



Hmm. Classist much or what?
But anyway the true answers is not an exact one because it depends on the person purchasing those services. Some may find great value in not having to do those things for themselves. Some may find it increases their productivity too.
Example would be the CEO of this or that major company who stops to get his shoes shine at an airport because he knows he won't have time before his very important meeting. During that time he makes a new business contact, reads something he wouldn't have had time for if he shined his own shoes that increases both his company value and productivity.
Well, to be fair nowhere in the constitution does it say we are entitled to the fire department, police department, ETC. The fact remains that most civilized countries DO consider health care a basic right, amongst other things.
Also, believe it or not I did graduate both high school and college and I do know what productivity means. The fact is, I believe that everyone is entitled to health care, regardless of their work. I mean, how much productivity is created by getting naked for money, right? Not a lot.
It saddens me that people in this country remain sick, and die, because they can't afford health care. Productive or not, it's wrong. People on death row even get health care, FWIW





This is certainly your perogative. But health care is not a 'right' defined in the US constitution ... any more than 'fire protection' is a right. While it is true that some cities and states have chosen to implement such services ( paid for by imposing taxes on the population of those cities and states). It is also true that some areas of the USA do not have 'fire protection', or have marginal 'fire protection' provided by unpaid volunteers.The fact is, I believe that everyone is entitled to health care, regardless of their work
However, it is a giant step from here to define health care as a 'right' on a national basis, with the federal gov't then empowered to impose taxes on all Americans to pay for it, WITHOUT the benefit of a nationwide vote to that effect. Such action is commonly referred to as 'legislating from the bench'.
Like every service industry, this strictly depends on the valuation made by those customers purchasing the service. In the case of most exotic dancers, the customer base has a high or very high productivity. But just like the people who are only qualified to wash cars or shine shoes, women who don't have the necessary 'qualifications' will not get jobs in the exotic dancing industry. You tell me how much a lap dance is worth when offered by a 55 year old woman weighing 250 pounds ! This is the issue of 'value' that applies to unskilled workers in America.I mean, how much productivity is created by getting naked for money, right? Not a lot.
As further illustration, I would offer the following real world example. How much is a car wash worth if it is conducted by a dozen beautiful college girls wearing undersized bikinis ? Far more than if it is conducted by two ugly guys or by an automatic car wash machine !
Interesting debate and interesting points.
[Steps on soapbox]
That same line of thinking leads to even more excessive government 'determination' of fairness and equality.
Eventually, using that same line of thought, strip clubs will not be able to refuse to hire (as a stripper) a 400 lb. man who recently had a sex change operation. Eventually, using that same line of thought, strip clubs will be forced to compensate the earnings of a 35 year old stripper that has had seven kids and looks like a walking bag of skin because she didn't make as much as the fit, and attractive, twenty-two year old.
The real question is when should the government 'back off' and stay out of social issues that are none of it's business?
I don't want the government taking my money (call me greedy) and giving it to some nasty whore that can't stop mass-producing babies (that are almost statistically guaranteed to be as much of a drain on society as her worthless ass) because in the government's view she has earned my tax dollars.
My taxes should not be used to pay for a socialized national health care program. When did our country become so politically correct (read: stupid) that it is considered 'correct' for me (and everyone else) to have to pay for those that are less fortunate? If I work, I earned what I made ... whether that be shining a shoe or working the mic at a strip club ... why in fuck does the government get to decide who gets a share of that money?
I am not saying that those less fortunate should not be helped ... I'm just saying that the government has no business deciding what morals I should and should not hold. If I want to help out someone and do the 'right thing' then that is my choice. What this absurd and vapid viewpoint is saying is that I no longer have that choice as the government has changed it to an obligation.
The government has several jobs, but none of those jobs should be stealing from Paul to support Peter. If Peter can't make it on his own, then unless an individual or a group of them decide to give him charity, tough shit. He should have studied harder, worked harder, etc.
Stop pandering to the poor (of which ... a large portion of my family fits into that category). There will always be those people who have less than others ... spreading money to more evenly distribute it will hurt, not help our country. If I will make $45k a year, regardless of my job ... then why would I strive to work harder than the guy standing next to me? Why would I study to get a degree? Why would I be willing to do anything other than the most basic, simple, and least work-intensive job that I could do to 'receive my share'? For the generalized ideal of 'a better nation'?
Each baby step that this country takes towards socialism is a step in the wrong direction. Each step also makes it easier to take the next one. Where does it stop?
If most 'civilized' nations consider health care as a basic right ... then maybe, just maybe, our poor and underprivileged would be happy moving there. I'd gladly accept the government using my tax dollars to evacuate 75% or more of the people on SSI, welfare, etc. The vast majority of those people are nothing but leeches that could earn their own living but choose not to because they don't have to.
If being 'civilized' means that I have to support (key word is italicized) those less fortunate than me, then call me a barbarian. I'm sick to death of this recent wave of ideology that claims it is everyone's obligation to support those less fortunate or less qualified or (dare I say it) less motivated.
I don't have a time machine handy, but I seriously doubt that those that created our government ever intended for it to become the monstrosity that it is today.
[/steps off soapbox]
Barbarian





