nsplayr

Because I wasn't talking to you. The only claim you made was that, "Canada and England's healthcare system is crap." Kinda on you to either clarify that or to provide some data if you really wanna have a debate about this. Are those systems "crap" because they cost too much? Are they crap because their outcomes are not as good as ours? Are they crap because people in those countries like them less than our people like our system?

PM theSituation.

CNN article on that same story published today.

Like you said, mostly due to technological advances. I find it hard to argue that someone below the poverty level in the U.S. has a better quality of life compared to an Egyptian Pharaoh. Especially considering quality of life, while you can measure it quantitatively in some ways, is largely qualitative and thus relative QOL is important in how well-off a person believes they are. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King. Buddy Spike beat me to it...damn it feels good to be a gangsta.

I agree it's not like the sky is falling tomorrow, but even if it doesn't lead to actual violent unrest, there are serious political consequences when a huge chuck of the population starts believing a tiny sliver at the top controls everything and they have no means to move up the social ladder. Data points like the ones raised in the videos, along with ones suggesting that our social mobility is declining and that in many ways we are not better off than our parents on the whole, give credence to that argument. I think Americans are actually quite immune to this type of trouble...there's something deep in our cultural DNA that says "You can achieve the American Dream" and it prevents some of this turmoil over inequality. That's a good thing and Americans always are #1 in terms of optimism and self-belief, but that being said, it doesn't mean that at some point that can be overcome by reality.

Are you being serious here or just a bit of hyperbole? True...the argument is at the margins, not over the absolute concept of inequality. Some inequality, even a high degree, must exist to incentivize hard work, the question is how much and what the video points out is that our system is vastly more unequal than people say they want it to be. That in itself causes problems.

Sorry guys...already taken

Like someone else brought up in another thread, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. This is a great blog BTW if you're interested in healthcare policy and their take on this question about health outcomes is, in part, here. Obviously health outcomes involves a lot more than a nation's healthcare system i.e. why Japan is ranked highest in health outcomes although its healthcare system, while good, is not. Props where props are due though...among all the things the U.S. healthcare system does poorly, we're not too shabby at cancer survival rates.

I hear what you're saying WRT direct government payments to schools (i.e. military TA) regardless of the quality of the school or the degree being pursued. Although to play devil's advocate, isn't that policy giving the consumer more choice and putting more personal responsibility to use the money efficiently instead of having government mandates about what kind of degree people should be pursuing? Food for thought. Quick clarification too, looking at the total amount of government-sponsored loans to students isn't a good measure of what the government is actually spending long-term. Student debt is extremely hard to get rid of, even if you declare bankruptcy and you're paying interest (even if a small amount) on that money, so in the long-run every dollar loaned that's paid back with interest is a dollar well-spent no matter what the person's degree is in. Grants, on the other hand, are a different story and there's a lot more room for discussion as to what kinds of degrees the government should be directly paying for in that manner. Government regulation is not socialism...inaccurately adding derragotory labels to things you don't like doesn't help move the debate forward. If someone is advocating for the direct government ownership of the means of production, call it socialism. If not, there are other terms that are much more accurate. That's of course if you're interested in moving the debate forward vice stirring up a partisan fight... Anecdotally I'm sure there are horror stories, but on the whole their systems spend less per capita, produce better outcomes (i.e. people are healthier after being treated for the same diseases), and higher patient satisfaction than our system in the U.S. You may not like their system and even a majority of those people might not like their own system, but that doesn't mean it's still not better than ours in very objective ways.

Where in the real world does the jury have to have the same job as you? From reading the story it all does seem a little shady, but to argue that the jury wasn't made up of his peers when they were military officers of similar rank doesn't really make a lot of sense and is kinda focusing on the wrong thing.

I can count about 4 that are coming to Cannon in the near future just from the small list of guys that I know personally...perhaps this is a good sign for life down there? I thought they had a 6 year commitment? Beta guys didn't get this maybe?

I posted the link in the sequestration thread, but the Army has already suspended its TA program "indefinitely" due to budget cuts.

