Does the US even have the necessary wiggleroom for medicare?

[Machjo]

We often look at the medicare systems in developed countries outside the US as arguments in favour of adopting comprehensive medicare in the US. I think proponents of comprehensive medicare in the US often miss out on one crucial factor that has made medicare possible abroad but that hinders it in the US, and that is the US military budget.

Had Canada or any other developed nation (ex-Warsaw-Block-countries aside for obvious historical political reasons) had to carry such a military fiscal burden, could they have succeeded through the democratic process to support such an endeavour? Honestly, I don't know the answer to that, but it is a valid question to ask. IN other developed nations, we might not mind paying the extra tax on medicare owing to the lower tax burden for the military. For the US to achieve the same, however, with its current military budget, would mean a higher tax burden than in our own nations, and all people ahve a tax limit they're prepared to tolerate in a democratic society.

Honestly, I have my doubts that comprehensive medicare could succeed in the US until the US military budget and its debt are brought in check.

 

[Machjo]

Sorry, I typed Warsaw Blick. I meant Warsaw Pact.

 

[EagleSmack]

We often look at the medicare systems in developed countries outside the US as arguments in favour of adopting comprehensive medicare in the US. I think proponents of comprehensive medicare in the US often miss out on one crucial factor that has made medicare possible abroad but that hinders it in the US, and that is the US military budget.

Had Canada or any other developed nation (ex-Warsaw-Block-countries aside for obvious historical political reasons) had to carry such a military fiscal burden, could they have succeeded through the democratic process to support such an endeavour? Honestly, I don't know the answer to that, but it is a valid question to ask. IN other developed nations, we might not mind paying the extra tax on medicare owing to the lower tax burden for the military. For the US to achieve the same, however, with its current military budget, would mean a higher tax burden than in our own nations, and all people ahve a tax limit they're prepared to tolerate in a democratic society.

Honestly, I have my doubts that comprehensive medicare could succeed in the US until the US military budget and its debt are brought in check.

Although the US Military Budget is a flashy and easy target to go after I think the WHOLE budget of the US should be looked to. There is so much government waste, freebies, non-essential programs.

We still subsidize sheep farmers for wool in case of a war to make uniforms. The Government buys wool and it stocks it. The government still subsidizes helium manufactures for helium for derigibles. The Tennessee Valley Authority was developed to bring electricity to every household in America. That happened decades ago yet it is still a government organization.

Sure it is colorful to go after the military as many would like to see our military cut back but there is so much more that can really be cut back. Why does ACORN need hundreds of millions of dollars?

 

[Machjo]

Although the US Military Budget is a flashy and easy target to go after I think the WHOLE budget of the US should be looked to. There is so much government waste, freebies, non-essential programs.

We still subsidize sheep farmers for wool in case of a war to make uniforms. The Government buys wool and it stocks it. The government still subsidizes helium manufactures for helium for derigibles. The Tennessee Valley Authority was developed to bring electricity to every household in America. That happened decades ago yet it is still a government organization.

Sure it is colorful to go after the military as many would like to see our military cut back but there is so much more that can really be cut back. Why does ACORN need hundreds of millions of dollars?

I agree in part. We can't deny though that the US military budget is higher as a percentage of GDP than that of any other developed nation. IN a global market, that just puts US companies at a disadvantage in international trade.

That said, I do agree that the US military is not the only issue. Those make work jobs you mention above should not exist. If a person loses his job, the government could just give him a school voucher to learn a new job that is already in demand in the market. No point making work no one wants.

 

[Machjo]

But in short, I just don't think comprehensive medicare is possible in the US until the US debt is brought under control. Honestly, i don't think medicare would have succeeded even in Canada hd we had a debt the size of the US one, in relative terms of course. You need a solid fiscal foundation to introduce such a system, something the US simply does not have at the moment.

 

[EagleSmack]

I agree in part. We can't deny though that the US military budget is higher as a percentage of GDP than that of any other developed nation. IN a global market, that just puts US companies at a disadvantage in international trade.

Unless the US decides to be an isolationist country we will need a massive military and massive military budget. That is just the way our country is. However I believe that if the military budget was slashed considerably the money would just be used for more wasteful spending. The US Govt. wastes so much...so so much.

That said, I do agree that the US military is not the only issue. Those make work jobs you mention above should not exist. If a person loses his job, the government could just give him a school voucher to learn a new job that is already in demand in the market. No point making work no one wants.

And those programs abound. National Endowment for the Arts, I could go on. One of the networks has a show called "The Fleecing of America". Paying cattle farmers to feed cattle on US lands. Giving them money to let cattle graze on US Property! It is insane! Meanwhile out roads and bridges fall apart, our National Parks get by on peanuts.

 

[Machjo]

Canada is almost as bad. We invest in the arts, etc. Why can't the private sector deal with that? Now don't get me wrong. I understand the arts to be an important component of any society. But could that not be done simply by increasing government spending on education, giving the vouchers to parents, and if the school wants to teach art, then great.

