backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 334 comment(s) - last by Belard.. on Apr 22 at 2:41 AM

F-22 Raptor  (Source: Lockheed Martin)
The Pentagon is ready to end two major programs that will likely cause job cuts among several private contractors

Defense Secretary Robert Gates shook up the private defense sector at the start of the week by announcing that the Pentagon plans to end F-22 fighter jet production and cancel the Lockheed Martin VH-71 helicopter program in the near future.  The loss of both the fighter jet and helicopter will likely put thousands of Americans out of work while the U.S. military refocuses on a new type of war.

"This is a reform budget, reflecting lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet also addressing the range of other potential threats around the world, now and in the future," Gates said during a media briefing at the Pentagon.

There will be 187 F-22 fighter jets that need to be delivered or are currently being manufactured, but there won't be any more orders placed by the Pentagon, Gates said.  Each F-22 costs $140 million to manufacture.

The announcement on Monday was described as an "unorthodox approach" because Gates' news conference took place before the annual White House budget proposal to Congress.  The announcement initially led to concern over job cuts at Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and smaller partner companies who help fund research and development.

The end of F-22 production will allow the government to shift focus to the smaller, more versatile Lockheed F-35.  There are currently 38,000 people working on the F-35's development, but that number is expected to top 80,000 in 2011.  However, Lockheed said there could be almost 100,000 jobs at risk in California, Georgia, Connecticut, and Texas if the government doesn't order more F-22 jets.  

The U.S. government is looking to transition its military force to be able to fight unconventional battles, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, rather than focus on countries like China or Russia, military analysts said.

Furthermore, there have been several high-profile incidents with the F-22 over the years, with a test pilot dying several weeks ago due to an unspecified problem.

Senators from Connecticut and Georgia are disappointed with Gates' decision, and are attempting to find ways to not lose thousands of manufacturing jobs that are now at risk.  Unless Congress places more orders, however, it’s unlikely layoffs can be avoided.

Companies involved in F-22 development have spent the past several months lobbying against government-led discussions regarding ending the fighter jet's development, though it "was not a close call," according to Gates.  

In addition to the F-22, the Pentagon also decided to eliminate the costly VH-71 helicopter project, which costs more than Air Force One -- a modified Boeing 747 -- to develop.  

Lockheed has the most to lose from this announcement, with military analysts curious to see how the company deals with the loss of two major military programs.  It appears Gates' decision is final, and Lockheed must now try and adapt to the pending loss that will take place after the final 187 F-22s are shipped out.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
F35 vs F22
By RagnarIV on 4/7/2009 2:08:58 AM , Rating: 5
For all those saying "Hey we're going to have a whole bunch of F35s why do we need F22s?"

F22 fighters are long range interceptors and attack fighters. F35s are short range multipurpose fighters. You can't patrol our coastlines in fighters with a range of 900-1,200NMi.
A F22's range is 1,600nmi. (The F35 has to use external fuel tanks to get a range of 1,200nmi.)

Remember when the Air Force grounded the F-15 fighters due to issues with their airframes, and people were concerned as F16 fighters didn't have the range to patrol the coast lines. Especially with Russia resuming their long range bomber flights.

I also think this is blown out of proportions as the F22's technologies are present in the F35, as the F22 was used as the development platform for many of the technologies, hence the higher price.

All in all, I think its a bad move to cut production of the F22 especially where the F15s aren't going to last us much longer.




RE: F35 vs F22
By Aloonatic on 4/7/2009 3:53:35 AM , Rating: 5
But which aircraft has the better (nautical)MPG? That's all that matters these days. :D


RE: F35 vs F22
By Totally on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: F35 vs F22
By Aloonatic on 4/7/2009 5:37:50 AM , Rating: 4
I genuinely worry about some people who comment on this website sometimes.

You are precisely the kind of person that the character Joey was inserted into the show Friends for, so that there was someone to have the jokes explained to in order to let the slightly harder of thinking viewer in on the joke that the majority of the world had worked out for themselves without making them feel bad.

As you seem to need it explaining.

Of course the comparative MPGs do not matter, or at least it isn't the most important thing anyway (tho longer range is obviously a bonus) and frankly most MPG figures that you see matter a lot less than manufacturers make out (you might have seen them in 1 or 2 or 50 articles on here however) in reality but in these enviromenally charged times it might seem that it is the only statistic that people care about.


RE: F35 vs F22
By markitect on 4/7/2009 8:11:14 AM , Rating: 1
Actually the military has recently been investigating fuel saving technology. Particularly the cost of converting some ground vehicles to gas* electric hybrid technology is a hot topic. In this case you get not only less fuel consumption, but a tactical advantage as well as vehicles have the ability to move silently. And you have a smaller logistic requirement cutting down on the number of convoys that are required to supply a unit.

*by gas I mean any fuel, not the unleaded you get at the pump.


RE: F35 vs F22
By tmouse on 4/7/2009 8:13:12 AM , Rating: 2
You even put a smiley up!


RE: F35 vs F22
By bodar on 4/7/2009 5:43:03 AM , Rating: 5
Yep, no room for humor here at DailyTech. Comments are deadly serious. I'm gonna go think about this and frown for like an hour at least, maybe try and work up an ulcer. You keep patrolling the comments for "jokesters".


RE: F35 vs F22
By DeepBlue1975 on 4/7/2009 10:53:53 AM , Rating: 2
Enter the hybrid planes! :D


RE: F35 vs F22
By lagomorpha on 4/7/2009 6:56:39 PM , Rating: 2
What you mean like a turboprop? Mmm hybrid propeller/turbine technology.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Noliving on 4/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: F35 vs F22
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2009 6:39:34 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah right now. What about in 30 years when the F22 would be the F15/F16 of today?

I find it appalling that with the trillions we're spending, we can't even spend a few billion dollars to buy jets that those in charge of our military say we need. I mean gave what, $7 billion f*cking dollars to ACORN? That would've bought 50 F22s. But no, giving money to Obama's crooks was absolutely necessary.


RE: F35 vs F22
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2009 6:47:54 AM , Rating: 5
Oh and not to mention the fact that in Gates' plan they also plan to retire 250 aircraft. What are they going to replace them with? Nothing. The F35 is at least 5 years away from being combat ready. And thats just the F35A version.

The original plan for the F22 was to build 750 of them to replace around 1300 aircraft. The main reason why its cost per unit is so high is due to them building less than a 1/3 of what they originally planned.

And if you don't think that the F35 program will come on the chopping block you need to think again. Obama has said he wants to end Cold War era weapons programs. Well the F35 is in that category. If you think the F35 will actually see the production numbers they're currently quoting I think you'll be in for a surprise. Especially if the extremely unfortunate happened and Democrats retained control of the House and Senate like they do currently past 2010 and Obama were elected to a second term.


RE: F35 vs F22
By psypher on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: F35 vs F22
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2009 10:01:42 AM , Rating: 5
Idiot. What does equality have anything to do here?

And the idea of everyone deserves to be equal is one based on Communism. The Constitution says that all men are created equal. It does not say that the government will make sure that all men STAY equal.

Someone who goes out and gets an education and works as an engineer deserves to have more than someone who drops out of school and works at Walmart as a cashier. Because they've put in the effort to develop a skillset that's desirable and commands a good salary.

And the people in charge of the military have said we need these planes. Politicians decided we didn't.


RE: F35 vs F22
By aebiv on 4/7/2009 11:52:03 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
And the idea of everyone deserves to be equal is one based on Communism. The Constitution says that all men are created equal. It does not say that the government will make sure that all men STAY equal.


Sam Colt made men equal :P


RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: F35 vs F22
By maven81 on 4/7/2009 1:49:19 PM , Rating: 3
YOU are the idiot. Gates IS the military! And if you actually paid attention he is proposing that the military budget be INCREASED. I know that you can't get that through your head, so read that again, Gates is INCREASING overall military spending. What he's doing is shifting the allocation of that money, from programs that are more vital (special forces for example).

This is exactly what some of us have been advocating all along, that funding be given to things we actually need asap.
But to someone who admitted to have a connection with big ticket defense contractors this is clearly hard to grasp.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Yaron on 4/7/2009 2:57:07 PM , Rating: 5
Guys,

Increasing or decreasing is not the point here. The real point is current needs VS. future needs. I completely understand what Gates is talking about, but his decision may be dangerous in the long run.

The question at hand is this:
Do you derive your conventional capabilities from special forces / anti terror capabilities
-OR-
you derive your special forces / anti terror capabilities from your overall conventional ones?

