Kevin's Watch

lorin wrote:

Ananda wrote: It's about money, not security and helping the rest of the world.

It must be such a relief to see the world so clearly. Black or white, good or bad, right or wrong. I believe the U.S. makes some bad decisions, can be motivated by money, has serious flaws in the political process but I also believe there are good and noble motivations in many actions done by this country, as with any country.

I am burdened with seeing the grays in the world.

I see the grays, too, lorin. But in this case, I think our overseas friends are seeing it clearly. Foreign policy is all about what's best for American interests, and these days that means what's best for American corporations' interests.

If we made a bigger effort to get corporate money out of our political system, we might go back to the days when America's motivations on the world stage were more altruistic -- assuming those days ever existed, and I'm not sure they ever did.

Ananda wrote: But, Hashi, why? Why is having such a system predicated on that? You point to money over and over, but you spend extravagant amounts on other things and don't blink. Why are you quibbling on this? As I said, it is just a matter of priorities. To me, this is an obvious win-win to provide healthcare. Even if I am fit and so pay more for those who aren't, I still get the benefits of a good place to live. Again, I go back to abundance mentality v scarcity mentality. Enlightened self interest is still self interest.

If I were in charge of rearranging this country things would be different--we wouldn't be wasting our military in so many places doing things we shouldn't be doing and I would find a way to fix broken systems like health care. Unfortunately for everyone, I am not in charge so things won't change for the better any time soon.

If people made choices based on enlightened self-interest then people would start saving 10% of their paycheck from the time they start working so that by the time they are 30 they are out of debt (or never got into debt in the first place) and by the time they are 45 they have neither car nor mortgage payments, allowing them to save most of their money for the future and could ultimately retire in comfort. These people would also get out of dead-end or low-paying jobs with a little education, certification, or training and have more money both to spend and to save. Unfortunately for most people, most people don't make these good choices, either, so they suffer with debt almost their entire working life.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

Ananda wrote: But, Hashi, why? Why is having such a system predicated on that? You point to money over and over, but you spend extravagant amounts on other things and don't blink. Why are you quibbling on this? As I said, it is just a matter of priorities. To me, this is an obvious win-win to provide healthcare. Even if I am fit and so pay more for those who aren't, I still get the benefits of a good place to live. Again, I go back to abundance mentality v scarcity mentality. Enlightened self interest is still self interest.

If I were in charge of rearranging this country things would be different--we wouldn't be wasting our military in so many places doing things we shouldn't be doing and I would find a way to fix broken systems like health care. Unfortunately for everyone, I am not in charge so things won't change for the better any time soon.

If people made choices based on enlightened self-interest then people would start saving 10% of their paycheck from the time they start working so that by the time they are 30 they are out of debt (or never got into debt in the first place) and by the time they are 45 they have neither car nor mortgage payments, allowing them to save most of their money for the future and could ultimately retire in comfort. These people would also get out of dead-end or low-paying jobs with a little education, certification, or training and have more money both to spend and to save. Unfortunately for most people, most people don't make these good choices, either, so they suffer with debt almost their entire working life.

I am for a Hashi regime. I have a latex nurse costume for helping during the revolution.

On the enlightened self interest, it is not much of an argument to say that people don't carry it perfectly, therefore we should not think about it (if that is what you are saying).

aliantha wrote: I see the grays, too, lorin. But in this case, I think our overseas friends are seeing it clearly. Foreign policy is all about what's best for American interests, and these days that means what's best for American corporations' interests.

I don't think there is anything wrong with making sure there is a US interest involved before committing resources internationally. To say the any country is going to always act or even mostly act in an altruistic fashion is quite a pedestal.

So we're bombing ISIS for profits?

If our profits increase by increasing our wars, why is Obama unwilling to do more? Our economy could use it. The situation would certainly justify it. But he has been slashing the military budget, laying off 1000s of soldiers. Why would he do that if his goal is to make the military industrial complex some dough? These two actions would work at cross-purposes.

