Forum Post: Official Libertarian and Ron Lawl haters topic.
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 23, 2011, 6:34 a.m. EST by Julian
(57)
from St Lucia, QLD
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
75% of the people attacking this forum are fanatical Libertarians who are hell bent on imposing their ideology on everyone on the Internet and they think this website is a billboard for their bullshit. the other 25% are Wall Street goons.
A lot of Ron Lawl supports support him because it's trendy, but they aren't aware of what his Libertarian ideology is all about. Most of them haven't spent any time looking into this ideology.
The Libertarian ideology has become very popular, especially with conspiracy theorists, Christians, disaffected Republicans, Tea Party members and Fox News viewers. There's nothing wrong with restoring the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, but the problem is that a lot of Libertarians want to restore everything else from the late 18th century as well. A lot of people aren't aware that George Washington owned slaves, but that was considered freedom. Many Libertarians are against homosexuals, immigrants and many of them don't like other religions and alternative lifestyles at all and if these people had their way, they would ban those things. Their view of freedom is that everyone should be like them. The other major problem with Libertarians is that they believe that there should be as little government as possible to the point that things like the police, firefighters, health care, libraries, the education system, the space program etc, should not be funded by the government. Every system that exists, whether it's the body, a computer, a car etc, has some kind of management structure to it and society can't be run properly if it has nothing managing it. Libertarians also believe that businesses should have as much freedom as possible and that is what caused Rand Paul to say that country clubs should be allowed to discriminate against other races.
This Libertarian is dumb enough to think that a private space program would get more done than Nasa for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGqXD5OXNvA
This video proves that libertarians support sweat shops and slavery, this video from Peter Schiff made me reject Libertarianism completely: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZr9c1zYaOE
The middle ages was Libertarianism at its best.
I do not understand the privatization fetish.
How does adding a 20 to 30% margin to everything just so you can pay shareholders make an organization more efficient?
Front line workers are lazy or not depending on their own motivations and work ethic, it really doesn't have to do with whether they work for govt or private business.
And heads of govt "bureaus" don't get paid the millions of dollars in salary & bonuses that corporate CEOS and key execs do.
I can see privatizing some functions especially where specialized equipment for manufacturing is needed or say, specialized computer programs that a certain company already has developed and ready to use.
But things like privatizing parking meters, privatizing roads (yes, some people actually advocate for this including Drew Carey), privatizing schools, privatizing prisons...some things just should not be done for a profit and in the long run, are not done more efficiently by profit making entities.
Prisons are already privatized thanks to Reagan. He made it legal. Correctional Corporation of America, CCA. Owned by Wackinhut. States pay to have inmates stored in private prisons. The prisons are corporations so, they make the inmates produce goods and the goods are sold. The inmates can buy goods not available to inmates in public prisons, like KFC, Playstations, TVs, but only from the prison store.
When my dad moved from his private insurance to medicare the doctor gave him a bill that was 40% more. My dad asked why did this go up so much? The doctor replied "Don't worry you are not paying it. That is what medicare pays vs your old private insurance"
My dady replied, yea but my taxes pay this for everyone on medicare!
What a horrible doctor. So people with private insurance get charged a special low price, but when the "poors" come in with their medicare, he jacks the price up? Why is he so eager to leech of the public?
Actually the private insurance companies usually refuse to pay the doctors so they charge as little as possible to get at least some money. Doctors will then over bill the government insured and those with no insurance to recover lost revenue. They will also refuse or neglect specific tests or procedures because they know that private insurance companies will not pay for them. Oddly enough, the people with no insurance get the best care. Those with government insurance 2nd best. Private insurance is a very distant 3rd... So distant it shouldn't even be considered insurance.
This is a huge problem that needs to be addressed. The U.S is the only country in the world that makes $trillion profits off it's sick, injured and dieing.
that is fascism in healthcare and IMO is worse than what goes on on wall st. people really do die for their profits (big pharma, big insurance) The bankers will take your money but they won't kill you.
You are giving the bankers to much credit. If they can make a $ of your death they would be glad to do so.
true but indirectly. the fascists in healthcare do so directly.
Very true...
Just some more fuel for the fire. In Brazil ARV drugs are given out free by the government. They cost roughly $1,000 - $1,500 per year. In the U.S those same drugs can cost upwards of $40K per year.
Profits before people !
yeah no one pays as much as we do for healthcare
"Oddly enough, the people with no insurance get the best care. "
My experience says this is true at least for routine, in-office care.
I pay as I go, my doctors are more than willing to work with me on setting a fee and are happy to be getting paid up front, in cash.
Oddly enough, the people with no insurance get the best care. Those with government insurance 2nd best. Private insurance is a very distant 3rd... i cannot believe you think that. do you know old people on medicare or anyone without ins - look at the data - very clear that those without ins die early
You don't think the politicians and bureaucrats and hospital administrators in the UK, Canadian, France, et cetera Government run programs make profits? Of course they do. Government Admins/bureaucrats are some of the highest paid workers.... at least that's true here in the U.S. where the richest counties are the one filled with government workers (counties around D.C.)
Also you exaggerate when you say private companies make "trillions" of dollars.
The average profit for HMOs is 3%, or about $90 per year per individual policy. That's far, far less than what basic cable tv + cellphone service costs (~$1500 a year).
Hello. I'm Canadian and the fact of the matter is, we pay far less for health costs per capita than Americans do: and we're healthier in most respects. Some people do go to the States for certain types of surgery, but Americans come here as well (I remember living in Windsor when the first laser eye surgery clinic opened there, Americans were coming over in droves because Detroit didn't have one).
The reason is that we save tons of money on bureaucracy. In the private system there are all sorts of court costs where the HMOs try to get out of paying and each of them has their own billing system, which means an entire industry is dedicated just to billing issues. Each HMO replicates its own management system, so instead of 1 bureaucracy, you have hundreds, each duplicating the work of the others. Not efficient.
