Trump vineyard seeks Labor Department approval to hire foreign workers

[Samson]

While I did technically say that, show me and rich person who is going to use a generic Doctor because the government will pay for it over the local best. And there are plenty of the middle class who don't even use government provided healthcare.

I am not sure how I can "show" you, but I have a friend who made millions when the company he started working for when it was a startup floated, and he still uses the NHS. I live in the country, and there is just not the infrastructure for people to use private GP's.

I really get the impression that many americans just do not understand how good the NHS is. I think if more people really understood what can be done with relatively modest state there would be little opposition to a public option.

Well, given the fact of how much of a mess the education system is, yes.

Have you really thought about the consequences of that? If the only options were private schooling, home schooling or no schooling many people would end up with no effective schooling. That would be a disaster for the whole country, not just the people who have to go through it,.

 

[GameBoy2000]

I am not sure how I can "show" you, but I have a friend who made millions when the company he started working for when it was a startup floated, and he still uses the NHS. I live in the country, and there is just not the infrastructure for people to use private GP's.

Okay, fair enough.

I really get the impression that many americans just do not understand how good the NHS is. I think if more people really understood what can be done with relatively modest state there would be little opposition to a public option.

Just going to leave this here...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/oct/07/comment.comment

Have you really thought about the consequences of that? If the only options were private schooling, home schooling or no schooling many people would end up with no effective schooling. That would be a disaster for the whole country, not just the people who have to go through it,.

Not really, when you think about it is just simple Darwinism and a Free Market. Those with an education will be more appealing to employers, those without won't get a job. Exactly like we have now, just without spending so much on free public education.

 

[Ajidica]

2. I may be busy at times so I might not be able to reply every day, my apologies. In addition to that, some time in April I won't be able to respond for 1-2 weeks. Just some personal stuff going on I don't care to put on the internet, but still, my apologies.

No worries, don't need to explain yourself. You've posted enough in the thread to not be considered a drive-by poster.

Again, I never said that, your the one who keeps insisting that I said it.

Let's go back to basics then:
1) Should the government provide income and food assistance to people otherwise unable to make ends meet?
2) Should the government ensure that income and food assistance is sufficient to avoid the need for people to go dumpster diving?

My apologies for the horrible spelling. But given the fact that I posted that at the time I did compared to when I normally post (for convince, roughly 10 hours earlier.) and the fact that I have Dyslexia (Which I know I've never mentioned before.) I feel some slack is in order. However, I do agree with you, it is funny.

Awwww, now you make me feel bad for pointing it out.

Yet, you chose to buy that good, its 100% voluntary. Or in more piratical terms, you'd chose to take that 50% pay cut. And if you, along with enough other people, chose to not pay that price, they go out of businesses. the populace will get what they want at the price they want eventually.

You don't get to pull the "everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it" when in the same breath talking about introducing intentional market distortions to prevent a natural market equilibrium.
I'm all in favor of introducing market distortions to address missing markets (pollution disposal), goods which morally should not be thrown into a market free-for-all (like health care or education), or public goods (such as mass transit). I am also in favor of tariffs to address limited issues, such as concerns about steel dumping by China. Mexico making a TV cheaper then us? Unless we want to go full on Austerity with trade quotas, capital controls, price controls, and wage controls bolted on to tariffs to "force American" it is just a short sighted and stupid policy - especially when we look at how badly we would be hurt by a trade war with Mexico.

(Assuming we don't do what Obama did with the Automobile industry.)

You mean extend a loan to an industry on the verge of collapse to prevent it from crashing down due to its own incompetence, which would have compounded a collapse caused by irresponsible bankers?

Just going to leave this here...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/oct/07/comment.comment

I'll see your Op Ed from 2001 and raise you:

The NHS is one of the most cost-effective health systems in the developed world, according to a study (pdf) published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

The "surprising" findings show the NHS saving more lives for each pound spent as a proportion of national wealth than any other country apart from Ireland over 25 years. Among the 17 countries considered, the United States healthcare system was among the least efficient and effective.
Researchers said that this contradicted assertions by the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, that the NHS needed competition and choice to become more efficient.

"The government proposals to change the NHS are largely based on the idea that the NHS is less efficient and effective than other countries, especially the US," said Professor Colin Pritchard, of Bournemouth University, who analysed a quarter of a century's data from 1980.

"The results question why we need a big set of health reform proposals ... The system works well. Look at the US and you can see where choice and competition gets you. Pretty dismal results."

The study will be a blow for Lansley, who argues that patients should choose between competing hospital services and GPs.

Pritchard's last academic paper, which argued that surgeons were being distracted from frontline work by "unfunded" targets in the NHS, was used by Lansley to justify government reforms.

Using the latest data from the World Health Organisation, the paper shows that although Labour's tax-and-spend strategy for the NHS saw health spending rise to a record 9.3% of GDP, this was less than Germany with 10.7% or the US with 15%.

Not only was the UK cheaper, says the paper, it saved more lives. The NHS reduced the number of adult deaths a million of the population by 3,951 a year – far better than the nearest comparable European countries. France managed 2,779 lives a year and Germany 2,395.

This means, the paper says, that dramatic NHS improvements have led to a situation where that there are now 162,000 fewer deaths every year compared with 1980.

The paper says the US suffers from a "relatively huge bureaucratic burden needed to monitor the costs, behaviour and risks of customers, as well as the immense legal costs required to control payment".

Looking at elderly patients, the difference was even more stark with the best performers – Ireland, the UK and New Zealand – having health systems that were three times more effective and efficient than the worst – Switzerland, Portugal and the US.

Pritchard said that only Ireland's position today would be significantly different – because its economy has shrunk. "I think Ireland would have slipped back today."

The paper also takes Lansley to task over his claims that "if UK cancer survival rates were at the European average, we know we would save 5,000 extra lives a year."

It says: "In terms of actual cancer mortality rates, rather than the more ambiguous 'survival' rates, the UK had better results ... which appears to be linked to major additional funds going to cancer care."

Pritchard points out that even Adam Smith, the Scottish economist and father of market-based ideology, thought the state was "probably better" at health and education.

"It's naive to think that Lansley does not want more privatised health service. But there's no evidence why it be better. There's a lot to suggest it would be worse."

A Department of Health spokesman said that the paper was "mistaken to think that competition is an end in itself, or will necessarily increase the independent sector's role in the NHS".

