I hope you're right. If things don't change I'll have to borrow to help myself.Quote by: Dodds
Maybe if this Obamacare does make things better that he can cure what ails the Post Office and the Amtrak passenger service. If either of us is to hold our breath there, you got my vote.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
Unfortunately I don't have a say in how equal the USA is. Nor does the American people so it seems.
I still say the affordable healthcare act is a clusterfuck of a bill. It addresses access, it does not address the route cause of the expense of the USA healthcare system. Which to me is driven by the profit motive. The needless admin. sending the papers back 4 or 5 times because someone forgot to cross a t or dot an i is stupid. The government should run healthcare in my view. To what extent can be argued, but I see healthcare as a human right. No one should have to declare themselves bankrupt because they are ill.Maybe if this Obamacare does make things better that he can cure what ails the Post Office and the Amtrak passenger service. If either of us is to hold our breath there, you got my vote.
Although you bemoan the post office in the USA, the government can and does run certain industries better then the private sector. Your mail still arrives every day I assume, and you can still send a letter at a fairly low price I guess? The problem with the post office losing money is that more people communicate in other ways now. Why send a letter to mum when you speak to mum every night on Facebook or you text her or you even give her a call?
As for Amtrack, I can't comment on the US system, I have never really looked into it, but here in the UK the problems with the rail service really came to a head after privatization. Fares increased and services got worse. The UK has the most expensive rail fares in Europe, the more crowded carriages and the tax payer spends more on rail maintenance than it did under British Rail.
You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due. : Dick Cheney
Yep. A doc and I were talking about how the insurance companies provide zero input to health care. A waste of money, but when jobs are hard to come by, the trend is to manufacture jobs. Keep the insurance workers and hire IRS agents to figure the taxes. A buck taxed to health care will be lucky to have a dime left over for treatments.
Agreed. Just what does justify bankruptcy? Gambling? Drugs? Prostitutes?It addresses access, it does not address the route cause of the expense of the USA healthcare system. Which to me is driven by the profit motive. The needless admin. sending the papers back 4 or 5 times because someone forgot to cross a t or dot an i is stupid. The government should run healthcare in my view. To what extent can be argued, but I see healthcare as a human right. No one should have to declare themselves bankrupt because they are ill.
The management of the Post Office is so slow to respond to the factors you mentioned that you have to drive the proverbial stake in the ground to see if they're moving from year to year.Although you bemoan the post office in the USA, the government can and does run certain industries better then the private sector. Your mail still arrives every day I assume, and you can still send a letter at a fairly low price I guess? The problem with the post office losing money is that more people communicate in other ways now. Why send a letter to mum when you speak to mum every night on Facebook or you text her or you even give her a call?
Wonder what the problem is there?As for Amtrack, I can't comment on the US system, I have never really looked into it, but here in the UK the problems with the rail service really came to a head after privatization. Fares increased and services got worse. The UK has the most expensive rail fares in Europe, the more crowded carriages and the tax payer spends more on rail maintenance than it did under British Rail.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
The costs of American health insurance have been increasing for years. I don't think that unemployment has anything to do with it. The problem is the system its self and in my opinion the profit motives of every single part of it. Hospitals need to run profits, pharmaceutical companies need profit and the insurance companies need profit. The role of the profit motive has driven the price up. None of which leads to better healthcare outcomes. Even if you compare France to the UK, the French spend around 25% more on healthcare, they do not get 25% better results.
Excessive credit loaned at outrageous rates seems to be the norm. That and people being put in the position that they have little choice but to accept that credit. (generalization, there will of course be exceptions)Agreed. Just what does justify bankruptcy? Gambling? Drugs? Prostitutes?
Gambling to me is stupid, not something I do, even though it is legal over here to a much greater extent than in the USA. Although I would never stop people betting, that is their choice. Hell my granny would kill me if I said bingo was evil. I don't think prostitution leads to people taking out bank loans, although that could happen I guess. Drugs again could lead to bankruptcy, however it is more likely to lead to prostitution or other crimes.
I would say that the postal service is an essential service for a country to exist. Running at a loss would not be that big a deal to me. What really confuses me is when people say things like the postal service are costing more than they make there is a clamber to reform. When the military loses a couple of billion that they can't account for, no one calls for reform of the armed forces. To me both services are essential for any country.The management of the Post Office is so slow to respond to the factors you mentioned that you have to drive the proverbial stake in the ground to see if they're moving from year to year.
Greed is my thoughts. Profits are more important than investment. As the rail network is again essential for transport in the UK, the government have to pick up the slack that the private sector refuse to spend on.Wonder what the problem is there?
You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due. : Dick Cheney
I suppose most have people have to work- even in a socialist community."In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed – a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work,
Well yes, their labor, anyone's labor, has to have value. But it remains mysterious why a socialist community would also not be interested in ensuring that labor there is also of value.and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital.
