Soros China has better gov than US.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:18 pm

About time somebody said it. Not that it's all true, China seems at the moment to be more capable than the US but both systems have their advantages/disadvantages. I have no doubt that the US government is going downhill fast though.

Your thoughts?

Soros: China has better functioning government than U.S. | FP Passport

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:26 pm

I'd not be surprised. I'd say more but it would make me sound like TruthBringer. lol

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 4:09 am

"Government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem."

Ronald Reagan

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:26 am

We're all aware how lucid Reagan was and also how much better he made the U.S. government function through overseeing the creation of the funneling method by which corporations reclaim their tax money. Reaganomics is what got us here. China? They don't practice Reaganomics, do they?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:59 am

Ahso!;1344301 wrote: We're all aware how lucid Reagan was and also how much better he made the U.S. government function through overseeing the creation of the funneling method by which corporations reclaim their tax money. Reaganomics is what got us here. China? They don't practice Reaganomics, do they?

They seem to be embracing liberal capitalism, perhaps learning from hong kong. Most of what's gone wrong in the states and here can be traced back to the eighties and taking on board of that insane doctrine called monetarism. Well that's my opinion for what it's worth.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 7:41 pm

Ahso!;1344301 wrote: We're all aware how lucid Reagan was and also how much better he made the U.S. government function through overseeing the creation of the funneling method by which corporations reclaim their tax money. Reaganomics is what got us here. China? They don't practice Reaganomics, do they?None of that has anything at all to do with the truth & validity of his statement that I quoted. Government is the problem.

That is not to say that No Government is the solution, in case you were going there.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 9:16 pm

Accountable;1344348 wrote: Government is the problem.

In a democratic republic, the government is ultimately the voters. WE are the government. It's really an insult directed at the voters that make the hiring decisions. Reagan is just saying people are too dumb to self-govern. Reagan's solution was to put corporations in charge.

Can you tell from this picture what point in time we elected a leader who suffered from dementia?

He also quipped: "I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself."

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:15 am

yaaarrrgg;1344355 wrote: In a democratic republic government is ultimately the voters. WE are the government. It's really an insult directed at the voters that make the hiring decisions. Reagan is just saying people are too dumb to self-govern. If a Yugo dealership's the only one in town, and it shuts out any competition so thoroughly that most people deny the very existence of other brands, how is a buyer dumb for thinking he has only Yugo's to choose from?

Reagan "put corporations in charge" because corporations were already in charge. They're still in charge, and will continue to be in charge so long as their fully owned subsidiaries (the democrat and republican parties) are writing our laws. They are the current government and they are the problem. The solution is not more government, nor is it corporation. The solution lies in returning individual liberty and self-determination.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:46 am

Accountable;1344421 wrote: If a Yugo dealership's the only one in town, and it shuts out any competition so thoroughly that most people deny the very existence of other brands, how is a buyer dumb for thinking he has only Yugo's to choose from?

Reagan "put corporations in charge" because corporations were already in charge. They're still in charge, and will continue to be in charge so long as their fully owned subsidiaries (the democrat and republican parties) are writing our laws. They are the current government and they are the problem. The solution is not more government, nor is it corporation. The solution lies in returning individual liberty and self-determination.I disagree. What do nearly all these elected officials have in common? Christianity and American education. Thats the problem with not just our political representatives, but the people voting for them. There must come a time when we ask ourselves what drives us to be so easily manipulated and manipulative.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:48 am

Accountable;1344421 wrote: If a Yugo dealership's the only one in town, and it shuts out any competition so thoroughly that most people deny the very existence of other brands, how is a buyer dumb for thinking he has only Yugo's to choose from?

That's a fair analogy. Though on this line of reasoning that plant would also be *owned* by the town... they'd be designing and building the car. In which case Reagan would be saying that people were "too dumb" to build a car that worked. He might be right, but I would hate to think that is the case, and do not think it is true.

Individual liberty and self-determination do not strike me as a bad thing at all, but also not much of a solution in this particular case. Since in putting "the people" in charge, the same people designing and making the car are also the ones you are hanging your hopes on. Either both routes should work or both should fail IMO, since the same players are calling the shots in both cases.

It's a big reason why I think China and the U.S. are converging towards the same type of government via different routes. China is probably surpassing the U.S. in the process though. They are currently implementing universal health care, where as the U.S. is floundering in debt. If we are more free than China, and our "system" is so good, then why are we borrowing so much money from them and dependent on them for what seems like almost everything we use?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:28 am

Ahso!;1344425 wrote: I disagree. What do nearly all these elected officials have in common? Christianity and American education. Thats the problem with not just our political representatives, but the people voting for them. There must come a time when we ask ourselves what drives us to be so easily manipulated and manipulative.That's it. The problem is that they're American. If we could just replace all the citizens with Europeans the country would be a better place.