Just because companies make money by supplying our military doesn't mean we go to war for profit. Companies would make money supplying our military whether we used it or not! Simply building up our military would accomplish that goal. Letting threats build, rather than fighting them, would provide the incentive for that build up. We never have to fire a shot. Therefore, the theory of "war for profit" includes a superfluous step ... i.e. actual war.

Even with a completely isolationist foreign policy--with our military completely devoted to potential attacks on our soil--it will still be true that the military industrial complex is making a profit. Therefore, the same exact circumstance that people are using to interpret war could be used to interpret watchful peace. Since this "explanation" is easy to vary, and can indeed "explain" the exact opposite state, it's a bad explanation. It's irrational, unsupported conspiracy theory.

Zarathustra wrote:Just because companies make money by supplying our military doesn't mean we go to war for profit.

Of course not, and no one's saying that.

But we've been at more-or-less constant war since 2001, and it's undeniable that the M/I Complex drives a HUGE part of the US economy. Cut spending, and the economy takes a nosedive.....And there's no way this administration wants to see that happening during their tenure.

The proposed cuts don't take place until 2019, and a great deal of the military budget has been either moved "off-books", or transferred to the CIA or the NSA.

Cail wrote:

Zarathustra wrote:Just because companies make money by supplying our military doesn't mean we go to war for profit.

Of course not, and no one's saying that.

Then I must have misunderstood quotes like, "It's about money, not security and helping the rest of the world."

When the global shit hits the cosmic fan, having the world's most powerful military will be one of our wisest investments, I assure you. We will be glad we spent the money, and wonder why we ever complained about issues like the profit of a few corporations.

Zarathustra wrote:

Cail wrote:

Zarathustra wrote:Just because companies make money by supplying our military doesn't mean we go to war for profit.

Of course not, and no one's saying that.

Then I must have misunderstood quotes like, "It's about money, not security and helping the rest of the world."

When the global shit hits the cosmic fan, having the world's most powerful military will be one of our wisest investments, I assure you.

You can't seriously believe that there's no link between the endless wars, the stock market, and the M/I complex.

We have accomplished nothing in the WOT. Sure, we got OBL. How many trillions of dollars were spent on that? Are we more secure now? Is the world more stable, and has our reputation improved?

Sorry man, we're spending more now than we did during the Cold War - when there was an actual threat to the country and the world. Other than helping our 401(k)s, what have we accomplished with our military since 2001?

Cail wrote:We have accomplished nothing in the WOT. Sure, we got OBL. How many trillions of dollars were spent on that? Are we more secure now? Is the world more stable, and has our reputation improved?

Sorry man, we're spending more now than we did during the Cold War - when there was an actual threat to the country and the world. Other than helping our 401(k)s, what have we accomplished with our military since 2001?

The world is not more stable that it was 15 years ago and our reputation has not improved at all.

We have made some accomplishments because of the WoT but not necessarily with our military. Local police departments get to enjoy kevlar vests, mine-resistant vehicles, more automatic and semi-automatic weapons, mobile fake cell phone towers, and the ability to order people to stay in their homes while they conduct house-to-house searches for suspects. *sniff* Can't you smell the freedom?

Now...back to health. I still think that instead of paying money every month (or having it deducted from your paycheck as most people do) if people could put that money into a health savings account and use it for medical coverage then everyone benefits. The employers won't have to pay their side of coverage (which is more than you pay, I can assure you) *and* the account accrues interest when you aren't using it. Couple this with making sure to visit low-cost "minute clinics" rather than an ER or a primary care professional in a clinic (your appointment at 1330 means you will actually be seen at 1445, wasting an extra hour of your time) and the long-term benefits are immediately recognizable--more saving, less spending.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote: I still think that instead of paying money every month (or having it deducted from your paycheck as most people do) if people could put that money into a health savings account and use it for medical coverage then everyone benefits. The employers won't have to pay their side of coverage (which is more than you pay, I can assure you) *and* the account accrues interest when you aren't using it. Couple this with making sure to visit low-cost "minute clinics" rather than an ER or a primary care professional in a clinic (your appointment at 1330 means you will actually be seen at 1445, wasting an extra hour of your time) and the long-term benefits are immediately recognizable--more saving, less spending.