Our rights aren't given to us because they are defined in the Constitution... the Constitution doesn't grant or create rights, it merely acknowledges some of the natural rights that are inherent in being human. In your next reading of the Constitution, you might want to take a close look at the Ninth amendment.





We will always have tensions in our societal efforts because of our varying wants/needs. We all want different things and yet we all want the same things from our common pool of effort (government), and that's why we need leadership with common sense/judgement and not despotism.
The thing is that, like insurance we pool our collective money for common purposes and needs. But unlike insurance, that pooling is not voluntary. We need to find ways that everyone can contribute, even if only in time and effort. If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.
I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.
Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.
NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.





Everyone is entitled to purchase their own healthcare ( or find a job where it is provided for ) - it is not an entitlement. Nobody is denied anything. People make choices and then have to be responsible for them. In the world of dancers ( or any other world for that matter), for example, there are girls who pay for health care, there are girls who get it through a spouse, SO, or parents, and there are those who choose to go without coverage. They choose where they are in terms of health care. Those who argue for universal health care are just looking for something for free, and there is no such thing as free. Someone has to pay for it.
"never trust a big butt and a smile"-- Bell Biv DeVoe
If you're in your twenties and aren't a liberal, you have no heart. If you're in you're forties and aren't a conservative, you have no brain - Winston Churchill





What do you want me to say. There is a world of difference between Griswold v Connecticut ... which affirmed a right to 'marital privacy' and thus banned state laws prohibiting the sale of birth control (and thus allowed individuals to buy their own contraceptives) ... and affirming a right to national health care thus forcing hard working high earning fellow Americans to buy contraceptives and provide them to less hard working less high earning Americans (even though their own personal position may be against the use of birth control).you might want to take a close look at the Ninth amendment.
obviously I should have chosen a better example (i.e. arguably the American social welfare budget would be far lower if the use of birth control was forced upon those collecting social welfare benefits) ... but Griswold was the precedent setting 9th amendment case.





Mel, I think you should post more specific articles on the abuse of our entitlements and welfare systems. I know it is something many of us here are sensitive to.
I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.
Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.
NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.
Then consider me as part of the problem.
You do realize that your posts have a very socialistic tint to them, don't you? What exactly is your optimistic ideal of a perfect 'America'? I mean that question seriously, no sarcasm or such intended. I just don't understand that way of thinking as it is, to my mind, the antithesis of progress.
I seriously wished, while reading this, that I had full use of both of my arms as I would have clapped. I'm not entirely in agreement about it being just those that want something for 'free' as there are a lot of misguided 'civilized' people in this country, but a beautiful post just the same.
:clap:
Part of the problem Barbarian





