A beggar doesn’t pay taxes at all anyway, by definition, so, for him, the “military tax” is already a socialist redistribution of wealth.

And I am not advocating a society of “to each his own”.  That is what separates us from the animals.  What I am saying is that at some point there has to be some personal responsibility.  If you do not like your station in life, change it.  Every day we make a myriad of decisions, and each one has an impact on something.  Many are minor, some are very much not.  Either way, they are your decisions to make.

Socialism as a form of government does not work.  It can’t.  Eventually, the “producers” will abandon their ways, and we will be left with nothing but “receivers”.  That is not what this country was built on or stands for.  My grandparents were immigrants.  They had a hard life.  Their children had a better life, but not a great one.  My life is pretty darn good, and my children’s will be even better.  That is how human society evolves.  If there is no incentive to rise above your surroundings, then our culture stagnates.

For those who love to quote history, do some research on the first year of the Massachussetts Bay Colony.  They tried socialism.  They almost all died.

“Quick question - - - Who has created more jobs, better lives and general well-being for more people, Bill Gates or a Katrina “victim”?

There is an old saying, no question is a stupid question, but now we have a first, or should I be waiting for a drum roll punch line. 

Scratching deep for inequities, one could suppose that since I have my own well you should not have public water, according to your point of view.  I do not ride the bus, I do not use any of the same public services you use, but my taxes are paying for you to use them. 

  Your comment “First its medical care.” to “giving” you “clothes.”  is not even an argument, maybe a little bit of a rant.  I do not have kids, so according to you I should be against public medical care for you and your family, well I am not.  Medical care can mean life or death to people, so I would hope that everyone including you and your 20 kids if you go that far, and we can add your neighbor down the street, the bon-bon eater everyone should be included and have good medical care, I suppose as you stated I am obtuse for believing such.

#107551 by voice of truth

On the Socialistic Military Tax

I think the military is one of the most socialistic enterprises going. It socializes the cost of defending the property of high net worth individuals at the expense of the working population. The rest of us don’t have that much to lose should Mexico or Canada invade us. On the other hand Ted Turner could stand to lose a lot. Perhaps there could be an asset tax on wealth to support the military. It would be like a property tax for local schools. Why not? There are conservatives who argue that those most likely to use welfare should be most taxed for it. I am just using the same argument.

#107551 by voice of truth

I think it is eminently fair to have a military use tax. A beggar would have very little to defend. If the nation were invaded his misery would be about the same. Now a man who owned vast acreage of producing land in the way mines, orchards, and cattle would logically want to send in enough money to buy his estate’s allotment of missiles, aircraft carriers and such. It is no different than a factotum in ancient Athens setting aside some of his wealth to buy a few triremes. I find it eminently logical, and if it can be granted that this is an obtuse argument, then the amusement alone over your annoyance is priceless.

Usage relates to the usage of the infrastructure you suggested, like water.  Are you that obtuse??

It is clearly a separation of that which benefits an individual, and that which benefits a society as a whole.  The former should no be government supported.  Where do you draw the line?  First its medical care.  What about auto care?  What about fixing my roof because it has a leak?  What about giving me clothing?

Public medical care should not be a service because we don’t all use it in the same way.  If I want to use more water, I pay for it.  If I want to use more gasoline for my big SUV (I have 4 kids), then I pay for it.  If I want to have 4 kids (which I didn’t, but the 4th one just kind of happened!), then I pay for it.  If I have more children than you, should the government give me more funds to feed and clothe them?  Remember, the government doesn’t earn a penny.  All the largesse it bestows comes from other people.

Do you even know the meaning of socialism??  Socialism is taking from those that have and giving to those that do not.  It doesn’t matter if it is public medical care, welfare, social security or any other government program.  By definition, that is Socialism.  It is not a personal perspective.

And I love the “wealth tax” idea.  Yea, let’s punish those rich some more, they don’t deserve what they have!

Quick question - - - Who has created more jobs, better lives and general well-being for more people, Bill Gates or a Katrina “victim”?

I wish I had some individual choice on military expenditures. I would let the paranoids vote in their money contributions, and I would free ride all the way to the bank. Think of a system like the classical Athenian military. Everyone buy his own spear, and volunteer his own body. It would be like a wealth tax.
Billionaires would have to buy fleets of bombers and fighters, while the rest of us could decide to buy a rifle or not. Perfect.

Never knew that I got to select my usage of the military?  Usage is not up to the individual, only when it serves you in your opinion. Why would not public medical care be just another service?  You draw the line from a personal perspective, call it socialist and then it is not acceptable in your mind, so let’s call it public medical service and it would be a benefit to all.

Sadly, you miss the point.  Taxes paying for the military is for the benefit of all.  Taxes paying for infrastructure for the delivery of services is a benefit to all.  Usage is up to the individual, and paid by the individual.

Which brings us to healthcare.  Using tax dollars to pay for someone’s health care is a pure redistribution of wealth.  I get absolutely no benefit.  Why should I pay if you hurt yourself, or don’t take care of yourself, or engage in reckless behaviour?  It is no different than welfare, social security, et al.  I am not naive enough to think that what I put into social security will be there for me when I retire.  It will be used to give to people who did not save for themselves.

English system sucks, too?  Use it as an example of what not to do when we change our system.  Look to the countries that have the best, and emulate them.
Our free enterprise system is not free.  There are loopholes, tax breaks and other types of corporate welfare.  Bribe the congress and get the rules you need to screw the little guy.  Look at the half assed health care proposals coming from the money grubbing front runners for democrat nomination.  Guarantee their money is not coming from people who can’t afford health.

@ Voice of Truth

Was there ever a time that the British health care system worked? As I recall, a conservative governments(s) instituted deform to the system. I am not sure whether the problem is political or structural. A long period of wrecking crew governance can make even public highways look like a bad idea. I remember that Gore Vidal liked one thing about the 1930’s, and that was that everything worked.

Voice of Truth,

Must admit the bon bon analogy has changed my mind.  I see the connection to those bon bon eaters using the water department, electric and buses, and I am paying for all that. We should get rid of any public servie. How about the military, we can throw money down that sink hole, well it dost line some pockets.  Maybe the oil companies will drop their prices so we can live and buy those bon-bons, but I do not watch TV, so I will read a book and let your pay for it.