It actually answers nothing. Luxemborg said nothing concrete. You can't build on anything that she said here, as quoted. But she had the luxury of not actually having any responsibilities; she could sit back and pontificate."Socialist democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism. It begins at the very moment of the seizure of power by the socialist party. It is the same thing as the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class -- that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people."
-Rosa Luxemburg, The Russian Revolution: Democracy or Dictatorship?
Lenin also wrote on this, but I won't post that as it doesn't represent my opinion. He advocated the use of soviets (worker councils) as well as the vanguard party (state). This is what happened during Stalin's time. I think that's a good enough reason to discard it.
A fellow like Lenin had to turn theory into something concrete. You are certainly free to dismiss how he chose to try to turn the pontfication of a Luxemburg or a Kautsky into action.
But it isn't enough.
Absolutely true.
What on earth makes you think that Socialists do not value labour? Comments like this make me think you do not know what you are arguing against. Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production, the labour and value is divided up in different ways to what it is now. In other words the ruling class does not steal from the value of labour of the individual.
You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due. : Dick Cheney
Christ, not this guy again. I'll bite for now, but once you start a circular debate I'm leaving.
Yes, it's that way in any community. What's your point?
Again, what's your point? Of course labor has value.Well yes, their labor, anyone's labor, has to have value. But it remains mysterious why a socialist community would also not be interested in ensuring that labor there is also of value.
Luxemburg had no responsibilities? Really? I guess being a figurehead of German Marxism means absolutely nothing.It actually answers nothing. Luxemborg said nothing concrete. You can't build on anything that she said here, as quoted. But she had the luxury of not actually having any responsibilities; she could sit back and pontificate.
What are you talking about? The Bolshevik revolution was proletarian in nature. The way Lenin chose to go after the revolution doesn't reflect what should be done in a modern capitalist nation, or even early-1900s Germany, for example. Even Luxemburg's path doesn't reflect my own opinion very much, but the quote served well for Senor Hoint's question.A fellow like Lenin had to turn theory into something concrete. You are certainly free to dismiss how he chose to try to turn the pontfication of a Luxemburg or a Kautsky into action.
But it isn't enough.
Yes, undoubtedly the emphasis on consumption and materialism helps cause more greed, but greed is also a basic human flaw. It isn't something created by society.The capitalist system breeds such things as "stupidity and short-sightedness." Giving the bourgeoisie a voice will only allow them to continue to impose their will on the rest of society.
If your proposed system is not more moral than the existing one why should anyone prefer it over the existing one?Moral superiority? Well, I don't deal with moralism. It's a terribly flawed outlook that is in complete contrast with my materialism.
Okay, and what would pragmatism mean? How are you deciding who to exclude from society?You're sacrificing pragmatism for crappy religion-esque values. Throughout history one tyranny has been traded for another. It needs to happen. The bourgeoisie are an extreme minority in society. Occupy Wall Street has a point with "99% vs the 1%", liberal as they may be.
Yes, but to argue that capitalism is responsible for every human flaw is ridiculous.And yes, the bourgeoisie is a class of crooks. There are proletarian crooks because proletarians live in bourgeois society. Again, capitalism breeds such mentalities.
But truth, Hajjaj was convinced, held many layers.
This has been proven wrong time and time again. Humans are not naturally greedy. Greed is simply a response to certain material conditions.
Asking whether it will be more or less "moral" is asking the wrong question. Communism is designed to provide for the most amount of people possible. I don't seek to end capitalism because CAPITALISTS R EVULL!!!!1, but rather because it's an inherently flawed system.If your proposed system is not more moral than the existing one why should anyone prefer it over the existing one?
Reactionaries. People that wish to destroy the socialist mode of production in favor of the capitalist one. Their opinions have no place in socialism.Okay, and what would pragmatism mean? How are you deciding who to exclude from society?
I never said that. The bourgeois mindset is dog-eat-dog. This sets the example for the rest of society.Yes, but to argue that capitalism is responsible for every human flaw is ridiculous.
I see.Reactionaries. People that wish to destroy the socialist mode of production in favor of the capitalist one. Their opinions have no place in socialism.
But truth, Hajjaj was convinced, held many layers.
This is where you and I part ways Dan. (Figuratively speaking) I believe that everyone should have rights, I believe in universal credits, I believe in the right to healthcare, I believe in the right to democracy, I believe in the right to work, the right to support(if needed) and the right to education. I do not wan't to take anything away from people, everyone should be equal in rights and equal before the law. Including those who own the means of production right now.Reactionaries. People that wish to destroy the socialist mode of production in favor of the capitalist one. Their opinions have no place in socialism.
You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due. : Dick Cheney
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks