That is the way it looks to me. If they would just say "NO. We rule this congress now" to the republicans they might actually Get something done fast. Democrats arent forceful at all. The reason republican are blocking so much is becuase they are so forceful in there opinions. What do you guys think?
The Democrats are a pretty disorganised lot. There are a lot of different political philosophies in there, and almost no party control on votes. I mean, Lieberman supported McCain in the last election and it cost him very little. On the other hand the Republicans are a lot more disciplined, and it's members split from the party line very rarely.
This is because, quite frankly, the GOP has a central ideology and the Democrats do not.
In most circumstances this would mean the Republicans would be the ones to vote for, but unfortunately their ideology is crazy.
garret wrote:That is the way it looks to me. If they would just say "NO. We rule this congress now" to the republicans they might actually Get something done fast. Democrats arent forceful at all. The reason republican are blocking so much is becuase they are so forceful in there opinions. What do you guys think?
They don't have a filibuster proof majority and aren't as cohesive as they could be. They are a political party that represents a group with many varied views. You don't just get to say "I rule" in American politics, by design it's easy for minority parties to obstruct processes to the point of deadlock with ease. By contrast the bizarrely cohesive conservative politicians have a singular and easy platform "no". Even within the environment of hyper partisan party politics and a psychotic minority party health care and financial reforms have still been passed so I'm not sure where the ineffectiveness you see is. I think you should be asking why the conservatives are being hyper obstructionist to the point of inanity and insanity.
Even within the environment of hyper partisan party politics and a psychotic minority party
Awesome. Allow me to translate. "Those guys are SO partisan! Oh, whoops, so am I!"
The talk of obstructionism is humorous. Not long ago we had Democrats blocking judicial nominees, talk of the "nuclear option," etc. That was politics.
Republicans try to do the same, and suddenly it's an OUTRAGE at how obstructionist they are. Even as they successfully obstruct nothing.
By contrast the bizarrely cohesive conservative politicians have a singular and easy platform
It's not bizzare, it's completely expected. When a party takes major losses, two effects conspire:
1) The survivors come from the most conservative districts, where conservative candidates can survive in the worst of times. Thus, they themselves tend to be very conservative.
2) When you're down to 40 people, it's a far smaller group to get marching together.
So, what's bizzare about 40 die hards thinking alike? Nothing.
Awesome. Allow me to translate. "Those guys are SO partisan! Oh, whoops, so am I!"
Theres a difference between being political and being psychotic. Screaming death panels and frightening the elderly because of care terminations and last will and testament discussions (both things that insurance companies actively do) is psychotic. It's cowardly. Most of all it's harmful to the nation.
Stating such is just political.
The talk of obstructionism is humorous. Not long ago we had Democrats blocking judicial nominees, talk of the "nuclear option," etc. That was politics.
I'm sure it's humorous, you agree when it happens now and you disagreed when it was talked about then.
Republicans try to do the same, and suddenly it's an OUTRAGE at how obstructionist they are. Even as they successfully obstruct nothing.
Well, y'know, except when a single one of them obstructs the renewal of jobless benefits to several million people for weeks because byzantine house procedural traditions allow him to do this. But then I guess the "Democrats did that" at some point in weird shadow past that you remember.
It's not bizzare, it's completely expected. When a party takes major losses, two effects conspire:
1) The survivors come from the most conservative districts, where conservative candidates can survive in the worst of times. Thus, they themselves tend to be very conservative.
2) When you're down to 40 people, it's a far smaller group to get marching together.
Those are both certainly true.
So, what's bizzare about 40 die hards thinking alike? Nothing.
I was thinking more the bizarrely united mischaracterization of things like the healthcare bill and the united stance against financial reform (something they would have undertook in the exact same fashion were they the majority with the presidency). It takes something bizarre to go against the previous precedents of your own party just to oppose something another party puts fourth. A significant portion of the financial reform bill was taken straight from documents penned by conservative republicans. When faced with their own words they still not only voted no, but characterized their own plans as socialist, partisan, and liberal. If you can't see the childishness in your own party then you're blind.
It's cowardly. Most of all it's harmful to the nation.
It's also politics as usual, and hardly the most extreme example.
The "death panel" thing was more of a mischaracterization of a desire to offer "end of life" counselling, which is nothing more than advising dying people as to their options, not actually picking and choosing who dies, and then killing them. That said, there were real and concurrent discussions about rationing care, about the fact that end of life care is often the most expensive and the least like to have a positive outcome.
So, put simply, I agree it was a clear mischaracterization, but it wasn't far from the real issues.
Now, compare that to the calls for war crimes charges against George W Bush? John Conyers held a mock hearing to impeach him. When the Democrats took control they actually DID have hearings to impeach him. Is trying to impeach a President helpful for the nation? Is threatening him with CRIMINAL ACTION, literally trying to CRIMINALIZE policy good for the nation?
No.
It wasn't good when it was done to Clinton. It wasn't done when it was done to GWB. None of it was good.
I can see that, and I'm pretty damn partisan. You can only see it when the Republicans do it. How partisan does that make you?
I mean, seriously? "Scaring the elderly?" This is the first time that was done? "They're going to take your Medicare" was a perennial mantra for years.
I'm sure it's humorous, you agree when it happens now and you disagreed when it was talked about then.
Wow, 0-2. First off, I don't agree with it. I don't agree with filibustering, period. Either we should change the rules to require 60% majority, or we should stop allowing filibustering. If we can't do that, then we should require that they ACTUALLY filibuster, instead of just sorta say "we might" and then nothing, maybe test votes.
Second, NOBODY actually filibustered. Nobody took the floor and did it. They just threatened. And then eventually didn't, or failed to have the numbers. How exactly are the Republicans doing anything besides talking about it, when the votes keep passing, the bills keep getting signed? Obama is passing his legislation at quite a clip for somebody getting filibustered. Cause he's not.
What I'm pissed off at is the slant. It's bad when Republicans do it, acceptable for Democrats. And then you have the hypocrisy to pretend I'm the one with a double standard, simply because you imagine I think things that are convenient to your arguments.
But then I guess the "Democrats did that" at some point in weird shadow past that you remember.
Yeah, they delayed judicial nominees far longer. In the end they stopped. And in the end, the Democrats got their enemployment insurance extension. It's all delay via one rules trick or another, and in the end, it prevents nothing. What's the difference now?
It takes something bizarre to go against the previous precedents of your own party just to oppose something another party puts fourth.
It's interesting how quickly you can vacillate between arrogant cynicism and childish naivete. "But... But... They're lying!" They're politicians, sweetie. All they do is lie. Both parties. All the time.
Speaking of lying, and because you're so quick to presume that the Republicans are "my party," here's how I summarize my political views: I prefer the Republicans' lies to the Democrats' lies.
They're all lying. But I like the guy who's lying about leaving me alone, more than the guy who's lying about being my new mommy.
As far as "childishness" goes, let's see how "childish" it looks in November. All this Republican obstruction may strike you as ridiculous, but it's looking to prove to be a winner for them with the voters. They're not doing it because they're stupid, they're doing it because they're douchebag politicians. It's the voters that are stupid.
It's also politics as usual, and hardly the most extreme example.
It's the most extreme example of it since mcarthyism in my opinion.
So, put simply, I agree it was a clear mischaracterization, but it wasn't far from the real issues.
I don't understand. How was it not far from real issues to tell the elderly that they will die for months?
Now, compare that to the calls for war crimes charges against George W Bush? John Conyers held a mock hearing to impeach him. When the Democrats took control they actually DID have hearings to impeach him. Is trying to impeach a President helpful for the nation? Is threatening him with CRIMINAL ACTION, literally trying to CRIMINALIZE policy good for the nation?
He broke U.S. law, lied to the nation, and led us into a disastrous and ludicrously expensive war from which there is seemingly no end all the while interfering politically within military matters and politicizing his generalship. The dude did just about everything he could to get himself impeached. The fact that it didn't happen is paramount to how much the nation just wanted to move past it all. But hey, at least he didn't get a BJ. Thats the real stuff a political party impeaches a president for.
It wasn't good when it was done to Clinton. It wasn't done when it was done to GWB. None of it was good.
I can see that, and I'm pretty damn partisan. You can only see it when the Republicans do it. How partisan does that make you?
Bush wasn't actually impeached. I'm pretty sure that your highlighting your own massive blinders here. Like I said, you think it's equal because the democrats talked about doing something the republicans actually did. Talk isn't action.
Wow, 0-2. First off, I don't agree with it. I don't agree with filibustering, period. Either we should change the rules to require 60% majority, or we should stop allowing filibustering. If we can't do that, then we should require that they ACTUALLY filibuster, instead of just sorta say "we might" and then nothing, maybe test votes.
I agree.
Second, NOBODY actually filibustered. Nobody took the floor and did it. They just threatened.
Senate and house proceedure has been to declare a fillibuster as valid when threatened for years. It's kinda goofy, but all you have to do is threaten and it's assumed that you will, thus it requires the supermajority to overcome the threat. The traditions of our political system are stupid but thats seriously how it works, threatening is the same as acting.
And then eventually didn't, or failed to have the numbers. How exactly are the Republicans doing anything besides talking about it, when the votes keep passing, the bills keep getting signed? Obama is passing his legislation at quite a clip for somebody getting filibustered. Cause he's not.
The Democrats used the nuclear option and passed the bill as a finance bill which can't be filibustered. The republicans were going to fillibuster it otherwise.
What I'm pissed off at is the slant. It's bad when Republicans do it, acceptable for Democrats. And then you have the hypocrisy to pretend I'm the one with a double standard, simply because you imagine I think things that are convenient to your arguments.
What your pissed off at is the fake line of events you've made up in your head where the democrats used a minority filibuster to block a major reform bill forcing the republicans to invoke the nuclear option. That never occurred. The opposite of that occurred. The democrats attempted to filibuster a few times during the bush years but never actually got it off the ground due to generally weak support. The republicans actually did it, repeatedly, for months, while continuously decrying socialism and talking about death panels and how the bill would bankrupt the nation immediately.
Yeah, they delayed judicial nominees far longer. In the end they stopped. And in the end, the Democrats got their enemployment insurance extension. It's all delay via one rules trick or another, and in the end, it prevents nothing. What's the difference now?
Obama still has unfilled cabinet positions two years after entering office because of the delay tactics. Thats whats different. The degree.
It's interesting how quickly you can vacillate between arrogant cynicism and childish naivete.
And it's interesting that you've invented a complicated shadow planet in your head where everything is just a tiny bit different then how it is in the real world. It must be hard to keep track of.
"But... But... They're lying!" They're politicians, sweetie. All they do is lie. Both parties. All the time.
How is this a response to what you're quoting..?
Speaking of lying, and because you're so quick to presume that the Republicans are "my party," here's how I summarize my political views: I prefer the Republicans' lies to the Democrats' lies.
Your first presumption is assuming I care what your professed political beliefs are. I don't. I don't know you so I will continue to infer your beliefs from your arguments, you seem to be a level headed moderate conservative with good knowledge of politics and current events. You come to wacky conclusions about things sometimes but your pretty good at being middle of the road.
They're all lying. But I like the guy who's lying about leaving me alone, more than the guy who's lying about being my new mommy.
It's interesting then that the dude that was leaving you alone is sending you to war and outsourcing your jobs to china while refusing to fix the issue of border hoppers coming into your house. I would characterize that more as the layabout dad.
As far as "childishness" goes, let's see how "childish" it looks in November. All this Republican obstruction may strike you as ridiculous, but it's looking to prove to be a winner for them with the voters.
Probably, the senate and house often swing against the incumbent as a form of soft protest though I don't expect their gains to be as heavy as many believe.
They're not doing it because they're stupid, they're doing it because they're douchebag politicians. It's the voters that are stupid.
Captain_Trips01 wrote:Basically, Republicans are the party of "no", while Democrats are the Party of "yes".
Well, the Republicans are the party of “No” and the Democrats are the party of “Yes, hopefully, somewhere down the line we’ll totally put a real effort into doing that so please keep voting for us. What, the other guys are calling us socialists? Well in that case then no, we never supported that… do you think they’ll stop calling us names now?”
Politics of compromise is what America is all about. If the Democrats or Republicans actually pushed foward their agendas too fast, their public support would erode quickly because America does not have the stomach for radical change.
It's the most extreme example of it since mcarthyism in my opinion.
More extreme than, say, impeaching a President? I mean, what? You're not just incongruent with reality here, you're incongruent with your own contempt for the impeaching of Clinton.
That was PREPOSTEROUS. Slightly misrepresenting end of life counselling doesn't even come close. It doesn't even come close to other misrepresenatations that have occurred.
How was it not far from real issues to tell the elderly that they will die for months?
The fact that end of life care is very expensive, and generally accomplishes very little besides eking out a few more months of pain, is an issue that people WERE talking about at that point (and still are). It REALLY is on the table to consider if this is something that should be addressed with legislation.
The fact is, "letting old people die" is a real issue. The reason it's an issue is because it's actually a rational thing to consider. Not so much to traditional Republicans, obviously, but still.
So, they yelled about "death panels." And while they were misrepresenting the facts, I'm not sure they even entirely realized it. I think they were conflating many things, conflating quotes they heard, and thinking that the end of life counselling really was taking old people off life support. I'm sure some of them knew what was going on, but I think somebody like Sarah Palin probably thought she was accurately representing a possible outcome.
He broke U.S. law, lied to the nation, and led us into a disastrous and ludicrously expensive war...
Ohh, I get it, it's ok to impeach him because he REALLY IS bad!
None of what you're saying is emperically true. Sure, arguments can be made. Some are decent, most are ridiculously stupid and wrong. I have my opinions, you have yours. We can't possibly get into the details of all this... Broken laws, lies, costs... Long discussions. If it was all fact, then how come none of it made amounted to actual impeachment? Wanting to heal the nation's wounds is a conveniently noble excuse. I think we know how noble everyone in DC is.
Bush wasn't actually impeached. I'm pretty sure that your highlighting your own massive blinders here.
For what it's worth, I meant to type "It was't good when it was done to GWB." You bolded it, but I don't know why, but that made me notice I typed it wrong.
Regardless, threats of impeachment are bad, and impeachment is worse. I realize that Bush wasn't actually impeached, it only amounted to hearings and prattle, but at the same time, it happened after Clinton. In many ways I consider even starting the process to be just as bad, because SURELY a lesson was learned after Clinton, SURELY these idiots see what it did to our political discourse to be so flippantly draconian.
So, yeah, the Republicans took it farther, and that was bad. The Democrats didn't go as far, but they did it at a time when they should have known to not do it at all.
The Democrats used the nuclear option and passed the bill as a finance bill which can't be filibustered.
Well, formally speaking, the "nuclear option" was an actual change to rules, or at least a procedure that would permanently remove the option of filibuster. This has not been done.
That said, I'm not clear what we're talking about right now. The extension of enemployment benefits? Two Republicans voted to end the filibuster on that, and one Democrat against it, giving the 60 votes needed. Not precisely on party lines...
Also, FWIW, this benefit extension is going to cost $35B, and $130B total for all extensions since 2008. That's not a small amount, even when compared to the "ludicrously expensive" Iraq war, which has cost us about $700B. You'd need a word better than "ludicrous" to describe Obama's $790B stimulus...
Basically, Republicans are the party of "no", while Democrats are the Party of "yes".
No, the minority party is the party of "no" and the majority party is the party of "yes."
Thats how its supposed to work. They say no until the majority puts something forth that both can agree on. Much of our best legislation was done with a Congress and executive from different parties. Its worked well for decades.
Of course things would run so much more efficiently if Frazzled were in charge
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Because it is in the Constitution -- Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
ARARARARGHGHGH!!!!
(You're actually mixing the Constitution up with the Declaration of Independence. )
Cut him some slack. He's British and hampered by British cuisine.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Speaking of keeping everyone focused. What are they going to do without JournOlist?
Phryxis wrote:Ohh, I get it, it's ok to impeach him because he REALLY IS bad!
None of what you're saying is emperically true. Sure, arguments can be made. Some are decent, most are ridiculously stupid and wrong. I have my opinions, you have yours. We can't possibly get into the details of all this... Broken laws, lies, costs... Long discussions. If it was all fact, then how come none of it made amounted to actual impeachment? Wanting to heal the nation's wounds is a conveniently noble excuse. I think we know how noble everyone in DC is.
That's pretty circular, dude. Efforts to impeach Bush were partisan because there was no substance to them because they didn't follow through, and we know if there was substance they would have followed through because we know they're all partisan.
The basic reality is that the effort to impeach Bush polled badly so the Democrats dropped it. Outside of a couple of issues (that they more or less fell into and could back out of like healthcare) the Democrats will basically chase good poll numbers and run away from the bad.
The effort to impeach Clinton polled worse, but the Republicans are true believers and chased that all the way.
Also, FWIW, this benefit extension is going to cost $35B, and $130B total for all extensions since 2008. That's not a small amount, even when compared to the "ludicrously expensive" Iraq war, which has cost us about $700B. You'd need a word better than "ludicrous" to describe Obama's $790B stimulus...
"Too small according to the opinions of major economists, and loaded with too many political elements like tax cuts, and too few effective elements like infrastructure expenditure" Admittedly that isn't one word though.
And yeah, there really is a different scale for a stimulus bill needed to prevent depression and a war that no-one really knows the point of. Even if they cost roughly similar amounts, one can be too cheap and the other ludicrously expensive, because you really have to consider the utility of the item.
garret wrote:That is the way it looks to me. If they would just say "NO. We rule this congress now" to the republicans they might actually Get something done fast. Democrats arent forceful at all. The reason republican are blocking so much is becuase they are so forceful in there opinions. What do you guys think?
Blocking policies the name of the game for the minority party. The Democrats did it to the Republicans while W was in office. W and the Reps tried in '03 and '05 to put an oversight committee over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because they saw their collapse coming. Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac responding by buying the Democrats and some of the Republicans with lobbying dollars and blocked the reform. What really hurts is that the top 3 people they gave money to back in '03 were John Kerry(ran against W in '04),Hillary Clinton(finalist for the Dem nomination),and Barack Obama(our current president). Members of a party will only tow the party line so much. Money talks,and politicians listen.
Kilkrazy wrote:Because it is in the Constitution -- Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Rather ask why the Republicans don't want everyone to be happy.
John Hancock wrote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
It's in the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution. Also those are rights that you have as a human being, but nowhere does it say that the government has to provide them to you. The governments job is to maintain order, not maintain everyones person life for them. Saying yes to everything produces spoiled children, when there is no challenge or required effort to get anything of desire, the joy is lost. This then causes new things to become desired....that tend to be perverse, pointless or unjustifyable by any circumstances.
Saying yes to everything produces spoiled children, when there is no challenge or required effort to get anything of desire, the joy is lost. This then causes new things to become desired....that tend to be perverse, pointless or unjustifyable by any circumstances.
Saying yes to everything produces spoiled children, when there is no challenge or required effort to get anything of desire, the joy is lost. This then causes new things to become desired....that tend to be perverse, pointless or unjustifyable by any circumstances.
Best slippery slope ever.
QFT
OTOH Take a look at society and tell me I'm wrong.
Saying yes to everything produces spoiled children, when there is no challenge or required effort to get anything of desire, the joy is lost. This then causes new things to become desired....that tend to be perverse, pointless or unjustifyable by any circumstances.
Best slippery slope ever.
QFT
OTOH Take a look at society and tell me I'm wrong.
It's the Fall of the Eldar!
When is Slaanesh showing up? Oh wait....there's Gaga....nevermind
OTOH Take a look at society and tell me I'm wrong.
*looks*
You're wrong.
I'll happily expand on why I consider that to be the case if you will expand on your own position.
We have people in this country (perfect example Katrina '05) who cannot think, act, provide or live for themselves anymore. Seeing the people with their hands in the air going: "Where's the Government?!" is embarrassing. It's a damn hurricane headed towards you, do you think you could leave? Why weren't the public school buses from NO used to bus peiople out of the city? Instead they get left in a bus barn and all become total losses to the city's budget after they get flooded.
Extending un-employment 2 more years coupled with our high minimum wage is another example: Companies are looking to maintain a consistent bottom line, said bottom line can't be met when the government lays down an arbitrary limit on what someone can be paid. So, there's a price floor that creates a shortage caused by a high minimum wage. Thus, more people need un-employment and can't find jobs because the margins aren't moving. When the margins aren't moving there is undereployment and people eventually stop looking for jobs. There can't be more jobs when you have to pay someone $7.15 an hour. People can't get $5 an hour jobs because of this law. It might only be $5 but it's still a job!
And no it is not a living wage, it never was intended to be, it was meant for teenagers who are just starting out in the workforce, not trying to raise a family on it. If you are trying to raise a family on that you're a fool.
We have massive amounts of crime, un-employment, out of wedlock births, premature death and teenage pregancy in the black community. They have had every type of program thrown their way and yet they still are some of the poorest people in the country. Why? Because most (not all) of them have had initiative bred out of them, much like the Native Americans. It is supposedly benevolent liberals who look out for the little guy yet they keep enacting policies that crush the little guy and his employer under mountains of regulations and laws.
We have a government that is almost at 100% of our GDP in debt, yet we want to spend more. Out unfunded liability is $119 Trillion dollars yet it's not enough. Medicare, Medicaid, SS and the host of other programs our Federal Government provides are out of money. There is no more. The only reason we haven't completely imploded is becasue fiscal policy moves faster than monetary policy. Once hyper infaltion hits I can't wait for these haughty people to say it was because of the Republicans.
And no, I am no Republican, they just suck a little less, plus they have more influence than the thrid parties. I am tired of BO getting to use his mighty cudgel of "Bush bad" or "The Republicans are in the way", there's nothing stopping him, he just want's to make sure he can use any inclusion of Republican support agianst them in any way, the man cannot think outside of the political realm on anything.
Yes, if only those black and natives didn't have the initiative bred out of them by our benevolent liberal overlords...
Speaking of bafflegab, what's up with the assumption of there being a monolithic and ideologically homogenous Republican party? There's some know-nothing Tea Partiers out there that would probably beg to differ.
We have people in this country (perfect example Katrina '05) who cannot think, act, provide or live for themselves anymore. Seeing the people with their hands in the air going: "Where's the Government?!" is embarrassing. It's a damn hurricane headed towards you, do you think you could leave? Why weren't the public school buses from NO used to bus peiople out of the city? Instead they get left in a bus barn and all become total losses to the city's budget after they get flooded.
Did you really just disparage people for wondering where the government is and then in the same paragraph criticize the government for not being there?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurglitch wrote:Yes, if only those black and natives didn't have the initiative bred out of them by our benevolent liberal overlords...
Speaking of bafflegab, what's up with the assumption of there being a monolithic and ideologically homogenous Republican party? There's some know-nothing Tea Partiers out there that would probably beg to differ.
Movement politics are always a few years behind electoral politics due to the election cycle. The conservative base has fractured a bit but the actual party leaders are as homogenous as ever.
Stormrider wrote:
We have people in this country (perfect example Katrina '05) who cannot think, act, provide or live for themselves anymore. Seeing the people with their hands in the air going: "Where's the Government?!" is embarrassing. It's a damn hurricane headed towards you, do you think you could leave? Why weren't the public school buses from NO used to bus peiople out of the city? Instead they get left in a bus barn and all become total losses to the city's budget after they get flooded.
The public school buses are government property. It seems odd that would point out a failing of the state in the context of a comment regarding why people didn't leave due to their own incompetence. Additionally, to presume that the matter was one of incompetence rather than inability says a great deal about you and your own failings; as there are certainly alternative explanations which you seem happy to ignore, or unable to see.
Oh, and lets not forget that New Orleans' flood prevention measures were supposedly designed to handle hurricanes as strong as Katrina.
Stormrider wrote:
Extending un-employment 2 more years coupled with our high minimum wage is another example:
High minimum wage compared to what? The US minimum wage is one of the lowest in the developed world.
Stormrider wrote:
Companies are looking to maintain a consistent bottom line, said bottom line can't be met when the government lays down an arbitrary limit on what someone can be paid.
Then how is it that there are many corporations operating in the US at this moment?
Stormrider wrote:
So, there's a price floor that creates a shortage caused by a high minimum wage. Thus, more people need un-employment and can't find jobs because the margins aren't moving. When the margins aren't moving there is undereployment and people eventually stop looking for jobs. There can't be more jobs when you have to pay someone $7.15 an hour.
Then how do you explain the low unemployment rate throughout the '00s?
Additionally, it seems as though you're presuming that people are collecting unemployment just by being unemployed. This is a false, as the standards governing unemployment insurance are more stringent than that; notably considering underemployment in order to provide assistance to people earning less than they had previously.
Stormrider wrote:
People can't get $5 an hour jobs because of this law. It might only be $5 but it's still a job!
I'm not a huge fan of minimum wage laws either, but you're attributing far too much causal force to them.
Stormrider wrote:
And no it is not a living wage, it never was intended to be, it was meant for teenagers who are just starting out in the workforce, not trying to raise a family on it. If you are trying to raise a family on that you're a fool.
The rate of labor participation for both sexes, aged 16-19, has hovered between 60-70% since 1948; with no direct correlation between purchasing power and the rate of employment. Notably, more people were employed when the federal minimum wage had its highest purchasing power (1968) than during all prior years of that decade.
Stormrider wrote:
We have massive amounts of crime, un-employment, out of wedlock births, premature death and teenage pregancy in the black community. They have had every type of program thrown their way and yet they still are some of the poorest people in the country. Why? Because most (not all) of them have had initiative bred out of them, much like the Native Americans. It is supposedly benevolent liberals who look out for the little guy yet they keep enacting policies that crush the little guy and his employer under mountains of regulations and laws.
You should note that the rate social mobility isn't any higher among poor white people. The defining characteristic here is the tendency of poverty to breed defeatism. For instance, prior to the Great Society, the rate of social mobility amongst blacks was significantly lower than amongst whites, that is no longer the case.
Stormrider wrote:
We have a government that is almost at 100% of our GDP in debt, yet we want to spend more. Out unfunded liability is $119 Trillion dollars yet it's not enough. Medicare, Medicaid, SS and the host of other programs our Federal Government provides are out of money. There is no more. The only reason we haven't completely imploded is becasue fiscal policy moves faster than monetary policy.
Actually it has more to do with the means by which we have financed our spending habits, but that's another thread. To the point, the budget needs to be cut, there is no playing about that, but there is no way to cut it enough, with sufficient alacrity, to simultaneously avoid some form of tax increase.
Stormrider wrote:
Once hyper infaltion hits I can't wait for these haughty people to say it was because of the Republicans.
You'd be foolish to play at this being the consequence of Democrat, or Republican, policy when Ronald Reagan instigated the current trend of deficit spending.
Stormrider wrote:
And no, I am no Republican, they just suck a little less, plus they have more influence than the thrid parties. I am tired of BO getting to use his mighty cudgel of "Bush bad" or "The Republicans are in the way", there's nothing stopping him, he just want's to make sure he can use any inclusion of Republican support agianst them in any way, the man cannot think outside of the political realm on anything.
What did this post have to do with the idea that having certain services provided by the state, or society, necessarily leads to moral corruption?
Saying yes to everything produces spoiled children, when there is no challenge or required effort to get anything of desire, the joy is lost. This then causes new things to become desired....that tend to be perverse, pointless or unjustifyable by any circumstances.
Best slippery slope ever.
QFT
OTOH Take a look at society and tell me I'm wrong.
It's the Fall of the Eldar!
When is Slaanesh showing up? Oh wait....there's Gaga....nevermind
You take that back! Slaanesh would never be THAT ugly.
We have people in this country (perfect example Katrina '05) who cannot think, act, provide or live for themselves anymore. Seeing the people with their hands in the air going: "Where's the Government?!" is embarrassing. It's a damn hurricane headed towards you, do you think you could leave? Why weren't the public school buses from NO used to bus peiople out of the city? Instead they get left in a bus barn and all become total losses to the city's budget after they get flooded.
Isn't that the entire point? What is the government supposed to do if not step in and organize things like disaster relief and maintain safety and order? My understanding is that this is the entire point of civilization since they started irrigation and flood control in the Middle East.
Stormrider wrote:
Extending un-employment 2 more years coupled with our high minimum wage is another example: Companies are looking to maintain a consistent bottom line, said bottom line can't be met when the government lays down an arbitrary limit on what someone can be paid. So, there's a price floor that creates a shortage caused by a high minimum wage. Thus, more people need un-employment and can't find jobs because the margins aren't moving. When the margins aren't moving there is undereployment and people eventually stop looking for jobs. There can't be more jobs when you have to pay someone $7.15 an hour. People can't get $5 an hour jobs because of this law. It might only be $5 but it's still a job!
There were jobs four years ago, and there was a minimum wage and unemployment then. The jobs just aren't there now. I'm not an economist and I can't tell you why those jobs aren't there, other than the fact that people were propping the economy up with debt instead of cash, but they just aren't. The fact remains that people who are able to work but cannot find a job need help. It simply has to be there, and we must find a way to afford it.
Stormrider wrote:
And no, I am no Republican, they just suck a little less, plus they have more influence than the thrid parties. I am tired of BO getting to use his mighty cudgel of "Bush bad" or "The Republicans are in the way", there's nothing stopping him, he just want's to make sure he can use any inclusion of Republican support agianst them in any way, the man cannot think outside of the political realm on anything.
Admittingly I don't watch a lot of television, but I haven't really observed that. Sure, he's a politician, like any other, so of course he's going to behave that way to some extent. Regardless of how he really feels, he has praised former Republican presidents, and seems to me to have made a good faith effort to compromise.
Ultimately we must also recognize that Bush truly was a poor President. Not only did he do a lot of things that liberals don't like, but he also exercised a rather loose fiscal policy which did not endear him to conservatives; this is evidenced by the number of conservatives currently engaged in denying the conservatism of former President Bush.
Did you really just disparage people for wondering where the government is and then in the same paragraph criticize the government for not being there?
It actually makes a lot more sense than you're letting it.
It's a problem when you make people so reliant on government assistance that they're ill prepared to solve their own problems. It's DOUBLE bad when you make them that way, and then don't help them in a time of crisis.
In my opinion, that's exactly what happened in New Orleans during Katrina.
That said, I realize it's an opinion, but it's also what's at the core of this discussion. I think "the right" resents the "verdict" on Katrina. Most people (I believe), view it as "a big storm came, and then George W Bush doesn't care about black people, and then Republicans boo."
I don't feel that's fair or accurate. It makes me pretty irritated that history will record that event as "Republicans boo" when, IMO, it's pretty clearly a failure of Democrat policy and execution from start to finish. The blame runs with the Democrats who have run that state for years, who failed to maintain/expand the levees. It lies with Nagin and Blanco, who were in charge of the response, and failed completely.
Of course, as usual, Bush did his standard "follow policy but don't explain it and then sorta look sad when everyone blames it on you, but don't respond" because he was incompetent at managing his image.
Phryxis wrote:It's a problem when you make people so reliant on government assistance that they're ill prepared to solve their own problems.
Does this also apply to people who can't rebuild the engine in their car; instead needing to pay others to do it for them?
Anyway, the Democrats received plenty of blame in Louisiana itself; witness Jindal. This seems appropriate given that the majority of the nation should be indifferent to Louisiana politics, and yet sensitive to federal ones.
Bush certainly received an unfair portion of the blame, as he pretty much went along with policy as established.
The one thing he should have been criticized for, folding FEMA into Homeland Security, went largely unnoticed.
It just follows logically dude. Saying yes to everything produces spoiled children, therefore saying no to everything produces virulent go getters that will all pull themselves into the top rungs of society by their bootstraps.
Bootstraps!
Red9 wrote:QFT
OTOH Take a look at society and tell me I'm wrong.
You're wrong. Simplistic, absolute moral positions just do not work when it comes to social policy.
Stormrider wrote:We have people in this country (perfect example Katrina '05) who cannot think, act, provide or live for themselves anymore.
Wow. I mean there's the "I've got mine so feth you attitude" and then there's the "I've got mine so feth all those people that couldn't escape a flooding city". I mean, wow.
Seeing the people with their hands in the air going: "Where's the Government?!" is embarrassing. It's a damn hurricane headed towards you, do you think you could leave? Why weren't the public school buses from NO used to bus peiople out of the city? Instead they get left in a bus barn and all become total losses to the city's budget after they get flooded.
As others have pointed out, you criticise people for not being able to look out for themselves, then criticise the government response.
Extending un-employment 2 more years coupled with our high minimum wage is another example: Companies are looking to maintain a consistent bottom line, said bottom line can't be met when the government lays down an arbitrary limit on what someone can be paid. So, there's a price floor that creates a shortage caused by a high minimum wage. Thus, more people need un-employment and can't find jobs because the margins aren't moving.
Your understanding of economics is dreadful. Simply, utterly dreadful.
An understanding of minimum wage laws needs to take into account information assymetry, and needs to take into account productivity measures. Once you've done this you can build an understanding of what minimum wage can be sustained without impacting employment. More than anything, any effort to relate minimum wage laws to the current level of employment needs to account for cyclical levels of demand, especially when you're in a recession.
Seriously dude, your economic thinking above is very poor.
And no it is not a living wage, it never was intended to be, it was meant for teenagers who are just starting out in the workforce, not trying to raise a family on it. If you are trying to raise a family on that you're a fool.
Yes, because there is simply people with high paying jobs, and there are fools. No consideration should ever be made for the opportunities available to each individual, we should just assume that a kid born into a middle class family is exactly the same as a kid born into poverty.
We have massive amounts of crime, un-employment, out of wedlock births, premature death and teenage pregancy in the black community. They have had every type of program thrown their way and yet they still are some of the poorest people in the country. Why? Because most (not all) of them have had initiative bred out of them, much like the Native Americans. It is supposedly benevolent liberals who look out for the little guy yet they keep enacting policies that crush the little guy and his employer under mountains of regulations and laws.
I'm pretty sure racism is a big no-no on Dakka. I'd suggest you stop being racist if you want to hang around.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phryxis wrote:It actually makes a lot more sense than you're letting it.
It's a problem when you make people so reliant on government assistance that they're ill prepared to solve their own problems. It's DOUBLE bad when you make them that way, and then don't help them in a time of crisis.
It isn't practical to require every family living in the city to own a car. The less cars there, the less space needed to store them, and the less cars on the road. This can be achieved with decent public transportation.
This means that if a disaster occurs and people need to leave a city, they will not have a car. In such a case government should help them get out of the city.
That said, I realize it's an opinion, but it's also what's at the core of this discussion. I think "the right" resents the "verdict" on Katrina. Most people (I believe), view it as "a big storm came, and then George W Bush doesn't care about black people, and then Republicans boo."
I think the general consensus is that Katrina represented another case of Bush's nepotism, as he placed Michael Brown in the role, when he was clearly incapable of performing. Brown wasn't picked for any kind of administrative skill or experience in disaster recovery, he was picked because he was mates with Joe Allbaugh, who was picked because he ran Bush's 2000 campaign.
Governor Blanco made plenty of mistake, these compounded the FEMA mistakes to produce one great big balls up. When facing that kind of poor governance across the board, the answer isn't to start another round over which party and which ideology was really to blame, that will get no-one anywhere.
There are, quite simply, too many Republicans and too many Democrats in positions of power because they tow the party line and say the right pieces of empty rhetoric at the right time. What is needed is to start understanding that government is complicated and very important thing, and if you want it done right you need people who are, first and foremost, capable administrators.
Of course, as usual, Bush did his standard "follow policy but don't explain it and then sorta look sad when everyone blames it on you, but don't respond" because he was incompetent at managing his image.
Bush's absolute, #1 ability was brand management and campaigning. His problem was actually running the country.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:The one thing he should have been criticized for, folding FEMA into Homeland Security, went largely unnoticed.
And his decision to appoint to head FEMA a guy with no background in disaster recovery, who had a middling to poor record in administration of much smaller, non-governmental bodies before that.
Does this also apply to people who can't rebuild the engine in their car; instead needing to pay others to do it for them?
Well, yeah, actually, it's a shame how few people are capable of solving issues in their daily life. Before we became a specialized labor force, people used to know how to do essentially all of the major tasks necessary for survival, from farming, carpentry, animal husbandry, etc.
It'd be nice if cars could be repaired by their owners, but then again, even if you know how to do it, the specialized and expensive equipment required to do it isn't something you probably have in your garage.
So, anyway, it's not good to be unable to handle major components of your own life. Specialization of labor has other benefits that offset this. I'm not sure there are as many benefits to the nanny state, especially one that doesn't always work.
Also, we're talking about being able to fix your car vs. "being able to take action to save your own life." I would say that the latter is both more important, and more intuitive. And that's not to say that the stereotype is at all accurate, where people are just standing there, confused and crying for the nanny state, while the water fills their nose.
But it does seem like the folks in New Orleans were a whole lot less proactive and "can-do" than the people in surrounding areas. And I do think that there are direct links between that difference, and liberal ideology. It's other things as well... It's also just a general urban attitude of expecting a more managed, coordinated lifestyle. It's the issue of being stuck in a city, which can actually be very hard to escape quickly, if everyone else is trying to do so. But at the end of the day, if you're of the mind that government should provide, you're going to wait longer for them to do so, and if they don't, you're going to suffer for your misplaced trust.
Well, yeah, actually, it's a shame how few people are capable of solving issues in their daily life. Before we became a specialized labor force, people used to know how to do essentially all of the major tasks necessary for survival, from farming, carpentry, animal husbandry, etc.
....
No. No that doesn't even hold up in comparison with simplistic tribal societies, it certainly doesn't hold up in modern times or even pre industrial methods of living.
It'd be nice if cars could be repaired by their owners, but then again, even if you know how to do it, the specialized and expensive equipment required to do it isn't something you probably have in your garage.
The knowledge required to do an infinite number of tasks regardless of the physical practicality is alone the first real barrier. There has been almost no time in the history of the combustion engine that the majority of people owning or operating them knew how to fix them.
o, anyway, it's not good to be unable to handle major components of your own life. Specialization of labor has other benefits that offset this. I'm not sure there are as many benefits to the nanny state, especially one that doesn't always work.
Well when you box up all of a nations social policies into a blanket terminology it becomes hard to differentiate what works and what doesn't anyway.
But it does seem like the folks in New Orleans were a whole lot less proactive and "can-do" than the people in surrounding areas. And I do think that there are direct links between that difference, and liberal ideology. It's other things as well... It's also just a general urban attitude of expecting a more managed, coordinated lifestyle. It's the issue of being stuck in a city, which can actually be very hard to escape quickly, if everyone else is trying to do so. But at the end of the day, if you're of the mind that government should provide, you're going to wait longer for them to do so, and if they don't, you're going to suffer for your misplaced trust.
I know a few people that would punch you in the face for that first sentence. In a logical unemotional sense it still doesn't work though. New orleans has recovered significantly more quickly than similarly damaged urban centers hit by the recent tsunamis and earthquakes civilizations been hit with in the last few years. Much of that is due specifically to the recovery efforts of the state performing tasks that individuals or small organizations are physically incapable of. I'm pretty sure it's been dismissed as bunk partisan dribble to assume that the majority of those that stayed in new orleans did so because they thought the government would just walk in and double rainbow their problems away after the hurricane. Most didn't understand the gravity of the forecast and the officials responsible for dispensing the information and ordering the evacuation acted poorly and with little foresight. Most people can't tell the future, that requires thousands of government operated radar stations and a massive network of climate scientists. Thats the system at work.
This will be a Dem vs. Rep knife fight, like everything else.
In my opinon, A Democratic government fails because they try to make everyone happy. It doesn't work. It's like taking a Assualt based IG army. Someparts will work out, and will rock! (i.e. tanks) But most will epicly fail. (i.e Not tanks) It's like the God part in The Pleage of Alegance. Most people don't have a problem with it, but when one person has a problem with it, than we have to make a big Facad about it. Obama has stopped using "Freedom of Religon" in his speaches and "Freedom of Worship". I find that to be BS. If I walk into Walmart wearing my Youth Group Shirt, and Someone says "That shirt offends me" I will politley and calmly go tell that person to go preform an Imposible act oppon them selves. I shouldn't be banned from wearing my Clothes that show that I'm a Cathlic in Public. I'm not going door to door, forcing people to belive in the Big Man Upstairs, or Preaching about him. Just a shirt. Another thing, about the 2nd Amendment. If the Government just shows up at someones door and says
"We would like your guns now, Please" That wouldn't happen. Some people have Million Dollor Gun colections.
(Technicly we all do, although I don't think I need a Permit to fire my Lasguns with 'First Wave fire, Second wave fire') So just because one persons friend was shot, that doesn't mean that everyone should be punished. Thats like when someone Shoots a hornit in Class, and everyone gets detention, because the guy who shot it didn't fess up.
In my opinon, A Democratic government fails because they try to make everyone happy.
By many objective standards a democratic governmental system is the most successful one in mankinds history.
t's like taking a Assualt based IG army. Someparts will work out, and will rock! (i.e. tanks) But most will epicly fail. (i.e Not tanks)
Six killpoint 60 man IG assault blobs using stracken and al raheem with 7-9 power swords and 6-9 lascanons per blob make a very powerful army. You number near 200 in most games and you will hover around 6 killpoints while being able to kill 10 man assault terminator squads that assault you with statistical reliability. It's an amazing foil to armies that prepare to fight mech IG.
Most people don't have a problem with it, but when one person has a problem with it, than we have to make a big Facad about it.
Phryxis wrote:Well, yeah, actually, it's a shame how few people are capable of solving issues in their daily life. Before we became a specialized labor force, people used to know how to do essentially all of the major tasks necessary for survival, from farming, carpentry, animal husbandry, etc.
Someone's been reading Heinlein. Anyhow, any interest in responding to my reply to your post above?
In my opinon, A Democratic government fails because they try to make everyone happy.
By many objective standards a democratic governmental system is the most successful one in mankinds history.
t's like taking a Assualt based IG army. Someparts will work out, and will rock! (i.e. tanks) But most will epicly fail. (i.e Not tanks)
Six killpoint 60 man IG assault blobs using stracken and al raheem with 7-9 power swords and 6-9 lascanons per blob make a very powerful army. You number near 200 in most games and you will hover around 6 killpoints while being able to kill 10 man assault terminator squads that assault you with statistical reliability. It's an amazing foil to armies that prepare to fight mech IG.
Most people don't have a problem with it, but when one person has a problem with it, than we have to make a big Facad about it.
In such a case government should help them get out of the city.
There's no question, when a lot of people live in close proximity, there just needs to be a higher level of management. It's not just random chance that urban areas are more "collectivist" than rural areas.
So it's not like I don't think the local government should have been involved, getting it handled. But the fact is, they've got a bunch of people depending on them, doubly so because they've been promising they'd handle it, and then they didn't.
It's also not just about the transportation. People could have stocked up on clean water. They could have all types of things in place to make the situation more stable and less painful. I realize it's a big joke to have a "disaster preparedness kit" but the fact is, if you're thinking ahead, trying to be ready, you're going to have a better time of things.
When facing that kind of poor governance across the board, the answer isn't to start another round over which party and which ideology was really to blame, that will get no-one anywhere.
While I generally agree, my perception is that this is exactly what happened. It was all politicized, and Bush was blamed. If you want to make the argument that all these people suck, I'd never argue with that. But I don't think that's what history will say. I think the Republicans will be blamed, and I think that's completely wrong.
Bush's absolute, #1 ability was brand management and campaigning. His problem was actually running the country.
I couldn't disagree more. He was TERRIBLE at presenting his reasoning, TERRIBLE at making arguments for why things needed to be done. The fact is, so much of what he did was actually perfectly logical progression of American policy. The only reason people don't realize that is because he was so incredibly bad at explaining it.
I mean, I don't mean to pull rank, but I'm American... I was here. I saw how gak was being portrayed, how he managed it. Dude was BAD. His whole Presidency was a series of poor explanations. The whole "missing MWD" issue is just the most popular.
No that doesn't even hold up in comparison with simplistic tribal societies, it certainly doesn't hold up in modern times or even pre industrial methods of living.
For future references you can just say "No+Sophistry" and then we'll know what you mean. Support your arguments.
The fact is, people in the 1800s (for example) were much more multi-faceted. A family living in a rural area is going to know how to build their own house, tools, take care of their animals, etc. Certainly there were specialists, carpenters, blacksmiths, etc. But people still did a lot more on their own.
Well when you box up all of a nations social policies into a blanket terminology it becomes hard to differentiate what works and what doesn't anyway.
Yes, well, I have full confidence in your ability to not understand things you don't want to understand and then feel smart about it.
I could explain what I meant in more detail, but I think we both know you'll manufacture a reason to disagree.
I know a few people that would punch you in the face for that first sentence.
I'm not sure why that's my problem. But I appreciate you mixing things up. The "longwinded no" stuff was getting boring, a threat of physical violence really spices things up.
Most didn't understand the gravity of the forecast and the officials responsible for dispensing the information and ordering the evacuation acted poorly and with little foresight.
As I said above, there are other ways to be prepared. It's not just about fleeing the city.
You misused facad. And misspelled it.
So did you.
Anyhow, any interest in responding to my reply to your post above?
Of course, but then Shuma came along and made wordbarf, and I got distracted. You're probably right though, I should probably just reply to you and ignore him.
JDM wrote:In my opinon, A Democratic government fails because they try to make everyone happy. It doesn't work.
That's another grand sweeping statement about things that just aren't that simple.
It's like taking a Assualt based IG army. Someparts will work out, and will rock! (i.e. tanks) But most will epicly fail. (i.e Not tanks) It's like the God part in The Pleage of Alegance. Most people don't have a problem with it, but when one person has a problem with it, than we have to make a big Facad about it.
It isn't 'one person' as much as a body of thought that takes the seperation of Church and State within the Constitution extremely seriously. Are you comfortable with a pledge of alliegance to your government that includes a specific mention to spiritual beliefs?
I find that to be BS. If I walk into Walmart wearing my Youth Group Shirt, and Someone says "That shirt offends me" I will politley and calmly go tell that person to go preform an Imposible act oppon them selves. I shouldn't be banned from wearing my Clothes that show that I'm a Cathlic in Public. I'm not going door to door, forcing people to belive in the Big Man Upstairs, or Preaching about him. Just a shirt.
No government body is telling you you can't wear a God themed shirt. Why are you making up things to be worried about?
Another thing, about the 2nd Amendment. If the Government just shows up at someones door and says
"We would like your guns now, Please" That wouldn't happen. Some people have Million Dollor Gun colections.
No government body is planning to take everyone's guns off of them. Why are you making up things to be worried about?
I mean, seriously, you're in a recession and fighting two wars. There are lots of real things to be worried about. Why are you making up random other things?
Phryxis wrote:
Also, we're talking about being able to fix your car vs. "being able to take action to save your own life." I would say that the latter is both more important, and more intuitive. And that's not to say that the stereotype is at all accurate, where people are just standing there, confused and crying for the nanny state, while the water fills their nose.
I think you're leaning to far towards generality in your description of the latter action. What we're talking about here is the capacity of any given individual to do a certain thing. Everyone is capable of taking action to save their own lives, even the people who remained in New Orleans did so when they climbed onto the roofs of their houses. What certain individuals were unable to do is evacuate the city, and it seems deeply crass to presume that they failed to leave simply because they're too dependent on the state. I mean, in the absence of the state, I doubt those people would even have been aware of the approaching hurricane.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JDM wrote:
Most people don't have a problem with it, but when one person has a problem with it, than we have to make a big Facad about it.
I got an in school suspension in junior high for refusing to say the pledge of allegiance because it referenced God. The compromise solution which saw me placed back into class basically amounted to being granted permission to omit, or replace, the phrase 'under God' when I recited the pledge.
I took full advantage of the 'or replace' portion; in my mind, at that time, the USA was a nation founded under Yoda and Chris Chelios.
For future references you can just say "No+Sophistry" and then we'll know what you mean. Support your arguments.
The fact is, people in the 1800s (for example) were much more multi-faceted. A family living in a rural area is going to know how to build their own house, tools, take care of their animals, etc. Certainly there were specialists, carpenters, blacksmiths, etc. But people still did a lot more on their own.
No + Sophistry. Also learn frontier history please, your metalworker wasn't your trapper and your average farmer didn't know crap about how to bind books. I can make a website, do 3d animation, design advertisements, shoot and process video, do effects work all the while being able to service and repair my own computers. I can install home electronics with ease, I can write you a good number of different business documents, I can sell you something, and you know what? I can do a good half the things frontiersman had to do as well (I can shovel things into other things very well). People don't know how to do less things now, we just distribute the work to specialists to enable a higher quality of production while becoming more multifaceted in our daily work requirements. The advent of public education and it's uptake alone ensures that the majority of westerners know how to do more things now than they did during the 1800s when a good number of them couldn't read.
Yes, well, I have full confidence in your ability to not understand things you don't want to understand and then feel smart about it.
I could explain what I meant in more detail, but I think we both know you'll manufacture a reason to disagree.
I'm actually pretty confident you couldn't but thats not really the issue since it appears that you won't.
I'm not sure why that's my problem. But I appreciate you mixing things up. The "longwinded no" stuff was getting boring, a threat of physical violence really spices things up.
Well you're making insulting tactless blanket statements with little substance. I figured I would inform you of their implications before you actually took one in the chin in real life. I'm not going to punch you. I don't think my monitor is directly behind yours and I don't live in new orleans.
As I said above, there are other ways to be prepared. It's not just about fleeing the city.
Interesting thing though, I was arguing about the reasons for lack of preparedness. Not the steps that can be taken to ensure it. They could have done plenty of things, many didn't think they had too.
JDM wrote:This will be a Dem vs. Rep knife fight, like everything else.