It sure strikes fear in me.  Why do people think that a single-payer, socialized medical “insurance” is going to be good?  First off, it is not insurance.  It is paying your bills.  Big, big difference.  If you think the big, bad insurance companies are constraining, wait until the government is telling everyone what they can and can not do concerning your healthcare.  Are you really that stupid?

And when did getting someone else to pay your bills become a “right”?  The arguments on this website are laughable, except when you remember that the writers actually believe them.

To the writer who worked at Lowes and had to go through hoops because they hurt their wrist.  Two points… First, the reason your employer was making you go through all those steps is precisely due to government regulations.  You stated you hurt yourself at work.  Have you ever heard of workers comp?  Second, did you see a doctor and, if not, what gives you the right / authority to know that an X-ray is necessary.  The answer to both questions is probably NO.

Finally, to those of you who think the countries that force socialized medicine have great quality of care, you are sadly mistaken.  I recently lived in the UK for 5 years.  The state health system SUCKED.  They already have a system of rationing and anyone who earns anything also pays for private insurance, which is how things get done.

How great life would be if I could sit at home, eat bon-bons and watch Oprah, while others went out and worked and paid for all my stuff.

Greats post W.R. Curley, but the facts only get in the way of those who do not want to hear them.

After reading many of the responses here, it appears that Conason is incorrect in his premise.  “Socialized Medicine” still generates all kinds of fear.  It may be a minority of the population, but they are very vocal.  As we have seen with the religious right, a very vocal minority can end up making most of the rules.
Add billions in potential lost business for HMOs and you will see one ugly fight coming up.  The HMOs will look for every Ayn Rand loving, anti government, me first, neodope to try to strike fear into the hearts of all good hard working Americans.
When “Sicko” comes out on video, it will be vital for every voter to see it in order to overcome the propaganda machine that is already grinding into motion.

RE: #107228 by Paracelsus on 10/15

Yes technically, but is that the way the census estimates it.  Numbers are sooo deceiving.  I’m quite confident that any mathematician would qualify your preciseness, but how did the “whoever” arrive at their stats.  See, I’m that person who finds number “intriguing”, but no Stephen Hawkins.  I once had an accounting professor who said he could make numbers say “anything he wanted them to say”.  In his field he had me by the rung of the neck, however, he proved it.  In other words, you’d have to be as astute as he was to “figure” it out.  Therefore, that was the point of my comment.  You know, it depends….......

By the way folks, great comments and analogies.  More than for any other reason this is why I, for one, frequent Truthdig.  You want to call me on the carpet, I’m good.  Good Job!

Ok, I gotta go.  Willie’s singing and I had a few and am enjoying myself, “Good Morning America how are ya…..say don’t cha know me I’m your native son…......Have a good one….......

My in-laws were driving from Little Rock to Hot Springs to buy drinking water many years ago till I found a test of the water in Hot Springs that told them the water they were buying had much more flouride naturally than was being added to the water in LR.

#107123 by Outraged

No, you are wrong. The median income is 20,000. The mode is 20,000. The AVERAGE is 69,000.

Median income stats don’t give an accurate picture of the reality of the masses.  For instance, if 20 people live on a block and 19 of them make $20,000 yr. and one makes $1,000,000 yr.  The median income for this block would be $69,000 yr.  It’s certainly would be a surprise for those 19 to see how well they’re doing.  These types of stats. are almost meaningless when used in an individual capacity.  To add the 10% who own approx. 70% of the wealth into an equation with our meager incomes and use it to define individual incomes skews reality.

What we need to do is take the 30% income we have and divide that by the 90% of us who earn it and see where we really are.  Nope, I’m not looking that up.  Just making a point.  I think we’ll find “middle class” just a little more lacking than it first appears.  BTW, most couples if they fit in this middle class category will think it great till they figure out yep, it used to take ONE wage earner to be middle class.  Whereas now it takes TWO.  And that’s when I’m just so damn glad they give all the money to the “needy” welfare corps, and the rest of us should get rich by Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”.

He must have called it “invisible hand” and then laughed all the way to the bank.  I wish my brother George were here…

In my judgement there is no such creature as a free society or as many will expose free markets, they simply are a political pejorative. At best we are a less planned economy and a more planned economy. I would suggest that the larger the census of people the more a planned economy becomes essential is true in the other Direction. The problem with people like Ron Paul, and I like his notions on foreign policy for the most part, is that they totally rely upon an intellectual basis drawn upon history as their primer for policy. though history has its value[mainly as a tool for teaching] its totally insufficient in relating to the needs of the here and now.                                As in fluoridation it may not be a problem for rural areas where water wells can be drilled, but it is totally a non starter in large urban area’s. It would be possible to drill for water, but it may be problematic to get it to the 20th floor ,but even more critical is getting the waist to a return point to be cleaned and reused. Not dealing with cleaning the sewage will ultimately in time contaminate the rural wells not to mention the spread of disease. Urban planning is absolutely essential in large cities.                              I believe a lot of this countries problems lie in rural vs. urban. What will work in one area is not doable in another. I would suggest the greater the increase to the census the more the urban areas grow, and the more the push against open rural areas.  This in this writer’s opinion creates conflict, So, if the business interest of this country would stop importing cheap labor, give essential labor a base and a ceiling. maybe we could arrest this urban sprawl. And then reduce the ongoing conflict.

In Addition

One stupid mistake is just an isolated mishap. A whole series of stupidities? That is conspiracy.

I think I have an attitude rather than a premise. I know of families who will not apply for food stamps though they need them, because the government social worker would assume authority of the family.

I know that churches are not as free as they could be because they get a tax exemption with strings attached. I know also that there is selective enforcement of this provision. That is an additional hazard of government provision.

I understand that charity is needed during a crisis, but for most people it is a type of tyranny to live under it, and the strings attached over time may become onerous.

Government does serve as an agent of protection. But I believe it uses welfare as a salve for a gushing wound. It protects us in the wrong manner and in the wrong proportion. We need our economy protected, but instead we provide stingy bread to the utterly impoverished and plenteous munitions to our legions. It is almost as if the parasite has transmogrified into the host. We provide protection for Europe
as well as our domestic factotums. In fact we run follies at great expense to our taxpayers while private providers profit greatly at feeding the beast. The whole of the Vietnam War was a boom time to heroin runners and helicopter manufacturers.
Also there isn’t any civic mindedness in government to work properly. It seems that we keep appointing wrecking crews to run government in the worst way possible.