The correct answer is the second one. First & foremost, the most important capability of ANY army is it's conventional forces. Second to that and derived from it are the special operations. The simple fact is that the most important function of the US armed forces is to protect America - PHYSICALLY protect the ACTUAL country that is known as the USA.
The rest - EVERYTHING ELSE - is secondary (at best), including US interests abroad, allies, financial interests, etc.

By stopping production of such a valuable and essential weapons platform as the F22, that is vital to the protection of the US, Gates is ultimately undermining (not purposely) the mission of the US armed forces. Having just 187 F22 is a dangerous gamble. As good as this aircraft is, you still need some mass. 187 planes is nothing in a conventional war.

Israel did the same mistake during 2000 - 2006. We concentrated on special forces / anti terror capabilities and slowly but surely neglected our conventional capabilities. Then, in 2006 we found ourselves in a semi-conventional conflict and the results were not satisfactory. The new IDF chief turned it around and now the Israeli army is back in the saddle. And his primary goal was (and I quote): "We will derive our special forces / anti terror capabilities from our overall conventional capabilities that we prepare for an all out, conventional war". Lessons learned.

Gates must learn from our lessons. No need to make the same mistakes twice.


RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 3:21:53 PM , Rating: 2
The US military is so far beyond
quote:
PHYSICALLY protect the ACTUAL country that is known as the USA
it's not even funny.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Yaron on 4/7/2009 3:35:26 PM , Rating: 1
Oh really?

And what do you think their mission is? protecting oil fields in the middle east?


RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 3:40:24 PM , Rating: 3
The US military is about projecting power and influencing other countries toward US interests. I wasn't disagreeing with you if you though I was, just saying that if all the US military had to do, or if the primary goal with a secondary goal of mutual defense or offense far behind it, was protect the physical US we'd be way ahead of what's needed.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Expunge on 4/7/2009 10:21:10 AM , Rating: 2
No.. it is a site where people can think and on occasion express an informed opinion not drink the kool-aid as obviously you do.

And if the Dems hold the House and Senate for much longer there won't be a country as we will be bankrupt! How Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd are not executed for the grievous harm that their incompetent and corrupt asses have caused to the free market economy of the United States is beyond me.

When you start paying 40K a year in taxes because you are working 2700+ hours a year busting your ass then you might understand how pissed I am at them and Pelosi and Reid to name a few. When you see your 401K become a 201K then a 101K you might understand. The corruption and idiocy that is "in charge" of our country now is truly epic.

When you truly understand the wealth that these criminals have destroyed then you might be half as enraged as me. Until then, shut the hell up, flip your burgers, watch MTV and think you know what’s going on in the rest of the world when you don’t even have a clue..

You mention equality.. Answer me this, now that Barrack has been elected to the White House will affrimitive action end? If you believe in equality then surely the goal has been reached with electing a black man (non-US citizen) to the White House.

To your last comment about Camaro's. Opinons are like a-holes, and yours stinks. I will take my 2010 Camaro SS on order against your $2000 shit can Honda any day.


RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 10:50:05 AM , Rating: 2
Unlike all of the extreme viewpoints here and every where else the answer is in the middle. But that wouldn't make for entertaining interweb arguments, or cable TV shows, or radio talk shows would it? Because yeah, none of the crap we write here really means much of anything as far as having an impact.

And if you're that worried about your investments and savings in the short time you should take a more active role in managing them. If not don't fret the ups and downs and stick to your plan for the long term. p.s. The stock market and economy wasn't doing so hot before Jan 2009.


RE: F35 vs F22
By psypher on 4/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: F35 vs F22
By psypher on 4/7/2009 10:56:01 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, and I'm not really worried about the $600k either, since the market goes up and down. not the first time i've lost money, but at the same time, over time my investments have always trended up (think long term and don't get scared by an immediate drop).


RE: F35 vs F22
By MrBungle123 on 4/7/2009 11:33:47 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
(more of a travel channel/ CNN junky )


Thats your problem right there.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2009 3:20:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And last I checked, Obama is half black/half white (not that it matters) and most definitely a naturally born U.S. citizen (seeing as that is in fact a requirement to hold the position of president).


You didn't check very well. He's been asked to provide a valid birth certificate, but never has. Nobody has called him on it or made it an issue, because he's black and it would be political suicide to force the issue because of political correctness.

You do not know he was natural born, and nobody who voted for him knows either. Nobody knows. Did you know Obama hired a lawyer to force the hospital in Hawaii to seal his records so nobody could request them ? If he had nothing to hide, why do this ? Did you know Hawaii does a Certificate of Live Birth in addition to a birth certificate ? So the certificate you see of his birth is NOT a legally binding birth certificate. Anyone can bring a newborn into a hospital in Hawaii and get a Certificate of Live Birth. It is NOT the same as a Birth Certificate.

His own grandmother said he was born in Kenya, on top of all that.


RE: F35 vs F22
By hiscross on 4/7/2009 10:23:07 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure our current socialist leadership is getting all of their intelligence knowledge from their friends of the soviet union. Like those clowns got it right. The lefties have no idea what is coming next


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/7/2009 3:10:27 PM , Rating: 3
It's a shame that some people don't realize that the socialist comment is no joke.

It's also sad that, because of human selfishness and sin, we don't have the luxury of true democracy or a true republic in this life.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Belard on 4/7/2009 4:57:57 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah...

Because bush and team did such a goooooood job.

The guy was and is an idiot. We are in worse shape than 10 years ago, bin laden, never caught. War over lies, Afgan in danger of being lost... not enough intresting targets blow up.

Guess what, we - like many other countries in the world have social systems. Social Security? Your fire and police departments, public schools, the roads you drive on, the drivers licence you pay for. The water system that allows you to take a shower and drink.

Only thing missing is the totally scewed up Health system. Designed to make money and raise the costs of medical care for the sake of investors. So in the end, it COSTS us more money and less people get medical care. In Houson, 9~10 people went into the ER 2,700 times in 5 years. Costing the state/fed about $3million dollars! If there was a proper health system, they'd have a local doctor they could see for far less. People lose their homes because of medical bills.

Gates is from Bush era, he said why he's cutting down the F22. I don't quite see the whole picture, but he does have access to far more military intel than YOU or ME. He's talking about moving our resources around.

Onlike most of the world, the USA has two HUGE oceans that offer "protection". We have radar (above and below water) out the butt... if someone farts in the ocean, we'll hear it... but we can't see an illegal jump the boarder in Texas.
Our navy is top notch, we have bases all over the country.

With that said, the F35 is more important because its a multi-role fighter, its modern and cheaper to build. It will need to replace other aging aircrafts. But we can't afford to sink all of our resources into the military - that is one of the things that sunk the USSR.

Also the roles of UAVs is expanding. They are very cheap, no danger to pilots and more expendable. They can be made faster and more manuverable than a piloted aircraft because of G-forces alone.

Our primary threats are whimpy terrorist (not man enough to actually fight face to face) and N.Korea. Russia and China are problematic... it really shouldn't be, but things aren't all that great. The weapon systems needs to be adjusted for the future.

Look at the P4-Phantom. First versions didn't have a gun because "missles" were the future... they later found out that a gun was needed. An A10 can do things an F22 cannot and will be in service for another 20 years. With all that we have, the USA still has the top tech for warfare.


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: F35 vs F22
By the3monkies on 4/7/2009 6:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
Randal babe, you haven't the slightest understanding of what socialism is. All of the examples given by Belard are perfectly good examples of socialism. The fact is that there are no purely socialist or capitalist societies anywhere. Those who say that Sweden and France are not capitalist societies have obviously never actually been to those countries. All capitalist societies are in fact socialist-capitalist hybrids. The reason that is so is that even the rich who control our lives realize that a purely capitalist society leads ultimately to revolution as fewer and fewer people control more and more of a nation’s wealth (and here in the US the inequality of wealth distribution is again approaching pre-Depression levels). It’s just that a few better-managed European countries are more intelligently socialized that we are.

Talk about drinking the Koolaid! Randal boy you got to stop parroting Rush and start thinking for yourself. You might try to do a little reading for starters. Obama's tragedy is that he inherited all this shit from that draft-dodging, corporate tool Bush who fucked this country up so bad that even Jesus would throw up his hands in despair.