In my opinon, A Democratic government fails because they try to make everyone happy. It doesn't work. It's like taking a Assualt based IG army. Someparts will work out, and will rock! (i.e. tanks) But most will epicly fail. (i.e Not tanks) It's like the God part in The Pleage of Alegance. Most people don't have a problem with it, but when one person has a problem with it, than we have to make a big Facad about it. Obama has stopped using "Freedom of Religon" in his speaches and "Freedom of Worship". I find that to be BS. If I walk into Walmart wearing my Youth Group Shirt, and Someone says "That shirt offends me" I will politley and calmly go tell that person to go preform an Imposible act oppon them selves. I shouldn't be banned from wearing my Clothes that show that I'm a Cathlic in Public. I'm not going door to door, forcing people to belive in the Big Man Upstairs, or Preaching about him. Just a shirt. Another thing, about the 2nd Amendment. If the Government just shows up at someones door and says
"We would like your guns now, Please" That wouldn't happen. Some people have Million Dollor Gun colections.
(Technicly we all do, although I don't think I need a Permit to fire my Lasguns with 'First Wave fire, Second wave fire') So just because one persons friend was shot, that doesn't mean that everyone should be punished. Thats like when someone Shoots a hornit in Class, and everyone gets detention, because the guy who shot it didn't fess up.
nyways, Rant over.
Wouldn't it be more important that the original pledge was designed by a communist in order to indoctrinate children into mindlessly following the leadership of their country. And that the under god wasn't added till the 50's. and that separation of church and state is the most important tenant of our constitution behind freedom of expression
Oh my god were all gonna die he uses a phrase that means the exact same thing but its different hes the antichrist.
Stormrider wrote:[Extending un-employment 2 more years coupled with our high minimum wage is another example:
Did you seriously just call $7.15/hr a high minimum wage? I know, let's compare to other first world nations.
Annual full time work on that is $15080 compared to Australia at $24,014, Canada at$16,738, Denmark at $23,590, France at $17,621, the Netherlands at $19,358, or the UK at $22,204. So, yeah, you're either grossly misinformed or lying. I hope it's the former.
We have massive amounts of crime, un-employment, out of wedlock births, premature death and teenage pregancy in the black community. They have had every type of program thrown their way and yet they still are some of the poorest people in the country. Why? Because most (not all) of them have had initiative bred out of them, much like the Native Americans. It is supposedly benevolent liberals who look out for the little guy yet they keep enacting policies that crush the little guy and his employer under mountains of regulations and laws.
I'm pretty sure racism is a big no-no on Dakka. I'd suggest you stop being racist if you want to hang around.
He was making a comment about his beliefs in the deleterious effects of certain aspects of social welfare spending. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it isn't racist. I tell you, sometimes I think you're obsessed with racism on these forums. Regardless, who cares if someone does say something that the community feels is racist, can't you just ignore it? Would you ban everyone who said something racist once upon a time? Why not just tell them they're wrong and get on with life?
Regardless, I'm not seeing a MOD tag on your name. I wouldn't start prognosticating about who should stay or go, because that is probably against the rules to.
JDM wrote:
sexiest_hero wrote:1. republicans have a very solid base while democrats have to pull lots of little groups together.
2 Democrats don't have a spine.... at all. Nowhere.
3. Democrats want to work with republicans because BI partasianship was the big word in last election.
4.Bill clinton was a better president than Obama. I think Bush Jr, may have done more for minorities.
5. Democrats are weak, spineless, ineffective, BO is the leader of that bunch.
Someone Voted for McCain!
I doubt it. If you go back and read the rest of his posts you'll see. I think he's a disgruntled Obama-ite.
sebster wrote:
It's like taking a Assualt based IG army. Someparts will work out, and will rock! (i.e. tanks) But most will epicly fail. (i.e Not tanks) It's like the God part in The Pleage of Alegance. Most people don't have a problem with it, but when one person has a problem with it, than we have to make a big Facad about it.
It isn't 'one person' as much as a body of thought that takes the seperation of Church and State within the Constitution extremely seriously. Are you comfortable with a pledge of alliegance to your government that includes a specific mention to spiritual beliefs?
First off it doesn't refer to a specific religious belief, other than implying a monotheistic belief, though in fairness atheists are left out in the cold. I don't believe the pledge was extant when my country began, but the architects of the movement that became the U.S. often spoke of God, although many of them were deists.
But to answer the question, no, I'm not at all uncomfortable with that. Even though I'm not a real atheist, my religious beliefs are different than most members of my community, but I grew up with the pledge and never really got any persecution from the community in general. Elementary and high school, on the other hand, was quite uncomfortable for me. One of the worst was when everyone during assembly was "invited" to come down and make a public statement that they accepted Jesus or to do so if they hadn't, and I was one of the few people left sitting in the bleachers because I wasn't going to confess to a belief that was different from mine. Don't get me wrong, the J.C. is a great guy, but I do not agree with that particular sectarian belief in the public expression of faith ( it has a name, I don't remember it), and I have a more Catholic leaning view of Justification. I could go on and on about how every inmate on death row has some sort of "faith alone" belief ( Marylin Manson has called it "the God band-aid"), but I'm not trying to criticize the belief, but rather being pressured by social ostracism. The point is that was a private institution, not the government. Don't worry Sebby, the pledge is fine.
The fact is, the believe that if you harm no one, everything you do is ok is not something I entierely believe in. The fact is, the community I live in, and most of the U.S., believes a certain way that is reflected in the pledge. I'm not just an individual, I belong to a community. Therefore I just have to expect to be exposed to and taught their moral beliefs.
What is the Oz pledge, " Your hood ain't crap Britain, F you for sending me here"? Just kidding, no offense meant there.
sebster wrote:
I find that to be BS. If I walk into Walmart wearing my Youth Group Shirt, and Someone says "That shirt offends me" I will politley and calmly go tell that person to go preform an Imposible act oppon them selves. I shouldn't be banned from wearing my Clothes that show that I'm a Cathlic in Public. I'm not going door to door, forcing people to belive in the Big Man Upstairs, or Preaching about him. Just a shirt.
Another thing, about the 2nd Amendment. If the Government just shows up at someones door and says
"We would like your guns now, Please" That wouldn't happen. Some people have Million Dollor Gun colections.
No government body is planning to take everyone's guns off of them. Why are you making up things to be worried about?
I mean, seriously, you're in a recession and fighting two wars. There are lots of real things to be worried about. Why are you making up random other things?
I don't think that is what he's saying, he's saying how things are, I think. I'm not sure how I read his posts though.
Vene wrote:
Stormrider wrote:[Extending un-employment 2 more years coupled with our high minimum wage is another example:
Did you seriously just call $7.15/hr a high minimum wage? I know, let's compare to other first world nations.
Annual full time work on that is $15080 compared to Australia at $24,014, Canada at$16,738, Denmark at $23,590, France at $17,621, the Netherlands at $19,358, or the UK at $22,204. So, yeah, you're either grossly misinformed or lying. I hope it's the former.
Believe it. I know plenty of college educated people where I live who are making some of those minimum wage values or a little lower. Of course, I live in an area where it is cheap to live. It floors people when I tell them you can get a 2000 sqft home for 120000$ or a nice one for 140. The problem is that minimum wage is the same here as in, say, Atlanta, AFAIK
Oh, I know what that's like, I'm college educated and make less than some of those minimum wages. And yeah, minimum wage is nation wide, so it doesn't matter if you live in the middle of nowhere or in a metro area, you get the same wage.
So? Get a better job or improve your skills. Anyone who thinks you should be able live on the minimum wage is an idiot. Frankly if you think you should be able to live off the minimum wage I'd rather hire the illegal immigrant than you. He works harder, is more motivated, and again, isn't an idiot.
Da Boss wrote:Wow, that's...that's one hell of a sentiment.
Its reality. You can't live on that amount, and at that level I can get better employees.
Wait, whats wrong with the statement in the first place? If you don't like the crap wages that are minimimum wage you improve your skills so you can get a better business.
thats why we have universities, technical schools, training programs, and union based journeyman programs. Thats how its supposed to work.
One of the bigger issues with illegals is the feth with the economy hardcore...
They take money out of the economy via wages, they put the bare minimum back in via living expenses and food, and the rest of the money is shipped back to their families in mexico...
Da Boss wrote:Wow, that's...that's one hell of a sentiment.
Its reality. You can't live on that amount, and at that level I can get better employees.
Wait, whats wrong with the statement in the first place? If you don't like the crap wages that are minimimum wage you improve your skills so you can get a better business.
thats why we have universities, technical schools, training programs, and union based journeyman programs. Thats how its supposed to work.
And it doesn't work, I'm college educated and getting paid gak because the economy is so bad. And how is somebody on minimum wage supposed to be able to afford to survive as well as go to school?
Da Boss wrote:Wow, that's...that's one hell of a sentiment.
Its reality. You can't live on that amount, and at that level I can get better employees.
Wait, whats wrong with the statement in the first place? If you don't like the crap wages that are minimimum wage you improve your skills so you can get a better business.
thats why we have universities, technical schools, training programs, and union based journeyman programs. Thats how its supposed to work.
And it doesn't work, I'm college educated and getting paid gak because the economy is so bad. And how is somebody on minimum wage supposed to be able to afford to survive as well as go to school?
Go to school part time. Relying on the minimum wage to survive is not going to work. In the words of the Immortal Bard: "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life son."
That sentiment baffles me. How is the person supposed to survive while in school?
Have you ever been really, really poor Frazzled? I don't mean to personalise this, but your viewpoint is almost totally alien to me, and it seems heartless.
I think the minimum wage should give people enough to live on. It doesn't make sense to me that it wouldn't.
When you guys say "survive" and "live" do you actually mean that someone wouldn't be able to pay rent and buy food on minimum wage? I just want to make sure we're working off the same definition.
Kilkrazy wrote:Because it is in the Constitution -- Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Rather ask why the Republicans don't want everyone to be happy.
The ability to "pursue" is not the right to "have."
Since when did "no" become bad and "yes" good by default?
Here's an example;
Guy 1: "Let's kill the jews."
Guy 2: "Yes"
Guy 3: "No"
All politicians are morons. Both sides. They go back and forth in this slowed partisan crap almost like neither are thinking of it. Democrats do this and Republicans by default do the opposite, and vice versa. It's practically automatic. The rhetoric has become so strong neither side seems to think about it anymore.
I wouldn't say the Democrats want everyone to be happy and Republicans don't. It's a matter of how they go about it and how they view happiness. The Democrats think the federal government can be used to achieve the end, while the Republicans think that if the government just stays out of the way, people will find it on their own. It's a difference between believing in people managing their own lives or thinking that there are people who can't manage their own lives and need help to get anywhere. That's the official platform anyway. Neither party really sticks all that well to what they "officially" stand for. Part of the reason we have a lot of problems in the US is less from one party but rather from the two parties arguing with each other, and generally sucking at problem solving. The Republicans never seem to be able to come up with a solution that doesn't just cause more issues, and the Democrats create "solutions" that aren't really solutions to the problem.
The economy is a complex issue. Right now the Democrats however are in fact making it worse. They're imposing new taxes and regulations on already stuggling institutions, and will probably try and pass cap and trade in the lame duck session after november elections. The economy is jacked up because doing business in the US is too expensive. It's too expensive because American workers demand to much for menial tasks, and the Federal government both over taxes and over regulates businesses. The issue is compounded by corporate executives who seem unable to adjust to changing markets and who also expect too much money for what they do. We need a complete overhaul of how he manage the economy, something neither party is talking about. Unnecessary regulations need to be dropped, Unions need to stop being greedy, CEO's need to realize that they make too much money, and the government needs to encourage business to come to back to the US with tax cuts for new business' coming in (for example: bring your factory here and we'll give you 50% on taxes on your profits for the next 10 years, and waive those pesky property taxes on your new production facility, just an example). It's all a domino effect. A series of events that began in the 60's and 70's and cumulated in the current economic situation. The American economic model is not sustainable and needs to be changed.
But that won't happen. That would actually fix the problem!
I could rant about this all day but it's probably not good for my blood pressure
My comments about NO are perfectly illustrative of the failures of our Federal Government. The school buses are State Property, thus under the authority of the state and more importantly the City Of NO. The levees are maintained by the Corps of Engineers with money appropriated by the State of Louisiana. That fund to maintain the levees was gutted by state politicians (sound familiar? Social Security trust fund anyone?) for other programs and was effectively stolen. Since the area was declared a disaster zone by the US Government a couple of days later, only then did it become under their jurisdictional authority.
As for charges of racism, what I said was statistically true. It's purely analytical.
For minimum wage, all of the countries mentioned have much smaller populations than the US, so using that type of analysis automatically skews the data in favor of the smaller country. What's the median income of those countries compared to the US?
As for deficit spending, I oppose it utterly. I wasn't alive while Regan was president so I wasn't around to oppose it, '08 was my first election (voted for Bob Barr in protest of McCain). But, trying to argue that Regan and Bush and Clinton did it too is moot when you compare the numbers to Obama. It's like trying to put out a tire fire with more tires.
Da Boss wrote:That sentiment baffles me. How is the person supposed to survive while in school?
Have you ever been really, really poor Frazzled? I don't mean to personalise this, but your viewpoint is almost totally alien to me, and it seems heartless.
I think the minimum wage should give people enough to live on. It doesn't make sense to me that it wouldn't.
When you guys say "survive" and "live" do you actually mean that someone wouldn't be able to pay rent and buy food on minimum wage? I just want to make sure we're working off the same definition.
1. As you said, you don't me, nor what I have been through. Would it help if i note the neighbors next door, across the street, and behind are illegal, and we get along great (ok the damn messed up rooster that crows all day and night can be annoying)
2. I'm saying that the minimum wage is not meant to be a minimum standard wage for you to live on with a decent standard of living long term.
3. Its also blindingly irrelevant. When you ahve an open border, I can get better labor more cheaply that people on minimum wage now.
Do I pick Joe "minimum wage aint enough Man!" or do I pick Jose "I just travelled 2,000 through a desert to work for you." Mmmm that question takes all of no seconds.
(can you guess what I think about illegal immigration? you might be surprised).
Da Boss wrote:That sentiment baffles me. How is the person supposed to survive while in school?
Have you ever been really, really poor Frazzled? I don't mean to personalise this, but your viewpoint is almost totally alien to me, and it seems heartless.
I think the minimum wage should give people enough to live on. It doesn't make sense to me that it wouldn't.
When you guys say "survive" and "live" do you actually mean that someone wouldn't be able to pay rent and buy food on minimum wage? I just want to make sure we're working off the same definition.
1. As you said, you don't me, nor what I have been through. Would it help if i note the neighbors next door, across the street, and behind are illegal, and we get along great (ok the damn messed up rooster that crows all day and night can be annoying)
2. I'm saying that the minimum wage is not meant to be a minimum standard wage for you to live on with a decent standard of living long term.
3. Its also blindingly irrelevant. When you ahve an open border, I can get better labor more cheaply that people on minimum wage now.
Do I pick Joe "minimum wage aint enough Man!" or do I pick Jose "I just travelled 2,000 through a desert to work for you." Mmmm that question takes all of no seconds.
(can you guess what I think about illegal immigration? you might be surprised).
I don't know for sure, but I would would guess that you don't mind illegal immigration. I think you're a fiscal conservative, not a populist. I don't know, but I wouldn't be suprised if you think NAFTA is a good idea.
My comments about NO are perfectly illustrative of the failures of our Federal Government.
Not really.
For minimum wage, all of the countries mentioned have much smaller populations than the US, so using that type of analysis automatically skews the data in favor of the smaller country. What's the median income of those countries compared to the US?
Thats not how statistics work. Smaller countries don't get to have higher minimum wages because they're smaller, a countries ability to cope with it's minimum wage is purely an artifact of it's economic capability which increases at an even rate as your population grows.
As for deficit spending, I oppose it utterly. I wasn't alive while Regan was president so I wasn't around to oppose it, '08 was my first election (voted for Bob Barr in protest of McCain). But, trying to argue that Regan and Bush and Clinton did it too is moot when you compare the numbers to Obama. It's like trying to put out a tire fire with more tires.
You should take some economics and statistics classes.
The advent of public education and it's uptake alone ensures that the majority of westerners know how to do more things now than they did during the 1800s when a good number of them couldn't read.
That's wonderful. Too bad it's not what I said. I agree completely, a modern American knows a huge amount of information, far more than a frontiersman would have. But what I'm referring to are the needs of basic survival. Hunting, farming, carpentry, clothesmaking, etc. Frontiersmen knew 100% of what they needed to know to survive. Modern Americans know far, far less. We don't know how to produce our own food, build our homes, manufacture clothing, etc. etc.
I was speaking about survival skills, not total knowledge. I was quite clear about that.
I figured I would inform you of their implications before you actually took one in the chin in real life.
Seriously, have a little intellectual honesty. You didn't threaten me with violence because you're concerned about my wellbeing. You did it because you think my ideas (or at least the imagined strawman ideas you assign me) are so awful that physical violence is an appropriate response. However, because you fancy yourself a sophisticated lad, you didn't even have the courage of conviction to threaten me directly. You instead point to your hypothetical friends.