What, in your opinion, is the most important principle the USA should adopt?

yaaarrrgg;1344434 wrote: That's a fair analogy. Though on this line of reasoning that plant would also be *owned* by the town... they'd be designing and building the car. In which case Reagan would be saying that people were "too dumb" to build a car that worked. He might be right, but I would hate to think that is the case, and do not think it is true.In the political reality and in the analogy, the people are being lied to, and the truth is being shut out virtually completely.

yaaarrrgg wrote: Individual liberty and self-determination do not strike me as a bad thing at all, but also not much of a solution in this particular case.
They're not a Goddamn afterthought, they are the very reason this nation came to be!

yaaarrrgg wrote: It's a big reason why I think China and the U.S. are converging towards the same type of government via different routes. China is probably surpassing the U.S. in the process though. They are currently implementing universal health care, where as the U.S. is floundering in debt. If we are more free than China, and our "system" is so good, then why are we borrowing so much money from them and dependent on them for what seems like almost everything we use?I'm not so certain we are more free than China. The system is good - the best humanity has yet come up with - but the system is being ignored ... apparently with your blessing.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:42 am

Accountable;1344448 wrote: That's it. The problem is that they're American. If we could just replace all the citizens with Europeans the country would be a better place.

No. Its how Americanism has been defined by America.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:46 am

Accountable;1344448 wrote:

What, in your opinion, is the most important principle the USA should adopt?Have you read my signature?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:00 am

Ahso!;1344452 wrote: Have you read my signature?
"Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism - how passionately I hate them". - Albert Einstein

"Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not." Matthew 24:24 King James Version

Both negative statements that don't answer my question. My question:

What, in your opinion, is the most important principle the USA should adopt?

requires a positive statement. Can you rephrase your signature into such a statement, please?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:10 am

America should drop the patriotism.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:58 am

Ahso!;1344456 wrote: America should drop the patriotism.That's it? That's number one? More than freedom & liberty, more than fairness, more than your precious government intervention into every freakin' aspect of our lives, you think the most important principle is the principle of disloyalty????

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Nov 20, 2010 11:43 am

:wah: What have you eaten this morning? Whatever it is, don't eat no mo'.

Patriotism imprisons us in paranoia, aggressiveness, combativeness, unreasonable postures and apparently causes people to misinterpret what others post on forums. :wah:

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sat Nov 20, 2010 1:24 pm

Accountable;1344448 wrote:

They're not a Goddamn afterthought, they are the very reason this nation came to be!

What I mean, is I largely agree with your principles. With the Yugo analogy, saying these things are the "solution" is like saying "ok, you and I failed to make a car that runs. Now, let's all work in smaller groups -- with smaller pools of talent -- and see if the next round will be a success." Anything that can be done within a free market could also be implemented in some form of government. Both monetary and political systems are just abstractions focused on distributing resources (determined by a form of voting).

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:21 pm

Ahso!;1344466 wrote: :wah: What have you eaten this morning? Whatever it is, don't eat no mo'.

Patriotism imprisons us in paranoia, aggressiveness, combativeness, unreasonable postures and apparently causes people to misinterpret what others post on forums. :wah::wah: Touche'. But you still can't seem to come up with a positive statement to answer my question. To drop patriotism takes away a principle, not adopts one. Isn't there one principle you think we should live by above others?

yaaarrrgg;1344482 wrote: What I mean, is I largely agree with your principles. With the Yugo analogy, saying these things are the "solution" is like saying "ok, you and I failed to make a car that runs. Now, let's all work in smaller groups -- with smaller pools of talent -- and see if the next round will be a success." Anything that can be done within a free market could also be implemented in some form of government. Both monetary and political systems are just abstractions focused on distributing resources (determined by a form of voting).That's patently false. Government only grows and becomes less efficient, more wasteful, and more cumbersome. Free markets have competition that keeps them lean and efficient(if we can keep them from buying politicians and manipulating the law). We can't have dual competitive governments.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Nov 20, 2010 5:36 pm

Accountable;1344485 wrote: :wah: Touche'. But you still can't seem to come up with a positive statement to answer my question. To drop patriotism takes away a principle, not adopts one. Isn't there one principle you think we should live by above others?Its addition by subtraction.

Accountable;1344485 wrote: That's patently false. Government only grows and becomes less efficient, more wasteful, and more cumbersome. Free markets have competition that keeps them lean and efficient(if we can keep them from buying politicians and manipulating the law). We can't have dual competitive governments.Thats a myth. Competition keeps prices low which in turn maintains low wages and no benefits for workers which causes the government to step in and fill the void. Americans need to get used to the idea of paying more. This is yet another sign that this system has run its course.

Government only grows as it attempts to keep pace with an exponential growth economy. The only way I can see this system saving itself is by it calming down, but I doubt that will happen before it implodes, which it already has done before the government came to the rescue.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:04 pm

Ahso!;1344488 wrote: Its addition by subtraction.That's sad, truly. You should be able to voice your principles. You have passions and you believe in goodness, though we define it very differently, but without having one or two guiding principles, how can you choose when principles come in conflict with each other?