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: F35 vs F22
By the3monkies on 4/7/2009 7:24:26 PM , Rating: 3
Randal, your insistent use of Hussein to refer to Obama, and this bizarre assertion that Obama is a Marxist shows that your biggotry is only equaled by you total lack of understanding about what socialism and Marxism really are - for one thing you seem to think they are synonyms! And I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt when I say that you haven't an idea in your head that didn't come from Rush and his ilk - if it's that case that you arrived at these ideas on your own, then bro you're in serious need of some remedial education because whatever it is that connects the facts to your conclusions, it’s not logic.

Of course, I'm a liberal – do you think it a coincidence that most well-educated people are?

As for what Socialism is - do some reading.


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/7/2009 7:58:21 PM , Rating: 1
Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

So now I'm a bigot for calling President Barack Hussein Obama a socialist? Whenever someone like you is on the absolute losing side of a failed argument, they always resort to calling the other side racist, intolerant, bigots, rednecks, etc etc.

quote:
socialistic and Marxist based


That part of the sentence means that a lot of what Obama has been doing is based off of Socialist and Marxist principals.

I did not use them as synonyms you idiot.

quote:
Of course, I'm a liberal – do you think it a coincidence that most well-educated people are?


That is so fundamentally flawed I don't think I can even respond. I am so dumbfounded that I am lost for words.

To appease your demand for me looking up definitions of Socialism and Marxism... here ya go.

Socialism: I want everything that everyone else has worked for, but I want it for free and without all the hard work.

Marxism: There is really no need for me to work, because I can benefit from everyone else. I don't have a need for personal possessions or freedom.

Now that you had me do my 3rd grade school work, lets hear your definitions.

Obama's plan for national health care is a SOCIALIST AGENDA AND IDEA! There are many more examples of his socialist agenda as well...


RE: F35 vs F22
By the3monkies on 4/7/2009 8:24:35 PM , Rating: 3
I called you a biggot because you insist on calling him "Mr Hussein" - in other words he's a Muslim, a Raghead, not one of us. This is rightwing-radio, nutcase stuff.

quote:
I did not use them as synonyms you idiot.


And yet the definitions you give of socialism and Marxism are virtually identical! LOL.

Funny that you should bring up health care. The health care system in the US is one of the most inefficient in the developed world. We spend more money on health care than any other country but consistently rank towards the bottom in terms of care provided. Even Cuba has a lower childhood mortality rate than the US! But then the health care system in this country doesn’t exist to cure the sick, it exists to enrich the health care providers and for-profit insurance companies – companies who spend millions on people whose sole responsibility is to figure out ways to deny coverage to paying members.


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/7/2009 8:39:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I called you a biggot because you insist on calling him "Mr Hussein" - in other words he's a Muslim, a Raghead, not one of us. This is rightwing-radio, nutcase stuff.


Hussein is his middle name. Go ahead and tell everyone reading this a lie by saying that you have never spoke the words "dub ya" when referring to George W Bush. Please, in front of God and everybody make that lie. It's funny when someone says "dub ya", but it's racist to say "Hussein". Since we are calling each other names like Bigot and racist, I'll be inclined to call you a hypocrite. :)

quote:
But then the health care system in this country doesn’t exist to cure the sick, it exists to enrich the health care providers and for-profit insurance companies – companies who spend millions on people whose sole responsibility is to figure out ways to deny coverage to paying members.


Direct evidence that you are truly disillusion. I hope you repeat that to the next doctor that you visit, and see how he feels about that. Like I said earlier, the merits of our health care system are sound and just. However, the people that add corruption to the system are not. Do you think we are going to be avoiding that with universal health care?

If you want universal health care so bad then why don't you move to Canada? The reason you wont is because if you do happen to need medical treatment, you will have to jump the boarder to get proper health care LMAO.

Just for your information, this country has the one of the best health care systems that exists on planet earth. You know why? Because people that care and work hard are at the foundation of it. You give examples of moral corruption. Not pragmatic ideology.


RE: F35 vs F22
By the3monkies on 4/7/2009 9:00:15 PM , Rating: 2
Opinion is not fact Randall

quote:
Just for your information, this country has the one of the best health care systems that exists on planet earth.


The World Health Organization's ranking
of the world's health systems.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Rank Country

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/7/2009 9:34:15 PM , Rating: 2
Solution to your problem with America:

Move to France.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Belard on 4/22/2009 2:23:07 AM , Rating: 2
Hmmm.... move to another country?

How about we IMPROVE the country we are in... hey what an idea!


RE: F35 vs F22
By MrBungle123 on 4/7/2009 11:08:18 PM , Rating: 2
Please by all means, move to france and leave us with our 37th place health care. I'm quite happy with it thank you very much.


RE: F35 vs F22
By the3monkies on 4/7/2009 11:36:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just for your information, this country has the one of the best health care systems that exists on planet earth.


It does if you're rich. If you can't afford an expensive health insurance policy and the wife gets cancer, it's either sell the house, or give your life savings to that altruistic doctor of yours.

And how about those 650,000 people who lost their jobs in March? Now that they haven't any health insurance should we turn them away if they get sick, or give them free health care like in socialist France? What would Jesus do?


RE: F35 vs F22
By MrBungle123 on 4/8/2009 7:02:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It does if you're rich. If you can't afford an expensive health insurance policy and the wife gets cancer, it's either sell the house, or give your life savings to that altruistic doctor of yours.


Your implied plea is for universal health care... however I'm going to have to side with one of the founding fathers on this one and say:

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
- Benjamin Franklin.

You lose the liberty to choose your own doctor for the securtity of the government paying for it, but in the end you get the care they choose for you which invariably will be that which is cheapest for the politician. In short you lose both your freedom to choose and any meaningful care which would have given you any sense of security. There is no such thing as a free lunch, no matter what the obama kool-aid drinkers tell you.

I sincerely do hope for your sake that you wake up and realize that politicans on the other side of the country do not care about you and are only interested in gaining more power. You are nothing more that another vote to them.


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/7/2009 7:14:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
even Jesus would throw up his hands in despair.


BTW, I don't know what God you worship, but the God of my universe will fix everything in the blink of an eye when the time comes.


RE: F35 vs F22
By the3monkies on 4/7/2009 7:32:43 PM , Rating: 1
I assume you're a Christian Randall - seriously, do you think Jesus, if he were among us today, would be a liberal or a fuck-everybody-but-biggots-like-me conservative? It has always amazed me how the conservatives have managed to convince themselves that they speak for Jesus! Just where in the Bible does it say that we should let the poor starve and sick go uncared for?

The liberals gave the women the vote Randall. If the conservatives had had their way, the Blacks would still be riding in the back of the bus.


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/7/2009 8:20:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The liberals gave the women the vote Randall


No. People that we acting in accordance with the ideas of the constitution and the laws of God are the people who rallied for women to have the right to vote. Same goes for slavery. Name one single thing that is wrong with the definition of conservatism... I bet you can only come up with foul ups of PEOPLE that call themselves such, not the IDEA of conservatism itself. That has the same effect on liberalism. The definition has good merits, but a lot of people screw up the original intent. Liberals nowadays focus on what people deserve without earning.

Example: The majority of people that are on food stamps are a drain to society. How do I know this? I have worked at several different grocery stores in my life. The type of people that come in with $500 worth of free food ride up in a 2009 dodge charger and no ambition to ever get off of a free ride mindset. NOTE: My observation is not skewed or exaggerated. You go ask ANY grocery store cashier and they will repeat what I just said.

quote:
If the conservatives had had their way, the Blacks would still be riding in the back of the bus.


HAHAHA, show me one shred of evidence that conservatives promote racist ideas?

You know what your problem is? You think that I don't care about the unjust things in this world. Do I care about the starving? Yes. Do I care about the homeless. Yes. Do I share my monetary as well as spiritual wealth with people in need yes.

Lets look at the things that I do NOT do:

-Give hand outs to people that don't deserve them.
-Help people that don't want to help themselves.
-Support ideas and actions that promote bad behavior (which covers a lot of ground).

"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime"

One example of how I live my life. How about you? Can you say the same thing?


RE: F35 vs F22
By the3monkies on 4/7/2009 8:53:15 PM , Rating: 2
You obviously have strong ideas Randall - if only they were based in fact.

It was the liberals in this country who actually fought for civil rights for Blacks and for women's suffrage - those are historical facts, and it's why I'm not ashamed to call myself a liberal. Virtually all of the progressive legislation in this country was passed by liberals.