Hey man check out theaveng's links that he says proves that public health care is inferior to private insurance. Half of them state the exact opposite of his argument.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-part-i
http://digitaljournal.com/article/244716
What a moron. This jackass is such a stickler for citations and then he goes and uses citations that are the exact opposite of his argument.
Citation please.
First I don't believe you, and second canadian healthcare is rather poor. You have a severe shortage of doctors. You have long lines and make people wait for MONTHS to get basic surgeries. It is why Canadian Comedian Tom Green (and other wealthy canadians) fled south to have his testicular cancer removed... in the U.S. it was performed in just one week, while back home Mr. Green was told to wait 9 months!
References
(Basically they say that Canada Medicare is poor & so are most government-run systems around the world):
http://forums.intpcentral.com/archive/index.php/t-2298.html --- http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/08/11/764929/-Why-Canadian-Health-Care-Sucks --- http://radicallibertarians.blogspot.com/2009/05/canadian-health-care-sucks-balls.html
http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/man-who-created-canadian-health-care-admits-that-it-sucks/ --- http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html ---
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-part-i --- http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-06/politics/canadian.health.care.system_1_government-run-health-health-care-system-mayo-clinic?_s=PM:POLITICS ----
Best Two - http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/the-top-ten-things-people-believe-about-canadian-health-care-but-shouldnt --- http://bridgetdgms.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/mothers-tragic-tale-underscores-big-flaws-of-canadian-health-care/
Best One - http://digitaljournal.com/article/244716
HOLY SHIT! You don't even bother to read these links do you?
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-part-i
http://digitaljournal.com/article/244716
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/08/11/764929/-Why-Canadian-Health-Care-Sucks
These three you posted state the opposite of your argument. Did you expect no one to go through them? You obviously didn't. How embarassing.
Here, its just a fact:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Total_health_expenditure_per_capita%2C_US_Dollars_PPP.png
You guys pay almost twice per capita what we do, and have a lower life expectancy to show for it.
And yes, if you use sources like "radicallibertarians" they will of course say that Canadian health care sucks. But if you look at more objective sources you'll get a far different story.
Tom Green has a good deal of money. In the States if you have enough money, you can get seen right away, that is true. For the few who can afford the best treatment, wait times are very low: there are more doctors than patients in the best US hospitals. But wait times for most people in the US are even worse than in Canada, and some of them wait literally forever, til the end of their life, since they can't afford care and it isn't covered.
You mean like these? It's still negative.
Canadians have DIED from the long wait times.
Best Two - http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/the-top-ten-things-people-believe-about-canadian-health-care-but-shouldnt --- http://bridgetdgms.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/mothers-tragic-tale-underscores-big-flaws-of-canadian-health-care/
Best One - http://digitaljournal.com/article/244716
No. Conservative think-tanks like the Heritage Foundation are not objective sources.
Somebody's been snorting Koch.
The funny thing is they don't even realize it at all.
No they don't. They have heard the propaganda from the right wing echo chamber so long they think it is their own thought. They don't get that the pseudo-reasoning that has been drummed into their heads isn't in their own interest.
Did you see the links he posted? Two of them clearly state the opposite of what he argues.
I'm not surprised, Anyone who thinks the Heritage foundation is "objective" doesn't get much of my time, so no I didn't bother chasing the other links.
They pass along the info they are spoon fed and don't even bother to research the facts.
I doubt that he even knows what objective means.
Actually thats bullshit. Government workers do not make more money than private workers according to a Labor Bureau report and cited by the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/federal-employees-make-average-26-percent-less-than-private-workers-labor-agency-reports/2011/11/04/gIQAse5emM_blog.html?tid=sm_btn_twitter
A great many government positions are salaried, meaning it matters not whether an employee works 10 hours or 2 the pay remains the same. The 10-2 is for the purposes of emphasis only)
The main attraction of government jobs is security not wages. The salaries and wages paid to government workers is generally slightly below par for a particular state or community when it comes to dollars per hour. The benefits usually bring that up to local standard.
And your HMO limits what doctors you can see... Because they know those doctors wont call for expensive tests and will wait until your on your death bed before telling you that you will die from a curable disease. Happened to my father, my aunt, and 2 uncles.
Hey man check out this jackasses links that he says proves that public health care is inferior to private insurance. Half of them state the exact opposite of his argument.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-part-i
http://digitaljournal.com/article/244716
What a moron.
I don't have an HMO. I pay cash. So, no, they don't limit who I can see. --- Of course even when I did have an HMO circa 2001, they didn't limit me; I could see any doctor I desired.
You can see what ever doctor you want if you pay for it. Most HMO's will allow you to see a doctor outside of their network. The problem comes when serious illness or injuries occur. You will see who is in their network or be stuck paying, most likely, more money in hospital bills then you will make in the next 10 years.
Private insurance is crap. Not every thing in this country needs to be a profit making endeavor for the elite. The health and lives of our children and family is one of them.
Yeah. The HMO charged me $20 out-of-network instead of $10. Whoop-tee-do. You sure are making a big deal out of nothing. Ya know if it bothers you so much, don't choose an HMO. Pay cash like I do, supplemented with catastrophic health insurance. Being a FREE country, you have a multitude of choices if you simply exercise your right to choose.
True.
But everything DOES need to be prochoice, rather than a monopolistic single choice. I will never support a single-payer system, like we have for our public schools (where students rank ~40th behind other nations). Schools suck because of government interference, and there's no other choice for 99% of the people. I don't want hospitals to go downhill like schools went downhill.
The problem isn't going to see your primary doctor. The problem is when you have a serious illness. You don't have a choice anymore. Unless you have the money to pay for it out of pocket.
As for the public school thing, seriously ? Schools are mostly funded at the local level. This is why we have so many bad schools. When i was in high school, if i lived across the street i would have gone to Ghetto High. Thankfully i lived on the right side and i went to a school with a computer in every class room... This was in the 90's when that was unheard of. Bad analogy.
