jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (237 posts)

Increasing Dependance on the Govt. for is Evidence of De-evolution

  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    edit:  "for individual survival" could not fit in title. Should read:

    Increasing Dependence on the Government For Individual Survival is Evidence of De-evolution.

    Haven't humans been pretty darn hardy throughout time? They have been physically and psychologically robust and have survived just fine. Is there something wrong with survival of the fittest, competition, personal ambition and desire for success....(excluding blind ambition.) ?

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes and no.  Some of us desire to be kind, to be generous, to help others in need.

      And some desire to take advantage of that perceived weakness.

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Ha! Well said smile we are one!!!

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          smile

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        - feed the sharks near shore and then you've got big problems for those who who like swimming in the ocean.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I agree.  Better to take those that take advantage further out to sea before letting them swim.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            1. Do not feed sharks.
            2. Especially near shore!
            They will always return where the food was given out. This is based on a true situation where people were indeed feeding sharks near shore. Let the sharks find their own food in the depths of the ocean. Then the beaches will be safe for swimming.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It is OK to feed the sharks with those taking advantage.  Just don't do it near the shore line.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                now, you're getting it.

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Darwin specifically made it clear that this theory should not be applied to human society.

      I recommend reading the Hub Of the Day it addresses this issue.

      If we were to apply Darwinian evolution however we would find the exact opposite. The biggest threats to our species are pandemics the greater the genetic pool the greater the chance of resistance or natural immunity which could save humanity.

    3. tammybarnette profile image61
      tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Is it de- evolution or evolution? Is a society, a country, only as strong as its weakest link; its weakest class? Many pioneers died due to the lack of understanding mere sanitation. The great depression  ended mostly due to humanitarian government interference.

    4. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Surely our ability to behave in ways that are not dictated by biological imperatives, but instead grounded in reason and intelligence, is a sign of continual evolution, not devolution, no? That's progress, not regress. Isn't it that ability that distinguishes us from other animals?

      1. tammybarnette profile image61
        tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        +1 Beautifully articulated smile

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          -a social democracy, however defined, is not a logical/intelligent solution.

          1. Don W profile image83
            Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Let me give an example to show how this could be framed slightly differently: we have a biological imperative to compete with others for food because successfully doing so increases our chances of survival. Yet through the development of human intelligence, we now have the technology and expertise to produce enough food to feed every man, woman and child on the planet.

            Should our behavior be dictated by the biological imperative to compete, or should it be based on the fact that, through reason, we can understand there is no good reason for any human being on the planet to die of starvation?

            Note: a study in the Lancet suggests that 3 million children died of malnutrition across the world in 2011. That's one child every 10 seconds. The U.S. alone threw away 33 million tonnes of food in 2010. If you could explain what is intelligent about maintaining that situation that would be much appreciated.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              What we do not seem to have is the intelligence to make arguments from whole cloth instead of rags.

              We can probably produce enough food to feed everyone on earth.  Probably.

              What we cannot do is get it to them  So talking about throwing food away as if it were criminal, about the 3 million children dying has nothing whatsoever to do with a biological imperative canceling out the need for some people to starve.

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                We can get a man on the money. The only thing that stops us getting food to the starving is money.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Really?  And when the dictator denies access to his country because he is in the process of committing genocide you think money will buy your way in?

                  You think there is enough money to buy refrigeration for keep food in the heart of Africa or will you put nothing but dry foods there?  And then dig wells for every village so the dry food is useful?

                  Will you build roads everywhere or deliver by helicopter in small quantities?  How do you propose to deliver in the Andes where there are neither roads nor planes?

                  No, John, money will not feed the world's poor.  They only way to do that is to teach them to feed themselves, and that isn't easy.  Not easy at all.

                  1. Don W profile image83
                    Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Is the dictator’s behavior driven by reason and intelligence, or is it driven by the biological imperative to defend his “territory”? That's exactly my point. Behaving contrary to his natural instincts and allowing others into the country to help provide food and assistance would be a sign of enlightenment not devolution, wouldn't it?

            2. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Complete rubbish.

              There was a study done by the UN in the early 2000s they found that the US military budget alone could produce enough food and get it to where it needs to go to end starvation (aside from the guy gets lost in the woods and starves kind obviously).

