The Washington state democrats say that "A caring community provides a safety net of social services to meet all people's basic needs..."
I am therefore urging all Washingtonians to carefully review the following chart of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs:
Note that "water" is included in one of the foundation blocks to this pyramid of "basic needs." I would urge all of you to copy and submit your water bill to your nearest elected democrat so that this need may be satisfied. You will also note that "sex" is a part of this block. (also excretion but if you've ever used a public restroom you will gladly go without government providing this need)
Next we have a "safety" category that includes safety of property. I am anxiously waiting for the democrat legislatures around the country to pass bills restricting the kelo property grabbing decision.
Next up is "love/belonging." I'm hoping for a creation of the State Department of Matchmaking to find me a taxpayer funded friend. Also we have many single people out there on the dating scene. Since you are simply looking to fill one of your "basic needs" I would recommend that the cost of your dinner out be tax deductable.
Imagine how many Assistant Compliment Supervisor II's we can hire to take care of my self-esteem. I'm not saying that I need a PERS recipient to follow me around showering me with praise all day... several times a week will be sufficient.
The top part of the pyramid is going to be the most difficult and will probably require a Department of Self-Actualization with many branches such as the Office of Creativity.
I have so many needs...
21 comments:
You believe love, esteem and self-actualization are "basic needs?"
Lars is gonna have fun with this one...
Your understanding of the actual political and social realities of this world is roughly equal to the comprehension that a jellyfish has of oceanography.
Kaelri, so who defines "basic needs" if not Maslow? This hierarchy is pretty much considered the authority.
But let's dismiss "love, esteem, etc" and wonder... I can go for two weeks without "universal healthcare" but I can't go two weeks without water, whose job is it to pay for my water?
"US Communists Declare Election Victory" read the headline of the article posted at Political Affairs Magazine on 11/21. Yes my friends now we can look forward to all of our needs, wants and desires being fulfilled on someone else's dime now that the Communists are in the majority in Congress.
"Joelle Fishman (Communist Party USA)...move the struggle for democracy, peace and economic justice forward in the new Congress and to build the size and influence of the Communist Party."
All I want to know is now that the Democrats/Communists are in charge when do I get my "Basic Need" for a new Hummer H3 fulfilled?
Problem with most people is, they get wants and needs confused. Like nobody NEEDS a Hummer.
And does anyone NEED more than one gallon of water a day? Scammer Daniel wants governmentg to pay for all the umpteen extra gallons he uses.
The problem with some people is that they rarely bathe.
I'll bet terry NEEDS extra deodorant.
Terry,
What you don't take showers? You don't flush a toliet? How about washing dishes and clothes? I don't think I would want to visit a person that only needs one gallon of water a day the smell would be horrible.
Kinda kills your one gallon of water a day theory huh?
Kaelri,
What Daniel believes is every bit as "valid" as what anyone else believes. There are no absolutes, remember? You'll foster low self-esteem by being so judgemental and cruel.
How could you?
rickyragg: I'm delighted that you came up with such a creative parody. But since none of my posts here have ever claimed that position, which is actually not an argument that most of us make, but rather a straw man set up by others, I don't know who you're targeting with it. Would you enlighten me, please?
Daniel: The Democrats aren't referring to creativity, sexual intimacy or self-esteem, and you know it. So does everyone else. Any visitor who doesn't already agree with you is going to read that post and think that you either can't wrap your head around a concept we teach to eighth-graders, or ditched the idea of writing something persuasive and intelligent in favor of a childish exaggeration to keep the choir happy. I suspect the latter is true, and that this will not help anyone at all.
Please excuse the double post, but as Daniel ultimately did consent to taking the matter seriously:
"I can go for two weeks without 'universal healthcare' but I can't go two weeks without water, whose job is it to pay for my water?"
Water service in this country is provided by local government; your taxes are helping to pay for someone else's water as well as your own. The only difference with a hypothetical health care system is that there wouldn't be an individual bill for each recipient; it would be funded with the government's aggregate budget, like national defense and education. I mention those examples to make it clear that some of the fundamental services that we demand from our government are based on the same idea.