I don't agree with you at all about something being screwed up just because the government runs it. All the people trying to exploit government programs is the real problem. And before you reply, it's not just the regular Joe that exploits government programs. The worst offenders are , you guessed it, Big Business.
I thought Obama/Pelosicare forbids private companies from denying care to those with pre-existing conditions. (shrug). I've heard plenty of stories of the UK Government Healthcare turning down patients. (There was a major debate about it in their parliament.) If you think turning to government will automatically eliminate the problem, then you're mistaken.
Really? Huh. In the two states where I have lived the schools were funded by the State government. Everyone received an equal amount of cash and education, regardless if they lived in a city or suburb or countryside. I thought that was common everywhere?
But as you said there ARE some bad schools. And those kids are stuck. They don't have the option to go to another school (example: A private montessori school), because the government won't allow them to do so. The government controls a monopoly and thereby takes-away freedom of choice.
Just more reason why they should be cutoff from the Giant Cash handout that government provides (single payer or otherwise). Let the patients be in control of the cash, because people handle their OWN money better than a politician ~1000 miles away will.
ALSO it just occurred to me, what happens to religious hospitals under a single payer system? Will I no longer by able to go to St. Judes or Saint Joseph or my local Catholic-run hospital? Single payer would probably forbade access to those institutions.
{ " I thought Obama/Pelosicare forbids private companies from denying care to those with pre-existing conditions." }
Obamacare or a more accurate name, "Insurance Reform" , is nothing more then a copy of Romnycare with an extra 2000 pages of Republican earmarks written into it. The only good thing that came from it was not allowing Insurance companies to deny people based on pre existing conditions. I am how ever fairly confident that the Republicans made sure there are plenty of loopholes in it so most people will be refused coverage just like before. Profits before people as they say.
{ " In the two states where I have lived the schools were funded by the State government. " } Schools are funded mostly by property tax. This is why the inner city schools are garbage and the schools in richer areas are good. State funding is the next largest contributor followed by Federal funding. Once Republicans get rid of both state and federal funding, most inner city youths wont even have schools to go to... An uneducated public is a Republicans wet dream !
{ "Just more reason why they should be cutoff from the Giant Cash handout that government provides " } Or you could just have a government that is controlled by the people and not large corporations. A Big government is not to be feared. A corrupt one is... Or worse, a Republican one.
History demonstrates otherwise. Big governments have been trampling individual rights for thousands of years, even in democratic governments like Ancient Athens, the Roman Republic, the French Assembly of the 1790s (aka the Terror), and the British Parliament that we broke-away from. Big governments attract people filled with avarice and ambition (love of money and power), which makes them all the more dangerous as such people don't care if they trample the citizens underfoot.
As for schools you didn't really address my main point: Kids are stuck going to inferior schools, and they cannot escape. They have no other choice. Lack of choice is the very definition of a monopoly.
Anyway:
You seem to have a lot of hate for Republicans. In my state 70-80% of the government is Democrat, and it has been that way for decades. THEY were the ones who tried to kill welfare back in 2002. Not the republicans (who advertised he attempt in local newspapers and embarrassed the Dems). The Democrats were abandoning the poor and leaving them to fend for themselves.
Both parties can act despicable at times, which is why I hate them both more-or-less equally. You would be wise to do the same. More examples of Democrat abuse:
renewing the Patriot "spy on americans" Act. Twice.
Passing TARP bailout bill of 2008
Arguing (via the obama administration) that it's okay to put GPS on citizens' cars and track them
Arguing (via obama's admins) that cellphone tracking of all americans is okay. "No expectation of privacy with public airwaves."
Allowing the TSA to continue X-raying and sexually-groping us at airports. Extending TSA seizures and searches to highways. (First Tennessee and then extending to other states later.)
I could go on and on.
You are in err on school funding. Property taxes fund schools, some counties have an additional school tax, city tax on properties have a percentage slated toward education. The state makes a contribution based on number of students registered and revenues collected by counties an cities.
Some states have lotteries devoted toward education as well.
To address your final concern over being able to utilize 'religious hospitals'.
Your basic premise that hospitals are religious is a misnomer. Hospitals are required to meet basic requirements according to law up to and including 'free beds' for the indigent. By meeting the legal requirements to dispense aid and services all hospitals are eligible for payment from all sources, including single payer and individual.
Seems to me people begin to argue before they check the facts. Arguments based on emotion are useless arguments with no possible resolution.
This guy is so full of shit. Check out these links he posted above as proof that public health care systems are inferior to private systems.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-part-i
http://digitaljournal.com/article/244716
They state the complete opposite of his argument! Apparently he just pulled a bunch of random links and threw them up there. Scientific method my ass!
Until recently we had research occurring at Universities, the results of that research often helped fund the school. Often the results were 'public domain' which means reduced costs to the consumer.
Since we have no personal experience with public health, I can only quote empirical evidence from other countries, which the populace is not complaining about their health care.
I often see cited that if public health care was here in America the system would be deluged with persons expecting medical attention for every hang nail and cold. The percentage of hypochondriacs would never the less stay the same. Those are the type people who already abuse the medical system.
We would see an upsurge of persons seeking medical care for conditions that while not life threatening, are often uncomfortable, things such as planters warts and most likely dental and eye care.
The working poor do not go to the doctor, not because of the cost of the doctor, but rather the loss of wages for the time spent away from work, waiting on a doctor, as we (I have no doubt) all have experienced an appointment that stretched out long after the assigned time.
I always review facts and never emotion (it is part of my training in the scientific method). Anyway:
Religious schools are not allowed to receive funds from the government (separation of church and state), so I figured the same would be true with religious hospitals. I conjecture if we ever had single-payer medicine, the Atheists would sue to block religious hospitals from getting funds (and win).
In MY state, there's no such thing as local government. The state government collects and distributes all taxes. So my comment on funding, at least where I live, was not in error. All school funds are collected by the state, and distributed evenly to all schools.