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sun Nov 21, 2010 9:37 am

Accountable;1344485 wrote: That's patently false. Government only grows and becomes less efficient, more wasteful, and more cumbersome. Free markets have competition that keeps them lean and efficient(if we can keep them from buying politicians and manipulating the law). We can't have dual competitive governments.

Going back to the Yugo analogy, isn't this saying something like "It's impossible for us to build a car that works. Anything we try will fail. The only way we can build a car is if we work independently."

I don't have an entrenched idea of what a government is, rather I see it as a blank slate.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Nov 21, 2010 12:16 pm

yaaarrrgg;1344578 wrote: Going back to the Yugo analogy, isn't this saying something like "It's impossible for us to build a car that works. Anything we try will fail. The only way we can build a car is if we work independently."The analogy was about one manufacturer lying about other manufacturers and successfully preventing most consumer from even believing they exist. This manufacturer is motivated to keep things the way they are, so it makes minor cosmetic changes to great fanfare and spreads lies about the competition lest anyone start seriously making comparisons.

You've simply accepted that there is only one car available and won't even consider another brand.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sun Nov 21, 2010 12:49 pm

Accountable;1344597 wrote: You've simply accepted that there is only one car available and won't even consider another brand.

I'm saying we own that company and can make any type of car we want to make.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sun Nov 21, 2010 2:19 pm

What, in your opinion, is the most important principle the USA should adopt?

That's a tough one. I'd have to say we need only one principle, one guiding factor. The maintenance of a system of government which works for the good of the country and all of its people. Nothing else.

I think this would be more confusing and problematic than anything else with our current system, we simply aren't authoritarian enough. Every seller of snake oil and brimstone adds their voice to this fugue which is our brand of politics.

This is where I think Chinas government is better than ours. Chinas government gets things done, they built the 3 Gorges dam they're working on huge projects such as a high speed rail system the likes of which the world cannot match. The government there recognizes the need to bring their population out of poverty, they see it as a race to the top whereas in America it's simply a race to the bottom. American politicians don't care if our standard of living is falling, all they care about is getting the funding to win their next election.

America is being killed by the individualistic, narcissistic, self serving attitude present from one end of the society to the other. A group of individuals will never defeat a group that works together as one.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:08 pm

yaaarrrgg;1344607 wrote: I'm saying we own that company and can make any type of car we want to make.
Not so long as you keep voting in the same management team.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Nov 22, 2010 5:49 am

Scrat;1344622 wrote: That's a tough one. I'd have to say we need only one principle, one guiding factor. The maintenance of a system of government which works for the good of the country and all of its people. Nothing else.

I think this would be more confusing and problematic than anything else with our current system, we simply aren't authoritarian enough. Every seller of snake oil and brimstone adds their voice to this fugue which is our brand of politics.

This is where I think Chinas government is better than ours. Chinas government gets things done, they built the 3 Gorges dam they're working on huge projects such as a high speed rail system the likes of which the world cannot match. The government there recognizes the need to bring their population out of poverty, they see it as a race to the top whereas in America it's simply a race to the bottom. American politicians don't care if our standard of living is falling, all they care about is getting the funding to win their next election.

America is being killed by the individualistic, narcissistic, self serving attitude present from one end of the society to the other. A group of individuals will never defeat a group that works together as one.I don't like the idea of an authoritarian government and I don't like the idea of a race to the top. It irritates me to no end when I see my fellow Americans look to Europe, see that we're different, and feel that we are somehow less simply because we are not like them. It's just as irritating when you do the same with China.

We are different. There is nothing wrong with being different. In fact, it is a characteristic to celebrate. There are dozens of countries that think that government should parent the citizenry - make their decisions, guard against discomfort, and herd them in the way it decides they should go. Such a life is easy for their citizens. Such a life is easy for cattle.

We are different, but we are changing. We have allowed 'government knows best' people to infiltrate what once had been the servant of the people. I've said more than once that I wish we'd come up with a better name for that bureaucracy in Washington than "Government" because it was created and designed to be different than traditional governments.

I truly believe we are the last best hope for liberty, but liberty is slipping through our fingers. We are being pulled into complacent dependence on government largess, and we foolishly point a jealous finger at the ones we could best learn from and turn to the ones who would corral and control us.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:32 am

Accountable;1344632 wrote: Not so long as you keep voting in the same management team.

I agree. Also, I suggested before we need to take a more active role in managing this directly. That's why I prefer going more in the direction of a direct democracy.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Nov 22, 2010 2:58 pm

posted by accountable

It irritates me to no end when I see my fellow Americans look to Europe, see that we're different, and feel that we are somehow less simply because we are not like them. It's just as irritating when you do the same with China.