One presumes they're not the same ones who tolerated you saying the "n-word" twenty times the other week.
You can lie to yourself, but you can't lie to me. I know how you roll. You're so proud of your false moral highground that you like to picture people who don't agree with you getting beaten up. You don't even have the intellectual maturity and restrain to know that's not a useful thought.
You can always find people with a given opinion and lack of restraint. It's not proof of anything.
Guess what? I know people who would listen to 20 seconds of your narcissistic faux intellectual garbage and then break your jaw. I don't bring it up, because while I think it'd be hilarious to watch, I also don't think it'd be morally justifiable or in any way admirable. It proves no point except that I know people who don't tolerate punks like you. That doesn't make me Gandhi, nor does it make me Yoda. It doesn't even make me Genghis Kahn.
But it does make me, between the two of us, the one who had the maturity not to mention it until it was actually material, and to know what it actually meant when I did.
They could have done plenty of things, many didn't think they had too.
And why didn't they? I think I've been pretty clear, a lot of things besides EVIL DEMOKRAT cause Katrina to be a cluster. But, I think it's fairly ridiculous to assume that as a person's faith in government increases their initiative to provide for themself will not correspondingly decrease.
I think it's also worth mentioning that because of the expectiations of the citizens of New Orleans, and because of the total failure of government to meet those expectations, that citizenry suffered considerable emotional distress, above and beyond what one would already expect for people in their situation. They weren't just people who lost it all to a natural disaster, they were people who lost it all to a natural disaster and ALSO lost faith that recovery was even possible. It's very dangerous for people when they have nothing and also have no hope.
So, even if you want to dismiss the idea that any population would do much to prepare, that's not all there is. There's also how you respond after the fact.
To be clear, I'm not saying "awww, these lazy darkies, they just need to bootstrap, bootstrap, man up, bail faster!" I'm not placing blame on them. I'm simply not willing to just heap victim credit on them all day long, and deny that they could have done anything to help themselves. It's not because I don't think they're victims. It's because telling somebody they're a victim doesn't help them. It doesn't matter whose fault it is that somebody got screwed. People need to be encouraged to try, to take responsibility, to fight for themselves. NOT because it's their fault they're having problems, but because trying, taking responsibility and fighting for yourself is ALWAYS a good thing to do. Telling somebody they're just a helpless victim is stealing that from them.
I'll worry about whose fault it is five years later when it goes to court. Today people need food, water, and a place to live. If they are proactive, take responsibility, and have pride in themselves in their community, they will be much better positioned to get what they need. Telling them that the government is racist against them, and that they can't hope to make it with such hate... That doesn't help them.
All that is is turning their suffering into a political club. It's selfish and ridiculous.
I don't mean to personalise this, but your viewpoint is almost totally alien to me, and it seems heartless.
It's a mistake to presume that people who don't think like you do don't care. I mean, how compassionate is it REALLY to feel sorry for somebody? It's free. You feel sorry, they still don't have any food, nothing changed, but you tell yourself that at least you're thinking right.
What good does it do? Now, I'm not saying that it's impossible to help the poor, but currently to the extent that they're not being helped, what good does well-wishing do them? People are awful excited about helping the poor, but it's always with somebody else's tax money.
Frazz's viewpoint is, at least, honest. Nobody is gonna help you. Go get what you want/need, don't wait for help, cause it doesn't appear to be coming.
For me, that's what it comes down to re: race and the two parties. Neither of them is actually going to help anybody. At least the Republicans don't pretend they do.
Da Boss wrote:That sentiment baffles me. How is the person supposed to survive while in school?
Have you ever been really, really poor Frazzled? I don't mean to personalise this, but your viewpoint is almost totally alien to me, and it seems heartless.
I think the minimum wage should give people enough to live on. It doesn't make sense to me that it wouldn't.
When you guys say "survive" and "live" do you actually mean that someone wouldn't be able to pay rent and buy food on minimum wage? I just want to make sure we're working off the same definition.
1. As you said, you don't me, nor what I have been through. Would it help if i note the neighbors next door, across the street, and behind are illegal, and we get along great (ok the damn messed up rooster that crows all day and night can be annoying)
2. I'm saying that the minimum wage is not meant to be a minimum standard wage for you to live on with a decent standard of living long term.
3. Its also blindingly irrelevant. When you ahve an open border, I can get better labor more cheaply that people on minimum wage now.
Do I pick Joe "minimum wage aint enough Man!" or do I pick Jose "I just travelled 2,000 through a desert to work for you." Mmmm that question takes all of no seconds.
(can you guess what I think about illegal immigration? you might be surprised).
I'm pretty sure thats why hiring illegals for under the counter wages is illegal. You can "hire" the minimum wage dude and pay him under the table too you know. Thats sort of irrelevant to the argument of minimum wage though as a majority of states don't heave ready and easy access to cheap illegal labor and many businesses are unwilling to risk the fines if they're caught.
Frazzled wrote:So? Get a better job or improve your skills. Anyone who thinks you should be able live on the minimum wage is an idiot. Frankly if you think you should be able to live off the minimum wage I'd rather hire the illegal immigrant than you. He works harder, is more motivated, and again, isn't an idiot.
The problem Fraz is that you're assuming the market will reward the hardest workers who provide the most benefit for society. The first is probably not true and the latter is certainly not. The fact is that things we need as a society are not necessarily going to be things that people will willingly pay for. Who is going to pay the social workers who removes children from abusive homes? What about an artist who challenges conventional ideas and aesthetic values....probably not going to get paid no matter how hard he works, unless he finds a wealthy patron or gets an NEA grant.
Did the poster you responded to not go to college to improve his skills? Is it so wrong that he's disappointed that he isn't getting paid better? I don't think it is at all unreasonable to expect a return on your investment both in terms of money and job satisfaction from higher education, otherwise, why are people going in the hock for 30 years to pay for it.
The problem with the work harder argument is simply how much is enough. The idea that government aid is going to deadbeats and welfare moms doesn't reflect every situation, or I believe, the majority of situations. People who need government aid aren't necessarily showing learned helplessness ( Some are, no question, I've known them), but sometimes things happen that you just can't work your way out of. What happens if someone is uninsured, comes down with cancer, then is in debt with a 70k medical bill? I don't know about you, but I don't think I could get out of that one, no matter how hard I worked.
The idea is, what if you had something that would help you out of a bad situation, so that you could get back to working? I know its trite, but I believe in a hand up, not a hand out.
That's wonderful. Too bad it's not what I said. I agree completely, a modern American knows a huge amount of information, far more than a frontiersman would have. But what I'm referring to are the needs of basic survival. Hunting, farming, carpentry, clothesmaking, etc. Frontiersmen knew 100% of what they needed to know to survive. Modern Americans know far, far less. We don't know how to produce our own food, build our homes, manufacture clothing, etc. etc.
I was speaking about survival skills, not total knowledge. I was quite clear about that.
Except modern survival skills aren't frontier survival skills. I can survive in the modern world. A frontiersman would have a much harder time earning a days pay and navigating the streets of a modern city. You're comparing apples and oranges and acting like the current social climate makes people less capable because we can't till our own fields or operate a bear trap correctly. I can read and drive while being able to operate an email account.
Also most frontiersman didn't know how to make clothing in most instances. You should really take a class involving colonial living or read some books or something relating.
Seriously, have a little intellectual honesty. You didn't threaten me with violence because you're concerned about my wellbeing.
I didn't threaten you at all. I said I knew people that would punch you in the face for saying what you said. I do. They would. They aren't me.
You did it because you think my ideas (or at least the imagined strawman ideas you assign me) are so awful that physical violence is an appropriate response. However, because you fancy yourself a sophisticated lad, you didn't even have the courage of conviction to threaten me directly. You instead point to your hypothetical friends.
Hypothetical friends. Yes. Thats what this is.
One presumes they're not the same ones who tolerated you saying the "n-word" twenty times the other week.
Interestingly enough, they are actually!
You can lie to yourself, but you can't lie to me. I know how you roll. You're so proud of your false moral highground that you like to picture people who don't agree with you getting beaten up. You don't even have the intellectual maturity and restrain to know that's not a useful thought.
You're starting to lose your cool here I think.
You can always find people with a given opinion and lack of restraint. It's not proof of anything.
Irony!
Guess what? I know people who would listen to 20 seconds of your narcissistic faux intellectual garbage and then break your jaw. I don't bring it up, because while I think it'd be hilarious to watch, I also don't think it'd be morally justifiable or in any way admirable. It proves no point except that I know people who don't tolerate punks like you. That doesn't make me Gandhi, nor does it make me Yoda. It doesn't even make me Genghis Kahn.
Why are you threatening me?
But it does make me, between the two of us, the one who had the maturity not to mention it until it was actually material, and to know what it actually meant when I did.
Do you need a hug?
And why didn't they? I think I've been pretty clear, a lot of things besides EVIL DEMOKRAT cause Katrina to be a cluster. But, I think it's fairly ridiculous to assume that as a person's faith in government increases their initiative to provide for themself will decrease.
I think it's also worth mentioning that because of the expectiations of the citizens of New Orleans, and because of the total failure of government to meet those expectations, that citizenry suffered considerable emotional distress, above and beyond what one would already expect for people in their situation. They weren't just people who lost it all to a natural disaster, they were people who lost it all to a natural disaster and ALSO lost faith that recovery was even possible. It's very dangerous for people when they have nothing and also have no hope.
So, even if you want to dismiss the idea that any population would do much to prepare, that's not all there is. There's also how you respond after the fact.
I was just saying that people weren't warned sufficiently of the gravity of the hurricane, nor were many governmental functions designed to create preparedness functioning as they should of been.
To be clear, I'm not saying "awww, these lazy darkies, they just need to bootstrap, bootstrap, man up, bail faster!" I'm not placing blame on them. I'm simply not willing to just heap victim credit on them all day long, and deny that they could have done anything to help themselves. It's not because I don't think they're victims. It's because telling somebody they're a victim doesn't help them. It doesn't matter whose fault it is that somebody got screwed. People need to be encouraged to try, to take responsibility, to fight for themselves. NOT because it's their fault they're having problems, but because trying, taking responsibility and fighting for yourself is ALWAYS a good thing to do. Telling somebody they're just a helpless victim is stealing that from them.
Are you the dude that says rape victims shouldn't of been dressed that way?
I'll worry about whose fault it is five years later when it goes to court. Today people need food, water, and a place to live. If they are proactive, take responsibility, and have pride in themselves in their community, they will be much better positioned to get what they need. Telling them that the government is racist against them, and that they can't hope to make it with such hate... That doesn't help them.
Most people weren't fans of when Kanye said that, though when the presidents wife mentioned the terrordome being a step up for many of those peoples living conditions it got a lot more personal.
Frazzled wrote:So? Get a better job or improve your skills. Anyone who thinks you should be able live on the minimum wage is an idiot. Frankly if you think you should be able to live off the minimum wage I'd rather hire the illegal immigrant than you. He works harder, is more motivated, and again, isn't an idiot.
The problem Fraz is that you're assuming the market will reward the hardest workers who provide the most benefit for society. The first is probably not true and the latter is certainly not. The fact is that things we need as a society are not necessarily going to be things that people will willingly pay for. Who is going to pay the social workers who removes children from abusive homes? What about an artist who challenges conventional ideas and aesthetic values....probably not going to get paid no matter how hard he works, unless he finds a wealthy patron or gets an NEA grant.
Did the poster you responded to not go to college to improve his skills? Is it so wrong that he's disappointed that he isn't getting paid better? I don't think it is at all unreasonable to expect a return on your investment both in terms of money and job satisfaction from higher education, otherwise, why are people going in the hock for 30 years to pay for it.
I'm making no such assumptions actually. I assume no effiicencies. Assumptions require thinking, which is like work. I hate work.
Grignard wrote:The problem with the work harder argument is simply how much is enough. The idea that government aid is going to deadbeats and welfare moms doesn't reflect every situation, or I believe, the majority of situations. People who need government aid aren't necessarily showing learned helplessness ( Some are, no question, I've known them), but sometimes things happen that you just can't work your way out of.
I agree there are situations where someone is so far down there's no possible way to get up, but the problem with a lot of the current government programs intended to help those people is that they never get the money to the people it was intended for. It ends up in the hands of community organizers or wasted in our mindlessly bloated federal government in the form of pointless paperwork that needs to be done in triplicate.
What happens if someone is uninsured, comes down with cancer, then is in debt with a 70k medical bill?
That's his own damn fault depending on the situation. Could he afford health insurance to begin with? If he can, and that happens, no one is to blame but the person effected and it shouldn't be societies job to pick up the tab for him.
Part of the problem though for that is in the medical industry where a number of variable have caused the cost of care to explode. Ironically none were addressed in the current healthcare "reform" bill.
Oh Shuma, saying something while actually saying nothing.
Point out what the Federal Government does quickly or cost effectively?
A $1.4 Trillion budget deficit for 2011 is justified because other presidents spent some too?
I feel bad that NO got flooded, but if you live in a city that is below sea level you should be prepared for something akin to Katrina. It's not a condemnation of the people, however if it happens again and people still aren't ready for that, they're beyond help.
I'm still waiting for some figures regarding median income.
BTW, I have taken classes in economics and statistics.
You're comparing apples and oranges and acting like the current social climate makes people less capable because we can't till our own fields or operate a bear trap correctly.
No, I'm not. I'm saying it's unfortunate that we've lost the baseline survival skills that all people once had. It's entirely understandable, given the environment that we live in, but that doesn't make it any less unfortunate.
You should really take a class involving colonial living or read some books or something relating.
Right, because the only way people would not agree with you is if they're uneducated. If I had a nickel for every time you've fallen back on this little trope, I'd have the cash to give everyone in then 9th Ward a year's supply of canned foods.
I have read about colonial living. I actually thought about posting a link to one of my favorite books on the subject, but I figured that would make me as much of a pedant as you, and it made me feel a little dirty.
Do you need a hug?
No, buddy, I'm good. I needed to speak the truth. I know you don't listen. Your arrogance makes you incapable of absorbing anything, so I had no illusion of you actually hearing the truth. But as long as it's said, that's all I need.
Are you the dude that says rape victims shouldn't of been dressed that way?
Is that really the best strawman you could come up with? Jeez, you need to take a class in Strawnman Construction, or read a book or two on the art of dishonest debate.
Yet another vanishing skill. You can bet that the frontiersmen knew how to build a good, solid strawman.
I agree there are situations where someone is so far down there's no possible way to get up, but the problem with a lot of the current government programs intended to help those people is that they never get the money to the people it was intended for. It ends up in the hands of community organizers or wasted in our mindlessly bloated federal government in the form of pointless paperwork that needs to be done in triplicate.
I missed your posts LH.
That's his own damn fault depending on the situation. Could he afford health insurance to begin with? If he can, and that happens, no one is to blame but the person effected and it shouldn't be societies job to pick up the tab for him.
It's his fault for getting cancer? Wouldn't that depend on the type of cancer?
Part of the problem though for that is in the medical industry where a number of variable have caused the cost of care to explode. Ironically none were addressed in the current healthcare "reform" bill.
A good number of them were adressed within the bill, it just doesn't adress the core issue. That being the combination of for profit healthcare system, the cozy doctor/pharmaceutical relationship causing endemic overuse of specialized and non preventative care, and a middleman insurance system which generates profits based on coverage denial. To adress the problems with the system would require a new system, and people didn't want the public option.
Stormrider wrote:Oh Shuma, saying something while actually saying nothing.
Point out what the Federal Government does quickly or cost effectively?
A $1.4 Trillion budget deficit for 2011 is justified because other presidents spent some too.
I feel bad that NO got flooded, but if you live in a city that is below sea level you should be prepared for something akin to Katrina. It's not a condemnation of the people, however if it happens again and people still aren't ready for that, they're beyond help.
I'm still waiting for some figures regarding median income.
BTW, I have taken classes in economics and statistics.
Prior to Katrina storms were state issues. FEMA came after to help with support. It wasn't meant to be an emergency and long term recovery entity. Emergency response was local and state level issue. Its just that Nagin and Louisiana responded so ineptly they needed the Republican fed agency to blame. no the other hand FEMA was indeed just as incompetent in dealing with what they were supposed to be there for: long term relief and coorrdinating after an event. We had multiple mission trips there, and church members had family (this is on the Miss. side) and the incompetence/bureaucracy was staggering, just staggering. Evidently they didn't get better with the coastal areas hit with Ike.
No, I'm not. I'm saying it's unfortunate that we've lost the baseline survival skills that all people once had. It's entirely understandable, given the environment that we live in, but that doesn't make it any less unfortunate.
Why is it unfortunate? How would those skills help us?