You quoted personal experience thus 'scientific method' was abandoned, which nulls your claim of using scientific method in the application of your posting.
Observation IS part of the science method, and I observed that 75% of workers at the FAA don't do anything ut surf the web. It isn't their fault of course. It's due to lack of work.
(it is part of my training in the scientific method) LOL! You are so full of shit!
I don't know why you are surprised. People and corporations that leech off the Government Cash handouts are commonplace. It is natural mammalian instinct to be greedy. Millions of biological observations of wild animals and humans have shown this to be true. (Witness how lions gorge themselves on a kill, and chase off any competitors.)
Overcharging of bills submitted to the government runs rampant. Even at the level of the laborer, people will pad their timecard by an hour or two if they can get away with it. That is why expenses tend to inflate, rather than deflate.
"But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." - James Madison, author of the Constitution.
It is based on what the insurance will pay. They doctor actually gives a discount to people who are not on Medicare and only charges what their insurance will pay. I am not sure what I would do if I were the doctor. Would I take the money just because the government is offering it? Every procedure has a code and Medicare payment is based on that code.
My dad does try to push back. When it comes to prescriptions for example the private insurance would only cover the cheaper generics where under Medicare the pharmacist tried to push the high cost brand names with the "don't worry you don't have to pay" tactic. He had the same argument with the pharmacist but in that case my dad could refuse the name brand drugs. Many people do not even look at the bill when it is paid for by the government..
[Deleted]
The real question is why are you so eager to use links that state the opposite of your argument? Could it be you don't know what the hell you're talking about? If you had ever had any scientific training or ever been to college or written a reserch paper you would know that none of those links you posted are objective.
"The question is: Why are you not."
Simple, the people that took every opportunity to exploit the society that protected them were more likely to upset that society and have it abandon them to the wilderness. The ones that were left to their own devices, disowned by the society they exploited, generally did not survive to have children that would share their inclination toward exploitation. The ones that did survive are the ones that cooperated with each other and considered society to be too important to take advantage of.
The biological observations you speak of show communal animals, especially mammals, and particularly humans, to be more and more willing to sacrifice for the good of society as time and generations pass (and more inclined to sacrifice immediate desires for future ones).
Hey, have you ever heard of Peter Kropotkin? What you are talking about sounds alot like a book he wrote. Check it out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution
History shows the exact opposite. The most dominant cultures (Egypt, Greece, Persia, Rome) and had the greatest influence were those that were cutthroat.
Privatization == choice and competition. I think individual choice is preferable to a monopoly. For example when I get telemarketing calls/junk mail from Comcast or Apple or Ford, I can tell them "_ off." I am not required to buy their shitty products. --- But I don't have that freedom with Amtrak or the Post Office. I am forced to fund these monopolies, even if I never use them.
I am Pro-Choice. A free market == choice.
A monopoly (private or public) == no choice
.
[Removed]
Healthcare profit is only 3%. Exaggerate much?
.
I used to work for the FAA so I know how much these guys make. Not millions, but still a lot. Same as any other manager (or more). I also know that 75% of the workers sit around surfing the web due to lack of work (I was one of them). By right 75% of the FAA people should be laid-off due to lack of work, but that will never happen
This is a cut-and-paste from the Libertarian Party web page:
"Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties."
The truth is libertarians are basically liberals when it comes to individual freedoms such as religion, marriage, orientation, immigration etc.
We do tend to believe in smaller government. That doesn't mean no government. The fact is the government is too big and both Republicans and Democrats are doing nothing to rein it in. In fact they are both actively expanding government.
[Deleted]
QUOTE theaveng: "20 to 30% margin" "Healthcare profit is only 3%. Exaggerate much?"
We were not talking about health care exclusively and in addition, where did you pull that 3% figure from? References, please.
theaveng: "But I don't have that freedom with Amtrak or the Post Office."
Actually, the Post Office does have competition and as an online seller, I prefer the USPS to the other services in most cases.
Amtrak has no competition because the railroads went bankrupt and the government took over the running of trains.
theaveng: "heads of govt "bureaus" don't get paid the millions of dollars - Yeah actually they do."
Again, references. Show me some charts from reliable sources, don't just give me your opinion.
Since you mentioned the post office:
Postmaster General $800K plus "perks"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/17/in-hard-times-postmaster-earned-800000-in-pay-perk/?page=all
CEO of Fedex Salary $8.64 million, Net worth $2.1 billion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_W._Smith
As for your statistic of "75% of these people should be laid off for lack of work" - based on your anecdotal observations about one work site - not valid.
Nope. Only the Government Post may pick-up and deliver letters to your home mailbox. It is illegal for any other company to do it. Therefore USPS has a monopoly. Ditto Amtrak.
No shit Sherlock. I never claimed otherwise. I was talking about the FAA, not other branches of government. Back to topic: Fannie and Freddie "heads of government bureaus" get paid Millions. So you claim government agencies don't get paid millions is false.
BTW how much a CEO gets paid in a private industry is really a nonissue. The average pay is 2.2 million. Divide that across millions of customers, and you're only talking about a few extra pennies per bill.
References:
This link says 2 to 3%. Damn those inconvenient truths eh? http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/performers/industries/profits/
Govt workers paid more than private - http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jul/05/public-private-pay-gap-widens
QUOTE: "Nope. Only the Government Post may pick-up and deliver letters to your home mailbox. It is illegal for any other company to do it."
Narrowly defined, that is still the only post office provided service that the other guys are not also providing.
And you can still send "letters" via UPS or Fedex, however, it costs a lot more than 45 cents per ounce, now doesn't it.
In addition, I am not against competition or choice. What I am against is the selling off of public resources and institutions to private concerns.
This is why I mentioned prisons and parking meters.
"Why does Abu Dhabi own all of Chicago's Parking Meters?"