You surprise me with that one. I get irritated with americans that keep telling us how much better america is and how oppressed we are because we have universal healthcare.

I truly believe we are the last best hope for liberty, but liberty is slipping through our fingers. We are being pulled into complacent dependence on government largess, and we foolishly point a jealous finger at the ones we could best learn from and turn to the ones who would corral and control us.

Happily no one else thinks like that outside of america. Your economy will eventually recover but it will be a painful process.

a french take on it all.

MONEY- MASS POLITICAL PROTEST -BANK WITHDRAWAL PLAN by ERIC THE GAUL

Maybe they have the right idea - start rioting on the streets.

MONEY- GLOBAL WEALTH REPORT- THERE IS ENOUGH FOR EVERYONE BUT THE GREEDY KEEP MOST

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Nov 22, 2010 4:18 pm

yaaarrrgg;1344683 wrote: I agree. Also, I suggested before we need to take a more active role in managing this directly. That's why I prefer going more in the direction of a direct democracy.
More in that direction but not pure democracy? I'd be willing to entertain that idea. Do you mean keeping reps to write the laws but reserving the right to cast my own vote if I choose? I could support that if the bills were for single issues only, no omnibus bills or thousands of pages of giveaways.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Mon Nov 22, 2010 4:53 pm

Accountable;1344728 wrote: More in that direction but not pure democracy? I'd be willing to entertain that idea. Do you mean keeping reps to write the laws but reserving the right to cast my own vote if I choose? I could support that if the bills were for single issues only, no omnibus bills or thousands of pages of giveaways.

Yes something like that. You are right we'd probably still need reps to write laws and take suggestions from the general public.

I also think the laws should be written more in "plain English" so most people can better understand what they are actually saying. None of this "scratch word 20, replace with the word 'shall'" silliness

The other thing that would be required IMO would be to ban all political advertisement for the reps, and have people watch the debates to know who's more qualified for a job.

Then people could vote directly on how they want their tax money allocated and what level they want, versus the level of public services supplied.

Omnibus laws could be passed as a series of smaller bills, with the condition that all or most parts have to pass for the entire measure to go through.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:28 pm

You surprise me with that one. I get irritated with americans that keep telling us how much better america is and how oppressed we are because we have universal healthcare.

Oh yeah!!! I've been to many places on this planet and there are a few better ones. That's just my opinion but if you tell someone that they get all flustered. You can't even have a constructive conversation about it. The fact is most Americans have little opportunity to travel, and learn.

I don't like the idea of an authoritarian government and I don't like the idea of a race to the top.

I don't like most authoritarian governments and I have many concerns about them BUT THEY CAN GET THINGS DONE!! China is a perfect example, the government collects taxes and does things with the money to enhance the quality of life for the people.

I rag on America so much because we collect taxes and end up fighting wars all over the globe while our bridges are rotting away. We spend a 100k on a medical treatment for advanced prostate cancer that only staves off the inevitable end for a mere 4 months. My government buys a damn ferry boat for 80 million in a no bid contract when it could have gotten the same thing for half the price.

A good well run government that is much more authoritarian in nature would not have these problems.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:45 pm

The answer to our screwed up government is definitely not to convert to even more authoritarianism.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:01 am

And how do you know that? I think punishing white collar criminals and corrupt politicians for real would go a long way. No more of these slaps on the wrists. Why do those Wall Street bankers still have their freedom AC?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:50 am

Scrat;1344787 wrote: And how do you know that?Because the United States of America was founded on the principles of individual liberty and self-determination. An authoritarian government cannot fit such principles.

Scrat wrote: I think punishing white collar criminals and corrupt politicians for real would go a long way. No more of these slaps on the wrists.I agree, but authoritarian government isn't necessary for that. In fact, authoritarian government wouldn't necessarily punish corrupt politicians at all. What would take care of both is a more independent and activist public.

Scrat wrote: Why do those Wall Street bankers still have their freedom AC?Because we have an increasingly authoritarian gov't bought and paid for by those Wall Street bankers. The public have been lulled into a European-style dependency and have been convinced that the government is the answer to all ills. The American system has been flipped upside down to resemble the rest of the authoritarian world with the people on the bottom. We need to flip it back to We The People finding our backbone and taking the reins back, placing the government back in a subservient role as originally designed, and relegating corporations back to the status of property rather than citizen.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Nov 25, 2010 3:35 am

Posted by accountable

The public have been lulled into a European-style dependency and have been convinced that the government is the answer to all ills.

Where on earth do you get that from? What European style dependency?

Add on the cost of your private medical care and Americans pay at least as much in tax as we do and get far less back from their government, you give it to corporations instead and get very little back. You start protest organisation so that you can keep giving money to the corporations instead of having universal healthcare. It's not us that are the mugs. I don't see americans rioting on the streets about all the money being given to banks while people are losing their homes and livelihoods but the poor dependant cowed europeans are beginning to.

