birdog1960

Looks like Adam is a disciple

You're not the sharpest tool in the shed, are ya? Let me make it simple...how much is enough? And magox, someone who can answer this question has a much higher likelihood of contentment than someone who can't.

Once again, you confuse envy with contempt. The moral of the fable would be about the loss to everyone else due to one foxes quest for the marginally better "best" grapes.

I read it. And some good points were made but to look at this data and conclude that The increasing disparity between the top and bottom/middle is primarily due to govt entitlements like ss, Medicare and ?Medicaid going to those who don't need it is lludicrous. I'm all for means testing but it will do little to change the worsening disparity between the classes and the virtual Loss of the middle class. . They mention corporate welfare as an asterisk..well hell yes! But where's the will to stop it? Ryan's as much a slave to his corporate sponsors as any of them. And this invocation of envy as the reason for actual anger at the same things mentioned as problems in this paper is all too convenient. I see it in the context of diminishing returns. I like to dabble in av stuff. Anybody with any measure of honesty and objectivity knows that one needs to spend multitudes more for slight differences in quality in this area. The Macintosh amp that' mitt never gets a chance to listen to is marginally superior or to my onkyo. Do i envy his ability to obtain it without a thought? Sorry, no. I enjoy working to make what I've got as excellent as it was designed to be. When I make my yearly pilgrimage out west for the adrenaline rush of a few black diamond runs on my old rossis and my target fleeces and shell I'm in actual pity for the bozo in the dayglo descente snowsuit and latest fat skis snoplowing awkwardly down a green run. Got many more examples but you get the point...appearances are just that. Substance is frequently divorced from net But keep telling yourselves it's all about envy. It's much easier to rationalize your position that way.

Sad but true. Were constantly picking the lesser of 2or 3 or 5 evils. I ask myself the chicken or egg question. Do these people make dc the cesspool it is or vice versa. Maybe both...and greed and powerlust both enter into it.

the only thing i'm envious of is that romney pays a lower tax rate than me, whether you care to believe it or not. and envy is not really the right word. "appalled" is more appropriate. i don't resent my tax burden. i resent romney's in comparison to mine. yes, and what has he proposed to correct this particular problem with the laws?

the laws are the problem

really? on avg those making 200k to 1 mil are paying significantly more. that would include many of the small business owners yall have so much hope for rebuilding the economy. why should they pay more than mitt?

wow; no counting others wealth, no poor people complaining about others taxes. i guess we just have to hope you're a benevolent dictator.

thanks for making my point. the system, as designed is failing and needs change. the interventions you describe can't overcome the fundamental flaws. the natural course is what we're seeing.

Straw man! (whistle blowing as he throws the flag)...no one has suggested anything remotely similar to this. But it's easier to argue against this than fairer tax schemes. And I pay plenty of tax so I guess I have a right to complain,huh? But the unemployed, underemployed and below living wage workers who have benefitted so very much from the current low capital gains and overall low tax rates on the rich have no right? Some of you argue a modified trickle down theory argument to support this. I ask again, where is the current evidence to support this? We are seeing the largest income inequality pattern in recent memory and that seems to be ok with many of you because it's a natural consequence of capitalism. Did it ever occur to any of you that maybe that finding is evidence of the weakness of capitalism? Then we read that Kerry pays a similar rate to Romney. But hasn't Kerry actively tried to increase taxes on the wealthy? So it seems to distill down to this:is it acceptable or even desirable to have massive income and wealth inequality in a country? History shows many problems in such societies and I would see it's answer is "no". The thing I can't get is why so many of you who don't benefit from this system continue to support it..

i haven't heard anyone asking for an apology. how about a simple acknowledgement of the problem with a system that allows folks making 1/10's to 1/1000's of the amounts made by romney to pay multiples of the tax he pays as a percentage? is that really too much to expect? is that really unamerican or just unrepublican? and a promise of fixing it?...don't see it in the cards, do you?

and 3rdning called my response weak? in this regard, my wish would have been for rockefeller to win the argument(and not for a change in mlk's supposed political affiliation-that's inconsequential) -then, i (and many others) would likely be able to again support republican candidates with some regularity.

who needs the economist when there's Wikipedia? The link puts forth an interesting albeit controversial idea. The quote " the history of the republican party: Barry Goldwater and Nelson rockefeller got into an argument and George Wallace won" is pretty clever even if you disagree (and I'm sure you do).

