miami.general

Miami the Ugly

Postby donquijote1111 on Fri Dec 04, 2009 8:38 am

And maybe also they are hindered by big money politics, could it be?


Is America a socialist country then?

"The first misgiving usually expressed is that we cannot afford to pay
for comprehensive care for everyone. Every other industrialized nation
provides comprehensive care to everyone at a much lower cost than our
system that leaves so many out. Other nations spend 6 to 10 percent of
their Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, whereas we, the wealthiest
nation on earth, spend 14 percent of our GDP. We already have enough
funds dedicated to health care to provide the highest quality of care
for everyone. Studies conducted by the Congressional Budget Office,
the General Accounting Office, the Lewin Group and Boston University
School of Public Health have shown that, under a single payer system,
comprehensive care can be provided for everyone without spending any
more funds than now are spent."

Really?

The higher education sector, however, is facing a catastrophic
shortfall in funding. Given current trends in both funding and the
costs of higher education, the deficit in operating expenses for the
nation's colleges and universities will have quadrupled by 2015.
Assuming tuition increases no faster than inflation, by that year U.S.
colleges and universities will fall $38 billion short (in 1995
dollars) of the annual budget they need to educate the student
population expected in 2015. If, however, tuition increases at current
rates--basically doubling by 2015--the impact on access will be
devastating: effectively half of those who want to pursue higher
education will be shut out.

To address a crisis of such proportions, we call for a two- pronged
strategy: increased public investment in higher education and
comprehensive reform of higher education institutions to lower costs
and improve services. The second of these, institutional reform, is in
fact a prerequisite for increased public funding. Unless the higher
education sector changes the way it operates by undergoing the kind of
restructuring and streamlining that successful businesses have
implemented, it will be difficult to garner the increases in public
funding needed to meet future demands.

More specifically, we make these recommendations:


America's political leaders--the President, Congress, governors,
mayors, and other state and local officials--should reallocate public
resources to reflect the growing importance of education to the
economic prosperity and social stability of the United States. Public
funding of higher education has stagnated since 1976. It is time for
the nation to reverse this policy.

Institutions of higher education should make major structural changes
in their governance system so that decision makers can assess the
relative value of departments, programs, and systems in order to
reallocate scarce resources. This will entail improving
performance-based assessment, defining and measuring faculty
productivity, and integrating accounting systems.

As part of their overall restructuring, colleges and universities
should pursue greater mission differentiation to streamline their
services and better respond to the changing needs of their
constituencies. Individual institutions and parts of statewide systems
should focus on their points of comparative advantage rather than all
striving to become full-service campuses. Community colleges,
undergraduate universities, and research universities, for example,
should embrace different missions, give priority to activities central
to those missions, and reduce or eliminate more- marginal activities.

Colleges and universities should develop sharing arrangements to
improve productivity. A greater sharing of resources--requirements,
classes, services, infrastructure, libraries--could lead to
significant savings and even improve services.

It is time to redefine the appropriate level of education for all
American workers in the 21st century. All citizens planning to enter
the workforce should be encouraged to pursue--as a minimum--some form
of postsecondary education or training.


Maybe many are having a problem having ends meet, you know...


Even more effective would be to regulated, so the advertisers don't
laugh off the effort of a few powerless listeners.


Well, I see you're in favor of education...


So what you want, the Law of the Jungle?

THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE

Once upon a time, in the deep jungle, lived a Lion and a Monkey... One
day the Monkey, tired of the Lion always getting the lion share, and
seeing that such injustice represented a danger to all the species of
the jungle, demanded justice... The Lion, yawning and stretching,
said: "You would have to have paws and sharp teeth..." Then the
Monkey, who was very clever, devised a plan: He would go to the
costume store, and look like a lion...

When the Lion saw him, noticing that the new lion wasn't a match for
him, and fearing competition, killed him on the spot... before the
indifferent look of the little animals of the jungle... And that's how
the Law of the Jungle was re-established one more time...

[url]http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote1[/url]



Miami the Ugly

Postby mmanch01 on Sun Dec 13, 2009 3:11 am

sociologues of all types, yes.

subsidised health care. subsidised so-called education. social
in-security. etc. seems the answer to your question is YES.

health care, whether you like it or not, is in the best interest of
the individual and his doctor, not government. in fact governemnt is
currently the principal cause of the poor quality health care today.
how? government meddleing is expensive to both the doctor and patient.

you seem to be equating the expense to maintain useless bureaucrats
and their bureaucracies with the art and science of educating. drop
those, and you have plenty of funding to provide higher education
practically free. the misleading statistics that you provide make no
case about underfunding in education, but rather how expensive it is
to maintain the current shamy governemnt-run bureaucracies disgusing
as educational institutions. do you understand?


that is possible. but if you think about it, that responsibility rests
on each individual, family, and perhaps charity. not governemnt.


even more effective would be to send the swat team to make them stop.

given that no political ideal will ever achieve uniform fairness,
safety, etc, one that interferes the least with the freedom of
merchants and customers to decide their relationship is best. don't you agree?

yes i am in favour of educating any member of the population who
legitimately wants an education and is willing to do his part in
obtaining it. hopefully you are not equating education with the
current shamy bureaucrat-run institutions touting to be educational.
that, i am against.

me?

what is the law of the jungle?

if the law of the jungle is one where individuals and families are
responsible for and strive for their own well-being and the power of
the state is minimised to protecting them from coercion and fraud,
then yes, i want it, badly.

now it's your turn: what do you want? if socialism is your thing, you
would probably feel more at home in qba. don't be shy now...