"Would you enlighten me, please?"
Sorry, I haven't time - I've already got a full-time job.
[rimshot]
Who says you have no sense of humor?
Please excuse the double post, but...
"Water service in this country is provided by local government; your taxes are helping to pay for someone else's water as well as your own. The only difference with a hypothetical health care system is that there wouldn't be an individual bill for each recipient;..."
1) Not ALL "water service in this country is provided by local government" - yet. Was that comment a result of ignorance or just wishful thinking?
2) Despite the fact that many local water suppliers are governmental, individual customers still get a water bill for their own usage.
3) If you don't pay your water bill, your water is shut off.
4) Hypothetically, your example is neither "...persuasive or intelligent...".
Okay, you're right, of course. I use a lot of water away from home, and not so much AT home. Which makes me a moocher I guess, using Other People's Water.
Rickyragg, concerning your #1: we're talking about the same country, right? Private water/sewage providers are more or less nonexistent outside the UK. Water is a fairly standard-issue municipal service in the States.
I addressed your #2 and #3 in my previous post.
I don't see the point of your #4. Of course I use a bit of humor in my writing from time to time, but on the whole, I'm not here to trade taunts.
Kaelri,
So lets see with the water issue not only are my taxes paying for the water I also get a water bill on top of all of that. And I pay for someone elses water (that's right the illegal aliens have to bath and drink as well).
I'm with Daniel on this one please provide me with this free water I'm getting thirsty.
kaelri, you idiot. My family, my neighbors, and EVERYONE between Scappoose and the coast, most of the people east of the cascades, and scores of millions of Americans own and operate their own wells. I would not drink city water, except at gunpoint. Your narrow frame is typical lefty thinking. And the fools who administer the water system in portlandistan are a disgrace. Gee whiz, they're liberals.
Mea Culpa, Kaelri.
I didn't read your comment closely enough to see that you do, indeed, distinguish the water example from the others.
The water supply "fact" that you use is incorrect, however:
"As of 1995, state regulatory commissions regulated approximately 8,750 water supplies in 46 states (Beecher, 1995), of which approximately 4,100 were investor-owned."
This excludes the approximately 15% of the US population which obtains its domestic water from wells (EPA stat.).
I'm not sure what your definition of "nonexistent" is, but I doubt it applies here.
Oh, and,
"I don't see the point of your #4."
Of course you don't.
I've heard descriptions to the contrary, but I haven't seen those numbers. My mistake. (Heh, we're even.)
The 15% who use subsistence wells, such as Bear, were never a factor in my analogy. They simply don't use the service, regardless of who owns it. Theoretically, people could choose not to enroll in a public health care system, either - probably a good number of people, in fact, since private physicians, like lawyers, would still be far superior.
The point is to establish an absolute minimum standard of living for the American people. Health care is just as natural an element of that as education, defense and welfare. I do not deny that all three of those examples have severe flaws. I have some ideas about how they can be fixed - maybe I'll make a blog post out of them - but for now, I'll just say that I think it's vital for us to get a foundation in place.
This is one of the issues on which liberals and conservatives can actually work together, you know. I've found that liberals are stronger supporters of absolutes, principles, and standards, while conservatives have a better grasp on economic trends and causalities. With the combination of these abilities, we can have a health care system that is both accountable to our democratic government and integrated in the existing capitalist market.
It's possible.
This is why I hate that electorate politics are consistently bogged down in mudslinging about the "homosexual agenda" and "cutting and running" and a "culture of corruption" (yeah, look at that, Bear, a Democrat criticized Democrats). If the system weren't filled to bursting with people who think that the government of the most powerful nation in the world is like the NHL, we might be able to actually get stuff done.
That said, I'm eager to see what the new Congress will do.
Ironically I'm reading this as I listen to R.E.M.'s "It's the End of the World as We Know it."
"Excretion" is important? Whomever came up with chart must be "full of shit" and want us understand the importance of this daily ritual.
My dogs got that part down really well--and they don't need this stinkin' chart to know that!
Post a Comment