Poor people are hungry and need assistance. - "We should give them supplemental assistance for foods." EBT/Foodstamps created. (Noble goal, practical, and justifiable)
These poor people don't know how to buy nutritional foods. - "We should build public schools to teach." Public schools created. (Noble goal, short-sighted, but justifiable)
These poor people need extensive health care regardless of not eating properly or being proactive with education that was provided for them. (Noble goal, but insane and completely unjustifiable)
The last two don't make sense.
Those programs weren't made using that reasoning.
not to mention that those programs are incomplete to say the least.
People who are raised by parents who care very little about education have a good chance of learning that sentiment & also of passing it along.
How do you make someone want to learn?
I had no illusion that education would apply to everyone, but rather as a way to diminish the weight of those that continue to perpetuate their own lives on junk. However, as far as making people interested in learning, we have to go back to incentives. Which is why a lot of school systems are considering a monetary payout for those that excel in their grades. A sad state of affairs when we need money hanging from a string to motivate us to being educated, but if it can provide a more ideal outcome for a larger mass of people, then perhaps it wouldn't hurt to see how that pans out. Incentives apply to everyone, whether it's on a corporate or individual basis.
Ugh, I really should get back to using Firefox with NoScript & ABP. Just got a bunch of nasty pop ups and ads from clicking that :(
Never even got to read anything pertaining to what you outlined.
People who are raised by parents who care very little about education have a good chance of learning that sentiment & also of passing it along.
How do you make someone want to learn?
I had no illusion that education would apply to everyone, but rather as a way to diminish the weight of those that continue to perpetuate their own lives on junk. However, as far as making people interested in learning, we have to go back to incentives. Which is why a lot of school systems are considering a monetary payout for those that excel in their grades. A sad state of affairs when we need money hanging from a string to motivate us to being educated, but if it can provide a more ideal outcome for a larger mass of people, then perhaps it wouldn't hurt to see how that pans out. Incentives apply to everyone, whether it's on a corporate or individual basis.
local rental place around here offered a free movie/game rental for an A on the report card, was very good incentive imo.
Ugh, I really should get back to using Firefox with NoScript & ABP. Just got a bunch of nasty pop ups and ads from clicking that :(
Never even got to read anything pertaining to what you outlined.
Quote:
Today, one in three of the world’s adults is overweight and one in 10 is obese. By 2015, WHO estimates the number of chubby adults will balloon to 2.3 billion — equal to the combined populations of China, Europe and the U.S.
The rise in obesity coincides with increased modernization and a worldwide explosion in the availability of highly processed foods. In the past 50 years, more of us have started driving to work instead of walking, opening a box of mac ‘n cheese instead of cooking, pushing computer keys instead of plows and taking the elevator rather than the stairs.
“The combination of these factors is driving obesity all over the world,” said James Hospedales, coordinator for prevention and control of chronic diseases at the Pan American Health Organization. “What’s really alarming is that it’s not just the middle aged, it’s children and adolescents. That’s new.”
In honor of Thanksgiving, a U.S. holiday dedicated to eating until we can’t breathe, we decided to take a look at the Top 10 Fattest Countries in the world, based on national health surveys WHO compiled between 2000 and 2008.
Yes, it's a big world after all:
1) American Samoa, 93.5 percent (of population that's overweight)
Traditionally, Pacific Islanders ate native foods high in complex carbohydrates and low in fat, such as bananas, yams, taro root, coconut and fish. Since World War II, an explosion of obesity on the islands has corresponded with a rise in migration to the U.S., New Zealand, France and Australia. That began to change dietary habits as family members abroad introduced those back home to Western eating and sent money home, giving locals the means to buy more food. Today, this six-island nation in the South Pacific Ocean tops the scales as one of the fattest in the world.
2) Kiribati, 81.5 percent
Between 1964 and 2001, food imports to the least developed Pacific nations, such as Kiribati, which comprises 33 islands clustered around the equator, increased six-fold, according to the Food and Agriculture Organisation, a United Nations agency established to fight world hunger. Those imports led to a huge influx in fatty food and processed meat, such as Spam and mutton flaps (fatty sheep scraps), often sold at lower prices than native food.