That's great for you, but it doesn't appear to be true on the whole. I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you fit pretty nicely into the data set examined here. Lots to read there; male income is in decline generatinoally although family income is just barely above water because so many more women work today than in previous generations, productivity has continued to climb at historically consistent rates yet wages have not, etc. The authors of the study (from Brookings, Heritage, Pew, AEI, Urban Institute, etc.) address your point directly in saying, "As a group, they [men in their 30s in 2004] have on average 12 percent less income than their fathers’ generation at the same age. This suggests the up-escalator that has historically ensured that each generation would do better than the last may not be working very well." Very many did not. They died from lack of medical care and did not go to college. The government through the years has decided it is in society's best interest to have a healthy and long-lived population, and guess what, deaths from preventable diseases are down and life expectancy is up. The government also decided it was in society's best interest to have an educated workforce, and guess what, college graduation rates and productivity went up. All of those things, unfortunately, are moving in the opposite direction now...our medical system on the whole is costing an arm and a leg and producing below-average outcomes and our graduation rates are falling. If you ask me we, as a society through both private- and public-sector actions, should be doing more, in these areas, not less. Yes.

Flight hours: More than 4,400

I believe retirees are authorized Mustache Whenever-the-F-They-Want. That's my interpretation of the regs at least...

IDK...I've seen some pretty bad leadership with a lot of hours under their belt. Not sure there's a real correlation there, seems like too simple of an answer.

See below. Amen...this is the BIG question behind much of this debate. Your view totally makes sense depending on what your values and political beliefs are and I think mine does as well. I certainly know what I believe the role of government to be, and you're free to feel differently; it's something that will continually be renegotiated as history marches on via elections, changing government policies, and the changing views of new generations of citizens. Good summation of the conservative/libertarian viewpoint on the role of government

If by "lead the way" you mean advocate for a system-wide change while personally contributing to charity, sounds great, that's the plan. And it's not about "taking other people's money," it's about using the government's powers of taxation, spending, regulation etc. to create a system that results in an overall national economic system that produces consistent growth, social mobility, and a more ideal distribution of wealth (in line with the wishes of the vast majority of citizens). If all you see when you pay your taxes is "someone taking your money" then we really don't need to have this conversation about how the government, through policy, can shape the country's economy.

Glad heritage lives at least somewhere in the AF.

Agreed. Emphasis added. This can be part of it for sure.

...and the full faith and credit of the United States of America. Decreasing wealth inequality need not be about robbing Peter to pay Paul, it can be about creating more wealth via economic growth. Because our government's tax and transfer policies are the largest factor in keeping even out insanely unequal wealth distribution in check, I happen to support policies that would make our tax system more progressive. But beyond that narrow scope of government action, the bigger system should incentivize things that will allow for a strong middle class, good social mobility, and economic growth of the entire system. Your views on what policies will cause those things (or perhaps if they are even worthy goals) likely are heavily influenced by your political ideology.

That's not the point at all, although charity giving is an important thing I would hope everyone would ratchet up as they have more and more disposable income. The point is that the system writ large should be setup to encourage a more equal distribution of wealth. I happen to think a more equal distribution of wealth is healthier for our society, for our economy, and ultimately for our economic and national security and that our tax and regulatory systems could be changed to encourage those types of changes. I happen to be one of the 90% of people who would like to see a more equal distribution...that doesn't mean perfectly equal or anything close to it. But MORE equal, that's something that has the support of 9 our of 10 Americans and so if you're the 1 of 10 who's ideal system is similar to our current one, perhaps it's you who should do the explaining. 90% of Americans aren't socialists/communists I'm pretty sure, although I'm sure those accusations are coming (and have been said before when this topic comes up).

Valid...I could give a shit about wealth inequality if 100% of the population was 25% above the poverty line and there was good social mobility up and down the ladder. Those things are never gonna happen, got it, little idealism here. What's problamatic is when you have a very, very small cadre of extremely wealthy and a vast underclass that's below, at, or near the poverty line and without the means to move up the social ladder effectively. Luckily for us we still have relatively good social mobility (up at least, people already at the top rarely move down even when they're stupid and incompetent). I think that helps alleviate a lot of the social pressures of massive wealth inequality...it's the very American hope that one day you or your children will finally make it and move on up to the East side.

To answer your last question, nope. If you don't understand that you can be for higher taxes on the wealthy or a more equal distribution of wealth among the U.S. population (or at least a system that encourages that end-goal), yet still want to end up on the top of the pile through hard work and smart investment/wealth creation, you don't understand the argument at all.

The "ideal" distribution graphs were taken from data found in this study. It goes further and shows the ideal distributions of men vs women, the rich vs the poor, etc., although none of the differences in gender or wealth really made meaningful differences in what that person thinks is ideal. Lots of good data to back up their conclusions, the video posted just aggregates the results of this study plus some other data and presents it graphically. People can know what they want without knowing the truth. The thing that's disturbing is that people are correct that our current distribution of wealth is less equal than they would ideally want...the main thing they're wrong about is the scale of the difference between their stated ideal and what actually exists.