Perhaps you are reading right wing crap like this.

Europe’s Riots, America’s Future « International Liberty

Weird way of looking at it.

Anti-austerity protests sweep across Europe - Yahoo! News

It is not right that people on low salaries have to pay to prop up the country. It should be the banks," said Belgian demonstrator Evelain Foncis.

Several governments, already living with high debt, were pushed to the brink of financial collapse and have been forced to impose punishing cuts in wages, pensions and employment — measures that have brought workers out by the tens of thousands in the past months.

"There is a great danger that the workers are going to be paying the price for the reckless speculation that took place in financial markets," Monks said. "You really got to reschedule these debts so that they are not a huge burden on the next few years and cause Europe to plunge down into recession."

Not very good links but don't have time to look for better. The thing is the whole crisis has been caused by the banks yet those responsible are getting away with it. In europe they are starting to riot what's happening in the states?

You already have big government in the states it's just not the people's. European governments know they've got a problem if they **** off the people it seems the american govt does not think the same way. Which comment probably annoys you as much as your prattling along about european dependency does me

We need to flip it back to We The People finding our backbone and taking the reins back, placing the government back in a subservient role as originally designed, and relegating corporations back to the status of property rather than citizen.

Maybe you need some of that European style dependancy. So when do you think the socialist revolution will happen?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Nov 25, 2010 6:10 am

gmc;1345006 wrote: Add on the cost of your private medical care and Americans pay at least as much in tax as we do and get far less back from their government, Rather than adding on the cost of my private medical care, subtract your government's budget for providing your medical care. How does the balance come out? I'm not implying anything, just curious. I mean, the result would be just as pointless. I don't understand why you take offense at being called dependent when you take pride in all your government services.

You & we are different. The role our governments play in our lives is different. Why is that so irritating to you? I want less service from my federal government. I want my federal government to protect my liberty to do as I will within the limits of society ... and nothing more. You want more out of your government, I get that. Why are you so offended that I don't want the same?

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:10 pm

Accountable;1345010 wrote: Rather than adding on the cost of my private medical care, subtract your government's budget for providing your medical care. How does the balance come out? I'm not implying anything, just curious. I mean, the result would be just as pointless. I don't understand why you take offense at being called dependent when you take pride in all your government services.

You & we are different. The role our governments play in our lives is different. Why is that so irritating to you? I want less service from my federal government. I want my federal government to protect my liberty to do as I will within the limits of society ... and nothing more. You want more out of your government, I get that. Why are you so offended that I don't want the same?

Back when I looked at the numbers, the U.S. actually is pouring more money into our privatized system than these other countries are putting towards their national health care (in terms of GDP percentage). And these countries cover 100% the general population, where as the U.S. system still requires a significant contribution from employers and patients and leaves millions uninsured. IIRC, on comparing total cost, the price we pay is at least twice as much (for less services). The U.S. has taken the route of "throwing money" at the private system, rather than rethinking how their system should function.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Nov 25, 2010 2:00 pm

I looked up worker safety as I'd been told that part of why China can produce so much is because they have extremely low work safe laws. They make lots of exports and kill lots of Chinese workers getting them. I am pleasantly surprised to see that it is an issue of concern for their government. From the article, it sounds like their safety minister is passionate and spunky. America had a thing or two to show them about safety standards and they were inspired to purchase all kinds of US equipment to try and fix some of their problems.

China seeks to improve workplace safety - USATODAY.com

As the official charged with improving that safety record, Li has launched an unusually bold and often angry campaign to cut down on the corruption and collusion that he says are responsible for many workplace accidents.

When a mine accident Jan. 20 killed 20 workers, Li accused the mine owners of exchanging "life and blood for coal and high profits."

...

"The day they arrive is often the day they die," said Huang, who worked in a mine in the 1970s. "I had three months' training before going down the pit; now they don't even get three days of training." The ministry is trying to shut the most dangerous mines and make miners "too expensive to kill," Huang said, by raising the compensation owners must pay victims' families.

...

"There were warnings about flooding, but the leaders still sent my son down into the mine," Liu said. "This was a man-made, not a natural disaster, as officials say, but Li Yizhong cannot understand the local situation. The corrupt owners here don't care if miners live or die."
The interesting thing about those bits put together is, again, another example of how it is some of the people in the community who are causing the problem not the government which everyone vilifies and blames.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Nov 26, 2010 5:38 am

Accountable;1345010 wrote: Rather than adding on the cost of my private medical care, subtract your government's budget for providing your medical care. How does the balance come out? I'm not implying anything, just curious. I mean, the result would be just as pointless. I don't understand why you take offense at being called dependent when you take pride in all your government services.

You & we are different. The role our governments play in our lives is different. Why is that so irritating to you? I want less service from my federal government. I want my federal government to protect my liberty to do as I will within the limits of society ... and nothing more. You want more out of your government, I get that. Why are you so offended that I don't want the same?