              I can't find a link right now but I will. What I can recommend is "The end pf poverty" by Jeffrey Sachs (an economist) his professional calculations were that 157 billion a year over 20 years could end extreme poverty (the kind that kills you) The US will spend 700 billion this year on military spending alone.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                If we do that, how will the tractors operate?  One year?  Two?  How long before an overpopulated country somewhere decides they would like to have our breadbasket for their own use?  Or the oil fields of our friends, the ones producing the fuel for those tractors, planes and boats all necessary to get the food to the starving ones.

                Better find another source for your funding.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I Think 157 Billion wouldn't change much. I also think that argument is incorrect. There are as we speak 21 modern nations with no standing army at all. All much smaller than the US and without an armed citizenship to the same degree and no one touches them.

                  However you missed the point by a mile, the source was simply illustrative, it wouldn't be just the US's responsibility anyhow. It would just take every nation signatory to the Monterey (might be getting the name wrong) act doing what they pledged and giving 0.8% of GDP for the next 20 years, unfortunately only Sweden, Denmark, Norway, New Zealand and Brazil have kept their pledge.

                  Last figure I can find for the US we gave less than 0.2 (0.18).

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, there are countries with no standing army - lots of them.  Even some that are desirable to conquer.

                    One of which was Kuwait - do you remember what happened to Kuwait?  Do you remember who kicked out the invader?

                    Who would you ask to remove 50 million invading Chinese from the US? Haiti?  Iceland?  Maybe Monaco?  Thanks, I'll keep my army, and keep it beyond what I figure is minimum levels.

                    Well, now, if it has become that the world can feed the world instead of the US feeding the world, I'd agree.  AFTER the political considerations are solved.  When starving nationals are denied aid,  aid given by other countries, that is a wee problem that money won't solve.

                    I would also point out that feeding everyone is going to produce a population explosion of uneducated, unskilled people that cannot feed themselves.  What then?  Run around the circle again until we ALL starve or divert most of the "free food" funds into education and infrastructure and let them starve for 20 years?

            3. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I also think this expectation of competition is somewhat misplaced, biologically we are set to compete but also to cooperate, without the cooperation and mutual assistance humanity would have perished.

              I was re-reading BF Skinner's (for those who don't know the leading behavioral psychologist of all time)  book Walden Two and it is largely a critique of competitive behavior as it exists in modern society being human nature, in fact Skinner held that competition as it is seen in capitalism was cultural not natural and ultimately harmful.

              Despite all the "experts" (by which I mean people with no education in human nature/behavior at all) who will tell you that capitalism and competition as it presents it are human nature.

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Additional questions:
    1. What is the force behind evolution?
    2. What causes / caused the evolution of our species, the human?
    3. What is the cause of our intelligence?
    4. Are we becoming more intelligent?
    5. Is technology helping or hindering?

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The greatest resource of humanity is genius and the allocation of genius seems to be almost random.

      A Tesla, an Einstein, a Volta such people are the greatest drivers of human development and for that reason alone every person has great value because they could be or could birth genius.

      As for are we getting smarter the exponential increase in advancement would say yes. Compare the average IQ against the Average IQ of a person in the 1930s and by comparison in the modern age the average person in the 1930s would be legally retarded.

      So yes humanity is getting smarter. Rapidly.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I still think my mom is smarter than me!

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Could well be, just not the case for most people.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            @ Josak, (since you are probably younger than I am and therefore smarter...)
            Could you please explain:
            1. How is a social democracy better than a democratic republic.
            2. What makes you think a social democracy could work in a country the size of ours?
            3. ...doesn't the ACA fiasco indicate the type of problems we would encounter?
            4. What is the problem with ACA, in your estimation?
            5. What is a better health care reform idea?

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        ...then they should be able to read the Federalist Papers, no problem.

    2. Cgenaea profile image60
      Cgenaeaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The force behind evolution is intelligent design. Our bodies are made to adapt.
      The cause of intelligence is part nature, part nurture.
      Becoming more intelligent? Yes! "Wiser, yet weaker"
      Technology helps.  The answer to just about any question is just a click away. But we don't talk so much anymore.  We don't go out for exercise or fresh air so much anymore.  We are not banned from explicit material during formative years so much anymore.  Our parents want to teach us everything early so that we don't get snatched, fondled, or later pregnant in our teens. We are exposed.
      But now that I think about it, marriage and family happened at much younger ages. It didn't used to be unheard of for 12 and 13 year-olds. The life expectancy possibly played a role in that. However,  nowadays we are able to find out just about anything about anything in seconds. That has got to make a difference in how much we know, but sometimes the information is misconstrued because of lack of maturity.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks for your viewpoint, Miss C. Your last sentence is very interesting.

