Wow! So this just occured to me. How easy would it be for the government to lower the work week to 30 or 32 hours in order to force employers to hire more people? Without a raise in minimum wage we would have people, already stretched, living on even less; with a raise in minimum wage the companies would be forced to raise prices therefore raising the cost of living. This would provide quite the opening for more government programs. This would also give people plenty of time to do mandatory community service. Several countries in Europe have a shorter work week and as some in our government think Europe is "so refined" I think this could easily be a conclusion of our grand leaders.
George Lakoff is also a good read for the other view point. "Don't think of an Elephant" & "Political Mind" are two that I've read. He brings up some interesting points but derives them from wrong premises. He can also get a bit technical at times, but the general idea is enlightening.
If you say 40 mil in the US have no insurance, that means over 260 mil do have ins! I have a hard time accepting that by having socialized medicine, we'll only pay 11% on insurance. Sometimes you have to pay a higher percentage for a better product. I don't want to get into a discussion about quality as I know some Canadians who love the socialized medicine while some hate it. Same with Brits and Germans. I don't know anyone from any other countries, so I can only state those three countries. There will always be pros and cons.
Finally, I am not currently in the top 1%, but I sure would like to be. If I never get there it will be noone's fault but my own. There's a reason only 1% make it there. I bet you would not be very happy if you worked hard all your life only to have somebody come and take half of it, I know I wouldn't. It's the 'do unto others' principle.
Howie, if you're still reading, thank you. I hope we can have a good discussion here. I really am interested in learning about different view points.
Howie. Thanks for being here and showing us a different perspective. I do appreciate it. As for your question about why I'm against socialized medicine; it really boils down to the fact that I want the government to do as little as required for me. I am perfectly capable of providing for myself. I don't require the government to fill my fridge, if I'm hungry I'll fill it. I don't require the government to choose my clothing, if I'm cold I'll put on a jacket. The same applies to healthcare, if I'm sick I'll take myself to the doctor. My insurance doesn't cover an elective surgery I recently had, but I determined I really wanted it, so I saved up to pay for it, not finance it, but the Polish down payment (100%). I think it's an issue of patience; I had the patience to save and delay other wants ,why can't others? If you can't afford everything you want, you need to pay for what you need first. If you can't even pay for all that, you should consider Ramen.
What about requiring that every spending/taxing measure must be renewed by vote annually? I almost want to say that a 2/3 majority needs to be required to pass anything. We could only do this after implementing an annual renewal vote otherwise it would be difficult to repeal anything. Of course this would void an executive veto, taking away some of the checks & balances, but there's got to be a way to overcome that. Maybe a 3/4 majority or 2/3 of the states' reps agreeing. I don't know, it would get complicated.
Are congressional aides paid for by the congressperson? It's odd that they are not allowed to unionize. Maybe all laws passed must be enforced across all industries public or private. No laws favoring one group over another.
Here's another for me. The people, not the congress, get to decide who is seated in the congress. This is part, I think, of why some of our reps are afraid to speak out - they might get kicked out or shunned.
Ok, so some are out there championing the few governors who wanted to reject some of the stimulus money. If we're against the stimulus in the first place why are we not asking why they are not rejecting ALL of the money? I want to know why Palin could say "we don't need a bridge and if we did we'd build it ourselves" but when it comes to this she's willing to take some of the money! I'm furious that there isn't anyone (governor) who said no, we don't want to burden our progeny no matter how useful the money could be?!
Still a little off add the zeroes. JeansBrother had it right.
All that sounds alright, but I kind of like the idea of giving it back to the people who paid that money and let them take care of their elderly family members who don't have enough. Families would be a little more tight knit which would be a huge leap forward in the progress of this country. Lets give as much responsibility to the individual so they have a genuine interest in what goes on.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Branch