It's hard to do a like for like comparison not least because we also have local government taxes to pay, there is also indirect taxation - things like fuel are a major expense. A ford mondeo is £65-£70 to fill (the fuel tank size will be about the same in the US version I think). It's a question of value as well what do we get for our taxes compared with you.

Maybe if you compare what a US expat would have to pay if resident in the UK compared with the states. since they are taxed on all income world wide most have more to pay to the IRS even with allowances made for UK tax - there are double taxation agreements. Which rather suggests the tax payable for a given income is higher for a US citizen than for a UK one.

American Expats In The UK - bringing the American community together around the UK

US citizens or residents are taxed on their worldwide income regardless of where they live or where the income is paid. As such, US expatriates must continue to file US tax returns and in many cases owe US tax whilst residing in the UK.

What do we get for our US tax dollars? | Steven Hill | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

It's the value of what we get for our money - healthcare is probably the most obvious benefit. Average income is around £23,000. someone in the uk earning that is perhaps better off after tax than someone in the US on your average earnings and they also have full healthcare.

I don't understand why you take offense at being called dependent when you take pride in all your government services.

Not offended as such, it's maybe confusion over the semantics, dependent suggests we can't do anything on our own, there's a safety net for people who are ill or become destitute through no fault of their own and that's it. We went from a system like yours to what we have now and it was bottom up demand for change that did it not top down. Some people abuse the system but most do not. I was unemployed for two years in my early twenties I've been working ever since and have my own business. There's a lot wrong with what we do but there not a panglossian set of blinkers stopping us talking about it.

posted by koan

I looked up worker safety as I'd been told that part of why China can produce so much is because they have extremely low work safe laws. They make lots of exports and kill lots of Chinese workers getting them. I am pleasantly surprised to see that it is an issue of concern for their government. From the article, it sounds like their safety minister is passionate and spunky. America had a thing or two to show them about safety standards and they were inspired to purchase all kinds of US equipment to try and fix some of their problems.

in an industrial society people work together and workers gradually realise their power and start organising and demanding better conditions and become more politically active. That is happening in china, vietnam etc etc. In the states and the UK that collective sense of power has been broken (well perhaps - I'm not really in a position to argue a case). In france, spain and greece that sense of unified power is still there and people are out on the streets. O.K I'm flying a kite perhaps but there is something to it I think.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Nov 26, 2010 6:50 am

gmc;1345053 wrote: It's hard to do a like for like comparison and yet you continue to try.

gmc wrote: Maybe if you compare what a US expat would have to pay if resident in the UK compared with the states. since they are taxed on all income world wide most have more to pay to the IRS even with allowances made for UK tax - there are double taxation agreements. Which rather suggests the tax payable for a given income is higher for a US citizen than for a UK one. You're taking spin and putting it out as fact. I'm always suspicious when an article says "many" do something when the stats are readily available to them. When we lived in Reading and my beloved commuted to London. Fully half her income went to the British gov't and zero went to Uncle Sam. I suggest you find out what your source defines as many.

gmc wrote: there's a safety net for people who are ill or become destitute through no fault of their own and that's it.Your healthcare is a service offered to all whether they can afford it or not, whether they need it or not, whether they want it or not. That's not a safety net.

Don't portray a safety net for people who are destitute as only for those who do so through no fault of their own unless there really is some test to determine whether their destitution is from circumstancs outside of their control or consequences of their own decisions. Does such a test exist? Keep in mind that you're taking issue with a general statement I made about Europe, so this time don't distinguish between Scotland and the rest.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Nov 26, 2010 7:44 am

posted by accountable

You're taking spin and putting it out as fact. I'm always suspicious when an article says "many" do something when the stats are readily available to them. When we lived in Reading and my beloved commuted to London. Fully half her income went to the British gov't and zero went to Uncle Sam. I suggest you find out what your source defines as many.

You're the one that asked the question

Rather than adding on the cost of my private medical care, subtract your government's budget for providing your medical care. How does the balance come out? I'm not implying anything, just curious.

I was merely trying to give you an answer, you're right it is pointless but interesting. Invariably it is an american that puts forward the argument that europeans are more heavily taxed than americans. Usually accompanied with a Ya boo sucks to you jibe. Medical care is part of our tax regime to you it is a voluntary cost but the consequences of not being able to afford it in the states can be literally fatal and I would suspect that the cost is a bigger proportion of income for someone on a low salary than on a higher - I can't see a thirty year old millionaire paying more than a thirty year old joiner for the same cover. It is a tax you choose to give to a company rather than out in to a common pot for the benefit of all.

Then how would she have fared on a similar salary in the states? That might be the simplest way to get a comparison. Did she have any savings? If she did they would be taxed by the irs - an American expat paying in to a UK personal pension gets clobbered for tax since the UK tax breaks and tax paid are not recognised so they get taxed not only on contributions but on the fund value if they return to the states. UK deposit interest is taxed at 20% as are dividends what are the rates in the states? How much would medical cover have cost her in the states? it's built in to the UK tax regime.