3) U.S., 66.7 percent
In the early 1960s, 24 percent of Americans were overweight. Today, two-thirds of Americans are too fat, and the numbers on the scale keep going up. Health experts attribute the rise to an over-production of oil, fat and sugar — the result of government farm subsidies started in the 1970s that made it much cheaper to manufacture products like high fructose corn syrup, a common ingredient in processed foods. “On top of that, investment policies changed in the early 1980s to require corporations to report growth to Wall Street every 90 days,” said Marion Nestle, a nutrition professor at New York University and author of the book “Food Politics.” “This made food companies seek new ways to market to the public. Obesity was collateral damage.”
as for the other parts, that issue of modernization was something I mentioned earlier, it's a problem, but I'd say education and cutting back on all the processed foods is a larger part of the battle for now, not saying it should be ignored.
People who are raised by parents who care very little about education have a good chance of learning that sentiment & also of passing it along.
How do you make someone want to learn?
I had no illusion that education would apply to everyone, but rather as a way to diminish the weight of those that continue to perpetuate their own lives on junk. However, as far as making people interested in learning, we have to go back to incentives. Which is why a lot of school systems are considering a monetary payout for those that excel in their grades. A sad state of affairs when we need money hanging from a string to motivate us to being educated, but if it can provide a more ideal outcome for a larger mass of people, then perhaps it wouldn't hurt to see how that pans out. Incentives apply to everyone, whether it's on a corporate or individual basis.
You really think an incentive based system will do anything?
If people are not raised up with the goal of bettering themselves I dont see a way to ever make them want it.
well the lowering the standard of education surely isn't helping, but I think education has been lacking in the US for some time, it's no new issue but with the rest of the world catching up, and the lack of a need for an uneducated work force it's becoming a severe issue.
We don't solve it soon, we will cease to be able to maintain ourselves.
It's kind of a paradox really. You can have government control and regulate everything, and thus either: *** things up, auction off said powers to the highest bidder, corrupt policies in favor of lobbyists, etc. Or you can unregulate corporations and leave them to their devices and just hope the well being of American citizens as well as their consumers is a priority to their agenda aside from status quo, bottom line, profits, etc. Protip: It isn't.
You're much better off in the latter for the simple reason that "the well being of American citizens" and therefore a satisfied customer almost always leads to higher profits. The world will never exist without corruptible politicians.
Not really. Have to remember that we all are not only consumers but employees as well.
The system functions MUCH better when 7 billion individuals are looking out for their own interests instead of a selected group of 5000/5,000,000 law/policy makers looking out for them.
Thats anarchy what you are describing.
The only difference in a full free market and full governmental control is that instead of law makers ruling over you the head of a few mega corps that choked out all competition will rule over you.
I dont see much of a difference.
Capitalism brings us things like the IPAD, products that are ONLY made in the search for profits, we are all better off from that search. Government brings us things like the post office, loosing millions of dollars a day.
Greed/self interest is GOOD.
using that as an argument isn't helping your case.
The ipad is a piece of ***product that's overpriced when a competitor's product will do more for less, very very bad persuasive example.
Government also brings the VA liquor store, which brings in profit.
The post office issues could be solved, like I stated earlier, unions need to go but at the same time basic levels of employee treatment need to rise significantly.
Also fuel is expensive, post office would be able to run well if their vehicles used something other than gasoline.
I will give you though that it is a prime example of screwing it up.
VA liquor store is run by the state tho right? If it does then you're kind of proving my point that localized government is much better than centralized. NH also runs a similar operation and it works. You're nuts though, if you think because VA can run a liquor store chain, the feds can run your healthcare and loose million of dollars a day doing so. I can point to many many more examples of incompetence than I can success.
And if the IPAD is such a piece of ***, why do so many people line up to buy it? I have an I-Phone and within 3 days I couldn't imagine life without it. Tablet/smart phones have enhanced peoples lives, and have done so in the pursuit of profit.
well the lowering the standard of education surely isn't helping, but I think education has been lacking in the US for some time, it's no new issue but with the rest of the world catching up, and the lack of a need for an uneducated work force it's becoming a severe issue.
We don't solve it soon, we will cease to be able to maintain ourselves.
But is it even solvable?
When you start trying to address this, you start getting into subjects that are too taboo in our society, specifically race issues.
