On 10/13/10 1:12 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message
...
On 10/13/2010 9:06 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That's the problem with entitlements. Once they're out there, they
become a sacred right. For a variety of reasons US manufacturing has
become uncompetetive in the world market place. Increased
entitlements and the resulting higher tax rates can only make the
problem worse. A service based economy can only take you so far.
Sooner or later you have to make something or have enough foreign
exchange to purchase it elsewhere. Right now we are extending IOUs to
fund our imports but sooner or later those chips will be called in.


So, which ones are you willing to give up? We have a fairly low tax
rate
already, certainly vs. the rest of the world.

You conveniently miss the point: The discussion is/was about
starting new entitlements not getting rid of the existing ones. In
addition to having lower tax rates than many other countries, we also
have a much higher standard of living. Unfortunately that is likely
to change.


There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of
life for the majority of their citizens.

Exactly.



Here's one set of indicators:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index

There are others. The United States is not first in quality of life. It
probably is first among modern western nations in disparity of income
between the wealthy and the middle class, but the fact that a relatively
few have tremendous wealth does not mean a country has a high quality of
life.


--
I'm not a warlock . . . I'm you!

On Oct 13, 12:46*pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, Jim wrote:
There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life
for the majority of their citizens.

Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same
indicators that most of us do.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Stan...ed:States.html

"The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in
the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human
Development Index the United States is always in the top ten."

"Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very
high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material
possessions."

While the article also mentions some low points, it points out some
mitigating factors that must be considered, such as the diversity in
the population and culture and the differences in geographic
locations.

In the end, the US is among the top few countries in the world.

On 10/13/10 1:39 PM, Jack wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:46 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, wrote:
There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life
for the majority of their citizens.

Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same
indicators that most of us do.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Stan...ed:States.html

"The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in
the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human
Development Index the United States is always in the top ten."

"Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very
high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material
possessions."

While the article also mentions some low points, it points out some
mitigating factors that must be considered, such as the diversity in
the population and culture and the differences in geographic
locations.

In the end, the US is among the top few countries in the world.



http://www1.internationalliving.com/qofl2010/

--
I'm not a warlock . . . I'm you!

On 10/13/10 1:39 PM, Jack wrote:

"The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in
the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human
Development Index the United States is always in the top ten."

"Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very
high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material
possessions."

High GDP and material possessions are not the indicators of quality of
life.

--
I'm not a warlock . . . I'm you!

On Oct 13, 1:25*pm, Jack wrote:
On Oct 13, 1:09*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

"Jack" wrote in message

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...d/articles/201....

"Meanwhile, 30 major corporations are still able to offer low-cost
health insurance to their employees only because they have received
one-year waivers of the new rules from the Department of Health and
Human Services. What happens when those waivers expire is anybody�s
guess. But this much is clear: If the law with its expensive mandates
remains on the books, millions of Americans are going to lose the
health care plans they have now � plans the president repeatedly
promised they could keep."

It's an opinion piece. Cite some facts.

Why? *You didn't cite a single article or "factoid", you just
presented *your* opinion. *My article, if you had actually read it,
was not an opinion piece but offered solid facts of people losing
their insurance because of obamacare. *As they point out if you are
required to insure people and provide expanded benefits that weren't
there before, that extra money will have to come from somewhere, or
the insurance company will simply close up shop. *Then they cite
examples.

Insurance costs are being driven up by obamacare. *Insurance companies
are shutting down, leaving people uninsured because of obamacare. *How
much of that do you like?

They won't accept facts, they just keep spouting what Olbermann told
them to say. I noted two young adults who lost their insurance because
their parents couldn't afford the "new" twenty something insurance
costs on their insurance. This is fact, I know these guys and they
have both stopped riding because of it. But again, real facts don't
matter to the intellectually impaired...

On 10/13/10 1:53 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:

They won't accept facts, they just keep spouting what Olbermann told
them to say. I noted two young adults who lost their insurance because
their parents couldn't afford the "new" twenty something insurance
costs on their insurance. This is fact, I know these guys and they
have both stopped riding because of it. But again, real facts don't
matter to the intellectually impaired...


You're a liar. Why would anyone believe anything you post? You can't
even be honest on your web services website.

--
I'm not a warlock . . . I'm you!

On Oct 13, 1:50*pm, Secular Humouresque wrote:
On 10/13/10 1:39 PM, Jack wrote:



"The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in
the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human
Development Index the United States is always in the top ten."

"Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very
high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material
possessions."

High GDP and material possessions are not the indicators of quality of
life.

Lack of money and having no material possessions are not indicators of
a good quality of life, at least by the vast majority of people.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:12:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life
for the majority of their citizens.

Exactly.

Pardon my skepticism but I'd like you to name a few of these countries
and tell us why their quality of life is higher. I've traveled quite
a bit and have seen very few places where the average citizen comes
even close. Canada is certainly right up there by many measures but
they can keep winter. That's why we have so many of them in SWFL.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:12:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That's the problem with entitlements. Once they're out there, they
become a sacred right. For a variety of reasons US manufacturing has
become uncompetetive in the world market place. Increased
entitlements and the resulting higher tax rates can only make the
problem worse. A service based economy can only take you so far.
Sooner or later you have to make something or have enough foreign
exchange to purchase it elsewhere. Right now we are extending IOUs to
fund our imports but sooner or later those chips will be called in.


So, which ones are you willing to give up? We have a fairly low tax rate
already, certainly vs. the rest of the world.

You conveniently miss the point: The discussion is/was about
starting new entitlements not getting rid of the existing ones. In
addition to having lower tax rates than many other countries, we also
have a much higher standard of living. Unfortunately that is likely
to change.


I didn't conveniently miss anything. All the Teabaggers are complaining
about deficits right? So, which programs do they want to cut?

I am not a teabagger, not by a long shot. They are just as rabid as
the loony left. You can't cut any existing programs because it is
politically unacceptable. I already stated that.

Your claim that we have a much higher standard of living isn't that
accurate. It depends is a more accurate comment. How about infant mortality?
How about life expectancy?

We have a very diverse population demographic in this country and some
of those segments have very unhealthy lifestyles and make bad
decisions about lots of other things. No governmental program is
going to fix that, and broad based statistics get dragged down as a
result.

How about medical outcomes per dollar spent?

I have no idea how to evaluate that.

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Oct 13, 1:09 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message


http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...d/articles/201...

"Meanwhile, 30 major corporations are still able to offer low-cost
health insurance to their employees only because they have received
one-year waivers of the new rules from the Department of Health and
Human Services. What happens when those waivers expire is anybody�s
guess. But this much is clear: If the law with its expensive mandates
remains on the books, millions of Americans are going to lose the
health care plans they have now � plans the president repeatedly
promised they could keep."

It's an opinion piece. Cite some facts.

Why? You didn't cite a single article or "factoid", you just
presented *your* opinion. My article, if you had actually read it,
was not an opinion piece but offered solid facts of people losing
their insurance because of obamacare. As they point out if you are
required to insure people and provide expanded benefits that weren't
there before, that extra money will have to come from somewhere, or
the insurance company will simply close up shop. Then they cite
examples.

Insurance costs are being driven up by obamacare. Insurance companies
are shutting down, leaving people uninsured because of obamacare. How
much of that do you like?


I have an opinion, the author had an opinion, and you have an opinion. I've
cited facts many times that support the proposition that the insurance
reform was flawed but better than what was previously in place.

If your opinion is that the costs will go up, that's fine, but it's not a
fact that has been actually verified. It's an opinion.

How much do I like of an item that isn't actually a fact is sort of a
non-question.