashion increases from 10% to 20%. Employer provided healthcare must be reported W2s.

In 2012 - No changes

In 2013 - The amount an employee can put into an FSA in cut in half to $2500, individuals can only deduct medical expenses if they exceed 10% of their income

In 2014 - Taxpayers are required to obtain health coverage and are subject to penalty if not obtained, individuals may qualify for a subsidy to purchase this insurance, employers with 50 or more full-time employees are required to provide health care coverage and pay at least 60% of the premium costs, employers who do not provide minimum health insurance coverage and have at least 1 FT employee enrolled in subsidized health care are subject to an excise tax.

 

Pay very careful attention to the 2014 changes. It will not only be illegal to not enroll in health insurance it will be illegal for a business to not provide health insurance. That does not sound like the land of the free to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a breakdown of some of the health care act enacted Dec. 2010:

In 2010 - a qualified small employer that pays health insurance premiums on behalf of its employees will qualify for a tax credit (taken from the SS coffers)

In 2011 - HSA, FSA & HRA funds can no longer be used to purchase over the counter medications, the penalty for using this money in this fashion increases from 10% to 20%. Employer provided healthcare must be reported W2s.

In 2012 - No changes

In 2013 - The amount an employee can put into an FSA in cut in half to $2500, individuals can only deduct medical expenses if they exceed 10% of their income

In 2014 - Taxpayers are required to obtain health coverage and are subject to penalty if not obtained, individuals may qualify for a subsidy to purchase this insurance, employers with 50 or more full-time employees are required to provide health care coverage and pay at least 60% of the premium costs, employers who do not provide minimum health insurance coverage and have at least 1 FT employee enrolled in subsidized health care are subject to an excise tax.

 

Pay very careful attention to the 2014 changes. It will not only be illegal to not enroll in health insurance it will be illegal for a business to not provide health insurance. That does not sound like the land of the free to me.

Again, I would read check the link about the law that I provided. Here is some of what it says:

 

The Affordable Care Act does not include an employer mandate. In 2014, as a matter of fairness, the Affordable Care Act requires large employers to pay a shared responsibility fee only if they donĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t provide affordable coverage and taxpayers are supporting the cost of health insurance for their workers through premium tax credits for middle to low income families.

 

The law specifically exempts all firms that have fewer than 50 employees Ă¢â‚¬â€œ 96 percent of all firms in the United States or 5.8 million out of 6 million total firms Ă¢â‚¬â€œ from any employer responsibility requirements. These 5.8 million firms employ nearly 34 million workers. More than 96 percent of firms with 50 or more employees already offer health insurance to their workers. Less than 0.2 percent of all firms (about 10,000 out of 6 million) may face employer responsibility requirements. Many firms that do not currently offer coverage will be more likely to do so because of lower premiums and wider choices in the Exchange.

For more information, please visit http://www.healthreform.gov/about/answers.html.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...