Yet, when I speak of protecting our economy and enforcing our immigration laws, I am assailed as some sort of throwback. I don’t think an economy only prospers a few as clients of patronage from the government is a healthy one. I think it is perfectly virtuous for everyone from textile factors to television sets to ask for protection. This route maximizes personal freedom and prosperity.

The other route leaves us open to every abuse. I remember a story about children of welfare families being recruited into medical experiments by their social workers. As wards of the state, these families are vulnerable. I speak of native American women who in vast numbers had their bodies sterilized. We are killing off domestic industry, and instituting charters of monopoly by default. This leaves us open to despoticism.

Libertarians understand that the most efficient, cost-effective way of bringing a vast array of diverse products to market is through free enterprise. Our medical system is hardly a “free enterprise” system. It is a corporatist, essentially fascistic system in which the government gives favors to various guilds and corporations (the AMA, big Pharma, big insurance companies, for example)in exchange for political support.

Providers of non-traditional forms of medicine (midwives, chiropractors, naturopathic physicians) tend to be squeezed out until they too form their own guild, get wise to the game, and pay the piper.

Things get worse when the government, at the behest of its political/financial backers, starts to make certain favored medical procedures mandatory. Fluoridation is only one such example. The science behind fluoridation is highly questionable, but the financial benefits to corporations providing the fluoride (a toxic waste by-product of aluminum smelting, as well as other sources) are readily apparent.

Mandatory vaccination programs are also highly questionable as to their efficacy and safety, as well as on moral grounds. (Yes, I know you can refuse vaccination for your kids if you really want to fight the system, but most parents just believe the propaganda that vaccination is “mandatory.”)

The libertarian approach to vaccination is identical to that for fluoridation: if you really believe it is safe and effective, then no one in a free society prevents you from being vaccinated.

For a fascinating look at the tawdry history of vaccination, check out http://www.thedoctorwithin.com.

Your premise needs clearing, from what I understand you do not want to see public medical care, or you have these concerns that it might become a selective tool for genocide but you support the idea?  Are you against any public programs?  Some? 

Your concerns seem to be misplaced, you talk about the monkey virus, but was that a planed targeted agenda or a mistake? 

Concerns and caution can be useful, until they become paranoa.

People in all the countries that have public medical care must have an opinion, wonder why we have not heard from them?

I don’t think that dental caries are a matter of life and death. Most every procedure I can think of requires the consent of the patient. Should I have the right to say, “No!”, when it comes to water fluoridation? As to government health programs being mandatory for say polio injections, shouldn’t we be cautious of that. If the polio injections are indeed all that helpful, then people will be banging the door for them. The problem with public projects is that the vendors aren’t as likely to give you quality. There have been issues with the polio vaccines containing monkey virii. If we give the government power to punish people for not taking vaccines, then is it not possible that a corrupt ruthless government could use that power to poison certain segments of the population. The same gov’t that ran the Tuskeegee experiments, the plutonium experiments and the MK-Ultra program is just as capable of targeted genocide via vaccination, don’t ya think?

You are absolutely correct in your understanding of markets, Keynes work clearly spelled out the importance of gov. regulating against markets becoming out of balance. After all that is what Greenspan did with the Fed. It is essential that you do the same through a progressive tax system, other wise to much power is assimilated to a few and the lower and working class will be decimated and the cities will become untenable.

What is this with the market fetishism that seems to be accepted as fact by so many of the neo-conmen these days? Let me point something out to you - There are no children as characters in Ayn Rand’s books. This is because of a simple fatal flaw in the ideology that has become a religion by so many these days. The reason there are no children in her books is that her “selfishness is a virtue” doctrine does not allow for the mutual aid needed to successfully raise children.

Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” theory is just that - a theory.  Intervention in the “free market” was started after the “free market of ideas” realized that something was needed to counter the influence of the robber barons in the earlier part of the century.

rowman (of the empire) -
Your emphasis on the stock market leads me to believe that you are more familiar with it than the economics of the working class. I suppose you are also anti-union as well, as unions can interfere with your dividends.

If “we lefties” started an “HMO” (an idea that would abbhorent to most of us, because health care should not be allowed or denied based on how much a for-profit corporation’s bottom line was effected) and it became a publicly traded corporation, by law, due to how the stock market works, we would not be able to use it to offer good health care, as our primary obligation under the law would be to deliver maximum profits to our shareholders.

you claim I have flaws in my logic, yet you have yet to actually counter any of them.  This dismissal of rational argument while touting what seems to be a religious maxim (“the free market will correct itself”), while not even addressing the obvious lack of a free market we have, as I have pointed out (nuclear fissile materials to the highest bidder, no public funding of any infrastructure including roads, the chaos ensuing after a complete deregulation of the broadcast spectrum, etc) is belying your misunderstanding of the situation. 

Your system of accounting seems flawed, as it would have the Katrina disaster listed amongst the assets, as it created new business opporunities for cleanup crews and reconstruction crews.  Cancer would also be in the asset column due to all the money to be made from treating it.

You bring up drug patents, which is interesting, as perhaps this is one point that we can agree on.  Pharma companies make big money off of patents for medicines which are often developed with government grants and/or tax deductions for r&d;.  This amounts to a subsidy and is a good example of the point that I have been trying to make that we do not live in a capitalist society, but a corporate welfare state (corporate socialism) where profits are privatized, but costs are socialized.  More money, by far, is spent on corporate welfare than human welfare, which is why it is almost funny that you started out by villianizing the proverbial “welfare queens”.

You point to the supermarket “markdowns” as an example of the “market correcting itself” while ignoring the massive subsidies given agribusiness both overtly and more subtly, like the relaxing of organic standards, and the laws passed on their behalf that negate the possibility of labelling GMO’s. 

The biggest and most well-respected purveyor of your free-market ideology since Ayn Rand was Alan Greenspan, who held the position of the biggest market intervention of all - determining interests rates at the federal reserve. Talk about hypocracy.

Is it possible that you could avoid name calling and actually come up with a rational argument that is not based on religious maxims?

