|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 09/07/2011 : 06:20:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
I have exactly zero confidence in the current political situation present within the US that this can happen. |
I still fail to see the value of discussing the possibility of public day care as if it could only be implemented tomorrow.
|
Because it still ignores the root cause of the problem. Lack of a living wage being paid to workers.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2011 : 07:23:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Because it still ignores the root cause of the problem. Lack of a living wage being paid to workers. |
Which has been a problem for... ever. I mean, it's not "the current political situation" that's led to unlivable wages, is it?
What changes in governmental philosophy would be required for everyone to make a living wage? What is a living wage, anyway? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2011 : 09:25:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Because it still ignores the root cause of the problem. Lack of a living wage being paid to workers. |
Which has been a problem for... ever. I mean, it's not "the current political situation" that's led to unlivable wages, is it?
What changes in governmental philosophy would be required for everyone to make a living wage? What is a living wage, anyway?
|
First would be for them to actually look out for the welfare of the citizenry instead of major corporate interests.
The situation we have is that this solution adds a new entitlement program instead of focusing on having people able to live within their means. Added expense instead of tackling the central problem and people being awfuly free with other people's money.
And then the idea that government will run this program well. Their track record on these programs are abysmal.
How long to you expect it will take to get this program going? How much money? Who is it going to negatively impact the worst? Who will it really serve? How will people ultimately treat the program?
Nowadays, child care providers can refuse service to very troubled children. When do we get an EMTALA unfunded fix to this program that pulls everyone down?
How is this fair? I have kids, but in the political climate that has existed since the Nixon administration, the level of people this will be extended to will be cut off at 200% of poverty level (which is absurdly low anyways). I won't benefit from it. I don't see anyone benefiting from it. I see it as a giant hole into which taxes are raised to dump money in it.
How much will this cost?
Everything in government comes down to a zero sum game. What gets cut and can you? A funding win for one department equals offsetting funding cuts in other departments.
If government can misuse a program, they will. Every administration has done this. It is more evident during bad economic times because the population is focused on the budget. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2011 : 11:39:18 [Permalink]
|
The same arguments could be made about raising the living wage.
Adding a new entitlement program instead of people living within their means.
More expense and more people being free with other people's money.
The government runs these programs badly. |
And so on...
So what solution should we use? Privatizing government programs is another name for making them corporate-run programs. The corporations are only required to care about making a profit. |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
| Edited by - podcat on 09/08/2011 13:20:13 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2011 : 12:03:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
First would be for them to actually look out for the welfare of the citizenry instead of major corporate interests. |
So let's eliminate the "corporations are people" legal standard and then criminalize corporate politicking. If corporations aren't legal entities with the same rights as people, then they'd have no free speech rights other than what the government tolerates. Plenty of other countries seem to get along fine without this legal idea. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2011 : 12:12:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
First would be for them to actually look out for the welfare of the citizenry instead of major corporate interests. |
So let's eliminate the "corporations are people" legal standard and then criminalize corporate politicking. If corporations aren't legal entities with the same rights as people, then they'd have no free speech rights other than what the government tolerates. Plenty of other countries seem to get along fine without this legal idea.
|
I fully agree that the SCOTUS ruling was a huge mistake.
Right after that ruling, I was looking for companies that were driven into the ground by their CEO's. I wanted to write the local DA and demand the CEO be taken into custody for murder, depraved indifference.
I'm right there with ya on the "corporations aren't people" thing. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
alienist
Skeptic Friend
USA
210 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2011 : 12:33:42 [Permalink]
|
I'm always amazed when people assume private corporations run programs better than government. Medicare has a 3-4% overhead while private insurance companies have more than 20% overhead. Neither system is terribly good, but at least medicare is not wasting money.
The government has been running the public school system for decades with moderate sucess (obviously not great success).
The question of government run childcare programs is if it will save money in the long run. Will crime be reduced in 20 years? Will there be less drug use? etc.
the following is an interesting paper on long-term benefits of preschool. Obviously this issue is not so simple. A lot of benefit does depend on the quality of a program.
http://government.cce.cornell.edu/doc/pdf/86-100%20barnett%20ackerman.pdf
The following is a good article on what makes an education system successful:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/29/education.wv.finland/index.html
The article describes what makes Finland's educational program so successful
|
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2011 : 13:09:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
I fully agree that the SCOTUS ruling was a huge mistake. |
I wasn't even thinking of the recent SCOTUS ruling. Corporations have legally been people for almost as long as the US has existed, IIRC. That they've had their free speech rights trampled on (because they are people) for decades by limitations on corporate political donations has been widely known. The SCOTUS ruling simply asserted what we've known - legally - all along.