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2010/10/why-does-abu-dhabi-own-all-of-chicago-s-parking-meters/18627/
"Morgan Stanley Group's 11 billion makes Chicago Taxpayers Cry"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-09/morgan-stanley-group-s-11-billion-from-chicago-meters-makes-taxpayers-cry.html
It is fine with me that the postal service has UPS & Fedex competing with them in the package delivery & express mail fields, it has most likely helped improve service at the Post Office.
QUOTE: BTW how much a CEO gets paid in a private industry is really a nonissue. The average pay is 2.2 million. Divide that across millions of customers, and you're only talking about a few extra pennies per bill.
It is an issue, when it you compare a CEO getting paid 800K versus one getting paid 8.6 million.
Your article about public/private pay mentions teachers as one of the groups they looked at.
Teachers in the "private" sector work at small non-profits and thus are not paid much.
At the new charter schools in New York City, teachers are being paid even more than they are at public schools. Teachers should be paid well. They are underpaid at private schools.
Thanks for the info on health care. Maybe the profits would be higher if health insurance CEOs didn't earn so much:
http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2009/05/20/health-insurance-ceos-total-compensation-in-2008/
Ins. Co. & CEO With 2008 Total CEO Compensation
Aetna, Ronald A. Williams: $24,300,112
Cigna, H. Edward Hanway: $12,236,740
Coventry, Dale Wolf: $9,047,469
Health Net, Jay Gellert: $4,425,355
Humana, Michael McCallister: $4,764,309
U. Health Group, Stephen J. Hemsley: $3,241,042
Wellpoint, Angela Braly: $9,844,212
Versus
Nonprofit executive compensation, health-related nonprofit:
New York-Presbyterian Hospital Herbert Pardes (CEO): $6,170,885
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Harold Varmus (CEO): $3,677,402
Partners HealthCare System James J. Mongan (CEO): $3,376,554
New York Presbyterian Hospital Steven J. Corwin (COO): $3,127,051
Mount Sinai School of Medicine Samin Sharma (Professor of Medicine and Cardiology): $2,894,580
A monopoly is a monopoly, and I oppose ALL monopolies whether they are corporate-run or government-run. I'm sorry if this position offends you, but I'm not changing it.
The only exception I will allow is a natural monopoly, such as the electric and water companies, where it would be impractical to run ~10 parallel connections from varying companies. A hospital is not a natural monopoly, and I think we are better-off if we have dozens to choose from. (Because if one sucks, we can choose another... just like cars or computers or phones.)
No it isn't. It's a 2-3 pennies difference on your premiums. Big deal. This is equivalent to the Republicans making a big deal about the "terrorist threat" which is not a threat at all. You are more likely to get hit on the head by a space rock, than to die at the hands of a terrorist.
People blow very-low risk (or cost) items all out of proportion to their actual effect. I'm not worried if the CEO's salary adds a few extra pennies to my ~$1200/year insurance bill, nor am I frightened of space rocks or terrorists.
Government workers where? England or the U.S. ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jul/05/public-private-pay-gap-widens
You really ought to read these links you post.
No, no, no. The OFFICIAL forum is at http://occupywallst.org/forum/r-o-n-p-a-u-l-really-obnoxious-naive-people-and-un/ (219 comments and growing) ;o)
"Libertarians are to liberty what conservatives are to conservation". Ha.
A lot of pot smokers support the Libertarian because the Lib's promise to legalize pot. One issue children interested only in getting their drug of choice no matter what harm their support of Libertarians does otherwise.
Libertarians normally poll in the 1.5-2.5% range in elections and opinion polling. Essentially the populist wing of the 1%.
Right now Ron Lawl is polling at 6% across the nation...holding steady for 30 years now. ;)
More people are killed because pot is illegal than would be if it were legal.
People are in prison taking up space and costin gdollars for smoking a plant that grows in the earth.
The governments job is to protect us from each other not from ourselves. THe government has no business telling me what I should be allowed to put in my body.
And no I do not smoke pot.
That is no reason to otherwise blindly support right-wing Libertarian anarchists who are just using the legalization issue to manipulate people into supporting them who would otherwise not support the Libertarian craziness.
Why did you put the word "blindly" in your statement? That implies Libertarians and not educated on the Libertarian platform.
I ask that you open your eyes, look at the platform in the link and tell me specifically what is wrong with it. What specifically do you disagree with? The issues are numbered so it should be easy.
http://www.lp.org/platform
Libertarians are not anarchists. Anarchy implies not government or regulation. Libertarians believe that government is important.
I don't agree with 100% of the platform but I do agree with about 80% of it.
Peddle your con game elsewhere. I am not interested.
You talk about blindly following and then say "I am not interested"
I read the platforms of seven US parties (there are about 30) I picked one that I agreed most with. Why, mostly because I don't trust the government and they favored people over government.
And I don't care that is not one of the top two parties.
Sheep herder.
I don't believe in political parties. I do not trust anyone who does.
George Washington: "Let me now take a more comprehensive view, & warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally." http://home.ptd.net/~aahpat/aandc/gw.htm
Political parties ore organized mobs with the purpose of overwhelming one American one vote democracy. Political parties are all canker ridden pustule oozing social diseases infecting the body politic of American democracy.
Go fuck a sheep!
Political parties are societal entities just like OWS. Parties are a way for like minded people to get together and develop a common platform. The platform represents what most agree on. Not everyone will agree on everything but the party attempts to come to a consensus.
This is similar to what happens in an OWS General Assembly. Everyone, well not everyone, a representative group of OWS folks get together. Members of the group speak and we come to an agreement on issues and activities.
Blah, blah, blah...
Is that your brain farting because it ran out of any semblance of and intelligent thought or are you just taking a mental break becuase you brain hurts?
The one thing that alienates your fuckin libertarians from normal human beings more than anything is you obsessive compulsive need to filibuster any and every conversation. No one is allowed to have a political conversation without libertarians imposing your crazy ideology and filibustering until everyone runs from the room screaming wanting to get away from you.