Right, because the only way people would not agree with you is if they're uneducated. If I had a nickel for every time you've fallen back on this little trope, I'd have the cash to give everyone in then 9th Ward a year's supply of canned foods.
Then you should probably stop being wrong.
I have read about colonial living. I actually thought about posting a link to one of my favorite books on the subject, but I figured that would make me as much of a pedant as you, and it made me feel a little dirty.
It makes you feel dirty to site sources?
No, buddy, I'm good. I needed to speak the truth. I know you don't listen. Your arrogance makes you incapable of absorbing anything, so I had no illusion of you actually hearing the truth. But as long as it's said, that's all I need.
An impartial observer could well say the same of you depending on which side he/she agrees with.
Is that really the best strawman you could come up with? Jeez, you need to take a class in Strawnman Construction, or read a book or two on the art of dishonest debate.
I only give the responses that are deserved.
Yet another vanishing skill. You can bet that the frontiersmen knew how to build a good, solid strawman.
Maybe, though thats more of a farm skill. Good for general garden keeping though.
Frazzled wrote:
Wait, whats wrong with the statement in the first place? If you don't like the crap wages that are minimimum wage you improve your skills so you can get a better business.
thats why we have universities, technical schools, training programs, and union based journeyman programs. Thats how its supposed to work.
Why did you post this? All that was indicated is that the minimum wage isn't high in America, and that its difficult (but not impossible) to live on. You seem to agree with this sentiment, and have still chosen to behave like a petulant child.
Seriously, this is poor behavior even given your rather sad track record.
Frazzled wrote:
Go to school part time. Relying on the minimum wage to survive is not going to work. In the words of the Immortal Bard: "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life son."
So, you can't survive on minimum wage, but you can go to school part time while earning it? I'm no big city intellectual (that's a lie), but it seems to me that education requires one to be alive. If you can't survive on the minimum wage, then you sure as hell can't pay for an education while earning it. Now, its entirely possible that one can survive on the minimum wage (they can, but its hard), but your argument just doesn't hold water.
mattyrm wrote:I cant decide if i like politics or religion discussions the most.. you blokes always manage to bomb the threads.
Especially you Shuma, you must get custom made thread IEDs!
I basically jump on the grenades of ignorance that other posters throw down so that sebster or dogma don't have too. If people weren't saying new orleans natives were lazy or that minimum wage laws are stupid because you can hire illegals without reporting them I wouldn't have to come in and pull out the boxing gloves. I'm really much more moderate and reasonable then I seem, I just tailor my posts to fit the people or points I'm responding too and on this forum people post some mind blowingly stupid gak.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:I did.
How much of your lifestyle was funded by your parents or the government? Also when was this? 1935?
Stormrider wrote:My comments about NO are perfectly illustrative of the failures of our Federal Government. The school buses are State Property, thus under the authority of the state and more importantly the City Of NO. The levees are maintained by the Corps of Engineers with money appropriated by the State of Louisiana. That fund to maintain the levees was gutted by state politicians (sound familiar? Social Security trust fund anyone?) for other programs and was effectively stolen. Since the area was declared a disaster zone by the US Government a couple of days later, only then did it become under their jurisdictional authority.
You just laid out the case for exempting the federal government from criticism with respect to the matter. Cognitive dissonance is a useful thing; I suggest you pay it more attention.
Stormrider wrote:
For minimum wage, all of the countries mentioned have much smaller populations than the US, so using that type of analysis automatically skews the data in favor of the smaller country. What's the median income of those countries compared to the US?
Explain to us how the size of the country is relevant to minimum wage laws.
Also, the median income in the states mentioned is, in all cases, lower than the median income in the US.
Stormrider wrote:
As for deficit spending, I oppose it utterly. I wasn't alive while Regan was president so I wasn't around to oppose it, '08 was my first election (voted for Bob Barr in protest of McCain). But, trying to argue that Regan and Bush and Clinton did it too is moot when you compare the numbers to Obama. It's like trying to put out a tire fire with more tires.
The point was made in order to counter your statement that deficit spending is a democrat thing, when it very clearly is not.
Shuma: The problem is that being confrontational rarely gets people to listen to you or consider your points. I tend to find your posts entertaining though, so whatever
So your argument is false, and it is possible to survive on the minimum wage; from which we can infer that the minimum wage exists in order to permit the survival and advancement of individuals.
So your argument is false, and it is possible to survive on the minimum wage; from which we can infer that the minimum wage exists in order to permit the survival and advancement of individuals.
It was easier back in the 60's when minimum wage gave superior real buying power and college costs were a fraction of their current extremely inflated levels.
Da Boss wrote:Wow, that's...that's one hell of a sentiment.
Its reality. You can't live on that amount, and at that level I can get better employees.
Wait, whats wrong with the statement in the first place? If you don't like the crap wages that are minimimum wage you improve your skills so you can get a better business.
thats why we have universities, technical schools, training programs, and union based journeyman programs. Thats how its supposed to work.
And it doesn't work, I'm college educated and getting paid gak because the economy is so bad. And how is somebody on minimum wage supposed to be able to afford to survive as well as go to school?
Go to school part time. Relying on the minimum wage to survive is not going to work. In the words of the Immortal Bard: "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life son."
I did a degree at evening classes while I worked full time as a mid-level manager.
ShumaGorath wrote:It's his fault for getting cancer? Wouldn't that depend on the type of cancer?
Weren't you just talking about straw man arguments? It's his fault for not having health insurance IF he could afford it. Unless he's been going through asbestos filled rooms going "asbestos! Ima eat some!" I think it's safe to say cancer is often something that happens and isn't something people always have control over. You can however get healthcare insurance. If you don't have it, and there was money in your budget to buy it but you decided to get a pool instead, that's your own fault and no one else'.
Not really an issue anymore, but then I don't like the idea of government telling people how to live their lives.
That being the combination of for profit healthcare system,
That's not a bad thing by default. The problem with profit systems is when you let them run out of control. But I don't think the fact that our healthcare system is for profit is any anyway core to the problem. There are issues that have radically increased costs of healthcare, and to maintain profitability, and by that continued existance, prices had to increase.
the cozy doctor/pharmaceutical relationship causing endemic overuse of specialized and non preventative care,
I agree with this. Also we have a rather sad shortage of doctors which worsens the problem.
and a middleman insurance system which generates profits based on coverage denial.
We didn't need a massive healthcare overhaul to fix that. You only need one law that doesn't let companies do it anymore. Allow them to make up the costs incurred by giving tax rebates for policy holders whose medical costs exceeded their premiums.
To adress the problems with the system would require a new system, and people didn't want the public option.
I don't like the public option, but I'd prefer it to what we got. Public options are expensive. Look at europe. They can barely afford it and the quality of care sucks. I lived in England when my dad was deployed there. It took me five months to see a doctor in 1997, and from what I hear from old friends it hasn't changed. Here in the US, I can see a doctor within a week. So, we want to adopt Europe's system, and we expect it to be different? We don't even have to speculate. Look at Medicare/Medicaid. We've already seen that these programs explode in costs and that the service is of horrible quality. You pay for what you get. The US government sucks with money. Always has, always will. They can't run anything with efficiency or affordability (Look at the post office). Why exactly do we want to give more money and control over something as vital as healthcare to men and women who can't even seem to manage balancing a checkbook? Social programs need money to work, and I don't see hopes and dreams gaining any monetary value anytime soon.
I'm surprised you didn't mention tort reform. A guy needs life saving surgery and is told he could die in the process. Please sign this document saying you won't sue us if complications occur in this extremely risky procedure. Complications occur. Doctor gets sued. Malpractive insurance pays for it. Doctor's premiums go up. Cost of healthcare increases. This upsets me more than anything else. It's the most obvious cause of increasing costs, and it wasn't addressed at all. There's also the insanity of spending millions of dollars on experimental treatments doctors know won't work or the use of chemotherapy on terminal patients who will be killed by the treatment faster than by the disease. The phrase Momento Mori seems to have been forgotten in the US. People die. It's part of life. I know it's hard and it sucks, but that's the way it goes, and sometimes we need to accept that there's nothing we can do about it.
Besides all that, there are ways to get more people access to healthcare that don't cost trillions of taxpayer dollars that don't and never will exist. Lower taxes on drug companies and make sure they pass those savings to consumers, tort reform, regulation against arbitrarily dropping holders, changes in medical policy to prevent the waste of money on pointless treatments. The bill even did the opposite of one of these. It imposes new taxes on the drug industry and the insurance industry, yet in the same breath, promises to make healthcare affordable? Yeah. History says that'll work out well. Some issues were addressed yes but the key ones were not, and some made worse. Another problem is that on it's bill congress hosed American business by requiring all employers to provide insurance to their employers if they have more than fifty employees. Corporations will be fine, most of them already do this- Oh wait. They're going to start dumping healthcare benefits to nothing since there's going to be a tax on good healthcare plans. But small business is going to collapse under the weight or end up laying off workers so they can get under the cut off value. This bill is going to have effects on an already week economy that could send us into another recession down the road and drive more jobs overseas as companies search for ways to maintain their profitability.
I'm no math genius but that doesn't add up to me. The healthcare reform bill is a good example of my issue with the US government of solving problems without actually solving them and making things worse in the process.
It also boils down to ideological differences on how the government should operate and what constitutes fairness. I don't believe it's the government's responsibility to provide healthcare, and I don't agree with my tax dollars being spent on it. Then there's the fact that any social program is inherently by its own nature unfair and discriminatory. Any government service should be available to all who pay into it, not just those whom the government has decided need more help than others. "You're rich you don't need our help." People wonder why the Tea Party is so angry? It's because they're the demographic that ends up hosed by the policies that are being passed. People too rich to get government help but too poor to afford it themselves. There is no such thing as a social program that is fair, which is why in my eye to government should stay out of it.
This is where the difference between Democrats and Republicans come into play. One believes it can help people by one means and the other thinks that's not the way to go about it. Saying one doesn't want people to be happy just isn't true. The two simply disagree on how to achieve the goal and the degree to which the goal can be achieved.
Yeah, long post. I'm full of them. But now I get to sit back and wait for someone to tear it apart while enjoying a nice lemonade.
Frazzled wrote:
Prior to Katrina storms were state issues. FEMA came after to help with support. It wasn't meant to be an emergency and long term recovery entity. Emergency response was local and state level issue. Its just that Nagin and Louisiana responded so ineptly they needed the Republican fed agency to blame. no the other hand FEMA was indeed just as incompetent in dealing with what they were supposed to be there for: long term relief and coorrdinating after an event. We had multiple mission trips there, and church members had family (this is on the Miss. side) and the incompetence/bureaucracy was staggering, just staggering. Evidently they didn't get better with the coastal areas hit with Ike.
The bold statements are contradictory.
Also, powerful storms have been federal issues for a long time (since FEMA was created); note Hurricane Andrew.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
It was easier back in the 60's when minimum wage gave superior real buying power and college costs were a fraction of their current extremely inflated levels.
Weren't you just talking about straw man argument]Weren't you just talking about straw man arguments?
No, that was phryxis.
It's his fault for not having health insurance IF he could afford it. Unless he's been going through asbestos filled rooms going "asbestos! Ima eat some!" I think it's safe to say cancer is often something that happens and isn't something people always have control over. You can however get healthcare insurance. If your don't have it, that's your own fault and no one else'.
Not all packages, especially ones at low levels of cost will actually provide for much in the event that you get a life threatening disease such as cancer.
Not really an issue anymore, but then I don't like the idea of government telling people how to live their lives.
It's not so different from corporate america doing the same, and I'll disagree with you on governmental control at least insofar as healthcare is concerned. Americans have proven that they can't be trusted with their own health and safety. The obesity and diabetes epidemics show that handily. I would rather the government, which is at least ideally a body of power dedicated to providing for the people of america tell me that I have to have healthcare then I would corporate america which is pretty familiar with atrocities and pure greed giving me my options if something ever goes wrong.
That's not a bad thing by default. The problem with profit systems is when you let them run out of control. But I don't think the fact that our healthcare system is for profit is any anyway core to the problem. There are issues that have radically increased costs of healthcare, and to maintain profitability, and by that continued existance, prices had to increase.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of the idea of for profit healthcare, but it can work (in theory, it has not actually ever worked in practice on any modern national level). It's the combination of for profit with the other things I mentioned that make the profit engine start to cause immense problems (such as the specialist and overdiagnosis issues).
We didn't need a massive healthcare overhaul to fix that. You only need one law that doesn't let companies do it anymore. Allow them to make up the costs incurred by giving tax rebates for policy holders whose medical costs exceeded their premiums.
I would argue that we can not fix the problem and maintain private insurance. It's simply an unnecessary middleman which seems designed purely to stand between people and care. Removing them and replacing them with a tax and a public system removes many of the inefficiencies and problems that are caused by their existence. This is an area where competition does not breed superior care as all they are is a money collecting agency. They do something for a cost that logically should be done without the conflict of interests that profits generate (conflicts that are at the very core of the spiraling healthcare costs in this country). The insurance system is one of the major reasons we pay significantly more for worse care than many other developed nations.
I don't like the public option, but I'd prefer it to what we got. Public options are expensive. Look at europe. They can barely afford it and the quality of care sucks.
Per capita the quality of care is superior in most European states. We just spend significantly more. We could take our economic power and leverage it far better and yield far greater results with the systems that they are already using.
They can't run anything with efficiency or affordability (Look at the post office).
The post office made a profit for 90% of it's history.
I don't believe it's the government's responsibility to provide healthcare, and I don't agree with my tax dollars being spent on it.
And I believe what reality seems to be showing. that private institutions are incapable of providing healthcare to a nation. The concepts of health and profit are not really compatible ones.
This is where the difference between Democrats and Republicans come into play. One believes it can help people by one means and the other thinks that's not the way to go about it. Saying one doesn't want people to be happy just isn't true. The two simply disagree on how to achieve the goal and the degree to which the goal can be achieved.
I think the biggest issue is that healthcare reform has never been a conservative issue. They don't really care. They've attempted to block it every time it's ever arisen and they've never instituted even remotely successful overhauls when they are in power. The fixes are socialist in nature and conservatives hate that, no matter how badly the system is failing in it's current incarnation as opposed to other countries systems.
The post office made a profit for 90% of it's history.
In a bygone era where the US federal government had people who understood business running it. Now the federal government runs it directly, and we see what happens.
And I believe what reality seems to be showing. that private institutions are incapable of providing healthcare to a nation. The concepts of health and profit are not really compatible ones.
The concept of government and quality aren't really compatible either. I've dealt with the government all my life. It's never pleasant and it's never as simple as dealing with private enterprise. Then again I'm big on efficiency. Outside of the US military I see little in means of efficiency in the government. Needing to be profitable requires efficiency. When you don't have to be there's no requirement, which is how we end up with the eternal abyss government money seems to keep disappearing into. That's how the post office ended up where it is. At first, they ran it as a business, because they figured that's how it should be done. Then without realizing or even thinking off it, policies and changes came into play that destroyed efficiency because profit didn't need to be maintained, and the money just started disappearing. It's a natural effect that when you have a buffer, or no reason to succeed, you eventually stop trying. It goes downhill from there. Just like how domesticated animals slowly lose their ability to survive without human help, a business that no longer needs to be profitable stops trying.
We might be able to solve some of those issues by requiring the government to balance it's budget, but then these social programs will never get funded so it won't happen.
I think the biggest issue is that healthcare reform has never been a conservative issue. They don't really care. They've attempted to block it every time it's ever arisen and they've never instituted even remotely successful overhauls when they are in power. The fixes are socialist in nature and conservatives hate that, no matter how badly the system is failing in it's current incarnation as opposed to other countries systems.
Politicians never push when the issue at hand means nothing to their constituents. Democrats included. It doesn't mean they're trying to make people unhappy or that they don't care. It's just not the top priority. I would also argue that we need to establish by what criteria we determine failure. What some would constitute as a failing healthcare system others might constitute as one that just needs tweaking. Not complete overhaul that to them, seems to bring in a host of new issues.
LordofHats wrote: Outside of the US military I see little in means of efficiency in the government.
The US military is one of the most inefficient elements of the state.
LordofHats wrote:
Needing to be profitable requires efficiency.
No, not always. You can be both profitable, and inefficient. You won't be as profitable as possible if that is the case, but they are not mutually exclusive things.
LordofHats wrote:
We might be able to solve some of those issues by requiring the government to balance it's budget, but then these social programs will never get funded so it won't happen.
That sort of thing also creates a ton of issues with respect to recession and war.
In a bygone era where the US federal government had people who understood business running it. Now the federal government runs it directly, and we see what happens.
The vast majority of people seem to think that the post office is now losing money because people don't send letters any more. Which is true. We have cellphones and email and cellphones that do email. Thus all that massive infrastructure is now just spinning its wheels. The amount of mail being sent and received is a fraction now of what is was in it's heyday.
