Americans realize that health care for all isn't fiscally sustainable.
The idiots in Europe are getting hit over the head with this.
If you look at the nations with the highest external debt ratios in the world they are all over Europe.
The cradle to grave socialist state is fiscally unsustainable.
Wait a minute few are too darned greedy to want what they can't provide for themselves and think money falls from the sky to pay for everything they believe they have a "right" to or that society "owes" them.

Stupidity never works and neither does Positive Rights.

wow, I think I'm going to stay away from these boards for awhile. The 'socialist state' is 'not fiscally sustainable' because America is set up to have the richest 1% of the people control over 50% of the wealth. When people like Warren Buffett say there's a problem you know you're in trouble. A re-jig of how the economy works is just what the doctor ordered.
Don't forget, in America, even Forrest Gump can make it, so therefore everyone has the same opportunities right?

TC: BULLSHIT.

Cost of Health Care in America: 18% of GDP
Cost of Health Care in France: 12% of GDP

France has the best health care system in the world according to the WHO. America has 38th. Beyond that America's is more expensive for its patience. Healthcare for all is fiscally systainable when run properly.

@SD: Affirmative Action does just that and it is as you put it. It requires a certain amount of the work force to be of a specific gender or race.

For example 2 years ago India passed an AA law requiring 1/3 of a parties candidates for the house to be female. At the time less then 1/10 where. This is an example of AA curbing democracy (which granted I am not in favour of). In elections no longer were people able to vote for candidates they liked, but had to, at least some of the time, vote for women who didn't necessarily have the qualifications to be there.

your right in saying that this is a minority quota system. However Minority Quota systems are just a type of AA.

@Simonius: The top 1% of America's currently earn 19% (thats quite shy of your bold 50% claim) of the wealth and pay 40% of the taxes (despite the deductions and 'loopholes'). And then people say the rich should pay MORE. They are already being treated unfairly and just because they make up such a small percentage (1%) of the voters Obama has decided to shit on them cause they were smart enough to know how to make money.

This is class warfare and the republicans are right in saying it should be avoided.

or be smart enough to be born with money...

Your right Santa allow me to rephrase that:

I'm never right

The top 1% of America's EARNERS. As in those who are working, the 1% who get paid the most. They earn 19% of the pre-taxed money and pay 40% of the taxes despite the deductions.

They don't necessarily have a billion dollars in the bank, but they are currently making more then 250,000 a year.

Being 'born' with money wouldn't put you in the top 1% of earners...

and in America 25% of people in the upper class aren't in the upper class for more the 9 years.

Being born with money has never meant you keep it, and only the uneducation liberals and socialists think that...

*uneducated

I think we're talking about the USA, right, fasces, where not only has a minority quota system never been a part of the law but is also illegal for a private company to have, right? Isn't that where your mythical underqualified black female example came from?

In the US, it doesn't require a certain amount of the workforce to...anything. It just makes sure that race (and gender and religion) aren't used as a hiring factor.

And certainly you weren't referring to India as a developed nation, they're still on the road there. So what country's laws were you talking about in the black female example if not the United States'?

Specifically, this:

"An over qualified white male and an under qualified black female apply for a job. Due to AA laws requiring companies to higher a minimum number of black females guess who gets the job? "

First clause of second sentence. Which country's laws are you referring to? Please link to the specific law.

"The top 1% of America's EARNERS. As in those who are working, the 1% who get paid the most. They earn 19% of the pre-taxed money and pay 40% of the taxes despite the deductions. "

And you dont think the 1% of Americas earners are disproportonally represented by those born with money?

Please...

but they still deserve to be there. whether it is because they had a better education or really are smarter. They got there because they were competent to get there.

And also don't start with the myth that they didn't work to get there.

If being a CEO was so easy why isn't everyone a CEO making those 7 digit salaries?

Because more people couldn't do it. As an unemployed youth I know full well that I am not qualified to do it. They earn that money because their jobs provide thousands of people with work, and because they earned their salaries.

@SD: I wasn't talking about any country, just AA in general...

Also I want to apologize for an incorrect statistic that I have posted here twice now.

When I said the top 1% of earners make 19% of the pre-tax income, I actually meant 17%. I apologize for any inconveniences this has caused. However it better supports me arguement.

17% of income, 40% of income tax... That makes sense...

AA in general does not do that. Most countries do NOT have a minority quota system. And by adding phrases about "developed" and "enslaved 150 years ago" you are clearly implying that it's doing something specifically in the United States that it is not doing.