Don't portray a safety net for people who are destitute as only for those who do so through no fault of their own unless there really is some test to determine whether their destitution is from circumstancs outside of their control or consequences of their own decisions. Does such a test exist? Keep in mind that you're taking issue with a general statement I made about Europe, so this time don't distinguish between Scotland and the rest.

Before you receive benefit your assets are assessed and any saving down to a set minimum have to be used up and if you have a house and can't pay the mortgage They will pay mortgage interest for a period and then it stops and you end up homeless just like in the states whether it was your fault or not. Your home can be repossessed after two missed payments. However the safety net kicks in and you can get help and sometimes rehoused in social housing especially if there are children involved but it is by no means easy. Those who think it a spongers charter should try it sometime. Most people are within three months of not being able to pay their mortgage and we don't penalise the family of bankrupts and people go bankrupt for all sorts of reasons not necessarily their own stupidity, losing your job or just being unable to work any more can be a financial disaster. There are people losing their houses because they can't pay the mortgage but in no case is it because of bankruptcy due to medical bills. It's the same throughout europe benefits are means tested and yes it does get abused but not by everybody. We are not going to agree, I know you see healthcare as a voluntary cost you can pay or not, we also pay insurance for medical care, it's even called national insurance, the difference is it goes to the NHS rather than to a private company.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Nov 26, 2010 8:34 am

gmc;1345060 wrote: Did she have any savings? If she did they would be taxed by the irs

Savings aren't taxed by the IRS. Interest on the savings is.

gmc wrote: - an American expat paying in to a UK personal pension gets clobbered for tax since the UK tax breaks and tax paid are not recognised so they get taxed not only on contributions but on the fund value if they return to the states.Dunno what you're talking about. We didn't get any additional tax when we returned, but we don't remember anything about a fund, either. Maybe she accidentally left some money behind?

gmc wrote: UK deposit interest is taxed at 20% as are dividends what are the rates in the states? Taxed as income - 15%

gmc wrote: Before you receive benefit your assets are assessed and any saving down to a set minimum have to be used up and if you have a house and can't pay the mortgage They will pay mortgage interest for a period and then it stops and you end up homeless just like in the states whether it was your fault or not. Exactly. There are means testing but no test for how a person got into the situation. So your claim that "there's a safety net for people who ... become destitute through no fault of their own" is misleading, because the net is for everyone, regardless how responsible or irresponsible they may have been.

gmc wrote: we also pay insurance for medical care, it's even called national insurance, the difference is it goes to the NHS rather than to a private company.Another major difference is that one can fire an inadequate private insurer for one that better suits one's needs, or opt to carry no insurance at all. You've got NHS whether you want it or not. No opt out.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Nov 26, 2010 9:02 am

Accountable;1345065 wrote: Another major difference is that one can fire an inadequate private insurer for one that better suits one's needs, or opt to carry no insurance at all. You've got NHS whether you want it or not. No opt out.

We could have an opt out with NHS. A person could agree to lower taxes provided they never seek medical treatment. The reason this isn't popularized, is very few people really want to opt out.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Nov 26, 2010 9:53 am

Accountable;1345065 wrote:

Savings aren't taxed by the IRS. Interest on the savings is.

Dunno what you're talking about. We didn't get any additional tax when we returned, but we don't remember anything about a fund, either. Maybe she accidentally left some money behind?

Taxed as income - 15%

Exactly. There are means testing but no test for how a person got into the situation. So your claim that "there's a safety net for people who ... become destitute through no fault of their own" is misleading, because the net is for everyone, regardless how responsible or irresponsible they may have been.

Another major difference is that one can fire an inadequate private insurer for one that better suits one's needs, or opt to carry no insurance at all. You've got NHS whether you want it or not. No opt out.

OK I'll concede I may be guilty of a loose use of the language:o

The interest you get on cash deposit savings is taxed, that's what I meant by are your saving taxed. She would only be liable for further tax if she saved in to a UK pension scheme - a personal pension,. if she had been in an occupational scheme and transferred it to a 412K (?) there would be a tax liability.

Yes the net is for everyone. Most people don't intend to go bankrupt or become homeless. If someone tries to start a business and it fails would you penalise them for that? Would you seriously let a family starve because there had been a failure in business? If a self employed individual becomes ill and their business fails as a result the safety net is there, that's fine by me.

Another major difference is that one can fire an inadequate private insurer for one that better suits one's needs, or opt to carry no insurance at all. You've got NHS whether you want it or not. No opt out.