It has absolutely nothing to do with who is running it and everything to do with the fact that its an outmoded and underutilized organization.
The concept of government and quality aren't really compatible either.
Tell that to the military or police. Please avoid using such blanket statements in the future, they are abjectly strange and incorrect.
I've dealt with the government all my life. It's never pleasant and it's never as simple as dealing with private enterprise. Then again I'm big on efficiency. Outside of the US military I see little in means of efficiency in the government.
Funny thing. The military is the most inefficient government beuracracy we have, it's all in your perspective on the issue.
When you don't have to be there's no requirement, which is how we end up with the eternal abyss government money seems to keep disappearing into. That's how the post office ended up where it is.
To think, we got this far before your posts disappeared into the land of buzzwords and non sensical rhetoric. We actually had a conversation going.
We might be able to solve some of those issues by requiring the government to balance it's budget, but then these social programs will never get funded so it won't happen.
A balanced budget is bad for economic growth in service based economies. You just need to control borrowing so that it doesn't massively excede growth. Surpluses are nice in theory, but they don't actually get a whole lot done in practice. Usually they are just the side effects of level policies and strong economics (such as the Clinton surplus or the Chinese surplus.)
Politicians never push when the issue at hand means nothing to their constituents. Democrats included. It doesn't mean they're trying to make people unhappy or that they don't care. It's just not the top priority. I would also argue that we need to establish by what criteria we determine failure. What some would constitute as a failing healthcare system others might constitute as one that just needs tweaking. Not complete overhaul that to them, seems to bring in a host of new issues.
It's never been a top priority for the conservative voting block, it polls high, but it's a political deathnote and it's not something most conservative administrations have been seemingly willing to attempt. By their namesake conservatives tend to side with adjusting the status quo, which doesn't work in a situation so badly broken as our healthcare system.
dogma wrote:The US military is one of the most inefficient elements of the state.
That depends on whether you're talking about the actual military or military spending. The US Military is extremely efficient. US military spending is not, but that is more based in politics than in the military. There's a lot of redundant spending in the military from congress, mostly in pork barrel projects. The actual armed forces however strive of being as efficient as they can be. Combat demands it.
No, not always. You can be both profitable, and inefficient. You won't be as profitable as possible if that is the case, but they are not mutually exclusive things.
That only works in a economic situation like that in the US, where everything strives from the consumers wasting money on company A's useless gizmo for whatever reason Company A puts in its advertising.
That sort of thing also creates a ton of issues with respect to recession and war.
And wild reckless uncontrolled spending isn't equally bad?
ShumaGorath wrote:The vast majority of people seem to think that the post office is now losing money because people don't send letters any more. Which is true. We have cellphones and email and cellphones that do email. Thus all that massive infrastructure is now just spinning its wheels. The amount of mail being sent and received is a fraction now of what is was in it's heyday.
It has absolutely nothing to do with who is running it and everything to do with the fact that its an outmoded and underutilized organization.
Not true. Look at FedEx and UPS. Both companies in the same business as USPS that are striving. It's not a coincidence that the private for profit business' are now succeeding where the government run business has completely failed to adapt to the market.
Tell that to the military or police. Please avoid using such blanket statements in the future, they are abjectly strange and incorrect.
I mentioned the military. And I would never call the police efficient. There's a lot of waste in the police force and they're already underfunded as it is.
Abjectly strange? Superflous words won't help when you don't have a leg to stand on. It's a blanket statement but in general it's true. Government is not efficient.
Funny thing. The military is the most inefficient government beuracracy we have, it's all in your perspective on the issue.
So we praise the military one moment for it's quality, and call it inefficient the next? That seems like a conflict to me. I mean the actual military. Not the civilian sections of the DoD that massive amounts of money are wasted on.
To think, we got this far before your posts disappeared into the land of buzzwords and non sensical rhetoric. We actually had a conversation going.
I apologize for disappointing you. I'm not the best at explaining what I'm trying to say. Still, you could attempt to respond, or you could back out and talk about a non-issue.
A balanced budget is bad for economic growth in service based economies. You just need to control borrowing so that it doesn't massively excede growth. Surpluses are nice in theory, but they don't actually get a whole lot done in practice. Usually they are just the side effects of level policies and strong economics (such as the Clinton surplus or the Chinese surplus.)
Over my head. I read up on economics but I'm not an expert. I would however argue that Clinton's surplus was not in fact Clinton's surplus. He benefited from an improved economic situation in the late 90's that resulted from lowered taxes from the previous two administrations. Clinton's policy did little more than take advantage of a good situation. Not to say he was a bad leader. For all intents and purposes I'd say Clinton was one of the better Democrats to make it to president in the last few decades, but he doesn't deserve all the credit.
It's never been a top priority for the conservative voting block, it polls high, but it's a political deathnote and it's not something most conservative administrations have been seemingly willing to attempt. By their namesake conservatives tend to side with adjusting the status quo, which doesn't work in a situation so badly broken as our healthcare system.
Status quo? Now who is using buzzwords and rhetoric? Conservatives by their own nature favor smaller government. It has nothing to do with wanting things to stay as is. It has to do with not wanting big government running things. Because conserviaives oppose expanding social programs, Democrats have been using the "status quo" to attack conservatives for a long time because they can sell the idea that conservatives think things are just fine to their constituents. Status quo has nothing to do with it. They just don't like big government. That is what is incompatible with the currently passed healthcare reform and conservative thinking. But like I said before. There are solutions to problems that don't involve expanding government.
HOWEVER, I will say that I no longer believe the Republican party represents the desires of conservative voters. The Bush administration did the exact opposite of what the conservative block wanted; expanded government by a lot. I don't think the Republicans have managed to keep in line with their official platform since then. Part of it is that they like the Democrats have become swept up in the rhetoric storm, and the other part is that I just don't think any of them are very good politicians. The Democrats right now play politics a lot better than the Republicans do, and the Republicans attempts to play the game better have damaged their standing among their own constituency at the national level. Conservatives keep going for them because, well, what's the alternative?
LordofHats wrote:
That depends on whether you're talking about the actual military or military spending. The US Military is extremely efficient. US military spending is not, but that is more based in politics than in the military. There's a lot of redundant spending in the military from congress, mostly in pork barrel projects. The actual armed forces however strive of being as efficient as they can be. Combat demands it.
Military spending is the only thing relevant to this conversation, as there is no fiscal component to combat.
LordofHats wrote:
That only works in a economic situation like that in the US, where everything strives from the consumers wasting money on company A's useless gizmo for whatever reason Company A puts in its advertising.
Advertising is not intrinsically related to the sustainability of corporate inefficiency. Please attempt to make comments of substantive merit.
LordofHats wrote:
And wild reckless uncontrolled spending isn't equally bad?
Even if it is to be thought of in that light, the solution is not to trade one bad thing for another bad thing; doing so is reactionary stupidity.
dogma wrote:Military spending is the only thing relevant to this conversation, as there is no fiscal component to combat.
Who said I was talking about fiscal efficiency to the exclusion of forms of efficiency? The armed forces were an example of something I find efficient. When I spoke of the armed forces I meant the actual combat elements of the military. That was probably my fault for not being specific. It's taken in my family that when we say military we mean soldiers and combat elements.
Advertising is not intrinsically related to the sustainability of corporate inefficiency. Please attempt to make comments of substantive merit.
You missed the point. Corporate inefficiency only works so long as you have a lot of incoming money. It works in the US because of the huge role consumption plays in our economy. If we weren't as heavily consumption based as we were, companies that wanted to survive wouldn't be able to be as inefficient as they are. Remember the buffer I mentioned a few posts back?
I'll point to GM and the auto industry as an example. Decades ago when the US automakers were rolling in cash, Unions kept getting their piece of the pie. Then when the US companies came under increased pressure from foreign makers, problems began to occur. Unions had damaged the ability of automakers to remain efficient, and over the past two decades we've seen these companies unable to adapt to changing economics and their inefficient elements caused them to collapse. Now look at Ford. Ford renegotiated with it's union and eliminated the requirement to pay workers even when the factories were shut down. That requirement was a huge hurt on American automakers, as when demand was down they couldn't slow production as it was cheaper to keep making cars than to shut the lines down and still pay your workers. Ford and their Union tossed that, and now look. Ford is seeing record profits as a part of its renegotiations and improved efficiency between Ford and its union.
When there is surplus money inefficiency breeds, but when a company is really pushed to maintain profitably they become more efficient. The government doesn't react in the same way.
Now, the Unions aren't all to blame in the collapse the auto industry. It's also the CEO's fault for not adapting to change in the market.
And really. Substantive merit? You couldn't have used some simpler wording there? Forgive me. Usually when I see people start throwing out odd words it reeks of arrogance. It irks me.
LordofHats wrote:Even if it is to be thought of in that light, the solution is not to trade one bad thing for another bad thing; doing so is reactionary stupidity.
So then we agree spending needs to be limited by some form?
LordofHats wrote:
Who said I was talking about fiscal efficiency to the exclusion of forms of efficiency? The armed forces were an example of something I find efficient. When I spoke of the armed forces I meant the actual combat elements of the military. That was probably my fault for not being specific. It's taken in my family that when we say military we mean soldiers and combat elements.
Why would you be concerned about the general efficiency (itself a nebulous concept) of anything in the context of a conversation regarding the fiscal policy of the federal government?
LordofHats wrote:
You missed the point. Corporate inefficiency only works so long as you have a lot of incoming money. It works in the US because of the huge role consumption plays in our economy. If we weren't as heavily consumption based as we were, companies that wanted to survive wouldn't be able to be as inefficient as they are. Remember the buffer I mentioned a few posts back?
Yes, in a less prosperous economy fewer corporations would be able to survive, and workers are not able to draw higher wages. That's not a point regarding consumer demand, its simply a fact of all economic systems. You're basically reinforcing the point I made initially.
LordofHats wrote:
And really. Substantive merit? You couldn't have used some simpler wording there? Forgive me. Usually when I see people start throwing out odd words it reeks of arrogance. It irks me.
I have a large vocabulary which I use freely. I'm not particularly concerned with the odd emotional associations you might have with certain words, and I will not undertake the effort to adjust my writing style in order to accommodate you.
LordofHats wrote:
So then we agree spending needs to be limited by some form?
If you're referencing a sort of statutory limit, then no. I think a statutory limit on spending has the potential to be disastrous for the US.
dogma wrote:Why would you be concerned about the general efficiency (itself a nebulous concept) of anything in the context of a conversation regarding the fiscal policy of the federal government?
It was an example of something I find efficient. If efficiency is something I have a problem with in government, it seems proper to bring up something I find efficient. The military is the first thing that popped into my mind.
LordofHats wrote:Yes, in a less prosperous economy fewer corporations would be able to survive, and workers are not able to draw higher wages. That's not a point regarding consumer demand, its simply a fact of all economic systems. You're basically reinforcing the point I made initially.
And efficiency plays a roll in this. We've been sidetracked anyway. The point was that private enterprise from my view maintains a better degree of financial efficiency than the government does.
LordofHats wrote:I have a large vocabulary which I use freely. I'm not particularly concerned with the odd emotional associations you might have with certain words, and I will not undertake the effort to adjust my writing style in order to accommodate you.
You don't have too. It was one of those errant thoughts I have a habit of putting out there. As much as I love efficiency I also love simplicity. Less is more sensei always said. It stuck. Words not usually used in casual conversation always strike me as unnecessary unless it's some form of jargon necessary for the discussion at hand.
LordofHats wrote:If you're referencing a sort of statutory limit, then no. I think a statutory limit on spending has the potential to be disastrous for the US.
I don't mean forcing a balanced budget if that's what you mean. When you say statutory limit do you mean any limit or just certain kinds of limits? EDIT: And if it is the later what kind of limits do you believe to be preferable?
It's his fault for getting cancer? Wouldn't that depend on the type of cancer?
The problem is that you can't prove it is someone's fault for getting cancer. Lets say someone comes down with lung cancer, and they smoked two or three packs a day for 40 or 50 years. You have no proof at all that smoking caused that cancer. You can really only talk in terms of risk factors. Furthermore, tobacco use is another thing that is part of the poverty cycle. You didn't say this, but the idea of not paying for something that was likely caused by someone's behavior comes immediately to mind. I don't think that is the best way to reduce health costs when people are going to continue to do it. That is what an addiction is. Perhaps a harm reduction strategy is the way to go.
Honestly, they're both the same. They disagree over things just because they want to make it seem like they don't want the same things, but they're really the same thing: Politicians.
dogma wrote:Why would you be concerned about the general efficiency (itself a nebulous concept) of anything in the context of a conversation regarding the fiscal policy of the federal government?
It was an example of something I find efficient. If efficiency is something I have a problem with in government, it seems proper to bring up something I find efficient. The military is the first thing that popped into my mind.
LordofHats wrote:Yes, in a less prosperous economy fewer corporations would be able to survive, and workers are not able to draw higher wages. That's not a point regarding consumer demand, its simply a fact of all economic systems. You're basically reinforcing the point I made initially.
And efficiency plays a roll in this. We've been sidetracked anyway. The point was that private enterprise from my view maintains a better degree of financial efficiency than the government does.
LordofHats wrote:I have a large vocabulary which I use freely. I'm not particularly concerned with the odd emotional associations you might have with certain words, and I will not undertake the effort to adjust my writing style in order to accommodate you.
You don't have too. It was one of those errant thoughts I have a habit of putting out there. As much as I love efficiency I also love simplicity. Less is more sensei always said. It stuck. Words not usually used in casual conversation always strike me as unnecessary unless it's some form of jargon necessary for the discussion at hand.
LordofHats wrote:If you're referencing a sort of statutory limit, then no. I think a statutory limit on spending has the potential to be disastrous for the US.
I don't mean forcing a balanced budget if that's what you mean. When you say statutory limit do you mean any limit or just certain kinds of limits? EDIT: And if it is the later what kind of limits do you believe to be preferable?
there is really only one method of eliminating national debt and thats massive tax increases and greatly reduced spending on everything, both of which would be absolutely disastrous or we recognioize that deficit doesn't equal the end of the world.
LordofHats wrote:
It was an example of something I find efficient. If efficiency is something I have a problem with in government, it seems proper to bring up something I find efficient. The military is the first thing that popped into my mind.
I think ultimately my issue with your line of reasoning is that you are concluding that the military and private corporations are efficient simply because they operate in conditions which you believe to be demanding with respect to efficiency. This appears to me as false necessity.
LordofHats wrote:
I don't mean forcing a balanced budget if that's what you mean. When you say statutory limit do you mean any limit or just certain kinds of limits? EDIT: And if it is the later what kind of limits do you believe to be preferable?
When I say statutory limits I am referring to legislation that restricts the ability of the state to spend money.
Not true. Look at FedEx and UPS. Both companies in the same business as USPS that are striving. It's not a coincidence that the private for profit business' are now succeeding where the government run business has completely failed to adapt to the market.
They failed to adapt because they don't fulfill the same roles. The post office isn't a business, it's a government organization with a specific mandate and role. It's not a multinational package delivery business with hundreds of smaller subsidiaries and it's fingers in dozens of other industries like Brown is. If the post office was to have a current functional role in modern society it would be a government ftp server/mail client. In the end of the day the freedoms of communication it ensured have simply been replaced with modern business oriented alternatives. The government could provide for national cell bandwidth and many argue that governmental attempts at improving internet access are in many ways a fulfillment of the original post office agenda. It doesn't matter who owns it, the post office isn't a for profit organization. It was an organization that ran at a profit until the times outmoded it use, but unless you advocate overhauling the post office into a competitive entry into the international package and freight industry (a very socialist/communist thing to want) then short of letting it die or reducing its capacity and letting it run more cheaply as the cheapest alternative to package shipping (it already is) then it's not going to get better.
I mentioned the military. And I would never call the police efficient. There's a lot of waste in the police force and they're already underfunded as it is.
Abjectly strange? Superflous words won't help when you don't have a leg to stand on. It's a blanket statement but in general it's true. Government is not efficient.
Organizations that are underfunded redirect wasteful spending as a matter of course. Just because they are a national organization doesn't mean basic principles of capitalism don't apply.
So we praise the military one moment for it's quality, and call it inefficient the next? That seems like a conflict to me. I mean the actual military. Not the civilian sections of the DoD that massive amounts of money are wasted on.
The vast majority of military spending is in the GI bill and veterans care along with acquisitions. The first two are the people, not the organization so you're wrong there and the third is usually considered necessary. DoD research projects actually make up a pretty small piece of the piechart when compared to soldier compensation or the cost and upkeep of equipment. As to the conflict, they perform their job very efficiently, but militaries by default are wasteful organizations given that they produce nothing tangible and always run at 100% profit loss. Thats the nature of government organizations though. The military buys tanks so that they can sit in lots. It buys aircraft so that they can sit on runways. It buys ships so that they can float around carrying tanks and aircraft. The vast majority of the american arsenal and military is at any time waiting for someone to attack us. It's an organizational style which, combined with immense secrecy and lack of oversight, becomes ludicrously expensive (as it is).