He added: "Under our modernisation plans we are improving choice for patients to drive up the quality of care and improve patient experience ... We are investing an extra £12.5bn in the NHS to improve the quality of services and safeguard the NHS for future generations."

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/aug/07/nhs-among-most-efficient-health-services

The UK ranks #2 overall. Hardly surprising since on 11 indicators it ranked in the top 3 on 8, and if quality and access are treated at their combined rather than disaggregated levels then it was in the top 3 on all indicators bar longevity of healthy life.

And all that for a much, much lower cost per head than the US market based system but also less too than everywhere but New Zealand, which ranks pretty poorly on everything but being patient focused.

So what does this say? I suggest that the longevity problem is not a health issue: this is a societal issue. It’s the consequence of poor housing, inequality, poor health education, and many more such factors reflected in issues such as high obesity rates related to poor diet: a peculiarly British problem. The NHS cannot solve such problems. It’s not reasonable to berate it for failing to do so.

That aside, care is great in the NHS. OK. it’s not as patient focused as desired, but as the report says this is an issue where all countries could improve. No doubt that’s true, but we trade something important here: price for patient focus. Of course people can be at the core of the NHS, but you seriously increase the cost if you double the time seeing the patient: most of NHS cost is labour. The choice is a straightforward one: you can have a patient focused NHS so long as you’re willing to pay for it. If you are not willing to pay for it the patient focus will come at the cost of significantly reduced health outcomes. It’s a trade-off that I think most would not make if they were given the choice. I think the NHS has got this right.

But most of all what this report says is that the room for efficiency gains in the NHS looks to be incredibly small. Patient centred activity has already been reduced to save cost. Timeliness has been compromised a little to secure savings. Efficiency is already rated as the highest in these seven countries. That’s not surprising, the clear raw data shows that be the case. How, in that case, is the NHS going to deliver massive increases in efficiency in a system that is already operating at way above international standards?

We need to get real: the NHS is already delivering extraordinary value for money. Private sector alternatives are exceptionally expensive, as the US proves, with worse quality outcomes (as the table shows).

I am not saying that the NHS does not need improvement: of course it does. but to suggest that it needs a root and branch reform involving a fundamental restructuring because it is failing, as the Conservatives imply, is not just wrong, it’s a straightforward lie.

The truth is that the NHS is actually a stunningly cost-effective supplier of high-quality healthcare, so let’s celebrate the fact, and help those working in it to make it even better rather than going out of our way to destroy its structure, the morale of those who work in it, and to overburden them with impossible tasks which they can never fulfil that can only result in worse outcomes for us all.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/...ffective-supplier-of-high-quality-healthcare/

Not really, when you think about it is just simple Darwinism and a Free Market. Those with an education will be more appealing to employers, those without won't get a job. Exactly like we have now, just without spending so much on free public education.

I missed this gem.
Just so there is no miscommunication:
Do you believe the government should not provide robust and comprehensive K-12 public education free at point of service?

 

[GameBoy2000]

1) Should the government provide income and food assistance to people otherwise unable to make ends meet?
2) Should the government ensure that income and food assistance is sufficient to avoid the need for people to go dumpster diving?

To answer them both at the same time, it depends on the methods.

Awwww, now you make me feel bad for pointing it out.

Don't feel bad about it. Actually, thank you for pointing it out. I know I don't get it perfect all the time, but I try to and it is something I've been trying to get better at for basically my whole life. But still, thank you for pointing it out.

You don't get to pull the "everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it" when in the same breath talking about introducing intentional market distortions to prevent a natural market equilibrium.

Why not? Its the Free Market system, nothing more, nothing less.

You mean extend a loan to an industry on the verge of collapse

I mean extend a gift, from what I recall there was no terms in that case.

to prevent it from crashing down due to its own incompetence,

Yes, it did not produce the cars the people wanted at the price they wanted, ergo they should collapse, but Obama thought it was a good idea to say "No matter how incompetent and how much your are not willing to change, we don't care. Have some free money." (And I just thought about this while typing this, and my apologies for going a bit off topic here, but people think Trump's going to help big businesses and ignore Obama?)

which would have compounded a collapse caused by irresponsible bankers?

No, it would have been caused by them as they where not producing the cars people wanted at the price they wanted, or the Free Market system.

I'll see your Op Ed from 2001 and raise you:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/aug/07/nhs-among-most-efficient-health-services

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/...ffective-supplier-of-high-quality-healthcare/

And to thank I raise:

Waiting times for cancer care, accident and emergency units, ambulances and routine operations are all rising, and targets are being missed left, right and centre.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-37497791

(And I do just want to point out, yes, I know it should be "center" and not "centre" but I don't want to change the quote.)

The UK has one of the worst healthcare systems in the developed world according to a damning new report which said the nation has an “outstandingly poor” record of preventing ill health.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-world-according-to-oecd-report-a6721401.html

I missed this gem.
Just so there is no miscommunication:
Do you believe the government should not provide robust and comprehensive K-12 public education free at point of service?

It largely depends on methods again, but 90% of the time I'd say it should.

However, just for a bit more clarification, I was saying that the US would be better off with no public education rather than what we have now.

 

[Ajidica]

To answer them both at the same time, it depends on the methods.

I wasn't asking about the methods; but rather if you agreed the government should be providing food and income assistance to people otherwise unable to make ends meet.

Why not? Its the Free Market system, nothing more, nothing less.

Invoking the Free Market while in the same line of thought calling upon protectionism and tariffs -the antithesis of a free market- is a bit suspect.
Once we start introducing barriers into the market we are no longer dealing with a Free Market but a Regulated Market. There are better ways to address the five societal evils - want, disease, ignorance, squalor, and idleness- than entering into a destructive trade war.

I mean extend a gift, from what I recall there was no terms in that case.