Whether corporations should have ever been granted the same rights as actual people hasn't been addressed by SCOTUS, at least not recently.| I'm right there with ya on the "corporations aren't people" thing. |
Yeah. Corporations should have limited rights. Luckily, nobody has yet tried to cast a vote on behalf of a corporation (has any corporation ever filed an application to get a voter registration card?). But if they can't vote, why should they get to influence elections through campaign donations and lobbying? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2011 : 13:20:29 [Permalink]
|
| I can't wait until a corporation runs for office. Ummm... Hmmm.... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
alienist
Skeptic Friend
USA
210 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2011 : 13:25:37 [Permalink]
|
| I wish there was a law that made politicians wear the logos of all their corporate sponsors (just like NASCAR drivers) |
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2011 : 13:34:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by alienist
I wish there was a law that made politicians wear the logos of all their corporate sponsors (just like NASCAR drivers)
|
OK Jesse Ventura! |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2011 : 17:40:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I can't wait until a corporation runs for office. Ummm... Hmmm.... |
Given a few tens of millions of dollars, I would definitely try that experiment. Set up a corporation that does nothing political (like build custom exhausts) except run for, say, a state senate seat somewhere. Then hire some awesome lawyers to sue the state and argue that because corporations enjoy all civil rights, corporations (as people) should be allowed to run for office.
The dream result, of course, is to actually lose the lawsuit at the SCOTUS level, and have them carefully enumerate what rights corporations have and why.
Worst case, of course, would be for SCOTUS to say, "you're right, so our congratulations to Delaware Senator AAA Tailpipe Magic!" It would be a matter of just a few years before we had President Exxon. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2011 : 18:01:46 [Permalink]
|
Ebone wrote: | I sure would think that a main reason is that in most mammals it is the birth-giver who cares for the baby. Women are physically equipped to do so, men are not. |
Yeah, I didn't mention the likely biological influences that also lead to mothers being more likely to sacrifice their career advancement and earning potential, while fathers tend to use children to further their careers/income, but no doubt biology plays a role. Hell, breast feeding is still a very controversial issue today for many reasons, some of which include that while it is clearly healthier for a child to be breast fed, with benefits that continue all the way until the kid is 2 years old, breastfeeding for 2 years, or even for just 6 months (it is highly recommended by the medical establishment that women exclusively breastfeed their babies for the first 6 months.) puts a huge burden on many women. Especially on women who work, and even more especially on women who work jobs that are less accommodating to pumping. And pregnancy, Christ, the list of health problems that can occur during pregnancy seems endless. The only time I EVER called in sick in my 5 years of part time teaching after school classes was when I was in the throws of hypermesis gravarium (extreme morning sickness that often requires medication to manage.) Women most certainly got the short end of the stick when it comes to biology and procreation. Thanks, mother nature, you bitch. ;-)
| Anyway, it seems clear that the disadvantages with regards to productivity and career advancement after having kids are dis-proportionally a problem for mothers, not fathers... |
It all comes down to a little story about cake and eating... |
Must be nice to totally dismiss something that has no effect on you. I'm glad you are so comfortable with acknowledging a huge economic disadvantage that far disproportionately impacts women, and then essentially saying: tough shit, ladies. I know you gotta work harder than men for the same resources, but I think trying to even things out through social programs would be unfair. I mean, men have always had those advantages by biology and culture. Women have always been at a disadvantage. Who are we to mess with that legacy? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/08/2011 18:03:02 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2011 : 18:28:51 [Permalink]
|
Val: | Because it still ignores the root cause of the problem. Lack of a living wage being paid to workers. |
I already said this, but I disagree that that is the root cause of the problem. Or at least not the best way to phrase the problem. The root problem is, instead, distribution of resources. In modern societies resources are distributed two main ways - privately through a capitalist market, and publicly with government taxes, spending, and regulation. The latter should be used primarily to make things more fair and efficient in areas where the former fails. Of course there will always be corruption and incompetence in the mix, but we still have an ethical obligation to strive for a better society.
I have yet to read any responses from you that provide some possible ways to more closely achieve a living wage for the vast majority of Americans. You mostly just seem to be making generalized complaints about the current system. To be fair, I wasn't specific in my call for free day care, but a big part of what I was doing in my blog post was arguing for the establishment of free day care as a right for parents of young children, and social responsibility for everyone (which is how it is thought of in France.) Even if more families achieved a living wage, if that living wage was, for example, overwhelming in the form a single incomes earned by career driven fathers, women would still be at a huge economic disadvantage (assuming the divorce rate and rate of single motherhood remained the same.) |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2011 : 18:36:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by alienist
I'm always amazed when people assume private corporations run programs better than government. Medicare has a 3-4% overhead while private insurance companies have more than 20% overhead. Neither system is terribly good, but at least medicare is not wasting money.
The government has been running the public school system for decades with moderate sucess (obviously not great success).
The question of government run childcare programs is if it will save money in the long run. Will crime be reduced in 20 years? Will there be less drug use? etc.
the following is an interesting paper on long-term benefits of preschool. Obviously this issue is not so simple. A lot of benefit does depend on the quality of a program.
http://government.cce.cornell.edu/doc/pdf/86-100%20barnett%20ackerman.pdf
The following is a good article on what makes an education system successful:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/29/education.wv.finland/index.html
The article describes what makes Finland's educational program so successful
|
Bullshit.
Medicare doesn't have to play by the same rules as private insurers so they don't have the costs associated with it. How about comparing apples to apples for a change?
States have prompt pay laws for medical insurance. Medicare doesn't have to follow them. Most states allow no more than 90 days between the bill being presented and when the bill must be paid.
Medicare typically runs 6-9 months behind. And at no penalty. Plus, they can't be sued to pay their arrears.
That takes manpower to comply with that plus the myriad other laws that insurance companies must follow that Medicare and Medicaid does not. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
Day Care Should Be Free