It is just fortunate for the rest of us that there are no more than about 1.5% of you in our nation.
Yet they speak of liberty and freedom, imagine that!!!!
You said "blah, blah, blah" and disappeared for an hour and claim I filibustered? You are the one that filibustered.
Do you know what the word means?
He's 'blindly' smearing, ignore it.
Talking to aahpat is a waste of time. I've tried before. As for the drug issue, what most don't understand is that it applies to everything, because limitation of power to ban drugs, also limits central tyranny overall. The 10th Amendment forbids Congress from banning alcohol. Or drugs. Or any other product.
That power is reserved to the People and the People's State legislatures. If a Member State of the union, such as California, declares marijuana to be legal for medicinal purposes, then the central government has zero authority to overrule that legislature's decision.
Likewise if a Member State decides they want to provide health care for free, such as Massachusetts did, that state has the power to do so. Congress has zero authority to interfere, per the 10th amendment. (And vice-versa is a Member State decides Not to provide healthcare, Congress may not overrule that decision either.)
Like the European Union, we are a federation of many governments, each one running its own affairs according to the wishes of its local population. The U.S. Congress has no more authority to overrule those governments than the EU Parliament has authority to tell the Poles or Czechs or French to ban guns. Those decisions are left to each Member State's government.
Exposing religious fundamentalism in the US
Yet the dominionist connection to the Tea Party goes far beyond just the two candidacies of Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry. Ron Lawl, whose extreme anti-government positions helped to fuel the emergence of the Tea Party, has much deeper dominionist connections than either of the two new darlings. During his first term in Congress, one of his aides was Gary North, Rushdoony's son-in-law, and a leading Reconstructionist in his own right, who has written extensively on so-called "Biblical Capitalism", an ideology profoundly at odds with traditional Biblical-based teachings on economic justice.
While libertarians once traced their descent from John Locke, and more recently from the deeply anti-Christian Ayn Rand, Reconstructionism represents an increasingly important foundation for their views. A recently released sociology study, "Cultures of the Tea Party", found that Tea Party supporters are characterised by four dispositions: "authoritarianism, ontological insecurity, libertarianism, and nativism". Since traditional libertarianism was purportedly the opposite of authoritarianism, this highlights how radically libertarianism has changed - a conclusion that's echoed by the 2011 Pew Reaserch Political Typology Poll, which found that religious and economic conservatives had completely merged into one single group since 2006 and all previous polling.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/09/2011948160923228.html
Social libertarianism is a brilliant and necessary ideology that America must embrace, for the good of the people. (The idea that you can do whatever you like, so long as your actions don't have a adverse effect on others).
Fiscal libertarianism is the single most irresponsible and disastrous financial ideology I've ever heard.
I support Ron Lawl however because I know he implement the social ideologies, and will fail to change the financial ones. We get the good, without the bad! (congress would veto the hell out of it)
Common sense view. This is why I "chart" as left-libertarian on the political compass test : )
I'm at the extreme edge on social liberty, but economically, we need common sense regulation not an uregulated free market with all basic services privatized.
And I respect RonPaul as someone who sticks to his principals and as one of the few elected officials who continuously speaks out against the wars, the PATRIOT Act, the Drug War and other atrocities.
Ron Lawl I don't trust people with 2 first names
You shouldn't trust Pawn Drawl or the "END THE FED" movement, both are connected with neo-Nazis and domestic terrorists. They just give OWS a bad name and spread lies.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/end-the-fed-movement-has-ties-to-domestic-terroris/
Yes, let's all talk about hatred and division, that's always productive.
OWS supporters need to oppose anti-Fed demagoguery. "END THE FED" extremists are not to be trusted.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/end-the-fed-movement-has-ties-to-domestic-terroris/
polls is big bussiness in America Right wings allways backup there B`S with polls paid by them and funded by them from university to media
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELEwjVRxxGE
This is a cut-and-paste from the Libertarian Party web page: "Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties."
The problem with "libertarianism" (i.e., libertarian individualism / capitalism) is that it is still based on "free market" - i.e., capitalism. Every form of private ownership follows the laws of commodities, where goods and services are performed not for their intrinsic value but for profit. Capitalism is the most efficient economic system in this and while its main achievement was in improving and increasing production, it was done for profit, not for the good and welfare of the species. In fact due to this profit motive and by pushing the limits of "free market" across the globe ("globalization") most everything was commodified to be profited from. Now that Capitalism is reigning supreme, most everything has been privatized / commodified, and all the markets have been conquered, through the increasing use of technology labor (i.e., the consumers) is being increasingly outcast creating massive global unemployment. This as the increasingly oppressive means of access to the means of production (i.e., wars and conflicts for access to natural resources, pollution, waste, environmental degradation, etc.) continue to keep up the profit margins. But with fewer and fewer consumers (smaller markets) and improving technologies that far outpace any kind of job creation capitalism has entered its last stage of cannabalism as it destroys lives of the majority on the planet in order to survive as capitalism (i.e., for profit / growth of capital).
So even if (a big if, when one considers the existing power structure) Libertarian Capitalism were to somehow gain ground it would not be able to reverse most if any of the current global devastations because these are all symptoms of the underlying economic system - i.e., capitalism - and not the current political regime. With the laws of commodities intact, capital accumulation would continue, leading to increased monopolies (e.g., corporation by a different form but not content would still get more powerful through the competitive mergers and acquisitions) including more oppressive regimes / governments (whether considered small or large - again based on "accounting" conventions). The economic realities the "free market" which are based on the laws of private ownership / commodity exchange / competitive accumulation of capital, would require more socializing of the costs while privatizing of the benefits. Other consequences include effective increased government bureaucracy and taxes to maintain the self-destructive economic and social order, undermining of private charity except by the shrinking ghastly hypocritical 1%, undermining of diversity / civil liberties / tolerance of dissent by encouraging conformity and respect for authority through a policy of scapegoating and divide and conquer.