Rowan,

I have to call you on your VA comment.
I am a vet and have used the VA and love it.  Your problems with the VA could be personal. Must admit I had one doctor in the VA that was not up to snuff, but I also have had regular doctors out of the VA who were not up to snuff. 

My brother in law had a major operation covered by the VA and it saved his life.  My other brother in law had a stroke and the VA saved his life and provided physical therapy. Guess you paid for it Rowan, so thank you.

Trashing the VA your opinion. You have company in Bush who has been making sure to cut back on VA benefits every chance he gets, so quality may go down. 

When you flippantly tell us “socialists” to start our own HMO insurance, we could always charge more, just so we can hire you to lobby for us. In your opinion anyone who supports a national medical plan is a socialist or is it really just anyone who disagrees with you. McCarthy and friends revisted. 
 
My experience’s with the VA, is I give the VA a much higher rating than my regular limited medical insurance without hesitation.

Grappa: was not directed at you.

Was addressing lefty who say’s the markets should never be allowed to correct itself. This and comments from herdpoisoning are complete nonsense.

The markets constantly correct themselves. Whether it be the stock market, realestate etc. Look no further than your local retail store “markdowns” for a simpleton example.

Government intervention in the market does more harm than good. If you really want to impact the cost of health care, start with the patent office who allows monopolies to pharm companies based on minor tweaks to drugs. This allows the companies to lock up markets on meds, prevent competition and they control the price. Don’t expect this to change under socialized health care. It’s already a government sanction flaw.

You could also start your own HMO. Get all your socialists together and create your own health insurance. You do not need big government to do this for you. You live in a free country and you would at least have some control over it.

I am a disabled vet and have access to free health care at any VA facility. Don’t ever use it. Why? Because the quality sucks, doctors are incompetent and there is so much damn red tape to go through for simple treatments. I pay for my own health care, I am doing just fine and I don’t expect you to have to foot the bill.

There are too many flaws in many of the posters logic here to continue. There exists a fundamental ignorance of our economy. How many small business owners earn over 5 million a year. Actually, a hell of a lot. This further illustrates your ignorance!

herdpoisoning,

Your post address’s issues with reasoned opinion, I appreciate the approach, of course I agree with most of what you state.

Yes the Gravel debate attacking the Military complex was quite refreshing, sad to see reality going back behind it’s regular curtain of lies.

The TD article on McCarthy or the “Hollywood 10” is only the tip of the iceberg, but Erenst Canning posted an enlightening quote from Henry Wallace vice president in 1944,  Taking liberty to change for the times, I embellish slightly

Thumping their chests calling themselves “superpartriots”, neoconservatives, are really “American Fascists” with little difference.  They scream support of “free enterprise”,  in reality support monopolies.  They must keep the people the “common man” ignorant by control of the media to deceive the public.  “Deceit is directed to capture political power”, to be used   “simultaneously” to keep the people in “eternal subjugation”

Thank you Erenest Canning and Henry Wallace, for a clear view of the grand plan, which has been happening since before 1944.  One only need see the light.

@ #106720 herdpoisoning

Canada has something called the “not withstanding clause” in which fundamental civil liberties can be overridden by acts of the Canadian parliament.

Government can be a force for good or bad, but the truth is after knowing this is that it is best to have your own own land, guns, food supply, and gold. Whether you are liberal or conservative in practice it is best not to be over reliant on someone else’s mercies. Best it would be to have clear title to your own destiny, for good times may come as well as bad, but if your are self reliant no one make you barter away your integrity for a bowl of soup, if you are lord over your own private domain. You cannot starve out an independent individual.

rowman- (named for the empire?)
how many small business owners make more than $5million a year?
and your level of shrillness seems to be increasing…
if single payer health was so bad, and would decrease quality and access of health care in this country, and be buried in red tape, then why are countries that have it in place spending less per capita than the US and providing better quality and access to health care than we do?
You seem to dismiss the arguments against corporate wealth by claiming i talk about the “big evil” corporations, need I remind you that a publically traded corporation is bound by law to increase shareholder profits above all other concerns?
need i remind you that small business and large corporations are quite different factors in the economy that operate under different structures and by different rules?
small businesses are not legal persons under the law…
Besides, the biggest problem that small business owners face right now is health insurance costs for their workers.  Single payer health would be a great boon to them.

your mutterings of “idiot” and “fool” rather than substantiative arguments are more and more reminding me of “the great oz” when the curtain has been pulled.

and pareclesus - the answer to the problem you posit about government mandated medicine would be easily solved by following the Canadian lead, where their constitution enshrines the right of the individual to choose his own course of medicine.  I do agree with you on the horror of intentionally adding known toxins to the water supply tho, and I think its pretty clear i have no affiliation with John Birch…

and to david, once again, do you really want a “free market”?
no FSLIC or FDIC, fissile nuclear materials available to the highest bidder? no FCC regulations of the wireless spectrum? no food safety regluations?
I understand and agree with your argument that no-bid military contracts go against the grain of true conservativism (as opposed to that tripe the neo-conmen proffer), but wouldn’t a war for oil also be against those principles? 

and Grappa, unfortunately since the days of media consolidation, and the demise of the fairness doctrine, the American people only get to hear about those candidates that the corporate media, owned mainly by the war profiteers, wants them to hear about.  Do you really think if they were given equal time in a debate and media coverage, that anyone would really want to vote for Queen Hillary over Kucinich?  Or Guliani over Ron Paul?

I wonder if government health care will mandate, or force people to take that pill or injection. I remember accounts of the mentally ill or retarded in Nazi Germany needing appendectomy surgeries. They always died of “complications”. Why is it the same government you despise for the torture of detainees is so trustworthy when it comes to health care?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29682

AAPS said the dubious medical emergency language is contained in Section 304, titled, “Administration of Counter Measures Against Smallpox.”

The bill gives HHS authority to declare an actual or potential bio-terrorist incident while giving the secretary the power to “administer ‘countermeasures’” – like forced immunizations – to “a category of individuals or everyone.” Also, the bill gives HHS the power to “continually extend” the emergency declaration indefinitely, without Congress’ consent.

“Also, if you are harmed” by the countermeasures, “you cannot sue or take any other civil remedy,” AAPS said.