This is, basically, what affirmative action in the US does. Protects people from discrimination.

http://www1.eeoc.gov/employers/upload/eeoc_self_print_poster.pdf

Being born with money or connections can get one on the road to upper level management positions more easily, however. It can allow you to get the credentials and/or the experience that allows one to have a better chance of getting into top level undergraduate universities, which gives one a better chance to get into top level graduate schools, which gives one a better chance to ascend to top level jobs. Yes, a large portion of it is based on motivation and intelligence, however, we cannot overlook the influence that being born into wealthy or even upper middle class families can have on one's ability to succeed. People who are born poor just don't have as good of a chance. Their parents might not be able to give them the upbringing that would allow them to develop into critical thinkers because they need to work two or three jobs to get by. They might not be able to afford a undergraduate education even with scholarships. Meanwhile, wealthy, upper middle class or even middle class families generally can afford to do those things, and give their children the chance to succeed. Those born into wealth might deserve to be at the top of the management food chain, but most of them certainly had help along the way.

"DISABILITY
Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, protect qualified individuals from discrimination on the basis of disability in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment. Disability discrimination includes not making reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, barring undue hardship."

THat is the problem I have with it...

If you are mentally or physically handicapped, why should you get accommodated? it literally makes it harder for you to do work...

"Being born with money or connections can get one on the road to upper level management positions more easily, however. It can allow you to get the credentials and/or the experience that allows one to have a better chance of getting into top level undergraduate universities, which gives one a better chance to get into top level graduate schools, which gives one a better chance to ascend to top level jobs. "
I didn't deny that. But the fact that they still have been to top level undergraduate universities means that they know more about business and operating a company then those who have not. Meaning that although it was luck that gave them the opportunity to get far, it was their motivation and intelligence that allowed them to take that opportunity.

"People who are born poor just don't have as good of a chance. Their parents might not be able to give them the upbringing that would allow them to develop into critical thinkers because they need to work two or three jobs to get by. They might not be able to afford a undergraduate education even with scholarships. Meanwhile, wealthy, upper middle class or even middle class families generally can afford to do those things, and give their children the chance to succeed"
Exactly, it is the reason why, that despite being a hardcore tax the rich less, less government intervention in the economy etc etc. I feel that the government HAS to provide free health care and education to all its citizens. This is to hopefully given those born into less well off families still get the education they need to at least have a chance in competing with the kid who was fed with a silver spoon.

"Those born into wealth might deserve to be at the top of the management food chain, but most of them certainly had help along the way. "
Agree, but it doesn't justify taking their money and giving it to those less well off. The help along the way more represents a problem with our current system, one that I admit needs to be changed. However I think the liberal and socialist approach of raising taxes on them and giving it to the less well off is an even worse approach.

It should be the governments responsibility to allow all those pursuing a good education are at least given the opportunity. The government should give kids a free education up to a certain point. Where after primary education students with good grades from less well off families can get into better secondary schools without cost to the family.

If we can encourage the intellects of the lower class to at least try to compete with those in the upper class, we will have a much more competitive market.

"If you are mentally or physically handicapped, why should you get accommodated? it literally makes it harder for you to do work..."
To go into more detail about this, I want to first say that I am dyslexic. I fully admit that I have an inability to read and I have an IEP which entitles me to double time on tests to give me an equal opportunity with those who don't have learning disabilities.

This makes little sense. When I get into the corporate world is my boss going to give me an extension on assignments because I can't read properly? No, it makes no sense and I fully admit that in the cases that I have used my extra time on tests I don't think I have deserved the marks I get.

It's funny how you're unable to read the last three words of that.

The main goal of that provision is...say someone's a double amputee, has no legs. And wants to work an office job that does not require the use of legs. He's qualified for this job, and would do it fine, but traditionally, companies would see the wheelchair and pass on him.

Trying to find an accomodation for him to, say, carry boxes around a warehouse is possible, but would cause undue hardship for the company.

As for your IEP, you're fully within your rights to not take that time and just sit there if you feel strongly enough that you shouldn't be given it.

"It's funny how you're unable to read the last three words of that."
Which 3 words?

The main goal of that provision is...say someone's a double amputee, has no legs. And wants to work an office job that does not require the use of legs. He's qualified for this job, and would do it fine, but traditionally, companies would see the wheelchair and pass on him."
At the same time a lot of other companies would higher him because of his disability for good PR.