Then you recall wrong.
https://www.treasury.gov/initiative...ms/Other Programs/aifp/Pages/autoprogram.aspx
https://www.treasury.gov/initiative...ements/GM_Corporation_DIP_Loan_090909_new.pdf

When President Obama took office, America’s automobile industry was on the brink of collapse. The financial crisis had nearly frozen access to credit for vehicle loans and sales had plunged by 40 percent. Faced with that sober reality, the Obama Administration moved quickly to protect the broader economy by stabilizing the industry. These actions saved more than one million American jobs, according to independent estimates.
On December 19, 2014, Treasury announced that it had sold its remaining 54.9 million shares of Ally Financial Inc. (Ally) common stock, exiting the last Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) equity investment under the Auto Industry Financing Program.
The automobile industry is now profitable and creating jobs at the fastest pace in 15 years. In fact, since June 2009, when GM and Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy, more than 500,000 jobs have been created.
Treasury exited its investment in Chrysler in 2011, recovering 90 percent of the taxpayer funds invested six years ahead of schedule. In December 2013, Treasury exited its investment in GM, recouping a total of $39.7 billion from its original GM investment when it sold all of its remaining shares of GM common stock. In April 2014, Treasury announced that it agreed to sell 95,000,000 shares (post-split) of Ally common stock at a price to the public of $25.00 per share (post-split), for $2.375 billion in proceeds to taxpayers. Subsequently, the IPO underwriters exercised, in part, its over allotment, and Treasury sold an additional 7,245,670 shares at $25.00 per share. In total, Treasury sold 102,245,670 shares as part of the IPO.
While the auto industry rescue resulted in a cost of $9.3 billion to the government, the cost of a disorderly liquidation to the families and businesses across the country that rely on the auto industry would have been far higher. The government’s actions not only saved GM and Chrysler but they saved many businesses up and down the supply chain. They even helped Ford, as its CEO has acknowledged.
The decision to rescue the American auto industry helped the economy recover from the financial crisis and enabled the auto industry to come roaring back.

https://www.treasury.gov/initiative...ograms/automotive-programs/Pages/default.aspx
Even if you disagree with the concept of TARP extended to the auto industry and believe it should not have been offered; there is no possible way you can say it was "free money" or that there were "no terms" to it. As part of the agreement US auto industries had to undergo restructuring and have been experiencing a resurgence - helped along by some handy scandals from Japanese and German carmakers (and the fact for unclear reasons Vauxhall, Peugot, and Reno haven't become big in the US).

Yes, it did not produce the cars the people wanted at the price they wanted, ergo they should collapse, but Obama thought it was a good idea to say "No matter how incompetent and how much your are not willing to change, we don't care. Have some free money." (And I just thought about this while typing this, and my apologies for going a bit off topic here, but people think Trump's going to help big businesses and ignore Obama?)

Yeahno.
First of all, I admire your callousness to the car workers whose jobs would have disappeared and lives destroyed had the automotive industry been allowed to collapse. For someone who claims to be a big fan of personal responsibility, you seem awfully indifferent to whether the people who plowed the company into the ground bear any responsibility for their actions.
Second, I fail to see why the line worker should be forced to suffer because of the incompetence of the directors. The line worker didn't have anything to do with the decisions made by the directors. Permitting the auto companies to engage in what looked like a catastrophic collapse -at the same time the banking and mortgage industries were collapsing- would have punished the much-lauded "blue collar worker" while allowing the directors that plowed the companies into the ground through shortsighted profit hunting and plundering to retire into luxury through stock options.
A robust cradle-to-grave welfare state would have reduced the need to intervene as heavily in the industry as people would be assured comprehensive education, health care, and financial security even if the directors plow the company into a ditch.

And to thank I raise:
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-37497791

I encourage you to read the rest of your article.

Of course, there is some context, which NHS England and the government are increasingly highlighting.

Even with the declining standards, performance still compares pretty favourably with other health systems.

NHS medical director Prof Sir Bruce Keogh made an impassioned defence of the situation, at an event hosted by the King's Fund in London this week.

He said even on current A&E performance, the NHS was still outperforming "every other health system", while care for trauma, heart attacks and strokes still compared favourably with the very best.

The NHS has been suffering, largely as a result of six years to Tory mismanagement and austerity*. Even still, the NHS is equal to other developed universal health care systems and far superior to US health service.

*Which is a slap in the face to the Austerity programs implemented by Labour following the Second World War. Comparing the capital controls, wage controls, price controls, tariffs, and quotas needed to rebuild from the carnage of WWII and build "a New Jerusalem" to the mean-spirited benefit slashing to fund wealthy tax cuts is abhorrent.

(And I do just want to point out, yes, I know it should be "center" and not "centre" but I don't want to change the quote.)

UK spells some words differently, like centre, programme, and Labour.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-world-according-to-oecd-report-a6721401.html

Again, if you read the article you will note it was specifically calling out the Tories for slashing funding to the NHS -on both equipment and staffing levels.
Furthermore, if you actually dig into the OECD data you will notice that the NHS solidly trounces the US medical system; providing superior results at a far lower cost. There are some fringe areas where the US system is superior if you can afford it or are old enough to get a free ride -notably in complex cancer treatments or rare diseases- but the resounding lesson from the data is that the US system provides worse results while being more expensive than the NHS.
(Please note I am not saying we should adopt a carbon copy of the NHS, far from it. The NHS has multiple issues resulting from their patchwork inclusion of private hospitals, specialists, and GPs into the health service that could be ironed out and streamlined.)

However, just for a bit more clarification, I was saying that the US would be better off with no public education rather than what we have now.

I'm going to be charitable and give you an opportunity to explain how no public education would be superior to an underwhelming -but still largely functioning- public school system. Given how essential education is -especially public education - you will need some pretty convincing arguments to suggest that no public education system would be superior.

 

[GameBoy2000]

I wasn't asking about the methods; but rather if you agreed the government should be providing food and income assistance to people otherwise unable to make ends meet.

Oh, then my bad. To answer your question though, I feel they should. (But only if the results yield and effective outcome, so I might say no in some cases.)

Invoking the Free Market while in the same line of thought calling upon protectionism and tariffs -the antithesis of a free market- is a bit suspect.

Then might I ask you how we should bring jobs back?

Then you recall wrong.
https://www.treasury.gov/initiative...ms/Other Programs/aifp/Pages/autoprogram.aspx
https://www.treasury.gov/initiative...ements/GM_Corporation_DIP_Loan_090909_new.pdf
https://www.treasury.gov/initiative...ograms/automotive-programs/Pages/default.aspx

Well then, my bad.

First of all, I admire your callousness to the car workers whose jobs would have disappeared and lives destroyed had the automotive industry been allowed to collapse.

Wait, what? Are you being sarcastic? Because if your not I never thought I'd be reading something like this from you. Sorry, but I just don't want to assume your being serous and your being sarcastic or vice versa?

For someone who claims to be a big fan of personal responsibility, you seem awfully indifferent to whether the people who plowed the company into the ground bear any responsibility for their actions.

How is bailing people out letting them bear any responsibility for their actions?