“This section will give the [HHS] secretary unlimited power to define a real or potential threat, to take any measures he decides and to do it for as long as he wants,” said Kathryn Serkes, a spokeswoman for the group. “It’s ‘Alice in Wonderland’ time again – an emergency is just what [the secretary] says it is.”

Well Well I wounder if your as brave as you like to pretend to be? ‘calling me a name,how ennobled, guess what I’m no peacenik. I’d think if you want to have a civil discussion thats one thing. Let me tell you I will never accept a laissez fair system without regulatory gov. controls. I will fight for equality with every thing I can legally fight with and ultimately the power will be with the people.The people will bury this current inequity.

What? Ignorance! And the stock market does what? You fool.

It’s not “we the people”, it the people we vote in. Rest assured, if you vote in socialized health care, it will not improve your access to it. It will be wrapped in bureaucratic red tape and some government employee will be telling you what treatments you are allowed to have and those you are not. Visit your local clinic for a real world look. Oh.. and they will be sure to grant the government health system impunity from lawsuits so forget about any leverage you may have.

And those “big evil” corporations you are so eager to tax, read up. A main driver of our economy is the small business owner. What the hell kind of incentive is there for the average citizen to take a risk and start a business if vultures like you are just waiting to steal their earning the moment they are successful.

You really do need to educate yourself and stop falling for your democratic line of thinking. They want nothing more than to increase your reliance on government. That is their power over you. Fool.

More on Fluoride

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard85.html

Yes, I confess: I’m a veteran anti-fluoridationist, thereby – not for the first time – risking placing myself in the camp of “right-wing kooks and fanatics.” It has always been a bit of mystery to me why left-environmentalists, who shriek in horror at a bit of Alar on apples, who cry “cancer” even more absurdly than the boy cried “Wolf,” who hate every chemical additive known to man, still cast their benign approval upon fluoride, a highly toxic and probably carcinogenic substance. And not only let fluoride emissions off the hook, but endorse uncritically the massive and continuing dumping of fluoride into the nation’s water supply.

First: the generalized case for and against fluoridation of water. The case for is almost incredibly thin, boiling down to the alleged fact of substantial reductions in dental cavities in kids aged 5 to 9. Period. There are no claimed benefits for anyone older than nine! For this the entire adult population of a fluoridated area must be subjected to mass medication!

The case against, even apart from the specific evils of fluoride, is powerful and overwhelming.

(1) Compulsory mass medication is medically evil, as well as socialistic. It is starkly clear that one key to any medication is control of the dose; different people, at different stages of risk, need individual dosages tailored to their needs. And yet with water compulsorily fluoridated, the dose applies to everyone, and is necessarily proportionate to the amount of water one drinks.

What is the medical justification for a guy who drinks ten glasses of water a day receiving ten times the fluorine dose of a guy who drinks only one glass? The whole process is monstrous as well as idiotic.

(2) Adults, in fact children over nine, get no benefits from their compulsory medication, yet they imbibe fluorides proportionately to their water intake.

(3) Studies have shown that while kids 5 to 9 may have their cavities reduced by fluoridation, said kids ages 9 to 12 have more cavities, so that after 12 the cavity benefits disappear. So that, at best, the question boils down to: are we to subject ourselves to the possible dangers of fluoridation solely to save dentists the irritation of dealing with squirming kids aged 5 to 9?

(4) Any parents who want to give their kids the dubious benefits of fluoridation can do so individually: by giving their kids fluoride pills, with doses regulated instead of haphazardly proportionate to the kids’ thirst; and/or, as we all know, they can brush their teeth with fluoride-added toothpaste. How about freedom of individual choice?

(5) Let us not omit the long-suffering taxpayer, who has to pay for the hundreds of thousands of tons of fluorides poured into the nation’s socialized water supply every year. The days of private water companies, once flourishing in the U.S., are long gone, although the market, in recent years, has popped up in the form of increasingly popular private bottled water even though far more expensive than socialized free water.

“Today that phrase sounds awfully dated, like a song on a gramophone or a mother-in-law joke or a John Birch Society rant against fluoridated water.”

It is that sort of attitude that keeps us as a poisoned and slow witted people as Americans. Most of Europe is fluoride free. Why do we want to be garbage dumps for military contractors, fertilizer plants, and aluminum smelters? Why should we voluntarily dosing ourselves with poison when captive populations and concentrations prisoners were forced to drink fluoridated water by the Nazis. We are creating more illnesses that burden our governmental health insurance programs. We have Republican governors worried about health costs and we have those same states buying poison to put in the water supply. This fluoride campaign was spearheaded by Edward Bernays, the same guy who convinced women to smoke cigarettes.

***************

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/news/30.html

FAN Science Watch
July 19, 2006

Issue #30: Kidney & Liver Damage found in Fluoride-Exposed Children
by Michael Connett

A new study, to be published in the journal Environmental Research, adds further support to recent conclusions on fluoride toxicity by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The study, conducted by a team of researchers at Tongji Medical College in China, suggests that fluoride exposure – at levels currently deemed safe by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – can damage both kidney and liver function in children (1).

...

A new study from China, meanwhile, has detected evidence of kidney and liver disturbances in children drinking water with as little as 2 ppm fluoride -– half the level of fluoride currently deemed safe by the EPA.

According to the authors, “our results suggest that drinking water fluoride levels over 2.0 mg/L (ppm) can cause damage to liver and kidney function in children…”

The authors arrived at this conclusion after studying a group of 210 children living in areas with varying levels of fluoride in water (from 0.61 to 5.69 ppm). Among this group, the children drinking water with more than 2 ppm fluoride – particularly those with dental fluorosis - were found to have increased levels of lactic dehydrogenase in their blood (an indicator of liver damage) and increased levels of NAG and y-GT in their urine (two markers of kidney damage).

While definitive conclusions about the risks of fluoride exposure to kidney and liver function can not be drawn from this single study, it bears noting that several animal studies have previously found evidence of fluoride-related kidney damage at levels as low as 1 ppm in rats, and 5 ppm in monkeys (3-6). Furthermore, the possibility that fluoride can damage the kidney is boosted by the fact that, of all soft tissues, the kidney is exposed to the highest levels of fluoride (with the possible exception of the pineal gland).