If socialism is all about giving away one's wealth to slackers, then why is it that the socialist Danes and Swedes and French and Germans (with also enjoy socialized health care) all have higher standards of living than we do? The Germans export more than any other country - more even than the 1.3 billion Chinese - how could they do that if they lie about all day sucking the state tit? Socialism is about leveling the playing field so that all members of society have a chance at a good life. Did you know that the yearly family income of the average Ivy League student is now approaching $200,000. In our pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps society the poor don't stand a chance competing for a place against kids who can afford private tutors and expensive prep schools. Even employed middle-class people in the US are having to forgo medical treatment because they just can't afford it. Examples like these are endless. The idea that there are no classes in the US is what the rich want you to believe. Wake up brother. Jesus was a socialist.


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/7/2009 9:29:53 PM , Rating: 2
You really do amuse me, OK, here we go:

quote:
It was the liberals in this country who actually fought for civil rights for Blacks and for women's suffrage


Again I'll say "No, it was men and women that upheld the constitution and the laws of God." I'll put it in simple form for you since you seem to be unable to understand this. Lets say that, hypothetically a person runs into a bank and robs it, killing everyone inside. This person did a bad thing right? OK. This person happens to be a white man. Does this now mean that all white men are bad? No. OK, now lets flip the scenario. A man rescue's a baby from a burning building. This man happens to be a conservative. Does this make all conservative people good? No. You can not effectively assume that a single action qualifies for a moralistic virtue or vice.

quote:
all have higher standards of living than we do


That whole bit is nothing more than your opinion. Grass is always greener huh? Why don't you move to those places then?

quote:
Socialism is about leveling the playing field


SHEBAM!! You have just hit the nail on the head with what B H Obama is doing to this country. Follow me in this scenario:

Hypothetically, You start out your life in school just like everyone else. After Highschool you go to college and study to your hearts content for a degree. You take that degree and make yourself a good living, and bring up a family to pass on your success and wealth (monetary and moral wealth).

On the other hand, Hypothetically, I get to highschool, and turn 18. I decide that school is for fools and drop out. I now kind work a part time job, maybe sometimes when I feel like it. I am also on welfare and blame society for my problems and lack of motivation and ambition.

Under this scenario, Obama wants me, the degenerate, to benefit from your success. Yes. That is fact. I would reap your hard work in this kind of society.

That my friend, is the basis of Socialism. Your comment about "pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps" is what every single man, woman, and child in the world needs to learn. Help your neighbor, but also help yourself.

BTW, my parents are considered in the lower class. You know what I have done? Worked part time jobs to pay for college. Starting with Community college, and working up to a Masters at the university. Don't you DARE say that shear willpower will not bring you to success in this country. People like you want to destroy this nation by giving free handouts to the undeserving. You know what that always yields? BAD RESULTS.


RE: F35 vs F22
By the3monkies on 4/7/2009 11:24:13 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
No. People that we acting in accordance with the ideas of the constitution and the laws of God are the people who rallied for women to have the right to vote


That's what all the conservatives say now , but at the time it was the right-wingers who opposed both civil rights and women's suffrage - go back and check the political affiliation of those who voted yes and no - it was a clear liberal/conservative battle. You don't know your history.

quote:
That whole bit is nothing more than your opinion.


The UN Human Development Index (HDI) is a comparative measure of poverty, literacy, education, life expectancy, childbirth, and other factors for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare. The index was developed in 1990 by the Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq, and has been used since 1993 by the United Nations Development Programme in its annual Human Development Report.

The HDI measures the average achievements in a country in three basic dimensions of human development:

A long and healthy life, as measured by life expectancy at birth.

Knowledge, as measured by the adult literacy rate (with two-thirds weight) and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrolment ratio (with one-third weight).

A decent standard of living, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP) per capita at purchasing power parity (PPP) in USD.

2008 Rankings

1 Iceland 0.968
2 Norway 0.968
3 Canada 0.967
4 Australia 0.965
5 Ireland 0.960
6 Netherlands 0.958
7 Sweden 0.958
8 Japan 0.956
9 Luxembourg 0.956
10 Switzerland 0.955
11 France 0.955
12 Finland 0.954
13 Denmark 0.952
14 Austria 0.951
15 United States 0.950
16 Spain 0.949
17 Belgium 0.948
18 Greece 0.947
19 Italy 0.945
20 New Zealand 0.944
21 United Kingdom 0.942
22 Hong Kong (SAR) 0.942
23 Germany 0.940 (includes East Germany which lowers overall ranking)
24 Israel 0.930
25 South Korea 0.928

quote:
Grass is always greener huh? Why don't you move to those places then?


Why do rightwing blowhards always bring up the "love it or leave it" line. How about "love it and try to make it better."?

quote:
Hypothetically, You start out your life in school just like everyone else.


That's just the problem: in this country, you don't start out your life just like everyone else. Our society is structured to provide huge advantages to the wealthy and huge burdens on the poor. I too grew up in a lower-class family and I was the only one in my neighborhood who went to college. Why was that do you suppose? Were my neighbors all no-good socialist parasites? You should study some sociology Randall, because clearly you know nothing about how society shapes the individual.


RE: F35 vs F22
By msomeoneelsez on 4/8/2009 2:57:56 AM , Rating: 2
OOOOhhh kay, I finally reached the end of the rants from the extremists.

Let me just say that I am as moderate as I can possibly be, although I'm sure you two will have fun attempting to debate that.

I am going to try to address a few points which you should both keep in mind.

1: This may be the internet, but the unspoken, unwritten rules of common decency still apply... after all, it may actually make you understand the argument a little bit better.

2: Liberal and Conservative beliefs and ideals have changed, just as the people have, since the events such as the womans' voting rights and minority equality. This is what happens as time goes by... people and ideas evolve. I bring this up because both of your points about which side did what are moot, although I would agree with Randall when he says that it was the people who were working in accordance with the constitution, whether it be for the right reasons or not.

3: Your argument doesn't seem to have a point other than to say "conservatives are good, liberals are bad" and "liberals are good, conservatives are bad" depending on who you are.

...

...

So why are you arguing?

4: When it is said "love it and try to make it better." it generally means that you have a solution to a problem that you have actually thought about, and that is new to the situation... so share it. Otherwise, shut up, and take a love it or leave it policy, because you obviously aren't going to take the "pick yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality; you will not even do the work to think of a new way to do something that may or may not be better.

5: Examples such as Randall's college graduate/high school drop out are only going to anger the opposition. Seriously, avoid those "examples" because if you look hard enough, you can find an example of almost anything.

You know what? Im going to stop numbering here...

quote:
Our society is structured to provide huge advantages to the wealthy and huge burdens on the poor.

-the3monkies

Please, give examples.

If you mean that the wealthy pay a higher percentage of their income as taxes, and those who aren't as well off get welfare benefits from the taxes of said wealthy people, then yes you are right, but that makes your wording sound quite misleading.

quote:
Right now, Mr. Hussein IS president.

-RandallMoore

Why, oh why do you not see the blatant ignorance that this comment has (now repeatedly) been showing from you? You deny that this is a comment that shows you to be a "racist, intolerant, bigots, rednecks" (quoted from you) but your comment is obviously meant to be degrading. Any time that someone purposely uses a middle name instead of a last name to give a formal title (which you incorrectly used... it should be President, not mr.) than it is obviously meant to draw attention to the middle name in a way that attacks said person's middle name.

..........................

Now, we get to the part where I actually add something to the conversation instead of just giving you advice (which you should not respond to, as it is merely rhetorical advice, and to respond would be to waste room on an otherwise good webpage.)

When it comes to welfare and distribution of wealth, my philosophy is simple. If someone works hard for their money, they should not be punished for having done so. If someone does not work hard for their money, they should not be given anything for having not worked for anything.

That statement is opinion.

Now, for my solution:

Welfare in the US currently gives the impoverished people incentive to not work. Food stamps, welfare money, and many other welfare programs do not require any more work than to sign some papers and say "I need help" to a government worker (yes, this is an exaggeration.) Instead, I propose a system that would not give handouts, but give companies incentives to higher workers who are on a welfare "list."

I propose that the government subsidizes companies who higher these workers by a certain percentage (to be determined by economists) of the wage that the company gives to these workers.

To protect those who are not on this welfare program, only a certain percentage (also, determined by economists) of the company's work force will be eligible to be subsidized for.

For proof of concept, I am setting the percentages at the following:
25% of the worker's starting wage would be subsidized by the government,
20% of each company's work force is eligible to be subsidized.

This means that a business has a potential to offset 5% of it's labor costs (assuming an equal pay rate across the board.)