Second, I fail to see why the line worker should be forced to suffer because of the incompetence of the directors. The line worker didn't have anything to do with the decisions made by the directors. Permitting the auto companies to engage in what looked like a catastrophic collapse -at the same time the banking and mortgage industries were collapsing- would have punished the much-lauded "blue collar worker" while allowing the directors that plowed the companies into the ground through shortsighted profit hunting and plundering to retire into luxury through stock options.

How are they suffering anymore than, say, if they worked in a small family owned store that was failing? Or should we bail the small ones out to?

And I highly doubt that anyone competent enough to make a multi-billion dollar company would get up and go "oh well" when it is crashed into the ground.

A robust cradle-to-grave welfare state would have reduced the need to intervene as heavily in the industry as people would be assured comprehensive education, health care, and financial security even if the directors plow the company into a ditch.

Okay then, let me ask you 2 things.

1. Where would the money come from?

2. How long would that be substantial?

I know the answers to these questions, but I relay just want to see what your thoughts about them are.

I encourage you to read the rest of your article.

I did read it. And what your highlighting was said by a surgeon who works for the NHS. In other words, someone who is not a politician is talking about politics and we are suppose to take his extremely vague statement at face value with no question. (Not even going into the fact that because he works for the NHS if it goes, he goes with it.)

UK spells some words differently, like centre, programme, and Labour.

Ah, I knew they spelled some word differently but centre was one I did not know they did. My apologies then.

I'm going to be charitable and give you an opportunity to explain how no public education would be superior to an underwhelming -but still largely functioning- public school system. Given how essential education is -especially public education - you will need some pretty convincing arguments to suggest that no public education system would be superior.

Well, simply put, I feel if we just cut the funding for a short time and take a step back we come up with a much better solution. As for why I feel that no public education would be better is that we have such a poor education system I feel it is basically a waste of money.

 

[JollyRoger]

I am seeing direct evidence of our poor education system and think we have wasted our money in at least one case.

 

[Ajidica]

Oh, then my bad. To answer your question though, I feel they should. (But only if the results yield and effective outcome, so I might say no in some cases.)

What would comprise an "effective outcome" for providing food and income assistance?

Then might I ask you how we should bring jobs back?

A couple of ways.
First, ditch the myth that the jobs can "come back" in the face of more and more mechanization and robotics.
Second, replace the minimum wage and employer provided health insurance with a comprehensive cradle-to-grave welfare system. Shift the burden from the employer/employee toward those it impacts less; likely through a progressive income tax or Tobin tax.
Third, stringent capital controls and revamped tax law to discourage the use of tax havens and ensure that taxation occurs where the transaction occurs to cut down on companies shuffling tax burdens around (see Google, McDonalds, Facebook, and Apple in Europe).
Fourth, improved education system. Notably by largely divorcing school funding from local property taxes so that schools receive the funding they need rather than whatever they can scrounge from the local area.

Wait, what? Are you being sarcastic? Because if your not I never thought I'd be reading something like this from you. Sorry, but I just don't want to assume your being serous and your being sarcastic or vice versa?

What is it you think I said that you find so objectionable?

How is bailing people out letting them bear any responsibility for their actions?

How does the factory line worker bear responsibility for the directors driving the company into the ground?

And I highly doubt that anyone competent enough to make a multi-billion dollar company would get up and go "oh well" when it is crashed into the ground.

I take it you are young enough to not remember the bonus scandal back during the financial crash where directors and executives were giving themselves massive bonuses as their companies were crashing and burning.

The AIG bonus payments controversy began in March 2009, when it was publicly disclosed that the American International Group (AIG) insurance corporation was going to pay approximately $218 million in bonus payments to employees of its financial services division.

AIG is notable for having received taxpayer bailouts and in the fourth quarter of 2008 posted a loss of $61.7 billion, the greatest ever for any corporation.[1] Beyond the $165 million in bonus payments that were announced, total bonuses for the financial unit could reach $450 million and bonuses for the entire company could reach $1.2 billion.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIG_bonus_payments_controversy
Plus, where are you getting the idea that the auto executives "made" the company? Last I checked Old Man Ford and the guy(s) who founded GM are long dead. (Unless they came back to life to fight zombie Lenin.)

Okay then, let me ask you 2 things.

1. Where would the money come from?

A combination of reducing military expenditures, strengthening the progressive income tax by removing loopholes/ creating new higher income brackets, and likely a Tobin tax to cut down on high frequency trading among capital markets.

2. How long would that be substantial?

Assuming you mean sustainable, as long as necessary. Germany, Denmark, and Sweden have all been doing well for themselves. The UK struggled to maintain the welfare state once a bunch of Poxbridge Born-to-Rule Pony[censored] Tories decided that BURN. DOWN. EVERYTHING. was a proper response to the 1970s oil crisis; but there was no fundamental reason it couldn't be maintained as stagflation and malaise was a problem throughout the world*.

*The worldwide economic slowdown in the 1970s but was a perfect storm of the collapsing commodity market in the Third World and them defaulting on debts, the oil embargos, and the US abandoning Bretton Woods (even though Europe had been getting grumpy about Bretton Woods for over a decade). I can go more into this if you want as it is one of my pet topics.

I did read it. And what your highlighting was said by a surgeon who works for the NHS. In other words, someone who is not a politician is talking about politics and we are suppose to take his extremely vague statement at face value with no question. (Not even going into the fact that because he works for the NHS if it goes, he goes with it.)

A medical director of the NHS is not qualified to say the NHS is meeting most targets and remains a highly effective health service when compared to foreign health services because the person is talking politics and isn't a politician?
I'm afraid you need to walk me through your thought process on that because I'm struggling to see how "we are meeting meaningful domestic metrics and remain competitive when compared to foreign health indicators" is a statement a medical director is either not qualified to comment on or is a "political" statement.

Well, simply put, I feel if we just cut the funding for a short time and take a step back we come up with a much better solution. As for why I feel that no public education would be better is that we have such a poor education system I feel it is basically a waste of money.

Why does the funding need to be cut to reform the system? Given how important public education is, even an underwhelming and inefficient system is better than no system so long as it is providing public education.

 

[metalhead]

As a thought experiment, I think anyone who uses "the free market" as their reason for enacting a policy should try to come up with a different reason to support their proffered policies.

 

[GameBoy2000]

What would comprise an "effective outcome" for providing food and income assistance?