      2. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry, but evolution has nothing to do with your religious beliefs.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          evolution has to do with the advancing enlightenment of mankind through time/experience. Not really talking about religion. So you are…. welcome to stay!

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So essentially, you are going to ignore the link I provided so you could actually learn something about evolution and talk about it intelligently, but instead, you prefer not to talk intelligently about it and instead post nonsense.

            Oh well, it was worth a try. At least, we know you aren't interesting in learning things.

      3. Silverspeeder profile image61
        Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Scientist hate intelligent design as it implies there must be something more intelligent than them..........

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No, they hate intelligent design because half the country insists they know that intelligence is out there but can produce zero evidence of it. 

          Imagination, in other words, being promoted as knowledge.  When you force feed that to our kids you raise a generation of ignorance and scientists spend their lives trying to end as much ignorance as possible.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            - no, the scientists are baffled as well. Many of them attribute what they don't understand to a mysterious undefinable/magical force.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Link, please?  Never heard of this magical force.

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            We can agree on that!

          3. Silverspeeder profile image61
            Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            And yet science has an incomplete theory and tout it around as fact, everything happened as they say yet they are still working on what they say.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Are you saying that about evolution?

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I think he is, despite the fact that the theory of evolution has long been well accepted by scientists and taught in schools around the civilized world (not including Afghanistan and Texas.)

                1. Silverspeeder profile image61
                  Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So as religion but it has no scientific backing either.

                  1. Silverspeeder profile image61
                    Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Sorry that should have been no facts to back it up either.

              2. Silverspeeder profile image61
                Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I am saying it about evolutionary scientists that's all ATM

                1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So, you don't understand evolution, correct? Nor, do you actually know or understand what scientists are saying about evolution, correct?

                  1. Silverspeeder profile image61
                    Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I am sure they don't understand how it happened and it seems you have the answer for them.

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              And that surprises you?  Not a single theory (in the scientific sense, not the popular idea that a "theory" is strictly imagination at work) is complete.  Not a single one ever will be.  There will always be unfound knowledge.

              Understand that the theists of the world know everything there is to know about the universe (Goddunnit), but scientists aren't that foolish.

    3. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Kathryn, those are questions that simply cannot be answered in a few posts on these forums, but instead require some reading on your part so that you can understand it.

      You can start here...

      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you ever so much for posting this link. Of course I will look at it! But it is missing the angle I am getting at… we are not discussing religion at all, here, BTW

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @ ATM:
        I copied this from one of the link's pages:

        "Some of the questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer include:
        Does evolution tend to proceed slowly and steadily or in quick jumps?

        Why are some clades very diverse and some unusually sparse?

        How does evolution produce new and complex features?

        Are there trends in evolution, and if so, what processes generate them?"

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Okay, but the question is, are you learning anything about evolution? Try not to jump ahead, start from the beginning and read through the material. By spending a little time at it each day, you'll start to get a good grasp on the subject matter and will eventually understand it.

    4. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Survival

      Survival in a hostile environment.

      Survival in a hostile environment.

      Yes, Every few years IQ test have to me adjusted to maintain an average IQ of 100.

      Maybe, it certainly helps with knowledge.

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Perfectly and succinctly put.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Oh gosh. smile

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Perhaps, some folks feel that increasing dependance on Government for individual survival is proof of societal advancement and positive evolution.
    Yes?
    I certainly did not mean to step on any toes, (Josak.)

    1. tammybarnette profile image61
      tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      i think perhaps somewhere in the middle lies the answer...I do not believe increasing dependence is a positive...I do believe a governments willingness to help its citizens to be the healthiest and most intelligent peoples is not only humanitarian but an investment in the future of our country and people which I would consider positive evolution...I guess its the "cup half full" scenario, its all about percpective smile

      1. tammybarnette profile image61
        tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I wanted to reply to my own message in order to try to provide "perspective." This example is of two women I know...One woman comes from a low too middle class background...she marries young to a total loser that she adores...she has two children and he leaves...she goes to college full time by pell grants...pays for daycare with gov't assistance...works a part time job and eats thanks to food assistance. In two years she will be a registered nurse. She will no longer need or qualify for gov't assistance and will pay into the tax system she has borrowed from in order to better her life and most importantly the lives of her two children. She will be completely independent.