You also have the issue of the more educated people become the less profitable they are as well educated people on average will make better financial decisions, so exactly how educated does the very top want the masses to be.
Because of this you just get gov and people throwing money at the symptoms and not addressing the real problem.
But the problem itself is so massive and crosses so many boundaries, Im not sure that the society we have built wouldn't rather fail than correct it.
It's kind of a paradox really. You can have government control and regulate everything, and thus either: *** things up, auction off said powers to the highest bidder, corrupt policies in favor of lobbyists, etc. Or you can unregulate corporations and leave them to their devices and just hope the well being of American citizens as well as their consumers is a priority to their agenda aside from status quo, bottom line, profits, etc. Protip: It isn't.
You're much better off in the latter for the simple reason that "the well being of American citizens" and therefore a satisfied customer almost always leads to higher profits. The world will never exist without corruptible politicians.
Not really. Have to remember that we all are not only consumers but employees as well.
The system functions MUCH better when 7 billion individuals are looking out for their own interests instead of a selected group of 5000/5,000,000 law/policy makers looking out for them.
Thats anarchy what you are describing.
The only difference in a full free market and full governmental control is that instead of law makers ruling over you the head of a few mega corps that choked out all competition will rule over you.
I dont see much of a difference.
Capitalism brings us things like the IPAD, products that are ONLY made in the search for profits, we are all better off from that search. Government brings us things like the post office, loosing millions of dollars a day.
Greed/self interest is GOOD.
using that as an argument isn't helping your case.
The ipad is a piece of ***product that's overpriced when a competitor's product will do more for less, very very bad persuasive example.
Government also brings the VA liquor store, which brings in profit.
The post office issues could be solved, like I stated earlier, unions need to go but at the same time basic levels of employee treatment need to rise significantly.
Also fuel is expensive, post office would be able to run well if their vehicles used something other than gasoline.
I will give you though that it is a prime example of screwing it up.
VA liquor store is run by the state tho right? If it does then you're kind of proving my point that localized government is much better than centralized. NH also runs a similar operation and it works. You're nuts though, if you think because VA can run a liquor store chain, the feds can run your healthcare and loose million of dollars a day doing so. I can point to many many more examples of incompetence than I can success.
And if the IPAD is such a piece of ***, why do so many people line up to buy it? I have an I-Phone and within 3 days I couldn't imagine life without it. Tablet/smart phones have enhanced peoples lives, and have done so in the pursuit of profit.
yes it's state run, your point that government run things can't do well, which is false.
As for the ipad, like everything apple makes it's overpriced under par hardware that's over hyped and marketed well by people to people who don't know any better.
and your point? there's plenty of things that make society as a whole that are non-profit and many things that would be better if they weren't for profit.
well the lowering the standard of education surely isn't helping, but I think education has been lacking in the US for some time, it's no new issue but with the rest of the world catching up, and the lack of a need for an uneducated work force it's becoming a severe issue.
We don't solve it soon, we will cease to be able to maintain ourselves.
But is it even solvable?
When you start trying to address this, you start getting into subjects that are too taboo in our society, specifically race issues.
You also have the issue of the more educated people become the less profitable they are as well educated people on average will make better financial decisions, so exactly how educated does the very top want the masses to be.
Because of this you just get gov and people throwing money at the symptoms and not addressing the real problem.
But the problem itself is so massive and crosses so many boundaries, Im not sure that the society we have built wouldn't rather fail than correct it.
good questions really. I haven't spent much time thinking about it, I'll have to ponder on it some, I'm sure it's not a simple answer. What were some of your ideas that people wouldn't like though, to start?
I never said the government should be completely dissolved nor completely powerless. We do need a federal government for things like the armed services which have a proven record of exceptional performance (that doesn't mean they are without fault either). However as someone said earlier, the idea of a un-corruptible politician isn't a reality. So it should keep out of our daily lives as much as possible.
If you take the profit out of medicine you're going to have shittier doctors. I hate to break it to you but in addition to helping out the sick, most people become doctors because doctors make a ton of money. You cannot eliminate the drive for wealth from the human species.
I never said the government should be completely dissolved nor completely powerless. We do need a federal government for things like the armed services which have a proven record of exceptional performance (that doesn't mean they are without fault either). However as someone said earlier, the idea of a un-corruptible politician isn't a reality. So it should keep out of our daily lives as much as possible.