Ideally, one where people aren't on it for more than a year two.

First, ditch the myth that the jobs can "come back" in the face of more and more mechanization and robotics.

Well technically, there are jobs opening up for maintaining them, programming them, and designing them. (There are probably more that I have not thought about, but this still shows my point.) You know, when things like the Cotton Gin where invented, they where effectively the same thing at the time.

Second, replace the minimum wage and employer provided health insurance with a comprehensive cradle-to-grave welfare system.

Sorry, but I'm going to need this bit explained more as if get rid of the minimum wage what stops employers from paying ludicrously low wages? As for employer provided health insurance, why? I mean if they want to pay for it why have to government pay for it?

Shift the burden from the employer/employee toward those it impacts less

And who might that be? My only guess is that your going to say "the rich".

Third, stringent capital controls and revamped tax law to discourage the use of tax havens and ensure that taxation occurs where the transaction occurs to cut down on companies shuffling tax burdens around (see Google, McDonalds, Facebook, and Apple in Europe).

You realize that would only encourage companies to leave more right?

Fourth, improved education system. Notably by largely divorcing school funding from local property taxes so that schools receive the funding they need rather than whatever they can scrounge from the local area.

So, throw money at it and hope it works rather than trying to fix the actual problems with it? (And actually, I do agree with divorcing school funding from local property taxes. But I feel there are some great spots where expenses can and should be cut before doing so.)

What is it you think I said that you find so objectionable?

I would not say objectionable, but unexpected. Anyway, it was that you said you admire me being so "callousness".

How does the factory line worker bear responsibility for the directors driving the company into the ground?

Its not, but its part of the risk with everything we do. We drive, we accept that we might die. We get in a plane, we accept that we might die. We drink alcohol, we accept we might get drunk. We play civilization, we accept we might not get sleep that night. We get a job, we accept that the company might go under. I could keep going on, but I think you get the point.

I take it you are young enough to not remember the bonus scandal back during the financial crash where directors and executives were giving themselves massive bonuses as their companies were crashing and burning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIG_bonus_payments_controversy

No, I was around in 2009, I was just quite busy with some personal stuff that I did not have much time for anything else. So this is the first time I've heard of it. Anyway, fair enough.

Plus, where are you getting the idea that the auto executives "made" the company? Last I checked Old Man Ford and the guy(s) who founded GM are long dead. (Unless they came back to life to fight zombie Lenin.)

Well, they "made" it into what it is from when they got the job to when they retire/today.

A combination of reducing military expenditures

Then please, what would you say to the military families who aren't getting paid? Or the solders who don't have guns/bullet proof vests over seas?

Assuming you mean sustainable, as long as necessary. Germany, Denmark, and Sweden have all been doing well for themselves.

And last time I checked they don't have 20 trillion USD in debt either.

I'm afraid you need to walk me through your thought process on that because I'm struggling to see how "we are meeting meaningful domestic metrics and remain competitive when compared to foreign health indicators" is a statement a medical director is either not qualified to comment on or is a "political" statement.

Its a political statement for 2 reasons.

1. The public likes the NHS, so if he says its doing badly the public would start to like him less. Or confirmation bias.

2. If it is doing bad, it makes himself look bad. And if he looks bad, he can be replaced or the NHS can be replaced with a "better" program.

Why does the funding need to be cut to reform the system?

Well, actually I did not think about that before you said this. So I guess it does not.

 

[Ajidica]

Ideally, one where people aren't on it for more than a year two.

So what happens after a year or two? Cut off the food and income assistance?

Well technically, there are jobs opening up for maintaining them, programming them, and designing them.

Robotics is not a field associated with "blue collar" jobs - the sort of jobs Trump is claiming he will make come back.

You know, when things like the Cotton Gin where invented, they where effectively the same thing at the time.

Different time periods. The industrial revolution saw a huge demand for manual labor. We don't see any sort of similar demand for labor in the "robotics revolution". US industrial production is the highest it has been in decades but employment in manufacturing is on a more or less permanent trajectory.

Sorry, but I'm going to need this bit explained more as if get rid of the minimum wage what stops employers from paying ludicrously low wages? As for employer provided health insurance, why? I mean if they want to pay for it why have to government pay for it?

You see, if there is a cradle-to-grave welfare state with robust income assistance there is no need for a minimum wage. Employers don't have to worry about providing a "living wage", welfare by another name. Market distortions due to the minimum wage more or less eliminated and employers can set the wage they want for occupations.
Employer provided health care is a gigantic cluster[censored]. If a company wants to offer private health insurance -which does exist in the UK- they are free to do so but no longer is it treated as a de facto part of the "salary". It cuts down on their obligations to provide it.

And who might that be? My only guess is that your going to say "the rich".

No admiration for the Tobin tax, or did you not even look at the link?

You realize that would only encourage companies to leave more right?

If a company is taxed at location of transaction, who cares where the company is headquartered? If McDonalds decides to relocate to Bongo-Bongo Land, more power to them but that burger they sold in Kalamazoo is going to get taxed at US rates.

So, throw money at it and hope it works rather than trying to fix the actual problems with it? (And actually, I do agree with divorcing school funding from local property taxes. But I feel there are some great spots where expenses can and should be cut before doing so.)

I'm not getting where you got this impression I am against changing how US public education works.
I am also curious what "great spots" you would cut.

I would not say objectionable, but unexpected. Anyway, it was that you said you admire me being so "callousness".

I managed to confuse myself with your response. I was being sarcastic - on one hand you are talking about imposing tariffs to protect factory workers (who are loosing jobs due to corporate incompetence) and on the other you are saying "screw 'em" to the factory workers who would have been laid off due to corporate incompetence.

Its not, but its part of the risk with everything we do. We drive, we accept that we might die. We get in a plane, we accept that we might die. We drink alcohol, we accept we might get drunk. We play civilization, we accept we might not get sleep that night. We get a job, we accept that the company might go under. I could keep going on, but I think you get the point.

It different though. The factory worker had no say in corporate policy yet when the company fails it isn't the ones who caused the failure who suffered. They cash in stock options and maybe hold off on the private jet for a couple years. The laid off workers fall into poverty and towns and families collapse.
I don't expect you to like Michael Moore in the slightest (at times I can't stand him) but is what happened to the workers in Flint MI something that is their "responsibility"?

Again, in the immortal words of the Beveridge Report, the point of the welfare state is to address want, ignorance, squalor, disease, and idleness. Freedom from those societal evils is a right, part of ensuring the dignity of each person and the dignity of the human person is not something that should be lightly tossed aside.