The last and only thing "free" at the end of this path is "capital" itself as even the overlords (with now their "libertarian" facade), albeit short-sightedly, have to serve its survival imperative at the cost of the species and its dependent biosphere in the course to oblivion.
I do not hate Ron Lawl; but I do hate his policies because they would further this utterly decrepit, dysfunctional, and destructive system.
Oh boy. You do realize don't you that the libertarian is making the same case when they hear the socialist, communist or anarchist right? And while all of them are going at it those in the center are saying the same about all of the above. Stop fighting people who are just as powerless as you are!!! It doesn't matter what your politics are the system will screw just the same!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELEwjVRxxGE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELEwjVRxxGE
haha good
WTF?
LOL!
That little skit comes courtesy of Russia Today (rt.com) one of the few news channels I trust. (Certainly can't trust DNC-NBC or any other democrat-biased channel.)
Dr. Paul is not just another garbage neo CON. He's more of a dove than Obama, and he's completely and honestly against corporatism, militarism, and other forms of crony capitalism.
Peter Schiff is not a Libertarian. Schiff and lots of other screwballs claim they are Libertarians. Schiff made some money, that doesn't mean he's smart. Schiff is a dumb politician or he would have known he had no chance to get the Republican nomination.
A Libertarian believes in liberty. That means everybody is at liberty to do what they want as long as they don't steal, murder, or commit crimes against others. A Libertarian cares less who others marry, abortion is up to the woman, pot should be legal it isn't a crime to laugh and eat.
Destroying social security is not Libertarian. Ron Lawl is a conservative Republican, he's not a Libertarian even though he calls himself a Libertarian. He won't leave the Republican Party and run as a Libertarian.
This Julian jerk wrote pure crap.
Dr P. is one of the most misunderstood politicians there is and most Libertarians really are giving you a wrong interpretation of his political philosophy. I agree that extreme Libertarianism without the a counter balance of socialism is very wrong . But unlike Bush or Obama .Dr P never supported the bailouts and he is correct if we had let the banks fail and real estate collapse in 08 then we would be well on the road to recovery and that unfortunately socialism usually winds up only helping the !% instead of the 99% that its supposed too. Again not saying that we should completely throw social programs out the window because of this but that libertarians such as Dr P and socialist such as Ralph Nader or Bernie Sander should work together. Dr P has already suggested he would do this when he has said he would put Dennis kucinich in a cabinet position.
Iceland let their banks fail in 2008
And now they are indeed on the road to recovery. They are the only Western economy that is growing instead of shrinking (or on the verge of Euro collapse).
[Removed]
is there a reason that we have to start posts just to attack each other?
NO CANDIDATES. it was one of our first tenets.
we want the ENTIRE system changed, not the people enslaving us within it.
Not that i am a libertarian but where in the world would you get an idea that libertarians are against homosexuals or want to return to slavery? The basic libertarian premise is that everyone is free to do what they want, without government intervention. So if you want to be gay, do drugs, or worship a goat, you are free to do that. However, they are also saying that on private property, the private property owner makes all the rules, so if that personal wants to discriminate then they are allowed. That is the distinction. Libertarians would not be banning anything.
Because libertarians believe that all rights are property rights - that the human body itself is "property". If so, a creditor could demand it.
if you sold it, don't be a dumb ass
A creditor can demand assets - you don't need to sell them, he just takes them when you default or go into bankruptcy. If it's property and it belongs to you, he is entitled to collect it as payment.
As far as sale, the majority of native Romans, citizens, who became slaves (and there were many, towards the end) did so by selling themselves into slavery when they became destitute. It's still slavery.
The notion that all rights are property rights and the human body is just a piece of property is utterly and fundamentally barbaric and vile.
You have the right to Life Liberty and Property. You can sell your body (prostitution), but you can not put it up as collateral (legally) So you are trying really hard to prove a point that is illogical. Libertarians stand for voluntary exchange in an open free market, where laws are put in place to insure your freedom to Life Liberty and Property. Not selling your body to a bank ( you would have to be insane to think that)
you can not put it up as collateral (legally)
So you're making a law telling me what I can and can't do with my property. How is this consistent with libertarian ideals? Here you're just invoking the law to save libertarianism from its own absurdity, in spite of itself and in direct contradiction to itself.
So you are trying really hard to prove a point that is illogical.
I'm not trying hard at all. It isn't hard to expose the absurdity of the idea, if you think about practicing it in any sort of self-consistent way.
you don't own yourself?
I'm not property. Nobody owns me.
If that were true, you don't even own yourself, therefore you don't own your mouth or your brain or your hands. That means you have no self-ownership right to speak, think, or express.
Might want to rethink that philosophy. :-)
Just sayin'
No, I have rights as a human being, not as a piece of property. You might want to rethink your philosophy that you are nothing more than a piece of property - it makes you nothing more than an object and leads directly to slavery. Unless you invoke special laws to save the theory from its own self-contradiction.
That means the feminist statement, "It's MY body and I have a right to abort my body's pregnancy," no longer has meaning because it isn't "my" body. It isn't anybody's body and the statement is null. It also means you cannot sell your labor for wages (i.e. provide services for money). Ooops.
No you have it backwards. If you don't own yourself, then anyone can come along and exploit you the same way they exploit cows, chickens, or any other organism (they don't own themselves either). BUT when you own yourself, that means nobody else can.
BTW
I'm not even sure why we're arguing. WE AGREE ON EVERYTHING ELSE. We agree that human beings have basic natural rights. Our current parties (Republicans and Democrats) sure as hell don't believe that, because they constantly renew the Patriot "spy on americans" Act & expand the power of the SA to sexually-assult you at the airport.
