Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (71708)	3/30/2010 6:30:12 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 149317

Vintner, here is the problem you refer to as I see it. Bottom line, only the dems are employing modern day social science and political science. The right wing is just yelling about things which they have little understanding of, and do not care to study it, or even think about it rationally. I have a very strong social science and political science background, both educationally and experience wise. I know, for sure, the right wing does not know much about either political or socal theory. Do you really think Tom De Lay and Dick Army were trying to apply humanitarian social and political theory to their decisions? Obama and his people are! They study this stuff. And as I have said many times, if you want to see how a modern state can function just look at what the liberals set up in Alaska with their constitution, social system and our permanent fund with 40 billion in it and a law that says we are to put 50% of all state owned resources into the permanent fund.. I know you will say, we have all this oil. Every state has lots of natural resources and they could all put 50% of all state natural resources into a permanent fund for the children like we did. But right wingers will not allow it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! even if they could think of it. We don't know what we can do socially because for the last 30 years the brain dead right wing has been calling the shots! There is are real questions as to whether the societies (I assume you mean Western Europe or the Euro Countries) that provide a lot of cradle to grave benefits can continue on their present course and survive economically in this globally competitive world without some drastic modifications to their welfare state model. In our country their are two debates. One is an ideological one involving the individual's freedom and forcing them to pay for a benefit (the lawsuits by the AG's). The other is more about the implementation of the policy and whether we will be able to afford it, and if so, how much. The problem is our taxing model is not that of a social welfare state. That's my concern--more the nuts and bolts of the implementation of the policy. We can't do everything as a nation and afford unlimited healthcare coverage--especially for older people. As life expectancies extend and medical technology improves--the health care bills go up. Given that the percentage of our population that is aging is increasing--to make the model of universal covergage work--rationing is rational response. People don't like it, but then they don't like going broke either.