Then please, what would you say to the military families who aren't getting paid?

Get a job. Since when did you become concerned with the government providing income and benefits? Or are you saying that the government has some sort of duty to provide occupation?
Or we can force the DoD to abandon some of the hilariously out of control projects like the F-35 or even more absurdly expensive carriers.

And last time I checked they don't have 20 trillion USD in debt either.

And how did we get that far in debt?
Germany was a bombed out wreck in 1945 -America didn't have a bomb dropped on it.
(I'll give you a hint - substantial progressive income tax structures and matching [sort of] income to expenditures.)

Its a political statement for 2 reasons.

1. The public likes the NHS, so if he says its doing badly the public would start to like him less. Or confirmation bias.

If an Amtrak executive testified before Congress that on time performance is below targets, is that a political statement?
If I say the price for Minneapolis Wheat fell $0.13/bu and is above Chicago Wheat, is that a political statement?
If no, why should a medical director for the NHS commenting that they are missing a few targets but still provide an effective health service* a "political statement"?
*Again, if you actually look at the OECD data the British health care system and the National Health Service provide better results than the US system for lower cost per patient in all but a handful of specialized cases.

Its a political statement for 2 reasons.

1. The public likes the NHS, so if he says its doing badly the public would start to like him less. Or confirmation bias.
2. If it is doing bad, it makes himself look bad. And if he looks bad, he can be replaced or the NHS can be replaced with a "better" program.

 

[GameBoy2000]

So what happens after a year or two? Cut off the food and income assistance?

Well, yes.

And actually, I want to correct my self on my lat post. Ideally no one would need to be on it, but I'd settle for a year or two.

Robotics is not a field associated with "blue collar" jobs - the sort of jobs Trump is claiming he will make come back.

I can't continue an argument if you thing I agree with everything Trump says, I agree with most of it, I disagree with some of it, and I don't have to work around his promises.

But for your argument...

Different time periods. The industrial revolution saw a huge demand for manual labor. We don't see any sort of similar demand for labor in the "robotics revolution".

Yes, no manual labor. Intellectual labor on the other hand, is a another story. (Which is the one I was refereeing to.)

You see, if there is a cradle-to-grave welfare state with robust income assistance there is no need for a minimum wage. Employers don't have to worry about providing a "living wage", welfare by another name. Market distortions due to the minimum wage more or less eliminated and employers can set the wage they want for occupations.

Okay but, what still stops employers from. say. hiring people for $1 an hour? And with that, would the people who collect the "cradle-to-grave welfare" not have to pay taxes? (Seeing as they are already basically getting their paycheck from the government.) And would it not also apply to the Rich? Sorry if I'm missing these answers but I just don't see it.

Employer provided health care is a gigantic cluster[censored]. If a company wants to offer private health insurance -which does exist in the UK- they are free to do so but no longer is it treated as a de facto part of the "salary". It cuts down on their obligations to provide it.

But, it is part of the salary. I mean, if Jimbob down the road agrees to mow my lawn for $2.00 and a Coke (The drink, not the drugs.) does the Coke not count as payment?

No admiration for the Tobin tax, or did you not even look at the link?

I looked at the link, but it was hardly descriptive and more about its history rather than how its implemented.

If a company is taxed at location of transaction, who cares where the company is headquartered? If McDonalds decides to relocate to Bongo-Bongo Land, more power to them but that burger they sold in Kalamazoo is going to get taxed at US rates.

I was largely referring to factories. But given you provided this example, think of the employees they would hire here and the business they would bring.

I'm not getting where you got this impression I am against changing how US public education works.

Well, I thought you said something along the lines of "divorcing education funding from local property tax" and if I did not just go look though the past few pages 10ish time I'd still think that, but I can't find it, so my bad. (Just in case it was not clear, my apologies for thinking you said something you did not.)

I am also curious what "great spots" you would cut.

The 3 biggest ones would be...

• Sports
• Field Trips
• Swimming pools (I guess this is 2 if you count this under sports.)

Mainly because those 3 have nothing to very little to do with education. Or replacing a closed mind with an open one.

I managed to confuse myself with your response. I was being sarcastic

Okay, I'm confused now as well. All I was simply asking is where you being sarcastic or serious when you said the following?

First of all, I admire your callousness

It different though. The factory worker had no say in corporate policy yet when the company fails it isn't the ones who caused the failure who suffered.

If someone wants to Rob you, do you get a say in that? If a company fires you, do you get a say in that? If you get in a plane and it crashes, do you get a say in that? If someone frames you, do you get a say in that? Life happens, and saying "you don't get a say in it" is hardly a valid argument.

Again, in the immortal words of the Beveridge Report, the point of the welfare state is to address want, ignorance, squalor, disease, and idleness. Freedom from those societal evils is a right, part of ensuring the dignity of each person and the dignity of the human person is not something that should be lightly tossed aside.

Yet, if we look at the results, Welfare encourages want, ignorance and idleness.

Get a job.

So, if you want to stay home and do nothing "here is some free money", want to go over seas and risk your life for your country,nope, your not getting the paycheck you where promised, "Get a job"... Wow, just wow.

Since when did you become concerned with the government providing income and benefits?

Since when the government signed a contract with an individual and promised to do so.

Or are you saying that the government has some sort of duty to provide occupation?

No, I'm saying the government has a duty to pay its Soldiers for the job they did.

And how did we get that far in debt?
Germany was a bombed out wreck in 1945 -America didn't have a bomb dropped on it.

so, America should have been bombed?

If an Amtrak executive testified before Congress that on time performance is below targets, is that a political statement?

No.

If I say the price for Minneapolis Wheat fell $0.13/bu and is above Chicago Wheat, is that a political statement?

No.

If no, why should a medical director for the NHS commenting that they are missing a few targets but still provide an effective health service* a "political statement"?

Because, in addition to what I've already said, its a government program.

Well, if this is an okay response, that makes my life easier. (As seen above.)

 

[Samson]

The 3 biggest ones would be...

• Sports
• Field Trips
• Swimming pools (I guess this is 2 if you count this under sports.)

Mainly because those 3 have nothing to very little to do with education. Or replacing a closed mind with an open one.

I would be willing to bet that getting kids to do sports is one of the biggest things you can do to increase the lifespan of the the next generation.

I did go on enough field trips to make a difference to the budget, I can remember 2.