        The other woman comes from a wealthy family..she meets her husband in college who is also from a wealthy family...they have twins...he decides he no longer wants to be a husband or father, yes he is a wealthy pharmacist loser...she hires the best lawyers money can buy...he must pay $100,000 a year in child support...she stops working and stays home with her children...Is she independent? No, she is dependent on her ex...is she a contributing member of society? Well, she is a great mother and kind person but does not pay taxes or provide any services into society.

        So which one bears out the idea of survival of the fittest, personal ambition, desire for success?

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          A large percentage of dependence on the government is due to unemployment due to recessions, company failures, disability, employment discrimination, and so forth. Much of it is temporary, not permanent. Most people would prefer to have good paying jobs rather than be dependent on the government, relatives, charities, etc.

          Here's a recent article that says that poverty is experienced by a majority of Americans at one time or another in their lives:

          "Few topics in American society have more myths and stereotypes surrounding them than poverty, misconceptions that distort both our politics and our domestic policy making.

          "They include the notion that poverty affects a relatively small number of Americans, that the poor are impoverished for years at a time, that most of those in poverty live in inner cities, that too much welfare assistance is provided and that poverty is ultimately a result of not working hard enough. Although pervasive, each assumption is flat-out wrong.

          "Contrary to popular belief, the percentage of the population that directly encounters poverty is exceedingly high. My research indicates that nearly 40 percent of Americans between the ages of 25 and 60 will experience at least one year below the official poverty line during that period ($23,492 for a family of four), and 54 percent will spend a year in poverty or near poverty (below 150 percent of the poverty line).

          "Even more astounding, if we add in related conditions like welfare use, near-poverty and unemployment, four out of five Americans will encounter one or more of these events.

          "In addition, half of all American children will at some point during their childhood reside in a household that uses food stamps for a period of time.

          "Put simply, poverty is a mainstream event experienced by a majority of Americans. For most of us, the question is not whether we will experience poverty, but when.

          "But while poverty strikes a majority of the population, the average time most people spend in poverty is relatively short. The standard image of the poor has been that of an entrenched underclass, impoverished for years at a time. While this captures a small and important slice of poverty, it is also a highly misleading picture of its more widespread and dynamic nature.

          More here:

          http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … ainstream/

          1. tammybarnette profile image61
            tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks for the article Ralph...We needed some perspective in this discussion smile Maybe some folks feel more comfortable believing the myths...

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    - perhaps the government should offer low interest loans or even no interest loans to those who are temporarily down on their luck. They could pay the government back after they acquire jobs.
    Most folks figure they do pay the government back through paying taxes once they get on their feet, since the taxes are so high.

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    The freedom offered in a democratic republic contributes toward a robust economy. A social democracy does not encourage a percolating economy. Instead, it offers financial burden and obligation through excessive taxation for universal welfare. Its depressing to the human spirit which requires liberty over security to be truly happy/energized. To get on board with this truth, is to evolve.
    To not agree, is to de-evolve. Time will tell.

    1. tammybarnette profile image61
      tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperie … -timeline/

      A reminder of the effects of a democratic republic.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What's a good option, in your view, tammybarnette?  What do you not agree with specifically as far as what I stated above? When it really gets down to it it about the individual's capacity to control his own life. The will of the individual should be allowed to work in liberty. Why do you give us all that information about the depression? There were multiple unfortunate causes: stock market crash of 1929, bank failures, reduction in purchasing across the board, American economic policy with Europe, drought conditions. My concern is about the Individual. Freedom, (within boundaries) for every citizen is the reality we are dealing with.

        (BTW some maintain that FDR policies actually caused the depression to last longer than it would have. I know you will laugh hysterically at this.)

        1. tammybarnette profile image61
          tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          FDR was the answer then and that same community spirit is the answer now...You guys call this socialism I guess, but been of one community...one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all...Is being American smile

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Close but no cigar.

            Community.  Being close to your neighbors, helping out those that are in need as it happens.

            Socialism.  Having someone else decide for you that you will help out, without regard to whether you want to or not.  As time passes, this inevitably grows past anything you are likely to approve of.

            1. tammybarnette profile image61
              tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              A mixed approach is not a socialist approach but rather a mixture of many models.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Of course all is relative.  There isn't a "pure" government in the world - they are ALL a mix of various concepts.

                Compared to the US of 50 years ago, we have become extremely socialistic as more and more of our budget is used to share the wealth - to give to the "needy".  Compared to much of Europe, we have a long way to go to be considered socialistic even though the US spends more each year to share the wealth than any nation on earth.  Mostly because we have more money than anyone else, not because we share so much per capita.