Miami the Ugly

Postby mmanch01 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:30 am

i think the country of qba does not have such problems with urban
sprawl. maybe you should migrate...



Miami the Ugly

Postby donquijote1111 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:30 am

Some Americans don't give a s***, some do want a better America...

From: Social Americans (sa (AT) no (DOT) spam.less)
Subject: AMERICANS FOR A DEMOCRATIC AMERICA
Newsgroups: soc.culture.cuba

The majority of Americans want health care for all Americans.

The majority of Americans want college to be free for all young
Americans.

The majority of Americans want American jobs with secure retirement
benefits that cannot be raided by corporate mergers.

The majority of Americans want the amount of horrific violence on
television reduced.

The majority of Americans don't want to keep allowing immigrants into
America so as to create the "economic growth" we so often hear about on
television.

The majority of Americans want American jobs to be protected right here
in America instead of being shipped overseas at cheap, slave labor
wages.

The majority of Americans want compassionate cooperation, not "greater
competition".

[url]http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote1[/url]



Miami the Ugly

Postby donquijote1111 on Wed Feb 10, 2010 3:02 pm

You know what? You should move to Switzerland... On second thought
that wouldn't be a bad proposition for America, would it?

TAXATION AND SPENDING
The federal government, cantons and communities all levy their
own taxes. Each level collects about one-third of total government
revenues, which in all comprise approximately 26% of GNP. Most taxes
are direct and low. The average Swiss citizen pays about 16% of his
income in taxes, and average company taxes are about 20% of profits.
Switzerland's national debt and inflation rate are low. Total
government spending for all three levels has averaged only 22.6% of
GNP since 1946, yet expenditure on welfare and education per capita is
high. This is because government revenues are spent effectively rather
than wasted on a bloated bureaucracy.

[url]http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote1[/url]



Miami the Ugly

Postby mmanch01 on Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:36 pm

america was founded on the premise of liberty and justice for all. any
claim that socialist schemes are good for america are neither
consistent with nor conducive towards that premise. on the other hand,
that country, qba, does fit the socialist model quite well. you should move there.


16% is not impressive. i rather resist socialism in america than flee
to another socialism-infested nation.



Miami the Ugly

Postby mmanch01 on Sun Feb 21, 2010 1:11 pm

true. but those who want a better america are seriously hindered by
the sociologues and their agendas...


currently health care is in shambles because the sociologues are hard
at work destroying the patient-doctor relationship with respect to
care and cost...
if majority of americans want health care for all americans, they will
need to stand up against the sociologues and their costly and inept socialist schemes...

free college? what will that do? make better students?

currently, state education is almost free to anyone who chooses it.
students are learning close to zilch. state schools are spitting out
quite an incompetent workforce. their existence (state schools) is
driven by their desire to keep those tax dollars rolling in, not
educating, or any silly thing like that...

does this mean that majority of americans are silly enough to fail
planning for their elder years? pretty soon, social security will not
serve its purpose you know...

if that is the case, boycotting advertisers should do the trick...


what do you do when service is expensive and offered by an incompetent
and poorly educated/trained work force???

wrong. sociologues want that, not "majority of americans..."



Miami the Ugly

Postby ian st. john on Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:21 am

news:...

news:<188f56bf.0307070901.2e18780c (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>...


foooled you! Actually it was founded on the premise of Rousseau who say a
'natural aristocracy' in the wealthy colonials, or rather they saw their own
natural 'right' to lead the masses. The federal level of politics was more
dependent on providing a central bank with authority to tax to back the huge
values of revolutionary bonds that were issued by the aristocracy to fund
the war and then bought up for pennies on the dollar at the end by the same
people. This make a HUGE profits for them on the war and not only that but
they could use the bonds as collateral to lend themselves money for buying
more land! The farmers then had to morgage themselves to the hilt to survive
and became 'desperate debtors' to the boston money merchants which drove the
Shay rebellion for example.

[url]http://www.barefootsworld.net/consti15.html[/url]
"The Confederation was a failure, but commerce and finance were riding on
the crest of the wave. The close of the war had found the small farmers, as
a class, in acute poverty. By taking advantage of the economic needs of
these producers the money-holding groups in the coast cities had been able
to get a tight financial grip on almost the whole of the producing class.
There were counties in which nearly every acre was under mortgage at high
rates of interest. Usury and profit molded themselves into large fortunes.
The splendor of business began to shine. "

Sure. Socialist policies tend to favor the people over the wealthy landed
aristocracy. It is clear that this runs counter to the elitism of the American dream.