both parties are very different from that time based primarily on who and what they stood for. as you've alluded to, most all of the racist white southern democrats like george wallace who helped write and enforce the jim crow laws are now republicans or dead as are their followers. during the time of mlk, the majority of blacks were republicans. that is clearly not the case anymore, either. in regards to comparisons to civil war era politics, the point of view on federalism alone has changed dramatically within the republican party. i believe that given all the thinly veiled talk of "small gov't" within the party, the former party of lincoln would be the one more likely to champion succession over some fight regarding a modern day economic issue of the same gravity as slavery.an interesting bit on this subjecty btw, there doesn't appear to be consensus on the assertion that mlk was republican despite politically motivated billboards proclaiming it. on a purely ideological basis, some would assert his socialist leanings. most believe he voted for jfk for president, too.

um, being a southern democrat in the 60's wasn't really consistent with his philosophy. lincoln's party and the current one are quite different.

no. i can't speak for all liberals but those are important words in any successful society to me. the selfish, uncaring and evil comes when the deck is stacked so heavily against certain groups attaining societal positions that they have little to no motivation to pay attention to those words. at the extreme, personal responsibility to a starving man might well mean stealing food.

absolutely, magox. i'm just surprised that you're surprised. it's notable that comments similar to what was said here are reported in the brit newspaper story about this. i fear the "ugly american" label is much too often warranted. this is a disgrace and extremely harmful to our place in the world. comparing it to other atrocities is the ultimate rationalization. moral relativism is one of the greatest dangers facing the souls of all people now and forever. it's just a slip down the slippery slope to the loss of horizons altogether.

the problem with the analogy is that you assume that bills players would respond positively about their professional lives (which isn't the same as playing football). that's an important distinction. the question posed wasn't "are you satisfied being a doctor"? for the more encompassing question that the govt of canada posed, i suspect many bills players would anonymously say they are dissatisfied with their professional life (if they didn't, that would explain alot about them being perennial losers). but back to the real question of the canadian system. do you really feel doctors workiing in a system they found ineffective, unfair and capable of providing only substandard care would feel satisfied with their professional lives?

it truly is pointless to argue this except maybe for the gamesmanship. you and oc are convinced of the evils of anything socialized and no amount of evidence will ever sway you. these 70000 professionals work in the system! if they hated the system they wouldn't be likely to be satisfied with their professional life. and if what oc stated about biding time to leave for the great american system is true it would be logical to assume that they would be pretty dissatisfied if they planned to leave their own country. so, back to the game...you lose, i win.

heres some actual data from the National Physicians Survey 2007 done by the canadian govt on 70000 docs and med students: current professional life: very satisfied 29% somewhat satisfied 46% neutral 7.9% somewhat dissatisfied 7.9 very dissatisfied 9.5% looks like oc met only docs from the bottom 16.5%...and 30 of them consecutively!!! that's statistically rather improbable. btw, i've seen satisfaction surveys for us docs with very similar numbers.

i'm really beginning to question the logic in continuing the argument with you. the flight of ideas and rambling lead me to the conclusion that its pointless....but i find it hard not to take the bait. so... concerning your point on knowing disgruntled canadian doctors, i would suggest that if you met those that now practice in the us, your sample is not representative of the whole. many (especially in specialities) leave because they can make more in the us. it's no great mystery. if pay equalized, i suspect you'd see many fewer coming. i hear colleagues complain about the current us system all the time. on it's own standing, i dont see that as an indictment of the system (although there is plenty of other evidence that does proves its failure). people complain in every field and seemingly at every opportunity. my reference to the competiveness of admissions to canadian medical schools illustrates the fact that the presence of a socialist system does not disuade potential doctors. quite possibly it helps select for those who seek the job out of altruism. in my view, that's a very good thing. your point that patients can't act like a kid in a candy store and pick tests and treatments thus somehow rendering both systems as failures, is just absurd. no health system is sustainable without limitations on care. there are finite resources and, in your perfect model, infinite demand. i think your and others real concedrn in this issue is your own ability to access the care you desire. by including those currently not able to afford care, you will likely have more restrictions on what healthcare goods and services you get reimbursed for. and you're right, you almost certainly will. i see that as a necessary consequence of treating all americans humanely. i see that as a worthy, honorable and morally mandated goal. you obviously don't.

there were nearly 10000 applications for 2500 spots each year between 2001 and 2006 for canadian med schools. these kids know the system they'll be working in yet still apply in droves. i think that acceptance rate is actually lower than in the us. you seem to be arguing that "insurance" or govt run healthcare should asllow pts to pick and choose tests and procedures like a kid flipping through a sear's catalog. i doesn't work that way with aetna or cigna and not suprisingly it doesn't work that way in the canadian system.

the most impressive prose description of the womb lottery i've see...."there, but for the grace of God, go i"

perhaps you forgot the part about comparing the us system to the canadian. maybe you should have bought an mri of your brain looking for causes of dementia.