            2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Exactly right, with the passage of time, the financial obligations you originally agreed to become oppressive. Take PPACA, for instance! Now my insurance is higher! UGH! Not happy. And if I drop my insurance I will be taxed more. Where is my sense of community? Oh, I am Bad! I'll tell you where it is…
              When it comes down to who's going to survive, my most urgent concern is for myself. I was a trained lifeguard. Our first duty was to protect our own lives.
              After all, without my life, who can I save?

            3. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry, but that is capitalism. They throw the support of their unwanted workers on to you and I without any regard to whether or not we want to or not.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                what is capitalism? who are "they?" Whose "workers?" How do "they" throw the support of "unwanted workers" onto us? Why do "they" do that? When do "they" do that? Where do "they" do that? … And on top of all that we are not willing to support "their" ( whose again?) workers? HUH? I feel dizzy. Do you also feel dizzy John?  I think it is catching…across the sea and the continent!
                Is it night time in England? It is 4:00 PM here, (CA). Not dark yet at all.

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Capitalism is the accumulation of capital.
                  They are the people who devote their lives to accumulating capital.
                  The workers are us.
                  When they don't want us, they throw us aside and leave our fellow workers to support us.
                  They do that to preserve their capital.
                  They do it when workers start to erode their capital building.
                  They do it wherever they are.

                  We are not willing to support their cast off's because we've been hood winked into believing that they have been cast off because they are lazy and would rather sponge off their fellow men.

                  Divide and rule.

                2. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  It's nearly midnight here!

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No wonder you're dizzy! Go to bed already!
                    (And no our Capital Building is not eroding.)

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Although many would desire that business be primarily in the business of charity it just doesn't work that way, does it?  Business simply cannot pay salaries to people with nothing to do, people that do not produce and add to the profits of the business.  Unless a business is govt. owned and funding by the limitless pockets of the taxpayer they MUST make a profit.

                So yes, business will let people go when they can no longer afford to pay their wages.  Just as workers will leave when they find something better or choose to retire, move or in some other way remove themselves from the local job market.

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  None of that contradicts anything I said.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No, it surely doesn't.  But it IS reality, something you socialists need to understand is what we ALL have to deal with.  That just always seems to be a problem; if we ignore it it will go away. 

                    We cannot go bankrupt.  People work harder with no incentive.  It makes people happy when we take their earnings to give away.  Everybody not filthy rich is dirt poor and cannot support themselves.  Only the politically inclined are competent to make decisions about everyday life.

                    All fantasies, but fantasies at the root of the socialist philosophy.

                  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    John seems very concerned about the "cast offs."  how come?  It seems that to him, it is an injustice to throw away workers when you no longer need them... when you have made enough money off of them.
                    This makes me want to cry! I think I 'll go start a good Dickens novel! (Which one do you recommend along these lines, John?)

        2. tammybarnette profile image61
          tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Individual freedoms? Gay rights perhaps...or are these freedoms wrong in your opinion?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            - good way to steer the conversation? No. not on point. What do you not agree with in this statement:  Our democratic republic offers less tyranny than a social democracy.

            1. tammybarnette profile image61
              tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Did I steer? Funny, I thought I was following...The "robust" economy of which you speak went up in flames in is what now is Known as the "Great Depression"...Thanks to the safeguards that were put in place by FDR the recent "Great Recession" did not destroy the country and the recovery would have been much speadier if bipartisan support and  love of country had been the priority.

              Additionally, Gay rights are considered individual rights so how am I off topic Kathryn?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                We are not pinpointing rights in specifics, why do you bring up gay rights? I'll tell you why: To make me look evil. However, here is how I think about the issue: If they want to get married and raise children, it is imperative to accept their lifestyle in the same vein as married heterosexual couples.

              2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You were steering toward the direction of gay rights. Wrong turn... as far as this discussion.

            2. tammybarnette profile image61
              tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              If you keep adding to previous posts I will not be able to follow or answer your questions.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Oh, never mind that...
                So, which models contribute to a "mixed approached" ?