Unfortunately, much like fraudulent voter registrations, statistics on abuse of entitlement programs is something that the government and mainstream media are NOT anxious to publicize. Thus what can be found in the way of actual proof of abuse is mostly anecdotal ... i.e. 30 people being busted recently in one upstate NY city, or a handful of dancers being busted for collecting social welfare benefits for themselves and their children while earning $50k+ in unreported income.Mel, I think you should post more specific articles on the abuse of our entitlements and welfare systems. I know it is something many of us here are sensitive to.
What CAN be found are statistics on the 'minimum standard of living' of Americans who are eligible for entitlement programs, as compiled by the US Census Bureau and other institutions ...
(snip)"the per capita expenditures of the lowest income fifth of the U.S. population exceeded the per capita expenditures of the median American household in 1955, after adjusting for inflation."(snip)
(snip)"In 1965 the black illegitimate birth rate was 28 percent; today it is 64 percent. Properly measured, the number of persons in material poverty has shrunk since 1965, but at the unnecessary cost of producing a burgeoning underclass. The current welfare system has created entire communities where work is rare, intact families virtually unknown, and dependence on government a way of life passed on from generation to generation."(snip)
(snip)"In counting the incomes of poor persons the Census Bureau actually excludes almost all welfare assistance. Some 75 percent of welfare spending in the U.S. is in the form of "non-cash" assistance. Yet the Census Bureau ignores all non-cash benefits in determining the income of poor persons. Non-cash programs such as food stamps, public housing, energy assistance, school lunch and breakfast programs, and the Women, Infants, and Children's (WIC) food program are excluded from the Census Bureau's poverty calculations entirely. Thus, the Census Bureau counts most persons receiving non-cash welfare as poor even if the total value of the welfare assistance received greatly exceeds the poverty income thresholds."(snip)
(snip)The strongest effect of welfare is to diminish work effort, reducing earned income and thus making families more dependent on welfare. In the mid-1970s the U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare undertook the most extensive and thorough controlled experiment on the behavioral consequences of welfare ever attempted in the United States: the Seattle/Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, known as "SIME/DIME," involving nearly 5,000 families over seven years. The SIME/DIME experiment showed that every $1.00 of welfare given to low income persons reduced labor and earnings by 80 cents.40 In other words, while welfare is very ineffective in raising the incomes of the poor, it is very effective in replacing work with dependence. Recent national data show that among the poorest 20 percent of U.S. households there is only one full-time worker for every seven full-time workers in the most affluent 20 percent of households.41
Tragically, the system designed to alleviate poverty in large part has been responsible for destroying the work ethic in low-income neighborhoods. There has been an enormous growth in the number of non-working poor families since the advent of the "War on Poverty." In the 1950s, nearly one-third of poor families as defined by the Census Bureau were headed by adults who worked full-time throughout the year. In those days the problem was low earnings. In 1988, only 16.4 percent of poor families had full-time working heads of households.42 Today, the problem is that adults do not work."(snip)
from
Arguably, while these official statistics based observations do not technically constitute evidence of 'abuse', they certainly illustrate the cumulative effects of 'moral hazard'. In other words, it is not technically considered to be 'abusing' social welfare programs when beneficiaries choose to quit their jobs rather than risk earning an amount that would push them above the eligibility threshold for receiving continued benefits.
Also, arguably, the 'moral hazard' situation of full time work at unskilled wage rates versus losing social welfare benefit eligibility ( i.e. voluntary unemployment ) has been a major reason that legal and illegal immigrants have been attracted to the USA to fill unskilled wage rate jobs.





If you are and you realize it, then part of my job is done.
Simple...social responsibility. This country has become increasingly narcissistic over the last several decades; and that is NOT for the better. A much better mix of personal choice and social responsibility is what I wish for. That would be significant progress.You do realize that your posts have a very socialistic tint to them, don't you? What exactly is your optimistic ideal of a perfect 'America'? I mean that question seriously, no sarcasm or such intended. I just don't understand that way of thinking as it is, to my mind, the antithesis of progress....
I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.
Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.
NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.





Yes. I have a feeling that only 30 cheats in 4-5 years or so is understating the problem. Yet this info might be easier to obtain than insurance or income tax cheats (where suspect cases are a lot more than follow-up cases). I'll keep a watch out for it too. It'll always be non-zero, but at what point does it become a significant social burden? And is it there now? Those are my issues.
I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.
Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.
NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.