I mostly agree, but my wife's employer contributes to our HSA. I think that's how they all work.

Cail, I agree with many of your criticisms of our foreign policy. I'm not using the last 15 years as evidence of the worth of our military. I've mentioned future catastrophes, for instance. Check out my latest post in the ebola thread ... mass migration of infected people crossing our border would have to be dealt with by the military. If even more global instability breaks out, same thing.

But I do think that we've gained a lot of valuable experience over the last 15 years, even if much of that experience is being wasted now ... lessons being forgotten. In addition, I think a stable Iraq--as opposed to the one we attacked in 2003--is obviously better for the region, which is better for the world. Too bad Obama blew that. Now that he has learned his lesson there (at least), he has reversed his position about residual forces in Afghanistan, so we'll also have a lasting gain there, in terms of defeating the Taliban and AQ. No more safe haven for terrorists there.

But in other areas we have dropped the ball, I admit. Libya was a horrible decision. Not arming the Ukrainians was just cowardly betrayal of an ally. Obviously Obama screwed the Middle East by pulling out our troops.

There was never a stable Iraq, there was an occupied Iraq. I don't think that's the kind of country we want to be.

Zarathustra wrote:

Cail wrote:

Zarathustra wrote:Just because companies make money by supplying our military doesn't mean we go to war for profit.

Of course not, and no one's saying that.

Then I must have misunderstood quotes like, "It's about money, not security and helping the rest of the world."

I am sorry, but you did misunderstand. I am not focusing just on their latest wars in middle east, but their heightened war stance for the last 60+ years since world war 2. Yes, the us does go to war over strategic/profit motives, but they also have a war stance for profit *all the time*. And, the profit is not for the us government, but the corporations/military industrial complex.

Do they make money bombing IS? Yes. They make money on the products of war used. They ensure investments in oil fields aren't taken over by IS. They make money on logistics, preparation. They make money from opportunities created in the changing power structure on the ground. Of course they make money. War is great business!

Do they make money keeping people scared and preparing for wars? Of course! Peacetime is very profitable for them, too. War is great business!

The military industrial complex/corporations/media have created a mindset where this stuff is not questioned in the mainstream. You have us former military appearing on the american news making cases for fear and 'intervention' (war) who are actually lobbyists for contractors making the products for war. Americans have some scary 'evil doers' communists, terrorists, axis of evil, socialists, alligators... whatever presented as a figure to motivate, maintain, and increase the spending on this war state perpetually. It has become part of the socialisation process in the us to accept this state, in my opinion.

The americans could easily afford healthcare. They just choose not to.

And, Z, predicting that there will be war and that the americans will be so thankful for 70-100 years of bending over for the military industrial complex doesn't feel very genuine.

Ananda wrote: The americans could easily afford healthcare. They just choose not to.

Of course we could.
But no, we'd rather stay the course.
The course that has had us pay almost 1/2 a trillion dollars [so far] for a plane that is a piece of crap, and is almost a decade behind schedule, and god knows how far over budget in the end [at MINIMUM 3times]
A plane that, even now, includes technology that the makers CAN't make work, even though it is ALREADY out of date. [in other words, the technology DOES work...when built an implemented by people who know what the fuck they are doing, but the people building the plane can't/won't use it...cuz they lose money if they don't make it themselves and do it their way...it's the 700 dollar toilet all over again. They HAD to charge 700 bucks cuz they aren't toilet makers, even though any joe on the street could by a better one for less than 100.] Other problems, too. Many, MANY other problems.
Hell, we could cut the military budget by AT LEAST 25% and get more and better equipment at the same time.

And I'll repeat myself...much of the cost of healthcare--at least as much as all the fat lazy smokers--is because we lack basic healthcare.
There are many countries that smoke more, with better health, drink more, with better health, exercise less with better health.