                1. tammybarnette profile image61
                  tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  http://www.cepr.net/op-eds-&-column … -recession

                  Interesting article from 2009, but will find more recent articles

                2. tammybarnette profile image61
                  tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "In conclusion, if given a choice between what we call the Anglo-American political economy to that of the continental European model, perhaps with the expansion of globalization, we could instead, choose to find a way to integrate the best of both with the intent to frame a new international political economic system.  By combining the best of both economies in an effort to create a better system, the future could transform into a more flourishing world;  one that includes a plethora of better paying jobs with a political/social system that allows everyone the same opportunities to experience an abundant life that comprise benefits for higher education, housing and health care."

                  http://mayrsom.com/2013/01/23/political-economy/

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Thank you. Will read up!

  6. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    I read tammybarnette's links and have concluded that her "mixed approach" is social democracy.

    Q. What could a " new  i n t e r n a t i o n a l  political system" actually refer to? A. Some type of Utopia.

    We must beware of utopian type solutions. While utopias seem to point to a brilliant future, they are impossible to carry out and instead, cause dystopia.

    1. tammybarnette profile image61
      tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      in light of the global economy a global political system is a rather obvious evolution.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        NWO much?

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Ooooh scary conspiracy *sigh*

          What is next lizard-people?

  7. crankalicious profile image88
    crankaliciousposted 3 years ago

    In addition to evolution, there are other hoaxes the scientists are constantly perpetrating upon us: like the idea that the earth is round and revolves around the sun. We all know the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth. And did you hear this thing they're trying to tell us - that there are apparently 88 billion earth-sized planets in our galaxy? Where do they get these kooky ideas? Evolution: the theory that one afternoon a T-Rex suddenly turned into a man. What hogwash!

  8. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    - Definition of a Dystopia: America as a social democracy… we're getting close to being a dystopia with ACA regulations/requirements/burdens/opressions.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Thirty million uninsured getting health care insurance=dystopia?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Definition of Utopia: That which can never be.  Often times, the quest for a utopia leads to a dystopia. And that is not happening now, Ralph?

      2. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        At the cost of losing the ability to provide good care for 320 million?  Yes.  The cost (social, not financial) of this particular pipe dream is too high, even if it were possible.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          - My Definition of Social Cost: Being obliged to pay for universal insurance coverage.
          Wikipedia Definition of Social Cost: Private cost plus externalities.
          i.e. "...for goods with 'externalities', unregulated market prices do not reflect the full social costs or benefit of the transaction." Wikipedia

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I was referring more to the inevitable bankruptcy and loss of standard of living.  Including loss of a high level of health care; if society cannot keep hospitals in existence it cannot provide health care whether a patient has insurance or not.

            We can but hope that the liberals are incapable of hiding the real costs until we fall on our faces.  Hard to believe with the financial shenanigans congress is noted for, but we can hope.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              ...all this due to what, exactly? - seems like a trickle down effect due to all the externalities.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                To maintain what people think they have been promised will require massive borrowing.  The US simply cannot afford it's current level of spending, let alone a new program costing more than anything else in the budget.

                Call it a trickle down if you like, but we have promised the public something we can't even come close to paying for.

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "At the cost of losing the ability to provide good care for 320 million?"

          Why would you say that? My impression is just the opposite.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Because the way this travesty is set up, providing care for an additional 30-50 million people will bankrupt the country.  Sending it down a financial hole that will last decades if not more, and cutting the standard of living, and ALL medical care, drastically.

            It is possible (I think) to provide at least some care to those 30 million, but not what they think they are getting with Obamacare, and not with the ACA program in general.  We cannot afford the massive extra costs that are built into the ACA.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              But every professional analysis by non partisan organisation like the CBO has fund the exact opposite which leaves us in the very difficult position of having to chose between professional analysis from respected bodies and your opinion on hubpages... wait that isn't a difficult position at all.

              The CBO found the bill would actually reduce the deficit.

              You are wrong. Why do you keep repeating the same lie? I have posted this to you before.

              http://www.cbo.gov/publication/22077
              http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I highly distrust any information from a political source, which the cbo certainly is. You may believe it, just as I'm sure you believed it would save money when Obama made the claim, but I do not.

                In addition, I have been very careful to indicate every time that it is what people think they will have that will bankrupt us, not the bill as it stands.  That bill will bankrupt a great many people, just as high medical bills do now, but not the country.  Not until people find how just how duped they have been and insist the politicians change the plan to what they thought it was. 

                Which the politician will do (they like their job, after all) and the country can no longer afford it.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Right so the CBO (non partisan) is wrong and your assessment is better I guess you are basing that on your array of economics degrees.... big_smile

                  Even if your wild predication were to come true socialized universal health care is not that expensive, look around the world, tons of countries have done it very cheaply.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    - wilderness exhibits common sense, great knowledge and understanding based on his life and work. You would do well to try to understand what he says. But, you were not born an American, so it might be hard for you to comprehend and respect the wisdom of a solid American citizen.