again the technical distinction arises between being a 'welfare cheat' versus legally using social welfare benefit eligibility to voluntarily reduce working hours. While I'm not going to search for it again, at some point I found and posted a statistic showing that, on the average, adults in households receiving social welfare benefits work only 16 hours per week. The motivation for this development is obviously the 'moral hazard' created by gov't eligibility rules ... which essentially results in a 20 cent on the dollar actual rate of return for additional work effort ... at least up to the point of working 'full time' at an unskilled wage rate. Put another way, a person choosing to work full time and earn $30k without social welfare benefits is no better off, and is arguably WORSE off in terms of health care etc., than if they voluntarily cut working hours back to the point where annual earnings are $20k but full eligibility for medicaid, subsidized rent, subsidized utilities, food stamps etc. is maintained.at what point does it become a significant social burden? And is it there now? Those are my issues
From my personal point of view, the problem doesn't actually lie with the social welfare recipients ... it lies with the gov't for setting down eligibility rules that have created this 'moral hazard' disincentive towards work.
As to the degree of social burden, several states now have some 10% of their populations collecting social welfare benefits in one form or another. The stat for the state of Michigan is over 12%. Arguably, the 'moral hazard' social welfare benefit eligibility issue will contribute to a slower economic recovery than was the case in the 1930's. The reason of course is that, back then without social welfare benefits providing a 'minimum acceptable standard of living', long term unemployed (or unemployable) people had a strong incentive to move to different areas of the country where work WAS available. However, under today's level of social welfare benefits, long term unemployed (or unemployable) people can stay where the jobs AREN'T for as long as their social welfare benefits continue to be paid. To make matters worse, as state and local tax rates are increased to cover the increasing cost of providing social welfare benefits to a rising percentage of state and local residents, a stronger and stronger incentive is created for higher earning state residents and state businesses to consider relocation. This has all the ingredients of creating a snowball effect ... as the states of Michigan, California, New Jersey etc. are now discovering with great distress.
Circling back on topic, Obama has announced plans to adopt federal economic policies re national health care, re federal grants to (particular) cities etc. which will, for the first time, spread the cost of the 'generous' social welfare programs instituted by states like Michigan, California, New Jersey etc. among ALL federal taxpayers.
Last edited by Melonie; 11-30-2008 at 12:59 PM.
You misunderstand: I don't see myself as part of the problem. I was stating that you should see me that way as your ideal of what a problem is ... well, it is the opposite of what mine is.
It seems that you want socialistic social programs removing freedom of choice from individuals for the betterment of society.
I want freedom of choice to actually mean what it says. I'm not against the 'betterment of society', I just feel that it is an individual's choice to make.
Instead of attacking the social inadequacies our society faces, you would choose to force on the people what, in your opinion, is the best for the people. That sounds similar to a socialistic despotism to me. Who needs free will when we have the government to tell us what is wrong or right?
I think it is a little strange that you say you want a better mix of personal choice and social responsibility when your stated viewpoint is to take away the right for an individual to choose what his/her social responsibility is.
Narcissus





I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.
Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.
NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.





In my opinion our society has turned very narcissistic over the last several decades. I would like to see a reverse of this, though it is quite unlikely. I believe capitalism, if not controlled, quickly and tragically leads to a class-driven society. Exploitation is characteristic that we share with all other animals; yet we profess to be 'humane.' Yeah, right. Lord of the Flies is more like it.Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved
I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.
Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.
NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081205/...bama_sidelines
Frankly, I think president elect Obama is showing some statesmanship by understanding he is not the president until Jan 20. His time will come and only then should his feet be held to the fire, especially by his fellow dems.
Barney Frank is such a dick no pun intended
FBR
Once again I have embraced my addiction and have put off the moral dilemma to another day.




Aren't communist and other anti-capitalist countries also class driven. Substitute Exxon CEO with Communist Party Chairman, and so on and so forth, and whalla, you still have a class driven society.
Who has had the greatest level of exploitation in the 20th century, capitalist corporations or anti-capitalist states?
I was going to link the article with the caption "Don't count your chickens before they hatch".






Anti-capitalist states control vastly more people than capitalist corporations do. Anyhow you cannot substitute 'capitalism' for 'democracy.' It's not democracies that exploit people, it's non-regulated capitalists corporations. Non- or loosely regulated corporations. It isn't the principle of capitalism, it's in the actualization of it that it can fall apart.
I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.
Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.
NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.









They are? I didnt know that. (China is grooming capitalists that the gov't can control, but their gov't doesn't care about the people either.)
I NEVER said govt should own production, just that government should regulate capitalists who are in a strong position to exploit others. You are going way beyond what I said to control both sides of this discussion.When the govt owns/ controls the production, it takes away the incentive to benefit....
Last edited by threlayer; 12-07-2008 at 08:32 PM.
I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.
Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.
NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.





again one needs to be careful with semantics in regard to 'people'. How do you categorize a democratically cast vote by a majority on NON income tax paying citizens ... i.e. those whose incomes are low enough to fall below the IRS progressive tax rates (less tax credits), plus those who are rich enough to shield their incomes from high taxes (via tax credits, tax free muni bonds, offshore havens etc.) ... electing a new administration that will increase de-facto gov't subsidy payouts to themselves at the expense of a 'minority' of middle class taxpayers ?It's not democracies that exploit people
That certainly flirts with the term exploitation ! Actually, this principle has for many years been referred to as the 'tyranny of the majority'.
Bookmarks