"Trying to find an accomodation for him to, say, carry boxes around a warehouse is possible, but would cause undue hardship for the company."
So does the provision force the company to accommodate him or not?

"As for your IEP, you're fully within your rights to not take that time and just sit there if you feel strongly enough that you shouldn't be given it. "
Its within my right not to take it, I am fully aware of that. However given that it is also within my right to do so, I take it because it does offer me a huge advantage.

My English mark would not have been in the 80s last year if I didn't use it...

"barring undue hardship."

The double amputee would likely not be hired by another company for PR reasons. There's no real PR benefit to hiring disabled persons. And no, the company is not required to accommodate a situation that would require undue hardship on the behalf of the company, such as finding a way to let him carry boxes around a warehouse.

Well from the sounds of it AA is entirely civil issue. Meaning that if your not hired because of your race, gender etc but for no other reason you have the right to sue the employer.

In that case I guess it isn't a bad thing. As long as there is no minority quota system or anything like that...

How long before positive rights advocates say that people have a "right" to a debit card and banks "owe" it to society to provide the service free of charge.

Positive rights is stupidity enshrined and stupidity never works.

@TC

"Americans realize that health care for all isn't fiscally sustainable.
The idiots in Europe are getting hit over the head with this.
If you look at the nations with the highest external debt ratios in the world they are all over Europe.
The cradle to grave socialist state is fiscally unsustainable."

According to the IMF the US has debt 92% of GDP and the UK (which has one of the most generous health care provisions) has debt of 76% of GDP.

I found surprisingly different stats on Britain's debt vs America Maniac.

Per Capita Debt
UK=$146,953.00; US=$48,258.00

COUNTRY EXTERNAL DEBT AS % OF GDP EXTERNAL DEBT PER CAPITA
Gross External Debt
2010 ComparisonGDP (est)
1. Ireland 1,382% $566,756 $2.38 trillion $172.3 billion
2. United Kingdom 413.3% $146,953 $8.981 trillion $2.173 trillion
3. Switzerland 401.9% $171,528 $1.304 trillion $324.5 billion
4. Netherlands 376.3% $152,380 $2.55 trillion $676.9 billion
5. Belgium 335.9% $127,197 $1.324 trillion $394.3 billion
6. Denmark 310.4% $113,826 $626.1 billion $201.7 billion
7. Sweden 282.2% $110,479 $1.001 trillion $354.7 billion
8. Finland 271.5% $96,197 $505.06 billion $186 billion
9. Austria 261.1% $105,616 $867.14 billion $332 billion
10. Norway 251% $137,476 $640.7 billion $255.3 billion
11. Hong Kong 250.4% $115,612 $815.65 billion $325.8 billion
12. France 250% $83,781 $5.37 trillion $2.15 trillion
13. Portugal 223.6% $51,572 $552.23 billion $247 billion
14. Germany 185.1% $51,572 $5.44 trillion $2.94 trillion
15. Greece 182.2% $53,984 $579.7 billion $318.1 billion
16. Spain 179.4% $60,614 $2.46 trillion $1.37 trillion
17. Italy 146.6% $44,760 $2.602 trillion $1.77 trillion
18. Australia 138.9% $57,641 $1.23 trillion $882.4 billion
19. Hungary 120.1% $22,739 $225.24 billion $187.6 billion
20. United States 101.1% $48,258 $14.83 trillion $14.66 trillion

once again that is external debt, not Public Debt. TC!

The rhetoric of positive rights relies on the term "social contract," but this is a total falsehood. A contract is entered into voluntarily by both parties. The "social contract" is imposed, not voluntarily entered into.

Elizabeth Warren, a candidate to be one of this nation's 100 Senators is too stupid to realize there is no "social contract" because she walks around saying that there is no private property because public education means that anything you produce afterwards is community property because you have to repay society for your education.

Again public education is not a "contract" it is a forced obligation.

So send your kids to private school so they can keep the fruits of "their" labor and escape the insane logic of the helpless, unmotivated, unambitious liberal, socialists, marxists who state that they own you and everything you ever produce in the totally inaccurately named "social contract."

You wonder why they don't use proper rhetoric. They can't because the process they are really describing is "theft."

I don't think she said there wasn't private property. Wasn't it that everyone benefits from the state and state run institutions and that people should give back into those institutions as they can? Thats hardly saying that everything you produce is community property.

Warren is going to clean Scott Brown's plagiaristic clock.