The "WAr On Women??"

[Punish_her]

nothing . . . everything

[js207]

Which has what exactly to do with a supposed war on women?

That's the spin the other side wanted to put on it, that somehow expecting a woman to pay her own $9 for pills or collect it free with federal funding from a place like Planned Parenthood rather than making it a compulsory part of her health insurance was some sort of evil misogynist plot. Bit of a stretch, of course, but some have run with it anyway.

[StrictMasterD]

I agree denuseri,
the post above you have NOTHING to do with this thread

[Punish_her]

If you think a bank's losses are nobody else's problem, you really haven't been paying attention. Banks don't make money out of thin air, though they often talk as if they did, to cover up the fact that their money comes from the same place as everyone else's, the hard work of ordinary folk.

These losses will come out of the pockets of their customers, in poorer interest rates and higher charges, and out of the general economy, in less loans to business, depressing trade. Even if they never have to apply for a government bailout, they are sustained on the market by the certainty that the government will catch them if they fall: and the government's credit rating is the poorer because the markets know it could be exposed to that kind of unplanned cost. Which means that when the banks look shaky, government borrowing costs the government more, which comes out of your taxes. "No free lunch" applies to bad stuff as well as good.

It's all of a piece with what I've been trying to explain about social welfare issues like health and policing and emergency services. Society is all interconnected, that's what "society" means, and anyone who thinks they can live as a heroically independent individual within it is dreaming. Unfortunately, it's a dream that a lot of politicians and business leaders like to encourage, since people don't act collectively if they think their neighbours' troubles are nothing to do with them. Divide and rule at the personal level.

and this is? . . . hookay

[thir]

It seems like no agreement was reached in the thread "Male Discrimination" so someone changed the name and here we are again.
Thorne thinks women are repressed
I think society royally shafts men
not getting involved in this one again

It is up to you to involve yourself in what you want, no need to get into something that distresses you (generic you)

But just for clarity, the two topics were started by two different people.

[thir]

In practice, that tends not to work; the small profit margin tends to help improve efficiency, which isn't generally something government bodies are known for.

Each system has its pro and cons..commercial health care is there to make money, and so it does what makes the most money with smallest cost, which is often not something that benefits the customers. We have this discussion here in UK right now, with our goverment wanting to sell out public health care.

It is also true that public hospitals can be very expensive and need overseeing, but at least their first priority is people's health, and we are many who share in paying.

[thir]

simple: niskanen's bureaucratic budget optimization in public choice theory.
every agency that just covers costs via federal handout seems to have rapidly inflating costs with decrasing efficiency. tell me the dmv is a well-oiled machine

Federal 'handouts'? You mean, like the banks got and the car firms quite recently? Or are you talking about the military, maybe?

Here we call it taxes, and we pay them happily (no, honestly, at least in Denmark surveys show that Danes do not mind paying taxes if they get value for money) and yes, you have to keep a rein on expenses, that is true.

[js207]

Federal 'handouts'? You mean, like the banks got and the car firms quite recently? Or are you talking about the military, maybe?

Which of those do you think are examples of fiscal probity and efficiency?

Here we call it taxes, and we pay them happily (no, honestly, at least in Denmark surveys show that Danes do not mind paying taxes if they get value for money) and yes, you have to keep a rein on expenses, that is true.

Paying some taxes for necessary services, properly delivered, is one thing - but would you not object to vast sums of your money being handed to failed businesses so they can keep on failing at your expense? I know I do.

[MMI]

Which is better? I can keep some of my wealth by subsiding failed businesses with the rest of it, or I can lose it all while watching those businesses go down the pan?

What pisses me off is that many of the people who ran those businesses into bankruptcy are still there getting fatter and richer than me, or have been paid off with amounts that make mortal men weep.

So maybe, after thinking about it a bit more, I do object.

[thir]

Editorial from New York Times, 19th of May:

The Campaign Against Women

Despite the persistent gender gap in opinion polls and mounting criticism of their hostility to women’s rights, Republicans are not backing off their assault on women’s equality and well-being. New laws in some states could mean a death sentence for a pregnant woman who suffers a life-threatening condition. But the attack goes well beyond abortion, into birth control, access to health care, equal pay and domestic violence.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/op...nion&seid=auto

[thir]

Federal 'handouts'? You mean, like the banks got and the car firms quite recently? Or are you talking about the military, maybe?

Which of those do you think are examples of fiscal probity and efficiency?

None. Which are federal handouts?

Here we call it taxes, and we pay them happily (no, honestly, at least in Denmark surveys show that Danes do not mind paying taxes if they get value for money) and yes, you have to keep a rein on expenses, that is true.

Paying some taxes for necessary services, properly delivered, is one thing - but would you not object to vast sums of your money being handed to failed businesses so they can keep on failing at your expense? I know I do.

And so do I!
This mix up of private and public responsibilites are a pestilence, but I guess that is another topic.

[js207]

None. Which are federal handouts?

The support given to GM and Chrysler in particular, as well as the literal bankrolling of many large banks.

This mix up of private and public responsibilites are a pestilence, but I guess that is another topic.

Actually, I think it's this same topic: the federal government has strayed into far too many areas it has no business entering. It's supposed to provide a military, immigration/customs ... prop up failed car manufacturers? Not in my book - particularly when others like Ford were viable - and yes, that was a federal handout, at least partly aimed at enriching the powerful car manufacturing unions, who just happen to be politically connected...

[thir]

The support given to GM and Chrysler in particular, as well as the literal bankrolling of many large banks.

Then I agree, absolutely. The biggest welfare clients in history, and a spike through the myth of 'a free market.'

Actually, I think it's this same topic: the federal government has strayed into far too many areas it has no business entering. It's supposed to provide a military, immigration/customs ... prop up failed car manufacturers? Not in my book - particularly when others like Ford were viable - and yes, that was a federal handout, at least partly aimed at enriching the powerful car manufacturing unions, who just happen to be politically connected...

I agree. I just meant it was probaly starying from the topic of war on women.

[js207]

Then I agree, absolutely. The biggest welfare clients in history, and a spike through the myth of 'a free market.'

Well, a major deviation from that ideal - though not the first (Britain made the same stupid mistake with poor quality car manufacturers and a few other failed businesses a few decades ago) and sadly I doubt it will be the last either.

I agree. I just meant it was probaly starying from the topic of war on women.

Not really: the "war on women" is the label the pro-handout side is applying to their opposition, as if expecting all but the poor to pay $9 a month themselves (the poor get it free under a government program already) is some form of attack. They'd probably have branded anti-bailout sentiment a "war on cars" if there had been a fight over it.