According, for instance, to the recent NAS report:

  “Human kidneys… concentrate fluoride as much as 50-fold from plasma to urine. Portions of the renal system may therefore be at higher risk of fluoride toxicity than most soft tissues.”

...

This fact was not lost on the authors of the current study. As they note in the introduction:

  “Surprisingly, few studies have examined the effects of fluoride on the functions of human liver and kidney and the possible dose–effect relationship between fluoride levels and damage to human liver and kidney functions.”

In fact, because of the scarcity of such research, the recent NAS report had actually specifically recommended that:

  “The effect of low doses of fluoride on kidney and liver enzyme functions in humans needs to be carefully documented in communities exposed to different concentrations of fluoride in drinking water.”

  In light of this NAS recommendation, the new findings from China raise a serious red flag that shouldn’t be ignored.

I love these people who warn you about the government taking over your decision making in a socialist system, just who do you think the government is? As the Declaration of Independence declares ” we the people” we are the government! But a lot of people are so brain washed by the corp. media they think because you have a progressive tax system some how the end of the world is upon us.I would suggest that young people start reading Marx And Keynes, not to believe what they say but to at least to put Adam Smith in balance. What are the radical right afraid of. I often hear on some air-waives “fair and balanced”. well I challenge them to discuss on a intellectual basis these concepts, rather then the fear mongering they love to use. It used to work, but thanks to the last 20 years of neo-conservative economics, the working class is fed up.

Keo,

To answer your question.

“So why the U.S., with its supposed enormous wealth, won’t provide it is beyond comprehension!” (?)

Neoconservatives, do not to care about the people, we see it everyday coming from the White House and Congress. Deaths in a misbegotten war, utter lack of help for the Katrina victims are two things that come to mine.  It is only beyond comprehension by those with compassion.

You seem to be missing some very important principles here as well.
Why are wages so low?
Well, in this day and age when the Bush administration even outsources its own campaign to India, workers must compete in a global economy.
Why are third world workers so cheap?
largely because of US military intervention decimating the agricultural base, forcing the people to leave their time-honored tradition of sustenance farming as the land will no longer produce crops (due to agent orange or the RoundUp mix that has blanketed musch of South America as part in the “war on drugs.” ) thus forcing farmers off the land and into factories.
These factories are producing products largely for American consumers, and can do it more cheaply than those located here in the States, as they do not have to deal with environmental laws, as they have bribed their way out of those, and they do not have to deal with “uppity workers” because the workers there know that they have no rights.
Whats truly sickening as that many of these companies that outsource their manufacturing to the third world actually get us taxpayer money to do so.

Also, where do you get this 56k figure from?
According to Wikipedia,
In 2006, the median annual household income according to the US Census Bureau was determined to be $48,201.[3] The median income per household member (including all working and non-working members above the age of 14) in the year 2006 was $26,036.[4] In the year 2005, there were approximately 113,146,000 households in the United States. 19.01% of all households had annual incomes exceeding $100,000,[5] while another 12.7% fell below the federal poverty threshold[6] while the bottom 20% earned less than $23,202.[7] While the aggregate income distribution tends to tilt towards the top with the top 6.37% earning roughly one third of all income, those with upper-middle incomes also controlled a large, though declining, share of the total earned income.[8][2] Households in the top quintile, 77% of which had two income earners, had incomes exceeding $91,705. Households in the mid quintile, with a mean of one income earner per household had incomes between $36,000 and 57,657.[9]

Just to make sure that we have the figures we are talking about.

With the income cap, what I’m saying is that the top 6.37% of people who recieve 33% of the total should have this income heavily taxed.

This would not affect workers, as workers do not get up to that rank, it is populated by people who make money off of money and off of swindling the taxpayer through government contracts, mainly defense contracts. 

what I am proposing with the $5mil cutoff is not radical, its basically how things used to be done, before the Reagan years sent CEO salaries skyrocketing well beyond the rate of the worker’s salaries.

Once again, if you want to see a more rational economic theory than marxist socialism or corporate socialism (which is commonly mistakenly called capitalism) i would suggest looking into ParEcon or Participatory Economics.

If you really believe in the “free market” let me suggest what that would entail.

as there would be no government intervention, nuclear fissile materials would be auctioned to the highest bidder.
If banks or S&Ls;gave out bad loans, there would be no FSLIC or FDIC to bail them out.
The federal reserve , however, would continue unabated as this is a private corporation (largely owned by non- American families)
China would be free to cover all their goods in lead paint.
telecommunications would be in chaos as there would be no FCC to regulate them.
roads would be non-existent unless some private company wanted to pay for them to be built and maintained.
poor people would never be able to afford even elementary school education, thus the permanent underclass would rapidly grow.

I think this gives a pretty good introduction to what a truly free market would entail. is this really what you want?

You’re all over the map and lack a basic understanding of economic principals. Let’s take up your previous example of “minimum wage”.

Under our economic system, the market should be allowed to play out and correct itself. If employees are not being paid a living wage, the company will not have employees. Our government intervened and established a minimum wage that must be paid. This is nowhere near a living wage so how is this offset? How are people able to live off such little pay? Well, enter government again who offsets this with subsidized housing, food benefits, transportation etc.

So who wins here? The company of course as they are able to pay employees far below what one can be expected to survive off. The taxpayer picks up the tab and the employee is stuck earning minimum wage with a dependency on the government to survive.

Don’t like that example. Look at how government intervention caused the price of a college education to skyrocket. This only forces more people into minimum wage jobs and increases their dependency on the government. You think somehow that the government will fix the situation. This is naïve. Government intervention only makes things worse!

Now you want to say anyone making over X must pay X in tax. My point is, other people disagree with what X is. You think 5 million. Democratic Party thinks 200k. I think that we may as well be real here and set the baseline at the average American salary – 56k. So pay up.

And if you think those townhomes are flood prone… we spent several million more to make sure they are not. I will gladly give up my condo for one and you are going to buy it for me.

Perhaps if there wasn’t so much fluoride in the water in the first place there wouldn’t be so many sick people needing health care. Who is John Galt?