If you take the profit out of medicine you're going to have shittier doctors. I hate to break it to you but in addition to helping out the sick, most people become doctors because doctors make a ton of money. You cannot eliminate the drive for wealth from the human species.
It's not impossible to keep the majority of them from being corrupt, but legalized bribing by corporate america doesn't help.
The idea of a small federal government didn't work, hence why the constitution was written in the first place...
The 36 nations that are in front of us in healthcare quality would like to have a word with you.
well the lowering the standard of education surely isn't helping, but I think education has been lacking in the US for some time, it's no new issue but with the rest of the world catching up, and the lack of a need for an uneducated work force it's becoming a severe issue.
We don't solve it soon, we will cease to be able to maintain ourselves.
But is it even solvable?
When you start trying to address this, you start getting into subjects that are too taboo in our society, specifically race issues.
You also have the issue of the more educated people become the less profitable they are as well educated people on average will make better financial decisions, so exactly how educated does the very top want the masses to be.
Because of this you just get gov and people throwing money at the symptoms and not addressing the real problem.
But the problem itself is so massive and crosses so many boundaries, Im not sure that the society we have built wouldn't rather fail than correct it.
good questions really. I haven't spent much time thinking about it, I'll have to ponder on it some, I'm sure it's not a simple answer. What were some of your ideas that people wouldn't like though, to start?
Not realistic ideas.
You know, little things like a complete reformation of our current government, that includes updated restrictions on the ability for business and government to interact with each other.
The nasty part comes though as what to do with the segment of the population that have already created a life style where the need to educate oneself does not exist.
Do we continue to try and bring them up, or cut our losses, and left them fail completely? If all those who are left are those who understand the importance of education, its clear that education would move back to the forefront of our society.
Clearly though you have the issue of, do you violate the rights of some to preserve the rights of the future? But, if you do that, do those rights even retain any meaning?
I never said the government should be completely dissolved nor completely powerless. We do need a federal government for things like the armed services which have a proven record of exceptional performance (that doesn't mean they are without fault either). However as someone said earlier, the idea of a un-corruptible politician isn't a reality. So it should keep out of our daily lives as much as possible.
If you take the profit out of medicine you're going to have shittier doctors. I hate to break it to you but in addition to helping out the sick, most people become doctors because doctors make a ton of money. You cannot eliminate the drive for wealth from the human species.
Everyone realizes that corporations are just as corrupt and perverted as governments are right?
Socialized health care programs, which most first-world countries have, are some of the most highly regarded government systems out there. To flat out say its not doable is a bit ignorant. Of course we would want to be concerned that it was implemented in a way that suits the American way of life and is not wasteful/overly bureaucratic. But we have the luxury of examining other such systems to come up with the best healthcare model we can.
If you take the profit out of medicine you're going to have shittier doctors. I hate to break it to you but in addition to helping out the sick, most people become doctors because doctors make a ton of money. You cannot eliminate the drive for wealth from the human species.
And then eventually, the patient will be fed up with the lack of care their current doctor provides, and find another doctor. Should that doctor also provide bad care, then the search continues. At some point, their will be increased incentive to become a doctor and provide good care as more and more patients discard their bad doctors and seek good ones. That translates to profit.
Socialized health care programs, which most first-world countries have, are some of the most highly regarded government systems out there. To flat out say its not doable is a bit ignorant. Of course we would want to be concerned that it was implemented in a way that suits the American way of life and is not wasteful/overly bureaucratic. But we have the luxury of examining other such systems to come up with the best healthcare model we can.
these first-world countries are in economic turmoil as well.
I never said the government should be completely dissolved nor completely powerless. We do need a federal government for things like the armed services which have a proven record of exceptional performance (that doesn't mean they are without fault either). However as someone said earlier, the idea of a un-corruptible politician isn't a reality. So it should keep out of our daily lives as much as possible.
If you take the profit out of medicine you're going to have shittier doctors. I hate to break it to you but in addition to helping out the sick, most people become doctors because doctors make a ton of money. You cannot eliminate the drive for wealth from the human species.
Everyone realizes that corporations are just as corrupt and perverted as governments are right?
the difference is they can be held accountable a little easier