The thing that SHOULD matter most is: there are at least [some numbers vary, so I chose the low end] 7 FIRST WORLD, modern economies that smoke more AND drink more AND exercise less AND six of the seven have better health, [one is a tie], they all have "socialist" health systems, and they cost less even INCLUDING gov't taxes/spending.

That still doesn't make health or healthcare a right.
But it definitely makes our ways stupid and ineffective.

Edited to repair some, but not all, of the "errors' that will annoy The Fallen if he reads this thread.

Zarathustra wrote:

Hashi Lebwohl wrote: I still think that instead of paying money every month (or having it deducted from your paycheck as most people do) if people could put that money into a health savings account and use it for medical coverage then everyone benefits....

I mostly agree, but my wife's employer contributes to our HSA. I think that's how they all work.

Pretty sure ours is set up to be funded entirely by employee contributions, but I could be wrong as I don't have one. I'll take a better look at it during open season next month and let you know.

And I agree with Cail and Hashi on the WoT digression. We've dumped a ton of money into the Homeland Security bureaucracy and we're not any safer than we were before 9/11. In fact, we may be *less* safe, given that DHS is handing its surplus equipment over to yahoos on local police forces around the country.

Yeah, agreed on that last.

--A

wayfriend wrote:

Mongnihilo wrote:They willfully caused their own illnesses.

Preposterous.

Mongnihilo wrote:They willfully caused their own illness.

Preposterous.

Mongnihilo wrote:The choice to willfully cause one's own illness.

Still preposterous.

No one's intention is to be unhealthy.
Just as no one's intentions is to consume health resources at someone else's expense.
There is no 'willfully ' here.
It's preposterous.

I really wish you would state the basis for your declaration,
instead of the one you are making up which you hope sounds better than the real one.
Because the one which you hope sounds better doesn't hold up on inspection.

- - - - -

It's too bad no one can point to the crime for which they think some people should be punished.

Here's what it [probably] really is: Sorry Joe, the system is more economical for me if you get screwed over. It's nothing personal. It's just that I will save some pennies this way.

In other words, the justification is greed.

Blow it out your ass, WF.

This thread certainly has taken a few twists and turns. My thoughts:

Guns vs. butter. Despite what Cail says, it almost doesn't matter how much we cut our defense spending. Demographically we are obligated to pay for far more healthcare than can ever be afforded by any conceivable group of taxpayers. Reform is needed, and most importantly notice. We need to put people on notice that the big government promises will not be coming to fruition in the way LBJ suggested. Individuals are going to have to take more responsibility for their health, and their healthcare -- if they want a good result.

War mongering world cops. Some really naïve comments floating around along with some trenchant ones, so in the name of the naïve I'll keep it simple. Yes the US has its flaws including the creation of a global surveillance state... but to quote the great Beck: SPRECHEN SIE DEUTSCH, BABY?

Regarding the criticism that the US acts in its national self interest, I don't think that is necessarily true in all cases. Sometimes purely humanitarian factors come into play. But even if true: so what? If you don't like it, stop depending on the US to do your dirty work for you and get moving against the 'bad guys'. Get out there and be somebody!

Mongnihilo wrote: Blow it out your ass, WF.

Come on, Mong. Really?

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

Mongnihilo wrote: Blow it out your ass, WF.

Come on, Mong. Really?

Hashi, I've never objected to a Socratic dialogue even an adversarial one, but I don't appreciate being accused several times of intentionally misleading my accuser with dishonest answers in order to conceal my cryptic evil motives. Or am I supposed to put up with that shit in the name of tranquility?

Mongnihilo wrote:Or am I supposed to put up with that shit in the name of tranquility?

No, of course not, which is why I try to advise walking away. Not for my sake or the Tank's sake or anyone else's sake but for your own--why take on any extra mental grief that you don't need?

I actually agree with you--many people who have illnesses, especially preventable ones, bear the burden of responsibility for those illnesses which they could have avoided but chose not to. When the other side engages in some sort of logical fallacy don't respond to it other than to point out what kind of fallacy they are using by referencing some site like logicalfallacies.info.

Now...as I look back at my first paragraph I realize that I want some sake. mmmmm.....