                  2. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I am also on record as saying that the country could afford care for everyone, just not by including massive insurance profits as a part of the cost of that care.

            2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              A number of features of ACA are designed to slow the growth in health care costs. Only time will tell how successful these efforts will be.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Acknowledged.  IMO it is much like using the poor but young and healthy people to subsidize the older, unhealthy ones - it won't work.  They aren't signing up, they are declining to make that absolutely necessary contribution.  My God, Idaho needs 5,000 signups  per month through March just to cover the state administrative costs; they have less than a hundred to date!

                These cost saving measures are just pie in the sky - very, very few are rooted in reality at all.  Just a dream in some idiot politicians eye, something that he can claim will work if people just cooperate, while knowing quite well it is but a dream.

                Yes, we will see in time.

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, you'll see in time that capitalism doesn't work for the benefit of all.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Of course not - some people do not belong in a capitalist system.  They cannot survive when required to support themselves or be responsible for themselves.  We've often seen that with Russian immigrants decades ago - they simply could not grasp that they had to make their own decisions in this land.  No house assigned, no job assigned, no nanny making their choices for them.  Many went back home because they could not get along here.

                    But neither does the share the wealth or the nanny state of socialism work for the benefit of all.  Some countries, typically older ones it seems, have a population that embraces that concept and works fairly well.  People don't expect as much and don't get as much.

                    Other nations, typically newer ones, have a population consisting more of individualists, people that ARE responsible for themselves and violently insist that they WILL make their own decisions.  These people expect far more out of themselves and their efforts and typically get it.

                    So no one mold fits everyone - we all want different things out of life and have different expectations.  We all have different abilities and willingness to work.  Is that so hard to understand?

  9. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Will we ALL end up paying for government issued insurance? Will I be forced to pay for Cal Covered instead of Blue Shield in about a year? (...and be taxed/fined if I don't?)
    Other questions:
    1.  How do we know what were paying for?
    2.  If not enough people sign up, how can they even deliver what is promised?


    All we can do is vote for the right people to get rid of this curse of PPACA.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Eventually, yes.  At least that way the "profits" from the "insurance" gets put back into the system instead of remaining outside. 

      That's what I see anyway.  We're going to have to come to grips with the cost of health care and quit pretending that it will pay it's own way.  And when we do that, understanding with furnishing the country with health care is going to actually cost, we're going to have to find some major sources of savings. 

      Insurance company profits being near the top of the list.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        ...Is the government taking over a portion (like almost ten percent) of the economy?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes.  How else?

        2. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Under the PPACA partially, under a single payer system yes.

          OF course the PPACA is regulation and if you include regulation as taking control then the government took control of all industries and 100% of the economy in the 1920s or earlier.

  10. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    <:-(

  11. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    " Single payer " is communism, collectivism and total control of government over our lives. We have to loose our plans to make Obama Scare work. Every one must loose what they have. And by law it will be more expensive for everyone. It cannot happen if we keep our own insurance.

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Ooooh another person who doesn't know what communism is.

      Single payer is some more tax instead of paying insurance (unless you want to keep buying insurance in which case it is extra) that's all, not even much more tax, taxation isn't communism.

      1. crankalicious profile image88
        crankaliciousposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        This is the problem: uninformed, badly educated people trying to make arguments about things they know nothing about.

      2. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Why do you need to raise taxes?  The profits that DID go to insurance companies should certainly cover the additional paperwork costs of government in paying the bills.  After all, it used to cover not only the profits but the same costs the government will be picking up.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry for the confusion. My post was meant to suggest that your taxes would go up slightly but that cost would be covered by no longer paying an insurance company.

          Unless you choose to keep an insurance plan on the side which means you can get slightly faster treatment and more optional stuff etc. in which case most nations just give you a partial tax break on the cost.

          I mean the money that was going to insurance companies does need to be diverted to the government so that takes a tax.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Got it.  Cost remains nearly static, but money paid goes from the insurance company to the IRS instead.  Reasonable.

          2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Reasonable.   
            - take it right out of our refund checks.
            And the amount automatically increases year after year.
            If you are not getting a refund check, can they collect?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Now would it be pre-tax or after-tax?  Deductible or not?