So why do you keep supporting them? Maybe it's time to consider a 3rd viewpoint that actually OPPOSES the patriot act and the TSA. Just sayin' :-)
Whether it's property or not it's your body. You can possess all sorts of things that aren't property, and you do. A headache, for example, that's yours, but it isn't property. Even property rights themselves are something you possess, but a right isn't property.
No you have it backwards. If you don't own yourself, then anyone can come along and exploit you the same way they exploit cows, chickens, or any other organism
You're just going in circles and returning back to points of yours that have already failed. Libertarianism leads to slavery because if the human body is property, it can be collateral. Your only answer was to make a law governing what people can and can't do with their property (not use this particular property as collateral) which is what libertarianism is against, telling people what they can do with their property.
You are not free to be enslaved if you have human rights rather than property rights.
I'm not even sure why we're arguing. WE AGREE ON EVERYTHING ELSE.
Because its a fundamental issue. You think it's just a minor difference, it is not, it could not possibly be a more major difference. You want no rules for Big Business, let them just do whatever the heck they want. That's sort of exactly what most ppl here are against.
So why do you keep supporting them?
Who said I do? I have nothing to do with the Republicrats. But I'm not just going to jump on any 3rd party viewpoint just because its "new and improved"! Or because it's "rebel". For me to support something it has to be sensible.
So what viewpoint DO you follow? Or are you just flailing around in the dark & criticizing everybody else as "stupid"?
My own. You should try it sometime.
I do.
It just so happens the my view is that I DO own my body, and that's why no person and no government can tell me what to do (such as send me to die in Vietnam or Iraq or some other war).
"so if that personal wants to discriminate then they are allowed"
Yup. A black person shouldn't have to serve a ghost of the KKK if they choose not to. The initiation of force is wrong, no matter how you look at it.
The key word here is, ''so long as your actions don't effect others''. If I Dave and steve wanna get married, it's no-ones business but their own. If Raytheon won't hire blacks (well, they don't already, but I digress), it's society’s business.
Totally agree with you.
get your facts straight before you embarass yourself.
most libertarians support gay rights, polygamy, abortion, your right to medicate yourself or abuse yourself. It's none of the governments business what you do in your own home as long you you are not infringing on anyone else's rights.
Wow this post is a tad bit ignorant, extremely biased, and misinformed. Ronny P just doesn't want a big federal government. He wants to restore state power and let the people of the state vote on issues. For example, Ron is pro-life, but he has no intention of policing the US. He wants to give the states the power to vote on that issue.
I can show you video of dumb OWS people. So don't go around trying to pull that, "I'll show one whacko card."
The guy with the mic in that video is misguided. Yeah it's too expensive to make the products here as Steve Jobs collected hundreds of millions of dollars?
Us citizens. Only.
[Deleted]
I must be a libertarian then, because I agree with all that was said.
Welcome ! I would suggest reading "The Revolution" by RonPaul if you are unsure. You will know if you are after reading it. It helped me understand why we are all so frustrated with Govt right now.
god forbid the OWS movement recognized Ron Lawl as being the only candidate that comes close to speaking out about the injustices that are rampant in this county and promising to do something about them. in this department the trolls and propaganda artists have been successful. they have managed to sway OWS opinion against Ron Lawl.
would it help to know some respectable intellectual liberals like Dr. Paul too?
Ralph Nader: Ron Paul Is An Excellent Presidential Candidate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnD-3BCqjxo
Noam Chomsky in defense of Ron Paul http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGcJmbNgbV0 (well--at least his foreign policy)
Bill Maher Is Voting For Ron Paul in 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T31EUbERlAg
I bet Chuck Baldwin, Gary North, Don Black, Lewis Lehrman and of course the Koch brothers would vote for their dear old friend Ron The man who stood by Reagan!!!!! You can even download Ron's book The case for gold for free on the Koch supported Students for Liberty web site.
Yeah what the fuck is that about?
Students for libery. Bah. Humbug. Who the hell wants liberty? Slavery to the globalists is the only solution! Voe Democrat and support the George Soros -funded ACORN and Advwatch (who created Ocuppy) for the slavery!
Students for slavery!
LMFAO Koch and the Pauls sitting in a tree poisoning children so corporations are not charged any extra fees.
Hey guiz let's create more regulations to fix the problems old regulations caused in their effort to fix the problems even older regulations caused! This is the way forward obviously!
Consider the points made in:
The Voluntary City Choice, Community, and Civil Society
The case for civil society is stronger than most of its enthusiasts realize. As the authors of The Voluntary City show, history is replete with enough examples of well-functioning voluntary institutions to merit a radical reconsideration of the presumed need for government involvement in many areas of civic and commercial life. Roads and bridges, education, housing, social welfare, land-use planning, commercial law, even policing and criminal prosecutions have been provided effectively by the non-governmental sector at various times and places in the past.
http://www.independent.org/publications/books/book_summary.asp?bookID=17
Please find me a libertarian that supports feudalism. Oh, you can't? Great now we know that you really don't have a clue.
Citation please.
Or retract as false/unproven.
The middle ages involved a great deal of the use of force which is against the two main tenets of libertarianism.
The author should actually understand a subject before attempting a critique.
"The feudal system grew out of the need for organized protection. The system, in essence, consisted in the peasants swearing allegiance to a lord, who claimed ownership of the land and a percentage of their harvest in exchange for his duty to protect them against military attacks.
This system brought some semblance of order, but no protection and no peace. Disarmed men were left in the total power of an armed ruler, who had his own military gang and who robbed them as ruthlessly as, but more systematically than, any foreign invader. The history of the Middle Ages is a series of internal and external wars: there were various lords struggling to enlarge their domains, foreign lords struggling to subjugate neighboring lands, and bloody, hopeless uprisings of desperate peasants, bloodily suppressed. It was also the longest period of stagnation—intellectually and productively—in Europe’s history."
--Ayn Rand
Doesn't sound like an advocacy of feudalism now, does it?
Gee.... that sounds like people who support gun control support feudalism by disarming the public.