Individual perceptions

ScienceChic wrote: Perhaps you have been blessed to not have spent the majority of your life in a hospital, but there are others not so lucky. I would guess that they would place a far greater value on quality of nursing care than a football players' talent and worth.

No question, but that fails to alter the reality that the number of people you are speaking about are a decided minority of our population. Most of us will spend more days watching the NFL, or MLB, or the NHL or even MLS than we will spend in a hospital over the course of our lives. I won't even try to speculate, collectively, how vast that gulf actually is.

ScienceChic wrote: If asked, do you believe that more people would, if faced with the reality of having to go to the hospital for an urgent or even chronic condition, claim that they would prefer an experienced nurse taking care of them or better football players playing in the game they get to watch once a week for a few weeks of the year?

Hypothetical questions are all well and good SC, but for the average person they remain just that, hypothetical. Ask them if they are willing to surrender half of their income to ensure that a trained nurse is in the hospital while you are at it and see what the answer to that question is then. Sure, when I need a trained and experienced nurse I'd rather have the nurse, any logical person would. Ask them if they are also willing to have only 1500 trained nurses nationwide to provide that care so that they can be paid the sums that the professional athletes are paid or whether they would like to pay nurses a lot less and have a lot more of them and see what the answer to that question is. We could pay 1500 teachers millions of dollars each, but we can't pay millions of teachers millions of dollars each. See the fallacy in your argument here?

ScienceChic wrote: I'm with homeagain in that we have a very warped, and problematic, system of what's truly important and what it has been deemed to be worth. Perhaps if we paid teachers more, recruited and retained better talent, fostered their continuing education more vigorously, and rewarded those who excel so they stay, then individuals such as yourself wouldn't feel that your teachers "taught you very little", or we wouldn't hear so much about how our school systems suck and our children are lagging behind other nations. Imagine how many people would choose to become teachers if they were compensated what even a rookie base NFL salary was? What an expanded pool of talent we'd have, and what a great investment in our future we'd be making!

Imagine what your tax burden would be if that were the case. Collectively we spend one sixth of our total GDP on doctors, nurses, hospitals, therapists, and everything else associated with our health. That, by the way, is far in excess of what is spent on entertainment in all sectors. That larger slice of the pie is divided among a grossly superior number of providers, which means each provider earns a smaller portion of the pie even though they are feasting on what starts out to be a larger slice. That's not indicative of priority, it's indicative of scale. And that, SC, is the fundamental flaw at the heart of your premise.

A quick comparison of Denmark and the US. Denmark is approx. 16,639 sq. miles or double the size of Massachusetts, with a population of 5.6 million people or a little larger than Colorado or just under Maryland. Number of McDonalds is more a function of distance than anything else. Nearly everything is walking distance in Denmark and public transportation otherwise (think LoDo). Their resources are very limited, so a global/collectivist mentality is pure survival plus they have the UN (Undermining Nations) nearby in the Netherlands.
The basis of Socialism is Marxism and employs limiting production/supply side economics (aka. Keynesian economics). All disguises of Socialism (globalism, collectivism, modern American Democratic thought) are examples of relabeling. Time for an analogy: You can candy coat a $hi+ sandwich, but it is still a $hi+ sandwich.

Denmark tax rate is 56% of GDP whereas US tax is 22%. Redistribution of wealth even to the blind faithful.

HEARTLESS wrote: Denmark tax rate is 56% of GDP whereas US tax is 22%. Redistribution of wealth even to the blind faithful.

Is it fair to say you might be one of those who espouse "taking our country back"?

ZHawke wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: Denmark tax rate is 56% of GDP whereas US tax is 22%. Redistribution of wealth even to the blind faithful.

Is it fair to say you might be one of those who espouse "taking our country back"?

Deny, deflect, repeat. As I said before, carry on.

HEARTLESS wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: Denmark tax rate is 56% of GDP whereas US tax is 22%. Redistribution of wealth even to the blind faithful.

Is it fair to say you might be one of those who espouse "taking our country back"?

Deny, deflect, repeat. As I said before, carry on.

It's a fair question. If you don't care to answer, then you really have nothing to complain about.

Oh, and the question is spot on topic because it goes specifically to individual perceptions.

Take the country back from the imbeciles on the Left, absolutely.
Statements of fact aren't complaints, try harder.

HEARTLESS wrote: Take the country back from the imbeciles on the Left, absolutely.
Statements of fact aren't complaints, try harder.

Back to what, exactly?

The current socialistic creep. That is more about the slide Left, but fits the imbecile in the White House as well.