              I've long wondered why an employer health plan is deductible while one purchased privately is not (or at least must cross the 7% of net earnings test).  Does anyone know if we buy one now, instead of our employer doing so, if it is finally deductible like the majority of the country?  Or is the little guy hit again?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The little guy will be taxed again. The government will not tax themselves.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  sad  There I was surely hoping that I could finally get the same deductions that the more fortunate, better employed and more able to pay taxes get.

                  Oh well, no surprise.  It's hardly the first time that the poor have been dinged.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    What do the democrats envision for the people as a whole?

                  2. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    There is a tax break for the plans if you make less than a certain amount, unfortunately I am sorry, I forget the amount.

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          How do you feel about closing loopholes (e.g.,carried interest for hedge fund operators, oil depletion allowance, untaxed overseas profits) and lowering taxes by an equal amount?

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The vast majority of what you call loopholes are put in place to encourage companies to act in the manner congress wants them to.  Unwilling to simply PAY them to do so (too transparent, I suspect), the encouragement is buried in the tax code. 

            So the question becomes are YOU willing to give up all those actions that congress thinks benefits the nation and is willing to pay companies to do?

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Man, you aren't willing to give an inch on anything (neither taxes nor commonsense gun control). You must be a card carrying Tea Partier!

              The loopholes are written for Congress by lobbyists for corporations which contributed big money to Congressmen's campaigns. Here's the Wikipedia entry for carried interest that benefits hedge funds and private equity funds. Nearly everybody considers this the most outrageous loophole. Loopholes for super profitable oil companies are also not in the public interest.


              "Taxation of carried interest

              "The taxation of carried interest has been an issue since the mid-2000s, particularly as the compensation earned by certain investors increased along with the sizes of private equity funds and hedge funds. Historically, carried interest has been treated as a capital gain for tax purposes in most geographies. The reason for this treatment is that a fund manager would make a substantial commitment of his own capital into the fund and carried interest would represent a portion of the manager's return on that investment. While hedge funds typically trade their investments actively, private equity firms tend to hold their investments for many years. As such, the capital gains from private equity funds typically qualify as long term capital gains, which receive favorable tax treatment in many locales. Critics of this tax treatment seek to disaggregate the returns directly related to the capital contributed by the fund manager from the carried interest allocated from the other investors in the fund to the fund manager.
              United States

              "Because the manager is compensated with a profits interest in the fund, the bulk of his or her income from the fund is taxed, not as compensation for services, but as a return on investment. Typically, when a partner receives a profits interest (commonly referred to as a "carried interest"), the partner is not taxed upon receipt, due to the difficulty of ascertaining the present value of an interest in future profits.[3] Instead, the partner is taxed as the partnership earns income. In the case of a hedge fund, this means that the partner defers taxation on the income that the hedge fund earns, which is typically ordinary income (or possibly short-term capital gains, which are taxed the same as ordinary income), due to the nature of the investments most hedge funds make. Private equity funds, however, typically invest on a longer horizon, with the result that income earned by the funds is long-term capital gain, taxable to individuals at a maximum 20% rate. Because the profits share typically is the bulk of the manager's compensation and because this compensation can reach, in the case of the most successful funds, enormous figures, concern has been raised, both in the U.S. Congress and in the media, that managers are taking advantage of tax loopholes to receive what is effectively a salary without paying the ordinary 39.6% marginal income tax rates that an average person would have to pay on such income...."

              Perhaps an even more outrageous loophole is the exemption of un-repatriated overseas profits which many companies use to avoid taxation year after year. This loophole also acts as an incentive for companies to transfer manufacturing operations overseas.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry, I'm ignorant in the field.  Most of that went right over my head, which leaves me unable to comment.

                How about "Untaxed profits overseas"?  Do you really mean "untaxed" or do you mean "Untaxed by the US of A, a foreign country where the money was not earned"?

                None of which has anything to do with the topic in any case.  I merely questioned why the cost of care would go up if there was no insurance company middleman sucking at the funds as they go by.  Turned out that wasn't the intent at all.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                  Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The topic is "increased dependance on the government." It's the corporations and 1 percenters who are increasingly dependent on the government.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm sorry, Ralph, but reducing taxes does not increase dependence.  It always sounds wonderful to put it out there that taking less money is the same as a bailout/handout/subsidy,welfare but it's not.

                    But you didn't mention what you meant by "untaxed" - am I correct in that you intended to mean "taxed by the location where money was earned but not by the US and we want ours, too"?

  12. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/8499739_f248.jpg

 
working