It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
crazyewok
NavyDoc
Yes you did. You talked about what wages you think a physician should be limited to.
Erm no I DIDNT.
Someone said they were overpaid and I pointed out at least in the UK they are not and earn a good but pretty fair wage.
At no point did I say what they should be limited to or caped. Just pointed out what they earn on adverage. I would have no problem if its goes up, as long as they provide a quality service.
To say otherwise is a missquotation and twisting of what I say and that is a T&C offense.
edit on 20-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)edit on 20-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)
Anyway I think £150-250K a year for a skilled doctor is pretty fair
NavyDoc
crazyewok
NavyDoc
Yes you did. You talked about what wages you think a physician should be limited to.
Erm no I DIDNT.
Someone said they were overpaid and I pointed out at least in the UK they are not and earn a good but pretty fair wage.
At no point did I say what they should be limited to or caped. Just pointed out what they earn on adverage. I would have no problem if its goes up, as long as they provide a quality service.
To say otherwise is a missquotation and twisting of what I say and that is a T&C offense.
edit on 20-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)edit on 20-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)
You said this:
Anyway I think £150-250K a year for a skilled doctor is pretty fair
Which sounds like you were suggesting a range that someone else should make. If that is not the case, I apologize. A neurosurgeon can make almost a million a year. Should he be allowed to make that much or not?
What is fair is stripping every banker and politican of all there asset when they conduct fraud or damageing action that screw up the econemy to pay for THERE OWN damages rather than make ME who has nothing to do with there stupidity to pay for it instead.
Spiramirabilis
reply to post by crazyewok
What is fair is stripping every banker and politican of all there asset when they conduct fraud or damageing action that screw up the econemy to pay for THERE OWN damages rather than make ME who has nothing to do with there stupidity to pay for it instead.
Yes, this is the larger part of it all - isn't it?
It's not about wealth redistribution - or simply hating the rich for being rich
It's about accountability - and fairness
It's about all of us being treated equally under the law
Maybe it's also about fairness of opportunity - which isn't the same as wealth
crazyewok
NavyDoc
crazyewok
NavyDoc
Yes you did. You talked about what wages you think a physician should be limited to.
Erm no I DIDNT.
Someone said they were overpaid and I pointed out at least in the UK they are not and earn a good but pretty fair wage.
At no point did I say what they should be limited to or caped. Just pointed out what they earn on adverage. I would have no problem if its goes up, as long as they provide a quality service.
To say otherwise is a missquotation and twisting of what I say and that is a T&C offense.
edit on 20-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)edit on 20-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)
You said this:
Anyway I think £150-250K a year for a skilled doctor is pretty fair
Which sounds like you were suggesting a range that someone else should make. If that is not the case, I apologize. A neurosurgeon can make almost a million a year. Should he be allowed to make that much or not?
I was just saying what a bog standard doctor earns not suggesting a range. If a neurosurgeon is good enough to make a million a year? Good for them.
How about the masses rise up and depose the Romanovs again.
en.wikipedia.org...
Many sections of the country had reason to be dissatisfied with the existing autocracy. Nicholas II was a deeply conservative ruler and maintained a strict authoritarian system. Individuals and society in general were expected to show self-restraint, devotion to community, deference to the social hierarchy and a sense of duty to the country. Religious faith helped bind all of these tenets together as a source of comfort and reassurance in the face of difficult conditions and as a means of political authority exercised through the clergy. Perhaps more than any other modern monarch, Nicholas II attached his fate and the future of his dynasty to the notion of the ruler as a saintly and infallible father to his people.[nb 3]
This idealized vision of the Romanov monarchy blinded him to the actual state of his country. With a firm belief that his power to rule was granted by Divine Right, Nicholas assumed that the Russian people were devoted to him with unquestioning loyalty. This ironclad belief rendered Nicholas unwilling to allow the progressive reforms that might have alleviated the suffering of the Russian people. Even after the 1905 revolution spurred the Tsar to decree limited civil rights and democratic representation, he worked to limit even these liberties in order to preserve the ultimate authority of the crown.[nb 3]
gladtobehere
reply to post by stargatetravels
Lord Blackheath had mentioned in Parliament that an anonymous donor, Foundation X, had offered to bail out the world economy to the tune of trillions of dollars ($15 to $100). Many assumed that it was the Rothschilds, creating money out of nothing so they could reset the world's debt to zero then continue on with their global ponzi scheme.
Later, it was conveniently spun into claims that it was all a hoax...
reply to post by hopenotfeariswhatweneed
edit on 20-1-2014 by gladtobehere because: wording
Spiramirabilis
reply to post by beezzer
How about the masses rise up and depose the Romanovs again.
That was a nasty business - wasn't it? One seriously pissed off, pitchfork and torch bearing crowd
The poor Romanovs...
You know what's interesting about history beezzer? You might not like the outcome - but you can always see (and you would think also understand) the reasons:
en.wikipedia.org...