If that isn't incentive to higher these workers, than I dont know what is...

Anyways, if there are any questions about that proposal, then please do ask, I am sure that I was unclear about something... after all, it is now midnight where I live.

Oh, a reminder; do NOT respond to any of the advice that was in the first section of my post unless it is to add to said advice in a CONSTRUCTIVE manner.


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/8/2009 11:08:12 AM , Rating: 1
First off, I really don't know how in the world I am seen as an extremist... Upholding traditional American values makes me a terrorist of USA? Show some evidence of your accusations.

1. Where was I indecent?

2. I never argued for either side. I believe that both rep. and demo. Parties have fundamental flaws that deem them useless and counterproductive just. Liberal and conservative have the same flaws, re-read my comparison argument that ended with,
quote:
"You cannot effectively assume that a single action qualifies for a moralistic virtue or vice."


3. Point out to me where I insisted that all conservatives are good and liberal are bad. In fact, I made it a point to add that both conservatism and liberalism are based off of good morals and values. Again, go back and read my comparison because you clearly made an assumption about me before reading. And keep in mind that I did not make the comments:
quote:
The liberals gave the women the vote Randall
quote:
If the conservatives had had their way, the Blacks would still be riding in the back of the bus.
quote:
It was the liberals in this country who actually fought for civil rights for Blacks and for women's suffrage
quote:
Of course, I'm a liberal – do you think it a coincidence that most well-educated people are?


5. Why leave out examples that are completely relevant to the argument? In what way are they valid? Do you mean to say that I should not defend my right to uphold American tradition and values?

quote:
Any time that someone purposely uses a middle name instead of a last name to give a formal title (which you incorrectly used... it should be President, not mr.) than it is obviously meant to draw attention to the middle name in a way that attacks said person's middle name.


Exactly! So does that mean that you completely skipped over my "dub ya" comparison? It's different huh? In America, it's acceptable to call George Bush:
quote:
draft-dodging, corporate tool Bush who fucked this country up so bad that even Jesus would throw up his hands in despair.
. WHAT? You mean to tell me that I know how to bow my head down to someone who is destroying my country?! I don’t think so! If you want to tell me that I am disrespecting him by calling him Mr. Hussein? Yes. You will be right for that because i have 0 (Zero) respect for that man. Are you correct for calling me a racist/bigot/whatever, NO.

As for your proposal, I don't see it ever working because of one simple fact. Anything that the government touches ends up in disaster. I believe in Democracy, Republic, and Capitalistic ideas but in an imperfect world these ideas will never be fully carried out. And that’s that. All we can do is hope for the best. I think the best thing our government could do for our economy is make this statement:
quote:
"We are sorry for forcing our role of government into the private sector to the extent where we provide a babysitting service instead of a regulator. We now realize that normal healthy markets go up and down, so we will just stay out of the way and let the people of America solve this problem naturally without us stepping in to turn everything upside down. We will also take back all of the stimulus spending and bailouts because failing companies need to fail. It is completely destructive to keep feeding money to failing businesses (aka handouts to the undeserving).


My solution to our current problems with the economy is simple. Let the free market solve all the problems and make the government keep their hands off! If you want to think about it for a moment, they are very likely to be the biggest reason for this recession. You want proof? How about Bill Clintons “everyone deserves a house act”? The same agenda that FORCED banks BY LAW to give out BAD LOANS that they otherwise would have NEVER – EVER - EVER in a million years have done without the government forcing them to do so.

As for some of your comments like:
quote:
Welfare in the US currently gives the impoverished people incentive to not work.


I agree. And I would also like to remind you and everyone else that there is a difference between people that need help, and people that refuse to help themselves and lack ambition and values.

Don’t chastise me for giving my opinion when I full heartedly believe that Obama (and a lot of others) has a socialist agenda for this nation. I think he is destructive to our duty to uphold the constitution and the laws of God. I will NOT keep my mouth shut and “be respectful” for anyone that doesn’t deserve it. I call it like I see it and I did not go overboard with it, so stop acting like I verbally abused someone.


RE: F35 vs F22
By msomeoneelsez on 4/8/2009 4:16:05 PM , Rating: 2
The "I'm right and you're wrong" mentality that has been seen throughout this entire thread from you is what makes you indecent. By the way, that is also a very big reason why I am calling you extreme...

Excuse me for making an obvious assumption based off of what you presented in your arguments. Just because you say a few things that "level out the playing field" doesn't mean that you are actually giving a fair and balanced argument yourself. In fact, that reminds me of CNN, Fox news, and really... any other media source these days... they say that they are fair and balanced, but they obviously aren't.

Proof by example is a logical fallacy. The reason for that is, as I already said, an example can be found for anything these days. Now, if you were to have statistics that support said example, and you cite the source, then yes, the example is OK... but you did not show any support for it, which only angers the opposition, and many of the people reading your post.

quote:
Exactly! So does that mean that you completely skipped over my "dub ya" comparison? It's different huh? In America, it's acceptable to call George Bush:


Thank you for proving my point about your argumentative skills... I deliberately left out any mention to your "dub ya" comparison because it had no relevance to the point that I was making. In fact, I will just spell out the point that I was making. You were being blatantly rude, and so I said
quote:
Why, oh why do you not see the blatant ignorance that this comment has (now repeatedly) been showing from you? You deny that this is a comment that shows you to be a "racist, intolerant, bigots, rednecks" (quoted from you) but your comment is obviously meant to be degrading.

That is just before the quote that you took from me.... you took a quote out of context to support your own argument, which is another logical fallacy. Nowhere in there do I call you racist, intolerant, a bigot, or a redneck etc. All I all you is ignorant and purposely degrading.

By the way, if you were to have read my post, I said
quote:
[...] instead of just giving you advice (which you should not respond to, as it is merely rhetorical advice, and to respond would be to waste room on an otherwise good webpage.)

Thank you for going completely against what I said just for the sake of your own happiness in arguing against it. You just proved my points even more.

----------

quote:
I don't see it ever working because of one simple fact. Anything that the government touches ends up in disaster. I believe in Democracy, Republic, and Capitalistic ideas but in an imperfect world these ideas will never be fully carried out.


This is another place where you dig yourself a hole... you deny it credibility because of something unrelated. I was proposing something that I believe would work well if implemented, not something that would be screwed up by government and then implemented.

Please, reread my post and my proposal, and add something to the conversation instead of just arguing with it... especially when it is something that you seem to agree with.

Now here is something that is very ironic... you actually proposed something, but you already killed your argument when responding to what I said... government screws it up. What you don't seem to realize (although I may be wrong, I am making an assumption here,) is that the government is now very institutionalized... Removing government from the economy would be like pulling a house sized prickly weed from clay... its possible, but VERY hard to do. By the way, that was a metaphor, not an example, so don't even dare to attempt to tell me why that metaphor is wrong unless you have solid facts to back yourself up... and cite the sources of those facts.

Anyways, back on to more relevant parts of your post...

quote:
And I would also like to remind you and everyone else that there is a difference between people that need help, and people that refuse to help themselves and lack ambition and values.


Are you implying that I forgot? I can tell you for a fact that I did not, and my proposal actually address that fact. Let me explain:

Yes, a company would be much more likely to keep a worker that is on the welfare list, but if that worker is slacking off, they will be fired into a world that has little to no help for them, thus essentially punishing them for not working hard.

By allowing the free market to decide who is highered and who is fired, just like the regular business world only the best workers would be kept. Those who do not have that will to work will either learn it, or die... After all, that is all up to them.

Now, to address your final paragraph...

Grow up. If you truly believe that I am chastising you for giving an opinion, than you are dead wrong (and once again, prove my points.) I am all for people giving their opinions, but what I am against is when people are too ignorant to realize that they are extreme in either their views, or the way that they present themselves.

My family has a saying: "It isn't enough to be right, you also have to be effective."

You are in no way effective. If you respond to this post in a way that tries to place you as "all right, no wrong" then you are only proving my point again.

By the way, rhetorical advice (which SHOULD NOT BE RESPONDED TO) was meant for both parties in the argument, not just you, so do not take such a "woe was me" approach to it.


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/8/2009 6:11:11 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The "I'm right and you're wrong" mentality that has been seen throughout this entire thread from you is what makes you indecent.


Since you demand burden of proof then show me an example... Didn't think so.

quote:
Thank you for proving my point about your argumentative skills... I deliberately left out any mention to your "dub ya" comparison because it had no relevance to the point that I was making.