But honestly, how deos government spending on a theatre benefit me if I don't go to the theatre? I realise too that it's not just about me and that I should help my neighbour. Fair enough. But even then, how does government spending on a theatre benefit my neighbour if he can't afford the ticket? So give more money for school vouchers, and let him who wants to learn it learn it.

As for isolationism, what about Sweden? It's far from an isolationist country, though it is a neutral country. Why not adopt the Swedish foreign-policy model? Personlly, I'd love it if Canada and the US did that. Neutral involvment, not to be confused with the Swiss model which is a truly isolationist model.

 

[Machjo]

Same with agriculture by the way. Instead of subsidizing them, why not just give unemployed farmers school vouchers to upgrade, maybe learn higher-level agricultural sciences or engineering, organic agriculture, silviculture, etc.?

 

[Machjo]

Another thing I could see saving much money would be the establishment of an international military force of let's say a maximum 100,000 well trained and equipped men that could be freely shared among member states. Beyond tht, each member state could have his own force to compensate for any lack they feel they have. The international force woudl allow member-states to reduce their national military spending and share more military resources, thus eliminating much administrative overlap.

 

[Machjo]

A common currency would save much money in monetary transactions too by the way. You're right, so much waste in both the public and private sectors.

 

[EagleSmack]

Canada is almost as bad. We invest in the arts, etc. Why can't the private sector deal with that?

Because the private sector wouldn't pay for it! They could not make a living with the stuff created or acted out unless the government provided welfare. Welfare for works of art such as the US flag in a toilet, a guy with a bull whip shoved where the sun don't shine, a play where a woman smears herself with chocolate to represent feceese (sic). Who is going to pay for that? The US Govt. thats who!

Now don't get me wrong. I understand the arts to be an important component of any society. But could that not be done simply by increasing government spending on education, giving the vouchers to parents, and if the school wants to teach art, then great.

I agree and good art is paid for by the private sector. Plays, paintings, performances, concerts, etc. It is the garbage that gets subsidized. Here in Mass any state project HAS to have a certain percentage of the budget go to art. We built a prison and they had to pay an artist to create something. He bent a few steel beams on the lawn and painted them and got paid $30K to do it!

But honestly, how deos government spending on a theatre benefit me if I don't go to the theatre?

Not one bit.

I realise too that it's not just about me and that I should help my neighbour. Fair enough. But even then, how does government spending on a theatre benefit my neighbour if he can't afford the ticket? So give more money for school vouchers, and let him who wants to learn it learn it.

Because schools are being held hostage as political tools. Schools, public safety, etc.

"If we have to cut taxes we are going to cut teachers and cops!" they say each time.

You never hear...

"If we cut taxes we are going to have to cut funding for arts on public projects."

People would cheer!

As for isolationism, what about Sweden? It's far from an isolationist country, though it is a neutral country. Why not adopt the Swedish foreign-policy model? Personlly, I'd love it if Canada and the US did that. Neutral involvment, not to be confused with the Swiss model which is a truly isolationist model.

Yeah...sometimes it would be nice to be a Sweeden. Or a Luxemborg! You only hear about them at the Winter Olympics.

 

[Machjo]

As for Sweden, it's not so bad to not be heard all the time. Like they say, no news is good news.

Now as for taxes, dont' get me wrong, I'm all for paying my taxes and would even be willing to accept a tax increase if for a good purpose or if it'll be spent wisely.

But I fully agree arts spending needs to be cut. That's the kind of thing that turns people against taxes. Again, I have no issue with increasing taxes to increase government spending on school vouchers and then let the parents schoose the schoo, let the school decide on arts education, and keep the government out beyind ensuring the pedagogical soundness of the courses and curricula.

 

[Machjo]

I should add a point to the arts funding debate. Some in Canada have defended arts funding saying that many artists don't earn a decent income and so must be subsidized. I fully agree that the poor should be given a hand up, but not a hand out. Educate them, and those artists will make more money. Send them to school, and they could comdine their artistic skills with website design, music and sound technologies, T-shirt manufacturing, business management so that they could become self-employed. Combine artisits skills with construction. Imaing the money that could be made through artistic yet efficient private sector architectural designs, etc.

 

[darkbeaver]

Because the private sector wouldn't pay for it! They could not make a living with the stuff created or acted out unless the government provided welfare. Welfare for works of art such as the US flag in a toilet, a guy with a bull whip shoved where the sun don't shine, a play where a woman smears herself with chocolate to represent feceese (sic). Who is going to pay for that? The US Govt. thats who!



I agree and good art is paid for by the private sector. Plays, paintings, performances, concerts, etc. It is the garbage that gets subsidized. Here in Mass any state project HAS to have a certain percentage of the budget go to art. We built a prison and they had to pay an artist to create something. He bent a few steel beams on the lawn and painted them and got paid $30K to do it!



Not one bit.



Because schools are being held hostage as political tools. Schools, public safety, etc.

"If we have to cut taxes we are going to cut teachers and cops!" they say each time.

You never hear...

"If we cut taxes we are going to have to cut funding for arts on public projects."

People would cheer!