 

[GameBoy2000]

I would be willing to bet that getting kids to do sports is one of the biggest things you can do to increase the lifespan of the the next generation.

Oh I'm not against kids doing sports (Even though I don't see the fun in them.) I'm just against having it be done with school funds and on school grounds. Especially when they can have textbooks rotting away but guess who is getting a new jersey each year.
What I'd rather see is something like Germany has (Might be had, anyway, I'm referring to what it was 3-4 decades ago.) sports are funded by the local government and not though school funds. Things such as pools, you throw a rope down the middle of a public pool and have kids you one half and the public in the other. (Unlike the US where you have an Olympic sized swimming pool where only a handful of kids use it on a handful of days.) Places for sports (such as Foot Ball fields) ca be provided at a local park and parents can have their kids drove there or drive them there them self. I could keep going on but I think the gist of it is gotten.

 

[Samson]

The thing is, as with the rest of education, if it is not free and compulsory most kids will not do it.

 

[Hygro]

After that was clear, I was responding to your original post by saying (To word it differently.) that unemployment, in this case, is not caused by insufficient spending in the economy as you suggest, but rather by lazy people living off well-fair.

Who taught you this?

 

[schlaufuchs]

Who taught you this?

Yeezy taught me.

 

[Ajidica]

Well, yes.

So what happens after the arbitrarily defined time period is up? Have fun dumpster diving for scraps? Not exactly protecting human dignity there.

I can't continue an argument if you thing I agree with everything Trump says, I agree with most of it, I disagree with some of it, and I don't have to work around his promises.

I was under the impression you were defending Trumps proposed tariff on the grounds it would bring blue collar jobs back. If that is not why you have been defending the tariff, you managed to lose me quite some time ago.

Okay but, what still stops employers from. say. hiring people for $1 an hour?

Absolutely nothing. However, the company no longer has the responsibility of being the de facto source of welfare through the minimum wage. Since a base level of income, housing, health care, and education is assured to each individual the company is free to set the wage to whatever they feel is the market rate for the task.

And with that, would the people who collect the "cradle-to-grave welfare" not have to pay taxes? (Seeing as they are already basically getting their paycheck from the government.) And would it not also apply to the Rich? Sorry if I'm missing these answers but I just don't see it.

I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer, but lets try ALLCAPS and boldface:
ALL PERSONS RECIEVE THE BENEFITS OF STATE PROVIDED HEALTH CARE, EDUCATION, AND A BASE LEVEL OF INCOME AND HOUSING NECESSARY TO PRESERVE HUMAN DIGNITY.

But, it is part of the salary. I mean, if Jimbob down the road agrees to mow my lawn for $2.00 and a Coke (The drink, not the drugs.) does the Coke not count as payment?

The fact you are comparing something as essential as health care to a beverage is telling.

I looked at the link, but it was hardly descriptive and more about its history rather than how its implemented.

I'm not a lawyer, and unless I've been badly mislead neither are you, so ignoring something on the grounds I'm not providing a white paper is unhelpful at best.
However, if you don't think banks have voluminous financial transaction records you are sadly mistaken.

The 3 biggest ones would be...

• Sports
• Field Trips
• Swimming pools (I guess this is 2 if you count this under sports.)

The cost of providing those services are pennies compared to a school districts actual budget. Since I already have dug into OECD health care data and the Iranian penal code for you before, have fun doing some research on this topic using budgets from the district I went to school in:
https://www.district196.org/District/Departments/Finance/2015-16/PreliminaryBudget.pdf
https://www.district196.org/District/Departments/Finance/2012-13/FinalBudget.pdf

Mainly because those 3 have nothing to very little to do with education. Or replacing a closed mind with an open one.

That you don't believe athletics or field trips have any relation to education indicates you are extremely unfamiliar with even basic pedagogy.

Okay, I'm confused now as well. All I was simply asking is where you being sarcastic or serious when you said the following?

I was being sarcastic; calling you out on the apparent discontinuity between your stated positions.

If someone wants to Rob you, do you get a say in that?

Well, that's illegal.

If a company fires you, do you get a say in that? If you get in a plane and it crashes, do you get a say in that? If someone frames you, do you get a say in that? Life happens, and saying "you don't get a say in it" is hardly a valid argument.

Look, when an industry collapses the workers -though no fault of their own- lose their jobs and see communities collapse. The directors -the ones making the decisions that drove the company into the ground- get off scot free with stock options and investment portfolios. As Terry Pratchett wrote, "When banks fail it isn't the bankers who suffer". No matter how good a job the line worker was doing, he is the one who has to deal with financial hardship when directors drive a company into the ground. If you believe that is a just or equitable situation, be at least honest enough to come out and say it.

Yet, if we look at the results, Welfare encourages want, ignorance and idleness.

Citation desperately needed.

So, if you want to stay home and do nothing "here is some free money", want to go over seas and risk your life for your country,nope, your not getting the paycheck you where promised, "Get a job"... Wow, just wow.

a) It isn't "doing nothing". Employment programs exist. You know, addressing the whole "idleness" societal ill.
b) Where did you get the impression I said a person wouldn't be paid for service? Either the government has a vested interest in maintaining low unemployment through government programs (in which case there are better ways to address unemployment than though military spending) or the government does not have that interest and military service is to be paid for only so long as the government believes it is needed for national interests rather than a welfare-by-proxy to maintain full employment.

so, America should have been bombed?

If that is the message you got out of what I posted, I think asking for a refund from whoever taught you reading comprehension might be in order.
In 1945 Germany and France were bombed out wrecks with the UK exhausted by decades of wartime expenditures and imperial commitments. America, not so much. Germany, France, and the UK through government intervention, welfare programs, and ensuring sufficient tax revenue were able to create societies that met -if not exceeded- US quality of life.* Through obscene military spending and a disastrous tax policy we ended up with a ballooning federal debt. That Germany, France, and Britain were able to rebuild from the most destructive conflict yet scene without getting a monstrous debt should indicate something about the effectiveness of their policies.

*Indeed, Germany is especially remarkable as in 1920 they were roughly equivalent to a modern day Iran or South Africa in contemporary living standards.

Because, in addition to what I've already said, its a government program.

Amtrak is a government program.* Why should Amtrak directors testifying about performance metrics not be dismissed out of hand but similar testimony from a NHS director is dismissed out of hand?
What about Metro Transit providing data on ridership levels of light rail?