Many people do.


America is one of the most socialist infested coutnries in the world, and
this is responsible for much of the high tax rate. It is the corporate
welfare that raises the tax bill, not the bureaucracy. Giveaways from the
public purse to the wealthy are just as much 'socialism' as policies to help
the people. If you want to flee 'socialism' I suggest Somalia which has
purely capitalist warlords and no organised government to provide any regulation.



Miami the Ugly

Postby ajfeeney48 on Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:22 am

I don't mean to undercut Ian St. John's reply here, but I want to ask
"maky m," just where did you get this stuff about America being
founded on "the premise of liberty and justice for all"??

Maky m, the one place where the phrase "liberty and justice for all"
appears is in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, right?

And if you read up on the background of the pledge of allegiance,


famous utopian socialist novel, "Looking Backward," which became
something of a bible for American radicals in the late 1890s and early
1900s.

When you talk about America being founded on the premise of "liberty
and justice for all," then, you're unconciously reciting part of a
socialist-inspired creed. Which in my opinion makes you a lot smarter
than the rest of your post makes you sound. Maky - you know, you may
just be a secret socialist without knowing it.

What is actually written in the American Declaration of Independence
published in 1776, however, is a bit more complicated than Bellamy's
view of "liberty and justice for all."

On the one hand, the Declaration includes Thos. Jefferson's famous
phrase about "all men being created equal," a prhase which American
radicals have been turning to for 200 years now.

On the other hand, if you read the Declaration through to the end,
you'll find that it also includes complaints by the colonists against
King George III for not letting them kill nearly as many Native
Americans aka "Indians" as they would have liked, because the white
English speaking colonists of 1776 were eager to steal Indian lands.

What this nation actually was founded on, therefore, was a funny mix
of Thos. Jefferson's ideas about equality and a national commitment to
land theft and genocide, and American politics has been like this ever
since.

I probably don't need to go into the U.S. Constitution here, Maky -
the one that defends the establishment of a federal government to
"promote the general welfare" - another suspiciously "socialist"
sounding goal, isn't it?

But also, of course, the Constitution is a document that is infamous
for having defined each Negro slave as being equivalent to "3/5 of a
person," in order to make compromise between the Southern slave states
and the Northern free states possible on the sensitive issue of state
population sizes and voting rights in Congress.

Maky, maybe you ought to study this material a little bit before you
make any further ignorant comments about socialism and capitalism and
just what the "premise" of America really is.

At the very least, you ought to read enough American history to be
able to tell the difference between the Christian socialist ideals of
Francis Bellamy and the slave-holding mentalities of many of the
Founding Fathers. Reading the Declaration of Independence all the way
through might be a good idea for you, too.

It's always a temptation, whatever your beliefs about freedom and
equality and opportunity may be, to read them back into American
history, and to assume that whatever you feel is right and just, the
founders of this nation must have held to them, too. I've done a lot
of this wishful fantasizing in thinking about America, too. But
whether you end up conservative or radical or liberal, it's a lot
better to base at least some of your ideology on the actual facts,
however uncomfortable you may find them. ********
"Ian St. John" wrote in message news:...



Miami the Ugly

Postby mmanch01 on Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:01 am

mathematically unfeasible. social schemes relocate resources rather
inneficiently. if you disagree, name one socialist scheme that

1. does not usurp resources coercively from the citizenry
2. does not require central planning
3. does not benefit the least productive members of society.

what's up with the cut & paste? aren't you capable of original thought?



Miami the Ugly

Postby ian st. john on Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:01 am

news:...

news:<188f56bf.0307090507.6831341 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>...

news:...

news:<188f56bf.0307070901.2e18780c (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>...


This amounts to an ideological rejection of the facts and evidence so why
would he present the facts and evidence again? The facts and evidence are
that Switzerland has a higher standard of living despite ( or because of )
socialist policies. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Are you not capable of analysing the facts he cuts and pastes into the post?
So far I have seen no evidence of brain function from you.



Miami the Ugly

Postby mmanch01 on Sat Mar 13, 2010 3:52 pm

any socialism, including america.


it is irrelevant whether other socialisms spend more of their gdp in
social shams. they still fail conditions 1-3. your dubious statement
"they pay less and get more" remains in question. can you help your
case by addressing items 1-3 above?


seems more like you lack original thought and use propaganda to make
up for that deficiency.



Miami the Ugly

Postby mmanch01 on Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:06 am

crucial facts that your "facts" overlook: bureaucracy is expensive,
coercive and intrusive, anywhere. you can present all the figures in
the world claiming they demonstrate any type of socialistic success.
that means nothing to anyone who takes responsibility for his own
existence and that of those he cares about. socialistic shams serve
only to hinder these type of people.


give one good reason why i should analyse such "facts" given that i
reject the sahm known as socialism in the first place?


well, we could check who between you and me truly lacks brain
function. would you mind checking?




Return to general