Yeah...sometimes it would be nice to be a Sweeden. Or a Luxemborg! You only hear about them at the Winter Olympics.

If you cut funding on arts and public projects you'll save squat. All of your taxes go to the rich you get weapons and wars they get everything else. Who do you think sent the industrial base overseas? The public? Shake your head Smack you are targeting pissants and your own foot. Good art cannot be bought at any price it must be created from the heart, it must be inspired by light and bouquet and curve a rich man can't simply wave a wad and have good art delivered accross town. :smile:

 

[darkbeaver]

I should add a point to the arts funding debate. Some in Canada have defended arts funding saying that many artists don't earn a decent income and so must be subsidized. I fully agree that the poor should be given a hand up, but not a hand out. Educate them, and those artists will make more money. Send them to school, and they could comdine their artistic skills with website design, music and sound technologies, T-shirt manufacturing, business management so that they could become self-employed. Combine artisits skills with construction. Imaing the money that could be made through artistic yet efficient private sector architectural designs, etc.

The rich should be given the poor to play with. Machjo! T-shirt manufacturing? We don't have a textile industry, you mean T-Shirt printing maybe. Business management following what model? Surely you don't suggest further disaster with the soon to be late present dismal failures. What "efficient private sector" are you talking about the entire western world is in collapse because of thee most "efficient private sector" ever to have graced this planet. Efficiency to the private sector clearly means collapse decay war boom collapse decay war boom over and over again. Educate them (us)! Are you suicidal man? The rich will drive you out of the village for such a suggestion besides the poor are happy simple folk who only want jobs in the forests and mines where their mental limitations won't deter them and the lumps on their backs won't offend the gentry. :smile:

 

[Machjo]

DB, there are more efficient ways of promoting the arts. Let's face it, if the government simply subsidizes arts centres, only the rich who can afford the tickets get to enjoy them. Are you defending subsidies to the rich?

If you want government to promote the arts at the grassroots, so that all can benefit, why not just improve education funding and include music, calligraphy, and other lessons in school so that all children can benefit.

I don't think Cmack and I are opposing government funding for the arts per se, but rather how it's funded. If it were funded through education, then arts could flourish through the private sector through well educted artists, education funded by society. Would that not be more just than to just subsidize rich snobs?

 

[Machjo]

The rich should be given the poor to play with. Machjo! T-shirt manufacturing? We don't have a textile industry, you mean T-Shirt printing maybe. Business management following what model? Surely you don't suggest further disaster with the soon to be late present dismal failures. What "efficient private sector" are you talking about the entire western world is in collapse because of thee most "efficient private sector" ever to have graced this planet. Efficiency to the private sector clearly means collapse decay war boom collapse decay war boom over and over again. Educate them (us)! Are you suicidal man? The rich will drive you out of the village for such a suggestion besides the poor are happy simple folk who only want jobs in the forests and mines where their mental limitations won't deter them and the lumps on their backs won't offend the gentry. :smile:

The private sector can be efficient if well regulated. As for education, if the government provided more generous funding for education, I;m sure plenty would want to study the arts, for music, graphic design, etc.

I'd rather fund arts education for the more vulnerable members of society than to just subsidize expensive theatre tickets for the rich.

Besides, what's the point of government intervention and socialism if it's just to help the rich. Isn't the private sector doing a good job of that already?

 

[darkbeaver]

DB, there are more efficient ways of promoting the arts. Let's face it, if the government simply subsidizes arts centres, only the rich who can afford the tickets get to enjoy them. Are you defending subsidies to the rich?

If you want government to promote the arts at the grassroots, so that all can benefit, why not just improve education funding and include music, calligraphy, and other lessons in school so that all children can benefit.

I don't think Cmack and I are opposing government funding for the arts per se, but rather how it's funded. If it were funded through education, then arts could flourish through the private sector through well educted artists, education funded by society. Would that not be more just than to just subsidize rich snobs?

old chinese proverb---no eat no art We are in an economic pickle Machjo, a time of hardships and want of unprecedented scale. Of course the funding and support of the arts through educational programes (school) is what we want, it's good. I remember the seventies and eightys when the arts were stripped from public schools in favour of business and science by the goddamn private sector, everyone would be a programmer and we would service each other for our dayly bread. You cannot use the insturments that precipitated the problems in education to fix those same problems. It has always been in the best interests of the rich to have it (education) serve them and not the student. As long as the rich are there we will be subsidizing them, that's what position and power buy. Luckily, if it's any consolation, great art often comes from great torment.

 

[Machjo]

I will agree that many so-called conservatives have rejected capitalism long ago in favour of corporate welfare, which is even worse than social democracy because at least social-democrats are well-intentioned.

 

[darkbeaver]

The private sector refused all regulation and insisted on the famous level playing field and campaingned endlessly to have government stay out of business including regulators. The circumvention of regulation and law is what makes the efficiency of todays success stories, or it was. Social democracy isn't your enemy, capitalism definitely is. You only get the social democracy you work to build and people can and have done that for thousands of years. No modification is possible with capitalism, it's something for nothing Machjo, and it always comes out of labour, the only source of wealth.