Many sections of the country had reason to be dissatisfied with the existing autocracy. Nicholas II was a deeply conservative ruler and maintained a strict authoritarian system. Individuals and society in general were expected to show self-restraint, devotion to community, deference to the social hierarchy and a sense of duty to the country. Religious faith helped bind all of these tenets together as a source of comfort and reassurance in the face of difficult conditions and as a means of political authority exercised through the clergy. Perhaps more than any other modern monarch, Nicholas II attached his fate and the future of his dynasty to the notion of the ruler as a saintly and infallible father to his people.[nb 3]
This idealized vision of the Romanov monarchy blinded him to the actual state of his country. With a firm belief that his power to rule was granted by Divine Right, Nicholas assumed that the Russian people were devoted to him with unquestioning loyalty. This ironclad belief rendered Nicholas unwilling to allow the progressive reforms that might have alleviated the suffering of the Russian people. Even after the 1905 revolution spurred the Tsar to decree limited civil rights and democratic representation, he worked to limit even these liberties in order to preserve the ultimate authority of the crown.[nb 3]
Emphasis mine
We don't have to like how things play out, and we definitely don't have to agree with the decisions and choices that were made - but what is that saying about those who fail to learn from history?
Just out of curiosity beezzer - do you actually believe the revolution happened because of envy?
edit on 1/20/2014 by Spiramirabilis because: link...
The Russian Kulaks were a class of peasant farmers who owned their own land. The term "Kulak" was originally intended to be derogatory. Soviet propaganda painted these farmers as greedy and standing in the way of the "utopian" collectivization that would take away their land, livestock, and produce. "Kulak" means "fist" in Russian and may have had something to do with the supposed tight-fistedness of the Kulak class.1
Peter Stolypin a minister under Czar Nicholas II undertook agrarian reform in 1906. His program was to dissolve peasant communes and buy land from the nobility, then to divide the land among the peasants. This actually increased efficiency and boosted food production in the country-side by over 40%. Stolypin felt that by making peasants actual owners of the land and the product of their labor they would take a keener interest in land improvement and productivity. He felt that these peasants would also be more supportive of a stable Czarist state. In this he proved to be correct.2
After the Russian Civil War there was widespread famine throughout Russia. This was partly due to the war and partly due to the inefficiencies of collectivization. To relieve the hunger, Lenin attempted to confiscate grain from the peasants, including the Kulaks. Because not enough grain was collected he blamed the Kulaks and ordered not only that the Kulaks be deprived of grain themselves, but also any seed grain. He declared "Merciless war against the Kulaks! Death to them."4 This, of course, only had the effect of making the shortage more severe.
crazyewok
People defending Tsarist Russia?
Well I heard it all now.
NavyDoc
crazyewok
People defending Tsarist Russia?
Well I heard it all now.
I don' think we're defending Tsarist Russia as much as pointing out how #ed up the Communist revolution ended up being and drawing parallels between the tactics of the Bolshevik and current leftist rhetoric.
Of course the Tsar was a dick and a tyrant. You can't stir up people into revolution if everything is peachy keen. Just because what you had before a revolution was bad, does not automatically indicate that what you get after one is any better.edit on 20-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)
beezzer
I don't know the answers, I can surmise, but then again, why remove the righteous anger people appear to be feeling?
Spiramirabilis
reply to post by NavyDoc
That's a long post that basically says exactly what I was saying - only with a slant
You really want this to be about what you want it to be - leftists are just wrong?
My point - it all happened for a reason
History is repeating itself over and over again - but more importantly - people don't revolt because they want your stuff
crazyewok
NavyDoc
crazyewok
People defending Tsarist Russia?
Well I heard it all now.
I don' think we're defending Tsarist Russia as much as pointing out how #ed up the Communist revolution ended up being and drawing parallels between the tactics of the Bolshevik and current leftist rhetoric.
Of course the Tsar was a dick and a tyrant. You can't stir up people into revolution if everything is peachy keen. Just because what you had before a revolution was bad, does not automatically indicate that what you get after one is any better.edit on 20-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)
Im think the screwed up result of the revolution was down to how screwed up the system was before. If things are that BAD anything could be sold as a improvement.
America got it lucky, the British Empire was quite Benhovelent as far as "tyrants" go. Just taxes you had to deal with. If America had been under a real tyrant then your revolution could have ended in as much as screwed up result as Russia or France.
Spiramirabilis
Just out of curiosity beezzer - do you actually believe the revolution happened because of envy?
edit on 1/20/2014 by Spiramirabilis because: link...
NavyDoc
I'm quite the anglophile. The British Empire did much to open up the world. Had the King been slightly more conciliatory, there wouldn't have been a revolution at all. In fact, many colonialists wanted to rise up just to get the king to negotiate and did not intend to split form the crown--at least initially.
crazyewok
NavyDoc
I'm quite the anglophile. The British Empire did much to open up the world. Had the King been slightly more conciliatory, there wouldn't have been a revolution at all. In fact, many colonialists wanted to rise up just to get the king to negotiate and did not intend to split form the crown--at least initially.
Yeah I know. Damed Sarratoga haha If you guys hadnt of won that I have a feeling you would have a prime minister not a President and parliment not a congress and you would be the United Kingdom of America . If only the French hadnt take Sarratoga as a entry sign saying that the names and titles would have been diffrent but the USA would have still ended up a independant superpower, only sooner most likley as you wouldnt have had a civil war over slavery.
hopenotfeariswhatweneed
and a firing squad would only use 85 bullets to redistribute the wealth evenly around the globe