Pointing out that using someone's middle name because you don't like them or their values isn't relevant? Seriously? I was being called a racist because I called him Mr. Hussein, so I countered with an example of people mocking our previous president. If you don't think that this is relevant then you are a fucking idiot. I think I'll stop arguing with a fool, because it never gets anywhere.

quote:
That is just before the quote that you took from me.... you took a quote out of context to support your own argument, which is another logical fallacy.


I wasn't out of context. You just feel dumb for missing what I pointed out earlier in the conversation.

quote:
instead of just giving you advice (which you should not respond to, as it is merely rhetorical advice, and to respond would be to waste room on an otherwise good webpage


You know what that statement means? it means: "Now that I've given my opinion, it would be wrong for others to respond to it. I guess if no-one can reply to your comments then you have won the arguement before it begins huh? BTW, I'll be sure to mention that this isn't about feeling smart because of "winning an argument" or "being right", its about exposing the corruption of this society that is being accepted as the norm these days. Its making me sick to see what people believe nowadays.

quote:
I am all for people giving their opinions, but what I am against is when people are too ignorant to realize that they are extreme in either their views, or the way that they present themselves.


So what you are saying is... "You should be accepting with anything and everything so that you look like a politically correct individual that is tolerant and well educated" "If not, you are an idiot, and an extremist a don't deserve an opinion"

I have news for you. Everything I have said so far has been the views of traditionalist and conservatives so what is your problem? Are you against keeping this country the way our founding fathers set it up? I'm not

quote:
By the way, rhetorical advice (which SHOULD NOT BE RESPONDED TO) was meant for both parties in the argument, not just you, so do not take such a "woe was me" approach to it.


I didn't. I responded to your "advise" that was aimed towards me. I also commented on other things you gave your opinion on. If you don't like it when people respond to your posts here, then you need to get over it or just don't post.

If I am going to use the same logic as you I might as well say that all of the above is meant to be rhetorical and not responded to. See how that works? It's different of the other end of things huh? I'm done responding here. I have said my peace, you can keep going on if you want. Insults are not going to ruin my day I promise you.


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/8/2009 11:26:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's what all the conservatives say now , but at
the time it was the right-wingers who opposed both civil rights and women's suffrage - go back and check the political affiliation of those who voted yes and no - it was
a clear liberal/conservative battle. You don't know your history.


Ya know, in just about every single one of your replies, you make it a point to say that I am uneducated. What is your deal? Why don't YOU go read some books about it. I damn sure know my history. My family NEVER owned any slaves nor oppressed anyone. Know why? Because we try our best to uphold American values and Christian values. Stop focusing on political parties. With that said, you need to go back and read everything that our best president had to say about it. George Washington. Just because I have the same view of a conservative/republican does not automatically make me the spokesperson for those groups. I am registered as an Independent. I have MANY of the same views of the conservative group. I have some of the same viewpoints of the Liberal group. So what?! That means that I have my own opinions and come to my own conclusions. Stop labeling me.

quote:
That's just the problem: in this country, you don't start out your life just like everyone else.


Yes you do. YES you do, and I will repeat a third time… YES YOU DO . Here are examples:

Everyone is born with:
The choice of ambition.
The choice of freedome.
The choice of equality.
The choice of religion.
The choice of morals and vaules.

Are some people born into money? Hell yeah. I know plenty of people that are rich in money and poor in spirit. Do they have an advantage over others? NO. It’s all in what you think is an advantage. “I know a man that is dirt poor (money), but he is rich beyond any wealth of any nation in the eyes of God. Want to know why? Because he loves his neighbors, helps the needy, and obeys the laws of God and this country”

If you think wealth only applies to money then you are truly lost. EVERYONE is born with the opportunity of wealth. That does NOT give you a guarantee of a monetary amount.


RE: F35 vs F22
By the3monkies on 4/8/2009 4:45:56 PM , Rating: 1
My point is that the words socialism and free-market capitalism are always misunderstood when used in the US. There is this ridiculous black-white idea that socialism is the work of the devil and that the

unfettered free-market is always right and always provides a fair and just solution to every problem. The fact is that in both the US and Europe, capitalist economies are tempered by socialist poicies. The

difference only lies in the mixture of the two. As Balard correctly pointed out in his previous post, even the US has chosen to socialize law enforcement, secondary school education, public infrastructure, etc..

Untrammeled free-market economies lead to societies like early industrial England where instead of going to public schools, 12-year-old kids worked in sweat shops for nothing more than food and lodging. It

was because of situations like that that it was realized that governemnt must step in to actively guarantee the rights of the poor and disadvantaged, and they did that by "socializing" certain aspects of society,

and the US has, in its own way, done this as well. So if you will at least admit that not all socialism is evil then perhaps you will be capable of approaching the question from a more informed and balanced

standpoint. Socialism does not equal parasitism!

Health care is a perfect example of a basic right that can only be equitably fullfilled if the government steps in and regulates it. As I mentioned earlier, the health care system in this country exists primarily to

enrich the health care industry - healing the sick is only a secondary concern. We spend much more on health care than any other country, yet only come in 37th on the WHO list. 20 cents of every dollar we

spend in this country goes for administrative costs, in France it's only 2 cents! ( For one thing, in Europe, health insurance companies are not-for-profit and don't need to pay the salaries of thousands of people

whose job it is to find a way to deny claims from paying subscribers.) So not only do the socialist health care systems in Europe provide better care, they are more economically efficient, they waste less

financial resource. When I point this out, instead of honest debate, I'm told to move to France. So what does that mean - that I'm somehow a triator for suggesting we improve things? Does a true American

think the 40 million people in this country with no health insurance are just parasites who should stop whining and just die?

Tax policy in the US overwhelming favors the rich. Warren Buffet is on record as saying that he pays less taxes than his secretary, and that US tax policy is insane. Conservatives like
to rail against high business taxes in the US, but 2/3rds of all US corporations pay no taxes at all. The rich and powerful have structured our tax system so that it is the middle-class that pays a
disproportionate amount of taxes.

The idea that we are all born equal is breathtakingly ignorant. If you are born poor in America you have a shorter life span, are far-more likely to receive an inferior education, work a low-paying job, and

receive inferior health care. These are facts! This situation is inherited, passed down from one generation to another, and explains why the cycle of poverty is so hard to break. Do you think that the poor

choose to work minimum-wage jobs and drop out of school because they are lazy by nature? Is it a coincidence that the kids who grow up in Scarsdale, Greenwich, and Newton end up in elite colleges. And

this is in moderately socialist America; in a truly unregulated free-market economy the poor would end up indentured servants in the factories of the rich. You think this is just liberal rant, but it doesn't happen

because America has adopted socialist policies that do not allow such immoral expoiltation of the poor and young.

The choice is a moral one - and economics is a highly moral discipline because it involves regulating human behavior - do we care about other people and structure society to provide for everyone, including the

weak and disadvantaged, or do we write policy whose principal aim is to enable the powerful and the rich to get whatever they think they deserve - because given human nature, you can't have both. Sure

there will be slackers in a socialist economy, but to assume that everyone will choose to lie about is contradicted by the high standard of living in those European countries that the right so loves to sneer at.

I've lived 30 years of my life in foreign countries and have seen firsthand how other people manage their lives. I suggest the socialism-haters try it, you will realize that the America-is-always-right, foreigners-

are-all-assholes, narrow-minded poisonous bullshit you get from Fox and Rush is dumb and not in our best interests. We do a lot of things really well in this country, much better than others, but there are things

that we can learn from others as well. Why is it unpatriotic to think otherwise?

The world has changed. The post-WW2 era we all grew up in where America was the only country not reduced to ashes was abnormal in the unnatural discrepancy between American and foreign wealth and

power. It is now much more a community of equals. Sooner or later even the most blindly jingoistic of Americans ig going to have to come to terms with the new world order.

By the way, the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote was only passed in 1919. In the case of women's suffrage, the amendment was only ratified by one vote - it was not the case that all citizens of

good conscience supported a woman's right to vote. The conservatives fought tough and nail to prevent what they considered a betrayal of the founding father's intent as stated in the Consitution.


RE: F35 vs F22
By MrBungle123 on 4/8/2009 5:53:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Health care is a perfect example of a basic right that can only be equitably fullfilled if the government steps in and regulates it.

How have you got it in your head that health care is “right”. It is not a right, it is a service provided by the fruits of the labor of free people working to make other peoples’ lives better… for a price. A right is something that you have outside of any government system the government is there to defend the rights you have simply by being alive.