*Or close enough to it.

 

[GameBoy2000]

The thing is, as with the rest of education, if it is not free and compulsory most kids will not do it.

So, two things...

1. So your saying we should force kids to do sports? If yes, is there any difference in that than in saying "I don't care what you want, I think its good so your doing it."

2. I never said it should not be free, I'm just saying that if schools have decade old books that are rotting apart sport teams should not be getting a new Jersey every year.

Who taught you this?

Logic.

So what happens after the arbitrarily defined time period is up? Have fun dumpster diving for scraps? Not exactly protecting human dignity there.

Well, yes. I mean given the fact that over the past 40 years we have not moved out of the 11-15% range of which the US's population is living at "poverty". And if people follow 3 simple rules (1. Graduate high school 2. Get a full time job 3. Don't get married or have a kid till your at least 30 and have a steady income. These rules are "borrowed" from a you tuber who goes by the name "Naked Ape" and with good reasoning behind them. I can't provide a link to his page due to the forums rules, but if you simply google "Naked Ape" he is the very first link.) you can and will join the middle class. (With the exception of 2% not joining, but come on, 2%.) So this is really to just satisfy people like you who think we need it when in reality we don't.

I was under the impression you were defending Trumps proposed tariff on the grounds it would bring blue collar jobs back. If that is not why you have been defending the tariff, you managed to lose me quite some time ago.

I was defending it on the grounds it would help out economy and bring jobs back. Not necessarily blue collar jobs, but jobs.

Absolutely nothing. However, the company no longer has the responsibility of being the de facto source of welfare through the minimum wage. Since a base level of income, housing, health care, and education is assured to each individual the company is free to set the wage to whatever they feel is the market rate for the task.

Okay then, even though I still disagree with the Idea (given the fact we don't have a wage problem but rather a personal responsibility problem.) thank you for clarifying it.

I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer, but lets try ALLCAPS and boldface:
ALL PERSONS RECIEVE THE BENEFITS OF STATE PROVIDED HEALTH CARE, EDUCATION, AND A BASE LEVEL OF INCOME AND HOUSING NECESSARY TO PRESERVE HUMAN DIGNITY.

I understand it applies to everyone, I just include statements like "Would it not also apply to the rich?" as a way to get you to think about that. And you did not reply to the other questions.

The fact you are comparing something as essential as health care to a beverage is telling.

Why? Both healthcare and a coke are not currency but still both hold value. If one counts as payment why should the other not?

I'm not a lawyer, and unless I've been badly mislead neither are you, so ignoring something on the grounds I'm not providing a white paper is unhelpful at best.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't expect a white paper, what I am saying is that the link your provided was more about its history rather than what you mean we do with it. Especially given that with in the first paragraph of the link you provided has said that it was incorrectly used in meany ways.

The cost of providing those services are pennies compared to a school districts actual budget.

Does not matter, if your on a tight budget and your employer pays you $1 less that you agreed to a month, would you just ignore it die to the fact that it is "pennies" compared to everything else?

Since I already have dug into OECD health care data and the Iranian penal code for you before, have fun doing some research on this topic using budgets from the district I went to school in:

Not to sound wrong, but I never asked you to do that, nor implied that it should be done. You decided to do it all on your own.

That you don't believe athletics or field trips have any relation to education indicates you are extremely unfamiliar with even basic pedagogy.

Okay, I'll tackle this one at a time. (Pun not intended.)

Athletics: What does this do for knowledge? I mean, you go to school to get an education and to use that education to get a good job so you can live a nice life. Unless you plan on going pro (Which let's be honest, that is a bad idea.) your never going to use that knowledge of sports in your job. Maybe to bond with your co-workers, but it is not needed. And if we are going to teach sports in schools, should we also not teach e-sports given that they are also a sport?

Field Trips: I'll admit, you can learn on a field trip, but given the fact that most field trips end up being to places like the local zoo, you can learn that much cheaper and quicker in the class room.

I was being sarcastic; calling you out on the apparent discontinuity between your stated positions.

Okay, thank you for the clarification.

Well, that's illegal.

Yes, but it still happens. Point is when biological waste hits the fan, you hardly ever get a say in it.

Look, when an industry collapses the workers -though no fault of their own- lose their jobs and see communities collapse. The directors -the ones making the decisions that drove the company into the ground- get off scot free with stock options and investment portfolios.

So, moral superiority is your argument?

Citation desperately needed.

Your citation is logic, and for logic's reasoning...

I normally don't like using videos for arguments, but this video says my opinion on the matter in a way that is so much more professional and clearer than I could.

a) It isn't "doing nothing". Employment programs exist. You know, addressing the whole "idleness" societal ill.

*cough* unemployment *cough*

b) Where did you get the impression I said a person wouldn't be paid for service?

Right here.

Get a job.

Post #371.

Either the government has a vested interest in maintaining low unemployment through government programs (in which case there are better ways to address unemployment than though military spending) or the government does not have that interest and military service is to be paid for only so long as the government believes it is needed for national interests rather than a welfare-by-proxy to maintain full employment.

So "Help the lazy, [censored] the military." or "Help the military, [censored] the lazy." I know which I'd pick. (Hint: it is the latter.)

In 1945 Germany and France were bombed out wrecks with the UK exhausted by decades of wartime expenditures and imperial commitments. America, not so much. Germany, France, and the UK through government intervention, welfare programs, and ensuring sufficient tax revenue were able to create societies that met -if not exceeded- US quality of life.* Through obscene military spending and a disastrous tax policy we ended up with a ballooning federal debt. That Germany, France, and Britain were able to rebuild from the most destructive conflict yet scene without getting a monstrous debt should indicate something about the effectiveness of their policies.

So now your making the argument that WW2 was good? This is getting quite off topic.

Amtrak is a government program.* Why should Amtrak directors testifying about performance metrics not be dismissed out of hand but similar testimony from a NHS director is dismissed out of hand?

Okay, I'll be honest here, I never heard of Amtrak before you mentioned it. And when I saw that it was labeled as a "corporation" on google I assumed it meant a corporation and not a government program. So with that, I'd say the it would be a political statement for them. My apologize though.

 

[Samson]

1. So your saying we should force kids to do sports? If yes, is there any difference in that than in saying "I don't care what you want, I think its good so your doing it."

Well, yeah, in the way we force kids to do sports now. I think it is really important, so it should be free and compulsory like learning to read and do maths, and try art and stuff.