Why do I get the feeling that this admin treats our tax dollars as if they we’re corp profits.  Socialized Health Care is exactly what I want my taxes used for.  I’ve been paying into the black hole for almost 40 years and I don’t see much for my investment!  By the way, I have employer paid healthcare, however I would prefer to pay a tax/fee and have equal coverage for all.  While they’re at it, the Congress needs to pass laws protecting investors and all Americans from salary/benefit gouging Corp. America.  Unless the business is soley private-owned, CEO’s and VP’s are just hired help and should not be able to raid the company til.  Now we have Doctors, Hospitals, Corporations and American Citizens wanting socialized health care, why can’t we get it…......

rowman, i read the article there and it seems like the “waterfront condos” that you originally mentioned are in fact tiny flood prone townhouses, and about 1/3 of them are designed for handicapped people.
in any case, we’re talking about 52 units. that cost 7.6 million. compare that with $72 million spent in Iraq on a police academy that was so poorly built that seage was literally dripping through the walls.the latter project cost 10x more, and the only people helped by it are the well connected construction firm that took the money and ran, and testified in front of congress that they have no intrest in seeing the bad quality of work that was done nor in returning the money.

As fas as the slur of that I should take economics again, considering that I posited a maximum wage of 2-5 million dollars a year and you counter that with the assertation of a “wealth cap” at 56k was what I was suggesting. It seems to me that perhaps you should retake basic math, if you think 2-5 million somehow equals 56k.

Noone that I have heard is talking about increasing taxes for the middle class, except republicans, who are wishing to starve out the middle class so that their rich investors may get richer.

If you do not think the current state of capitalism is a wealth-redistribution scheme, where the weatlth is redistributed from those who have little to those who have more than they could feasably need, then you need to look at the facts.

from Wikipedia:
The United States is one of the richest countries in the world (2nd behind Kuwait), and in 2000, the mean wealth was $144,000 per person.[6] In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation’s wealth.

how do you think that this 1% of the population got 38% of the wealth?
do you honestly think they just worked a bunch of overtime?

Also, to dismiss your allegation that I am a socialist, I am not.
Socialism was a good idea at first but it showed its failures during both the Spanish Civil War and Kronstadt.  But for its time, it was a good idea that I truly think was at least headed in a better direction.

Participatory Economics seems to have many of the same goals, but is better thought out and most of the flaws of socialism have been taken to account with it, and are dealt with.

I am glad to see that they are building nice housing for low income people in your area.  Considering the small number of units and the number of them that are handicapped accessible, it seems quite likely that they are designed with the sick, elderly, and handicapped in mind. I’m glad to hear that people in such life circumstances are allowed their dignity.

Socialism is the constant conservative bogyman left over from the days of McCarthyism.  When the right wing wants to cut anything off at the pass, they label it socialism,  does not matter if it is or is not.  I got mine, so everything else is socialism.

Medical care for all or not, that is the question.  The insurance company, operating   for profit, provide a nice tidy incomes for their CEO’s and stock holders do you believe their goal is to proved service for the customers?  Costs for lobbing congress can be expensive.  If the government provided medical care for all, with a program maybe similar to medicare, we would have to deal with another government department, a bureaucracy just like the rest of them. 

If the goal of the organization is to proved medical care and not make a profit, one would believe costs would be lower? 

Seems the question is do you believe all people should be entitled to good medical care or not, maybe it should only be for those who can afford it? Guess we have that now!

Seems to be a social attitude left over from the cave man days, I got my cave go find yours own.

urmmm. here it is
http://www.dgs.maryland.gov/press/2002/051402.htm

too many holes in your argument. take an economics class, study the effects of your socialist agenda. It is destined to fail.

But in the meantime, I will ride the boat with you. Dems already view wealth at 200k but lets me more reasonable and true to your concept. With equality as the goal, let’s increase the wealth cap to 56k, roughly, the avg american income. For every dime you and your supporters earn over this, start giving it away today. Why wait for the government to mandate it?

previous post is right. As a middle class citizen, I have been screwed by the system. We get stuck funding all of these bs programs.  Primary objective of the article was to desensitize us to the socialized health care mantra. It is what it is. Federalizing it is not the solution. I do not trust the government to be able to manage it effectively. As with everything the .gov does – it will cost a fortune and will not be able to produce the results. If you think the welfare system is a success, your smoking crack and riding the gravy train.

I am all for helping a brother out when he is down but I am not for funding an early retirement cause someone does not want to earn a living. If you do, send you money here.

rowman- its funny that after about half an hour of looking through google searches, I am unable to find any reference to any housing projects in Annapolis, MD that have been since 1970.
It seems amazing to me that no news articles on such a thing would come up in any of several google searches.

Having done community work in the Jane Addams project (what a horribly ironic name) in Rockford, IL, as well as having been to Cabrini Green in Chicago on many occasions, and regularly driving through the Saint Bernard projects in New Orleans when I lived there, I find it hard to believe that in a time period where we had an entirely republican-controlled government would a project like you described have been built.  If you would so kindly name thr project so that I can investigate, that would be great.

Of course, as this would be in the heart of the beltway, I can see some neo-conmen setting something like this simply to cause people to become upset at the concept of subsidized housing.

As no new real “projects” have been erected since the Reagan era shut the concept down, with the nearest thing being tried in recent years being the “hope” idea of “mixed-income housing” perhaps it is something like that to which you refer?

You complain that the taxpayer subsidized the utility hookups for these low-income housing “projects” as if this were unusal. I have seen many cities subsidize the utility hookups, road construction, new stoplights, etc, for Wal-Marts and other big box stores.  Is this somehow less irritating to you, when the benefactors of the socialized costs are those who seek to maximize their privatized profits?

Since the whole welfare-to-work thing, with the exception of the disabled, there is really noone “living off the dole” in this country anymore.  Does it bother you so much that those who make $6 an hour cleaning up after you and serving you food and checking you out and pumping your gas get some rent assistance?  do keep in mind that the majority of people who are living below the poverty line in this country actually do work full time, but as we, as a country, have consistently kept the minimum wage from keeping track with inflation, people fall through the gaping cracks in our flawed economic system.