The treatments tools and facilities necessary to make health care possible are not free, they are in fact hugely expensive. The research required to develop the health care we have today was not free, without the money going back into the system there is no incentive to develop newer better treatments. It takes many years of hard work and hundreds of thousands of dollars to become a doctor without high pay there would be no doctors because there would be no incentive to put in the time and effort.

As soon as you bring the government in it will set prices, control wages, decide what treatments are available based on cost not effectiveness. In a generation there will be fewer doctors, the pace at which new drugs and treatments are developed will slow, and the whole system will be plagued by the same problems that lessen the effectiveness of every other government bureaucracy politicians trying to micro manage things they really don’t understand. You will have a few truly great private hospitals available only to those that have the cash to pay up front (the super-rich) and the state run hospitals that offer substandard and one size fits all care designed by politicians that will never have to use the system. If you don’t believe me just look at the public school system.

quote:
When I point this out, instead of honest debate, I'm told to move to France. So what does that mean - that I'm somehow a triator for suggesting we improve things? Does a true American think the 40 million people in this country with no health insurance are just parasites who should stop whining and just die?


They feed you this line of 40 million without health insurance to get an emotional response and you have apparently bought it hook line and sinker. How many of these 40 million people are in their 20’s and 30’s? an age group that statistically almost never goes to the doctor. Perhaps they are young and healthy and they would rather have the money to spend on things they need now. Yeah if they get hurt it will be financially devastating, it’s a gamble; a high risk high gain situation and they should be able to make that choice for themselves.

How many of these 40 million people are illegal aliens that should be shipped back to their own countries instead of clogging our emergency rooms and running up costs for paying customers? I would guess a large percentage of them.
Are there lots of people out there that truly need health insurance that can’t afford it? I’m sure there are but instead of trying to make everyone else pay for their problems they should be finding ways to increase their own income so they can buy the insurance they need.


RE: F35 vs F22
By the3monkies on 4/8/2009 8:14:27 PM , Rating: 2
I do not believe in Communism - human nature is too corrupt for it ever to work in the real world. But pure laissez-faire liberalism is also impossible to implement in a society anyone with a shred of human decency would consider just. It leads, has led in the past, to too few controlling too many. And when that happens privilege becomes hereditary, which is just the opposite of equal opportunity for all. Wealth and privilege have already become hereditary in America. As I said earlier, American wealth is now concentrated in a smaller percentage of the population than at any other time since the Great Depression. Wealth and power always look after their own interests. They do this by controlling the political process and public dialogue. They pass laws to their own benefit which necessarily acts to limit the advancement of outsiders. The result is tyranny. There eventually then comes a point where either democracy or privilege must give ground.

There are no perfect political solutions that guarantee everything for everyone. But in order for a society to be truly egalitarian, to offer true equal opportunity to all, certain rights must be guaranteed by the government, and it is the weak and poor most in need of protection because they have little effective power to control their own lives. Yes everyone should try to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, but in order to be able to do that they must be given the opportunity, and we are most certainly not all born equal. One example of this is the socialization of secondary education in all advanced countries.

The Founding Fathers (surely the most enlightened group of individuals ever to create a political system) chose democracy as their social means to prevent the concentration of too much power in the hands of a few. Socialism, at least as I understand it, is the application of social policy to do the most good for the most people. This necessarily places limits on the behavior of some. This is done everywhere, even in the US. To say that we are not socialist and the Europeans are is ridiculous. People work to better themselves in Sweden. They are allowed to accumulate wealth. But in some respects, and here I'm most interested in the European approach to health care, a few European societies have also succeeded in creating a system that is far less ruthless than ours. If the French, for instance, get better health care for fewer dollars than we do, isn't it worth emulating? To say that excluding 40 million disadvantaged Americans from access to health care is an acceptable price to pay to guarantee the right of the more affluent to chose their own doctors seems wrong to me.

This is my last post to this thread. I've said all I care to on the subject, and no one ever changes his mind in these forum debates. Randall, in particular, seems impervious to anything that contradicts his knee-jerk hatred of socialism which he considers to be nothing more than living off the honest work of others. Mr Bungles' idea of a perfect world would lead to half the population earning minimum wage in the factories of the ubermenchen. But then there would be no minimum wage in Bungles' world.

And what are you going on about Bungles with this scenario of the apocalyptic destruction of the American health care system should the government try to improve things. Or is it that you don’t consider Americans capable of accomplishing what the Europeans have already demonstrated to be a routine matter?


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/8/2009 6:59:10 PM , Rating: 1
There is so much wrong with the words you are putting together to make sentences. I'll start about halfway down:

quote:
If you are born poor in America you have a shorter life span, are far-more likely to receive an inferior education, work a low-paying job


Then why do I personally know sooo many peole that started with nothing, and WORKED HARD AS HELL to get where they wanted to be in life. Do you watch Judge Mathis(not an example of someone I know personally)? He went to jail, grew up poor, and was for the most part uneducated. Guess what, he straitened up his life and got a good education. He is probably very happy and also he is notably very successful. You are just an idiot if you think things should be handed out without the hard work of earning them. That kind of society is unfair and destructive.

quote:
I've lived 30 years of my life in foreign countries and have seen firsthand how other people manage their lives. I suggest the socialism-haters try it, you will realize that the America-is-always-right, foreigners- are-all-assholes, narrow-minded poisonous bullshit you get from Fox and Rush is dumb and not in our best interests. We do a lot of things really well in this country, much better than others, but there are things that we can learn from others as well. Why is it unpatriotic to think otherwise?


You cast A LOT of stereotypes. BTW, that whole paragraph came out of nowhere and is not even relevant. Sounds like to be you are spitting out nonsense that you were indoctrinated in school or through corrupt media.

quote:
Do you think that the poor choose to work minimum-wage jobs and drop out of school because they are lazy by nature?


Um, maybe not lazy... but that's the lifestyle that they choose. I bet you are crazy enough to think that girls getting pregnant in highschool should be taken care of for the rest of their lives and not have to work their ass off for 20+ years to support their children because they chose to make an adult decision. Which I will add is the absolute worse time to have a baby.

quote:
The world has changed. The post-WW2 era we all grew up in where America was the only country not reduced to ashes was abnormal in the unnatural discrepancy between American and foreign wealth and power.


Answer this question for me. How many liberal studies did you take in college. How many professors brainwashed you in all of those nonsense radical type classes? Evidently a lot because you are b r a i n w a s h e d.

quote:
The conservatives fought tough and nail to prevent what they considered a betrayal of the founding father's intent as stated in the Consitution.


You are right. I'm sure that there were some conservatives that fought against the change. As well as Liberals that fought against it. And Democrats. And republicans. But do you want to know something about those who fought against it? They were NOT acting according to what the constitution is about. None of the said groups were acting according to common sense and fairness either. Again with your stereotypes.

quote:
Tax policy in the US overwhelming favors the rich. Warren Buffet is on record as saying that he pays less taxes than his secretary, and that US tax policy is insane. Conservatives like to rail against high business taxes in the US, but 2/3rds of all US corporations pay no taxes at all. The rich and powerful have structured our tax system so that it is the middle-class that pays a disproportionate amount of taxes.


I think you may have found the meaning of the words "loop-holes" and "cheating the system". Some people are corrupt and vile. It's a part of life. The bible says what will happen to people that do things like this. Refer to the "camel through the eye of a needle" part of the bible.

You just don't get it, and I don't think you ever will. I've said more than enough here and don't intend to waste any more of my time.


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/8/2009 7:09:38 PM , Rating: 2
I also forgot to add that the whole point of this debate (for those that have completely forgot) is that a lot of people in the US are pushing for things that are undeniably leading up to direct socialism. Socialism DOES NOT WORK. IT D O E S N O T W O R K.

Your only response is that our society is mixed with some capitalism, some socialism, etc etc. Of course it is! Are you taking us for a fool?! There isn't one single system, object, or piece of elemental matter in this universe that fits into a "one and only and very specific category". For example I am white, but I am also male. See how that makes no sense to just throw into a debate?


RE: F35 vs F22
By MrBungle123 on 4/8/2009 7:27:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Untrammeled free-market economies lead to societies like early industrial England where instead of going to public schools, 12-year-old kids worked in sweat shops for nothing more than food and lodging.