That principal that everybody pays is at the hearty of it. You can opt for additional private medical treatment of you want but if you have a chronic illness or a pre-existing condition they won't cover you. I would happily let people opt out on the understanding that they would never receive free treatment from the NHS up to and including accident and emergency. The number that would opt out under those circumstances would be minimal.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Nov 26, 2010 10:19 am

gmc;1345053 wrote:

posted by koan

in an industrial society people work together and workers gradually realise their power and start organising and demanding better conditions and become more politically active. That is happening in china, vietnam etc etc. In the states and the UK that collective sense of power has been broken (well perhaps - I'm not really in a position to argue a case). In france, spain and greece that sense of unified power is still there and people are out on the streets. O.K I'm flying a kite perhaps but there is something to it I think.

Except that unions are illegal in China.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Nov 26, 2010 10:26 am

yaaarrrgg;1345067 wrote: We could have an opt out with NHS. A person could agree to lower taxes provided they never seek medical treatment. The reason this isn't popularized, is very few people really want to opt out.It would be interesting to see how much private insurance is now compared to before your gov't disrupted competitive pricing. Also, what is the cost difference then/now of paying out of pocket, which is how I personally would prefer to do it except in catastrophic cases.

You typed "provided they never seek medical treatment." Don't you mean "provided they never seek gov't-paid medical treatment"?

gmc;1345069 wrote: Yes the net is for everyone. Most people don't intend to go bankrupt or become homeless. If someone tries to start a business and it fails would you penalise them for that? Would you seriously let a family starve because there had been a failure in business? If a self employed individual becomes ill and their business fails as a result the safety net is there, that's fine by me. Fine by me as well. Just don't characterize it as available only for the unfortuanate. I'm sure no one intends to go bankrupt or become homeless, but that is not to say that everyone makes wise decisions or plans properly for the future.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Nov 26, 2010 1:23 pm

posted by accountable

It would be interesting to see how much private insurance is now compared to before your gov't disrupted competitive pricing. Also, what is the cost difference then/now of paying out of pocket, which is how I personally would prefer to do it except in catastrophic cases.

Most people were too poor to have private healthcare, there were mutual insurance companies and the like though. There was also a bit more to it than universal healthcare like poor law reform and the abolition of the workhouse. I won't bore you will all the detail of social deprivation in pre war industrial britain. We've had this since 1948 and it was so much better than what went before we have never looked back. Exactly the same counter arguments were put then as you now have in the states but when it came right down to it government wasn't given a choice those who opposed it lost their seats. Please try and understand that government didn't do this to us out of the goodness of their hearts we voted in a socialist government to put it in place. Yes I do mean socialist in the fullest sense of the word. Good grief we even had a communist MP that sat for what is now gordon brown's constituency. We don't have socialists in parliament now they are all tossers.

I haven't a clue what you mean by out of pocket. I pay for dentistry and opticians and any prescriptions I get (I'm getting a tooth extracted because of an abcess and have anti-biotics to bring the swelling down first) If I was unemployed or an OAP it would be free.

You're kind of missing the whole point about universal healthcare - everybody pays so that when the time comes medical care is there for them when they need it. I've paid in for the better part of forty years and have barely used it but if I ended with something like really serious I dare say I will get all my money back and more. It's not that I am subsidising someone else I am paying in advance in case I need it. It's like private health insurance without the fear of what would happen if you lost your job and couldn't pay just at the point you need it most. Liberal capitalism at it's best, a healthy and well educated workforce is good for society and the economy as a whole. It's not cost that is the issue it's the value you get for what you pay you should think about. What is the cost to american society of not having universal healthcare? What value do you get from your tax dollars that make you say I don't mind paying for that?

You typed "provided they never seek medical treatment." Don't you mean "provided they never seek gov't-paid medical treatment"?#

It's not government paid it's financed through our taxes. Where do you think our government gets it's money? I thought it was just politicians that believed in the magic money tree. Yes if they want to not pay their NI contributions I would let them but make sure they would not get free (at the point of use) treatment on the NHS that everybody else has paid for. I guarantee there would be very few takers. I also object to the NHS sorting out the damage when someone's private cosmetic surgery goes wrong and they end up disfigured as a consequence. If they didn't have that fall-back maybe people would think twice about it.

I have no problem with the government being told to use some of the tax revenue to finance the NHS. I do have issue with them bailing out the banks but that's another issue.

Incidentally I don't think china has better govt than the US, or UK for that matter, but they're not bankrupt or involved in unnecessary wars so maybe there is something to learn.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Nov 26, 2010 6:30 pm

gmc;1345083 wrote: What is the cost to american society of not having universal healthcare? What value do you get from your tax dollars that make you say I don't mind paying for that?Liberty. Worth every penny.

eta:

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

Thomas Jefferson

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sat Nov 27, 2010 11:14 am

Accountable;1345072 wrote:

You typed "provided they never seek medical treatment." Don't you mean "provided they never seek gov't-paid medical treatment"?

Yes, I just mean a public plan could have an "opt-out". A person should still be allowed buy private insurance if they wanted, or buy it in addition to the public services.