Your straw-man argunment of setting the threshold of wealth at 36 k is pretty ludicrous. 
Capitalism is about wealth distribution as much as socialism.
The difference is whether the wealth should be distributed from the worker to the investor (who “sits on his ass” by making money off of money that was made off of money, that usually once you trace it back was made off of either theft or slavery or land grants from some monarchy (often the british). with no work involved. This would be the current system, generally called “capitalism” though it is more like “corporate socialism” as in a true capitalism the costs (pollution cleanup, defaulted loans, needed infrastructure, etc) are privatizied along with the profit.
Or should we put an income tax cap at a pretty generous sum of say, 2-5 million a year for an individual, including income from all assets, and tax at 90-95% after that, using the money to fund programs to help the people that the fatcats make their money off of?

It amazes me that with KBR and Halliburton and Blackwater and Parsons and Raytheon et al ad nauseum bilking the taxpayer to the extent that it is publically known that they have been during this current occupation of Iraq, that people are still trotting out that old “welfare queen” garbage to cast the blame of taxes on the poor.

don’t look behind the curtain!

Everything that is mine is just that, and everything else is socialism.

herdpoisoning:
“poster has never even seen what a housing project looks like”…

To the contrary… Here in Annapolis, Md, our latest housing project went up about 3 years ago. Beautiful, brand new WATER FRONT condos downtown! City asked the residents to pay the utility hook-ups but we the taxpayer ended up footing that bill to. I pay premium rent prices and my condo is nowhere near as nice as those. Under your logic, you should be paying me because someone has something better than I.

Don’t start with your rhetoric. You look silly.

Conservative Yankee:
Never said that Socialism is “about giving wealth to people who sit-on-their-ass”. I said that it is wealth redistribution. This does not mean you have to be “wealthy” to be impacted by this nor does it mean that you will become wealthy because of it. You will pay into the system and people like me get to decide how much. Anything over 36k sounds like a fair number right?
This way, I can quit my job, move into one of those fancy condos above and fish all day. To me that sounds like a fair deal and I am starting to like this concept.
Average American has high definition flat screen, car, computer, so you may as well have it waiting for me when I arrive. Add in anything else you have that I don’t.

And btw… I do expect an end unit. You owe it to me.

I always get a kick out of these apparent freepers and neo-conmen (employed by PR firms of the insurance industries?) whining about the “welfare state”.
This is a smoke and mirrors tactic that is normally used to cast blame on the poor, when in fact the main benefits of welfare in America are major corporations. That which goes to assistance to the poor is but a drop in the bucket by comparison.
The concept that the latest comment here makes that there is no incentive for welfare recipients to improve their situation makes it clear that this poster has never even seen what a housing project looks like.
and I think the VAST majority of Americans would have no problem at all with establishing a Maximum Income act, where anyone making over, say, $5million a year had all of their income above that amount taxed at 90%.
the super-rich get that way by government handouts, such as is the case with the heads of KBR, Halliburton, Raytheon, etc.  The entire telecommunications industry as well as the broadcast industry is based off handouts of the PUBLICALLY owned airwaves.
And as to the original response that posits a ridiculous slippery slope argument about “cream police”, I counter that it would be overall a good thing if the government agencies took a vested intrest in public health. Then we would see a reduction in toxic food additives, such as High Fructose Corn Syrup, Aspartame, rBGH, etc.

also, yes, it is unforunate that the DLC’s annointed queen, Hillary, is, judging by her proposed health care reform plan, entirely in the pockets of the insurance lobby. But then again, so is her pro-war stance and her anti-gay bigotry. (Separate but equal? even Obama is spewing this crap, and you’ld think his family history would have him be a repulsed by the concept)

From what i’ve seen, the only real democrat (small d) in the Democratic presidential candidates is Kucinich, but with Queen Hillary and King Edwards conspiring to keep him out of debates, noone has gotten much of a chance to hear his platform and thus realize he’s the only non bought-and-sold candidate on the ballot.

The ignorance of this article is absolutely unbelievable.  The authors claim that socialism has lost its meaning and ability to convey concern is the result of pure ignorance.  Socialist societies have existed for a long time and many of these collective systems have failed or are failing. It was the awareness of such failures that caused stir with prior generations. Crack a history book then try to tell me this is a good idea.
Socialism, at its core, is nothing more than wealth redistribution.  If you support this, be prepared for the government to determine what the threshold will be of wealth and how much money is too much for you to have. Be prepared for this threshold decrease as our society looses incentives, productivity goes down and the share you “owe” goes up. It is guaranteed to happen.
For those of you who support Federalized Health Care, you need to stop thinking of “what I get” and consider what you will pay for others to get. Do you really trust the Government to manage this? Are you really prepared to incur the liability of this?
Look at the welfare system as it exists today. Once intended to give Americans a helping hand has grown into an entitlement spanning generations. Entire generations have enjoyed a lifestyle of free housing, food, healthcare even transportation. No incentives to work or improve their situation.
Why should I or you be forced to pay for this? I work hard, funded my way through school, make responsible decisions. I go without the big house, fancy car and drugs because I don’t want others to pay for my ignorance.
If you want socialism, move to Cuba. Send a postcard and tell me how that worked for you.

Matt,
Your mentality mirrors a lack of reason similar to the rapists in the Congo, they got ousted from their homes, raped and plundered, so everyone else should receive the same treatment, instead of making it better for all.  You do not believe in public medical care for the wealthy, would that be anyone wealthier than you?

Enjoyed the article, as I was reading it I was just one step behind Joe Conason’s points. Hypocrisy of the established elite is becoming a house of cards.  Swiftboating 12 year olds must be harder work than doing it to presidential candidates. 

“They have spread myths and lies about the family, their house and the schools that their children attend.”  Fitting that this article is next to one on “McCarthyism,” we see the constant vigil by the right to attack and attempt to destroy anyone in their way, a disgusting lack of integrity. 

McCarthy is alive and well in the minds of small people.

Communication for rightwingers is throwing out emotion-packed (loaded) words. They do not subscribe to the use of reason or the intelligent discussion of important issues. Propaganda figures largely in the neocon think-tank world. Most of us notice that the neocon talking heads (those interviewed on TV, the AM radio nut jobs like Rush & Fox’s O’Reilly) use hate words, call names, rant and rave. That was and is unity for them. It all arises from their belief that the people are not very intelligent. So the use of socialism never required thought or reason in the past and was a fear-mongering word (like terrorism today). Neocons have not bothered to update. HMOs and drug companies will perhaps lead the way.