Tell me what conservative is advocating the exploitation of children for labor? Where has anyone on this board pushed for the abolition of labor laws? I think its safe to file this under FUD.

quote:
Do you think that the poor choose to work minimum-wage jobs and drop out of school because they are lazy by nature? Is it a coincidence that the kids who grow up in Scarsdale, Greenwich, and Newton end up in elite colleges


There are numerous routes out of this situation if you really want out. Its going to be hard and require a lot of work but very possible. Join the military, they will pay for your college education. Then you can either make a carieer as an officer (pretty good pay and health benefits) or you can take your education after your enlistment is up and get a potentially better paying job in the private sector. Sorry the poor are largely without excuse on this one.


RE: F35 vs F22
By LoweredExpectations on 4/9/2009 4:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tell me what conservative is advocating the exploitation of children for labor? Where has anyone on this board pushed for the abolition of labor laws? I think its safe to file this under FUD.


The free-market worshipping conservatives want the government to get out of the way. They hate minimum wage, taxes, any sort of government interference. So why, for a true free-marketeer like yourself, should child labour be any different? That even conservatives condemn child labour shows that even they think some government regulation of the market is permissable if it advances the social good. Isn't that monkies' point?

quote:
There are numerous routes out of this situation if you really want out. Its going to be hard and require a lot of work but very possible. Join the military, they will pay for your college education.


In Bunngles' equalitarian world if the poor want an education they must go off to fight our wars! Rather like the Civil War where a rich man could hire someone (invariably poor) to fight in his place. It's a perfect world for the rich - they benefit economically from the wars the poor die in.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Steve1981 on 4/10/2009 1:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to be confusing conservative/free market ideas with anarchy. They are not one and the same.

The general idea behind a free market is that the government should not be involved with what to produce, how much to produce, how much to sell it for, etc. That is taken care of effectively and efficiently by supply and demand. However, for a "free market" to succeed and flourish, there has to be a framework of laws in place.

And even from a conservative viewpoint, there are areas where "socialism" makes sense. You won't find many conservatives arguing against national defense because everyone benefits from it, and defense is a necessity. Socialized defense may not be strictly speaking the most efficient system but it is the most practical.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Belard on 4/22/2009 2:41:13 AM , Rating: 2
Hey 3monkies...

For some reason, I missed this debate... well, not much of one.

Yeah, as an AMERICAN, I think the USA can be better. Simple as that. A cell phone, a car is a previlge. Health care and clean air is a RIGHT.

In Houston, 9 people went to the ER over 2000 times in 5 years (most of them had mental problems). They cost the state/fed about $3million (TAXES). If we had a REAL system in place where a typical visit doesn't costs $800~2000, but perhaps $20~50, they (A) would have been treated (B) not nearly as many visits (C) Cheaper for everyone.

In Europe, the medical system is designed to keep People healthy, simple as that. In the USA, even those who get hurt with "health Insurance" may not go tot he doctore because of the $250+ deductable or they may get dropped.

The US Medical system (insurance and hospitals) are designed to make money. Insurance make money off the people, the Hospitals charge out the nose so they can rake in money from the insurance companies. People's health is last. I have friends in the medical field... A lot of the work involved is money and insurance. A waste of resources.


RE: F35 vs F22
By MrBungle123 on 4/8/2009 5:12:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It was the liberals in this country who actually fought for civil rights for Blacks and for women's suffrage - those are historical facts, and it's why I'm not ashamed to call myself a liberal.


Today's liberals are not really "liberals" in the classical sense of the term. A true liberal would be fighting for liberty and personal freedom which flies in the face of the "leftists" of today that run the historically liberal democrat party.

quote:
Socialism is about leveling the playing field so that all members of society have a chance at a good life.


You claim to be a liberal but you are not, you are a leftist. Socialism is not compatible with liberalism. The fact that the government controls so much of a socialistic society takes liberty away from the people. Part of being free is that you have the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail, socialism makes attempts to stop people from failing but the method by which it does this is to stamp out freedom. In socialism the powers that be assume that the individual is not capable of making the best choice for themselves and instead takes action making the choices for them.

In socialism the government makes your health care choices for you. This is not liberal it is authoritarian. (The exact opposite of liberal)

In socialism the government can make decisions for private companies. (See AIG/GM/Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac if you need examples) This is not liberal it is authoritarian. (The exact opposite of liberal)

In socialism the enormous government comes at enormous financial cost necessitating high tax rates. Your money is your liberty; it is what allows you to function in today’s society and also is the determining factor in the choices available to you in virtually any situation. The government taking large portions of your wealth so that it can put constraints on the choices available to you in virtually every aspect of your life is not liberal it is authoritarian. (The exact opposite of liberal)

You’ve spent a lot of time arguing against conservatism but a modern conservative is closer to a true liberal than the modern “liberal” or “leftist” as I prefer to call them.


RE: F35 vs F22
By the3monkies on 4/8/2009 5:50:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, of course, the classic definition of liberalism equates it with laissez-faire liberalism or even libertarianism - the Ayn Rand "it's-all-about-me" school of thought. I consider myself a liberal in the modern sense of the word - substitute 'progressive' if you want. But my real meaning is to distinguish myself from all the right-wing rant that passes for intelligent analysis on Fox and talk radio which considers socialism to be just another word for Satan. I'm perfectly comfortable with the term 'leftist' by the way. However, I do believe in the free-market, but it must be tempered by compassionate socialist policy.

The society you describe is impossible in a democratic system, it ends up with a few owning everything, and the vast majority of the deliberately disenfranchised (for in a dog-eat-dog world disenfranchisement is always deliberate) turning to crime and ultimately revolution. Our health care system is great if you are rich, and the libertarian system would work just fine in a jungle with neither law nor morality. Personal freedom means nothing if others are in chains, but maybe that's just the lefty in me talking.


RE: F35 vs F22
By MrBungle123 on 4/8/2009 6:04:11 PM , Rating: 2
You must understand that there is no such thing as "equality" everone is not equal, we are all individuals. It is our individuality that makes us great, your philosophy only leads to a place where people are stripped of thier individuality their creativity and any motivation for productivity.

The equality that conservatives fight for is equality in opportunity, you are fighting for equality of outcome. The latter is not possible and history has shown that its persuit only leads to tyranny.

Power corrupts and everything you want to do or see enacted is a stealth power grab. You think a corporation can be corrupt just wait till an even bigger more powerful entity moves in, in the form of the government.


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/8/2009 6:32:07 PM , Rating: 2
I think I can agree with everything you have said so far.
Especially strong with
quote:
Part of being free is that you have the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail, socialism makes attempts to stop people from failing but the method by which it does this is to stamp out freedom. In socialism the powers that be assume that the individual is not capable of making the best choice for themselves and instead takes action making the choices for them.


and
quote:
In socialism the government can make decisions for private companies. (See AIG/GM/Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac if you need examples) This is not liberal it is authoritarian. (The exact opposite of liberal)


Both of those are absolute fact. I know that there are a few and very specific group of people reading these posts, but I was beginning to feel like I was alone. Thank you for bringing some common sense to the table.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Jim28 on 4/8/2009 12:37:00 PM , Rating: 2
You don't know history that well.
In the south blacks were segregated by southern democrats not republicans.(They were in power after all.)
I am an independent, but what you said is bogus. What party was Abe Lincoln a part of again? They party of the President (Truman) that dropped the atomic bomb was which one? (Not that I thought it was a bad decision, as distasteful as it was nonetheless.)


RE: F35 vs F22
By the3monkies on 4/8/2009 4:52:41 PM , Rating: 2
I have never spoken about Democrats or Republicans, but liberals and conservatives. I agree with your point that the Democrats have been just as guilty of oppressive policies as the Republicans. In fact, Lincoln's party was much more progressive than contemporary Republicans. What does dropping the bomb on Japan have to do with anything?


RE: F35 vs F22
By Jim28 on 4/8/2009 6:04:06 PM , Rating: 2
Just pointing out that which you readily said yourself after I made it obvious.

"I agree with your point that the Democrats have been just as guilty of oppressive policies as the Republicans"

Not many people posting on the internet know history all that well, I was just testing you after your comments in the previous post.

I don't have problems with classic historical liberals, which actually more resemble modern conservatives at this point. Most hardcore "liberals" today are very state-ist and today are more interested imposing a common good, versus protecting individual liberties. (What liberals used to care about.) Imposition of a compulsary common good at the expense of individual liberty is the very essense facism, socialism, and communism. The Democratic party of today does not even closely resemble the Democratic party of 40 years ago in the 1960s. Of course nor does the Republican party which really sucks because now we have no one worthwile to vote for.