I apologize for disappointing you. I'm not the best at explaining what I'm trying to say. Still, you could attempt to respond, or you could back out and talk about a non-issue.
I did, I just don't like leaving several paragraphs unresponded too.
Over my head. I read up on economics but I'm not an expert. I would however argue that Clinton's surplus was not in fact Clinton's surplus. He benefited from an improved economic situation in the late 90's that resulted from lowered taxes from the previous two administrations. Clinton's policy did little more than take advantage of a good situation. Not to say he was a bad leader. For all intents and purposes I'd say Clinton was one of the better Democrats to make it to president in the last few decades, but he doesn't deserve all the credit.
Actually clinton raised taxes and cut spending in both the military and in civilian services during a time of rapid economic growth. he did the hat trick of less spending and more making which is what you need to do to balance a budget without causing a recession visibly (and economics is all about what people believe is happening rather than the reality).
Status quo? Now who is using buzzwords and rhetoric? Conservatives by their own nature favor smaller government. It has nothing to do with wanting things to stay as is. It has to do with not wanting big government running things. Because conserviaives oppose expanding social programs, Democrats have been using the "status quo" to attack conservatives for a long time because they can sell the idea that conservatives think things are just fine to their constituents. Status quo has nothing to do with it. They just don't like big government. That is what is incompatible with the currently passed healthcare reform and conservative thinking. But like I said before. There are solutions to problems that don't involve expanding government.
Conservatives have also presided over the majority of expanded governance and increased spending in the last 50 years. It's a conflict where rhetoric never materializes to actual reality. What conservatives oppose is progressivism which doesn't really have an inherent economic or governmental spending model.
HOWEVER, I will say that I no longer believe the Republican party represents the desires of conservative voters. The Bush administration did the exact opposite of what the conservative block wanted; expanded government by a lot. I don't think the Republicans have managed to keep in line with their official platform since then. Part of it is that they like the Democrats have become swept up in the rhetoric storm, and the other part is that I just don't think any of them are very good politicians. The Democrats right now play politics a lot better than the Republicans do, and the Republicans attempts to play the game better have damaged their standing among their own constituency at the national level. Conservatives keep going for them because, well, what's the alternative?
Historically conservatives have never been economically conservative. They espouse reductions in spending and then increase spending. When a reduction is required both parties are capable of understanding that fact and both do their best to attempt to do so, however middle interests always resist and in the end of the day it's easy to spend more but when you spend less thats taking food off peoples tables. It doesn't matter what end of the political spectrum those people live on, they don't want you taking gak off their table. Conservatives typically espouse tax cuts as the best methodology of doing everything involved with economics while democrats tend to wish to increase taxes while cutting spending at the same time. When you combine the concept of increased taxes wth the concept of a continuously growing economy the idea of the tax and spend liberal is created. It's a historical fallacy and conservatives have presided over just as much governmental growth while cutting taxes which creates large deficits. If liberals tax and spend then conservatives borrow and spend. This is evidenced in virtually every democratic presidency in the last thirty years as opposed to the following republican one. Raegan did a lot to feth this countries views of what good economics are.
And really. Substantive merit? You couldn't have used some simpler wording there? Forgive me. Usually when I see people start throwing out odd words it reeks of arrogance. It irks me.
Just caught this. Substantive merit means that you are doing or saying something that has both merit and substance. These aren't hard words. This is basic fourth grade english. Seriously.
Da Boss wrote:Wow, that's...that's one hell of a sentiment.
Its reality. You can't live on that amount, and at that level I can get better employees.
Wait, whats wrong with the statement in the first place? If you don't like the crap wages that are minimimum wage you improve your skills so you can get a better business.
thats why we have universities, technical schools, training programs, and union based journeyman programs. Thats how its supposed to work.
And it doesn't work, I'm college educated and getting paid gak because the economy is so bad. And how is somebody on minimum wage supposed to be able to afford to survive as well as go to school?
Go to school part time. Relying on the minimum wage to survive is not going to work. In the words of the Immortal Bard: "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life son."
Explain to me how having a degree in chemistry makes me stupid. Oh, and just to be clear, I do make more than min. wage in the States, but min wage in some other industrialized nations is greater than my pay.
I basically jump on the grenades of ignorance that other posters throw down so that sebster or dogma don't have too.
It's all becoming clear now... You want to be on the same intellectual plane as they are, so when one of them responds to my post, you assume it means you have to "help them out." Since they're too kind to tell you: they don't need your "help."
If people weren't saying new orleans natives were lazy or that minimum wage laws are stupid because you can hire illegals without reporting them I wouldn't have to come in and pull out the boxing gloves.
Or, at least, threaten to tell one of your friends who would do it for you.
It's interesting though, I never said either of those things, and yet you had plenty of rhetoric for me... Is it possible you're less motivated by "grenades of ignorance" and more by making sure to keep your imaginary pecking order sorted?
It was easier back in the 60's when minimum wage gave superior real buying power and college costs were a fraction of their current extremely inflated levels.
Realistically if you're a college graduate and you're earning minimum wage, that's not so much a problem with the minimum wage as it is with the job market (and probably the whole economy) in general.
Minimum wage is also very geographic. If you live in Manhattan, you cannot get by on the minimum wage, period. If you live in rural Indiana, it's probably sufficient to at least get by on.
But I don't think the fact that our healthcare system is for profit is any anyway core to the problem.
I did some very brief review on this, and as far as I can tell there's simply not enough overhead in the costs of health insurance to justify the "free market bad" mentality that some have. According to the data I was seeing, healthcare insurace overhead is around 11%, and the industry's profits are about 3%. Some folks were saying that the healthcare insurance industry are vastly bloated and overcompensated, but even if that's true, it's not going to significantly reduce the costs. Take them out COMPLETELY, and it's only 11%.
The obesity and diabetes epidemics show that handily.
I agree, but what are you going to do? It's not like fat people don't know it's bad for them. So how does the government fix the problem? What corrective action can be taken? I can think of plenty, but none that will fly in this age of entitlement.
We also know how expensive obesity is. The more you socialize the cost of healthcare, the more I have to pay for some fatty's bad choices. How is that fair?
All that said, healthcare is a lifelong process. Workers change jobs, and thus insurance, more these days than in the past. It makes full life care less possible, and less appealing to insurance companies. That's an arugment in favor of a government managed program.
Historically conservatives have never been economically conservative. They espouse reductions in spending and then increase spending.
A Republican controlled Congress presided over the largest budget surplusses in recent history. Yes, that was Clinton, but it was also Republicans in Congress. So, I don't think it's a partisan issue so much as an issue with the current crop of idiots.
For example, Bush ran a deficit, and I was annoyed at how unconservative he was. Then Obama came along and made him look like a penny pincher. I think that Republicans are still more willing to be economically conservative, we're just in such a spiral of reckless spending it's hard to see anybody saving anything.
Raegan did a lot to feth this countries views of what good economics are.
I agree, he set the precedent of deficit spending more than anybody previous. That said, he was facing the cold war, and in many ways the manipulation of capital is the "weapon" that allowed us to win that war, which was essentially one of economics and physical combat by proxy only.
So, while he certainly created the precedent he had a real issue that demanded it, and it certainly didn't give everyone after him a free pass to spend so recklessly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is basic fourth grade english. Seriously.
Substantive merit is 4th grade English? No it's not. Try 12th grade, if that.
I'm not particularly interested in reading through four pages of posts about a political topic on a wargaming forum, but I will try to answer the OP's question.
Why are they trying to be bipartisan? Because that way Republican voters will feel less alienated and more represented. After all, would you want your government to completely ignore a large portion of the population? I wouldn't, even if they were the people representing my ideology.
Also, that way, people can't mud sling as much because their group was still part of the political process and is still partially responsible for what happens.
But, I think that when you mean "forceful" with their opinions, you mean ridiculously stubborn to the point of mind blowing frustration.
Although, just to comment on something that I saw about bailouts and Democrats... I'd just like to point out that Republicans had their own bailout too. Also, republicans should LOVE bailouts, they go hand in hand with their "trickle-down" economics. Taking money from everyone else and letting big-business have it and hope that they hire more people and pay them more instead of just increasing the salaries of the CEO and the big guys on top.
The post office isn't a business, it's a government organization with a specific mandate and role.
That's my point. It's not run as a business and becomes a bottomless pit of money. Non-profit or not, a business is a business. The problem with government run business is that when it runs out of money it doesn't die. It keeps sucking more in. Government agencies don't disappear just because there isn't the money to pay for them. As we've already seen, the government doesn't really seem to care if it has the money to pay for something or not. That's a long term problem.
ShumaGorath wrote:Historically conservatives have never been economically conservative.
Conservative politicians yes. Conservative voters no. Hence why I said the Republican party no longer really represents conservative values and kind of leaves conservatives hanging in the wind looking around wondering what to do. They say they're all about the conservative values etc etc but then when they actually get into office they utterly fail at it or do just the opposite. I doubt the Republicans will be a viable political party much longer. They have their hardcore adherents who will do whatever they say just like the Democrats have, but most moderate conservatives seem pretty disillusioned these days. The Tea Parties existance is pretty telling of the split between conservative voters and their politicians. I foresee the Tea Party breaking off from the Republicans and being their own party years down the road (that or it just dies out in the next year or so, I haven't decided yet which I think is more likely). Either way, the situation doesn't seem much better, cause now I have to deal with people who won't stop talking about how Obama isn't really an American. Oh what fun .
I don't know. I watch conservative politicians and they're always doing or saying something stupid It's quite frustrating when you're choices are Democrats with political agenda's you don't agree with or Republicans who couldn't find their way out of an empty room with a door on each wall.
I did, I just don't like leaving several paragraphs unresponded too.
Meh. I don't blame you. They were several paragraphs of random babble.
Just caught this. Substantive merit means that you are doing or saying something that has both merit and substance. These aren't hard words. This is basic fourth grade english. Seriously.
I know what it means. I just don't see why you can't replace it with "meaningful." Most American's aren't like you and me and failed fourth grade english . Besides, like I said. I like it as simple as possible.
It's all becoming clear now... You want to be on the same intellectual plane as they are, so when one of them responds to my post, you assume it means you have to "help them out." Since they're too kind to tell you: they don't need your "help."
Yes, I pine for my parents sebster and dogma to one day accept me. If I hadn't jumped on the grenade, keep in mind, they still might have to be responding to you.
Or, at least, threaten to tell one of your friends who would do it for you.
It's interesting though, I never said either of those things, and yet you had plenty of rhetoric for me... Is it possible you're less motivated by "grenades of ignorance" and more by making sure to keep your imaginary pecking order sorted?
My imaginary pecking order is ludicrously convoluted and looks like a DoD powerpoint graph.
Realistically if you're a college graduate and you're earning minimum wage, that's not so much a problem with the minimum wage as it is with the job market (and probably the whole economy) in general.
Minimum wage is also very geographic. If you live in Manhattan, you cannot get by on the minimum wage, period. If you live in rural Indiana, it's probably sufficient to at least get by on.
Wasn't the argument how people were putting themselves through college and not about their prospects on minimum wage with a degree?
I agree, but what are you going to do? It's not like fat people don't know it's bad for them. So how does the government fix the problem? What corrective action can be taken? I can think of plenty, but none that will fly in this age of entitlement.
We also know how expensive obesity is. The more you socialize the cost of healthcare, the more I have to pay for some fatty's bad choices. How is that fair?
Social medicine includes increased preventative care, which in turn reduces diabetic and overweight populations. You either have to be willing to take a hit for the team to see the problem lesson or hold out for number one and watch the problem be exacerbated. It's very much a capitalist issue, cheap foods and flavor chemicals mixed with lax preventative care and expensive general checkups create a situation of spiraling obesity. You can actually see the exact same thing happening in china right now (though exchange over expensive healthcare with typically poor or unavailable). It's a difference in priorities, I would personally prioritize the health of the group over the individual liberties of peoples wallets. I've never been stringently anti tax, but according to most estimates preventative care saves money in the long run by preventing very costly diseases and conditions from becoming epidemic. In this specific case the business conclusion and the moral conclusion are aligned.
A Republican controlled Congress presided over the largest budget surplusses in recent history. Yes, that was Clinton, but it was also Republicans in Congress. So, I don't think it's a partisan issue so much as an issue with the current crop of idiots.
That same group voted against health care overhauls which has directly led to the spiraling costs of healthcare we currently enjoy. It's always been an issue of forethought, conservative policymaking is a reactionary thing. It's not a bad stance to take as it reduces effort and ensures greater gain in the short term, but when you aren't progressive in governance over time stagnation does and will occur as government functions become outmoded or begin to fail. Thats not to say that democrats act with more forethought, they are just willing to act on forethought more often (such as with attempted healthcare or environmental legislation).
For example, Bush ran a deficit, and I was annoyed at how unconservative he was. Then Obama came along and made him look like a penny pincher. I think that Republicans are still more willing to be economically conservative, we're just in such a spiral of reckless spending it's hard to see anybody saving anything.
Any president would have signed the recovery stimulus. Blaming it on obama is foolish, it was simply the reality of what was needed to stem a new depression. I fully expect spending levels to normalize and begin to drop over the next 14 years regardless of who is in the chair. The times simply demand it.
Automatically Appended Next Post this is in reference to lord hat:
That's my point. It's not run as a business and becomes a bottomless pit of money. Non-profit or not, a business is a business. The problem with government run business is that when it runs out of money it doesn't die. It keeps sucking more in. Government agencies don't disappear just because there isn't the money to pay for them. As we've already seen, the government doesn't really seem to care if it has the money to pay for something or not. That's a long term problem.
The mail service isn't really whats putting us in the red. It's a blip on the radar. What do you suggest they do to save it by the by? You sound like you want them to overhaul it to be competitive which would cause it to enter a market that it's charter never intended and which is outside of the U.S. governments role. Do you think we should let it die?
Conservative voters vote for conservative republican politicians. Also I'm not sure how the conservative voting block is reducing governmental spending by voting for conservatives who increase government spending. Its a great shell game and reds are fantastic at controlling the media (the liberal media bias is one of their greatest creations of the last 30 years).
I know what it means. I just don't see why you can't replace it with "meaningful." Most American's aren't like you and me and failed fourth grade english . Besides, like I said. I like it as simple as possible.
The problem is that saying something meaningful and saying something of substantive merit are two different things. They have different meanings. It's not really Dogmas fault for being specific.
ShivanAngel wrote:One of the bigger issues with illegals is the feth with the economy hardcore...
They take money out of the economy via wages, they put the bare minimum back in via living expenses and food, and the rest of the money is shipped back to their families in mexico...
No surprise that you're from texas. This sentiment is completely ridiculous. Yes, SOME illegals do send money back to their home countries to their families. However, the actual amount of damage that it can do is such an extreme exaggeration. Even Greenspan agrees that they help the economy by providing services at a low cost.
In fact, your state even conducted a study and came to the conclusion that they would have been out 18 billion dollars if not for illegal immigrants.
ShumaGorath wrote:The mail service isn't really whats putting us in the red. It's a blip on the radar. What do you suggest they do to save it by the by? You sound like you want them to overhaul it to be competitive which would cause it to enter a market that it's charter never intended and which is outside of the U.S. governments role. Do you think we should let it die?
I don't really suggest saving it. There was a time when private industry wasn't willing to do what the Post Office does. At that time I can see why it was put into action. Now though I don't see why it really exists. Private industry has stepped in and is fulfilling the only roll it has left, and email has replaced it's other roll. Do we really need it?
Conservative voters vote for conservative republican politicians. Also I'm not sure how the conservative voting block is reducing governmental spending by voting for conservatives who increase government spending. Its a great shell game and reds are fantastic at controlling the media (the liberal media bias is one of their greatest creations of the last 30 years).
What alternative do Conservative voters have? Democrats? Don't give voters that much credit most of them aren't smart enough to instantly know when they've been stabbed in the back till they've walked down the block and notice the stinging pain in their spine. The Tea Party is a very visible example of the split between conservative voters and their politicians. It's been bubbling for a long time. While may Tea Party folks are independents, the movement's origins lie in the disgruntled conservative voting block which has grown tired of their politicians not representing their interests.
And you can't argue against the liberal media. It's more than blatant that mainstream media with the exception of Fox is slanted to the left. Fox on the other hand is just crazy. We haven't had good honest objective reporting from our media in decades. Hence why I stopped watching the news. The only "news" source I buy is National Enquire. We all need a good laugh here and there and some of their stuff is so hilarious .
The problem is that saying something meaningful and saying something of substantive merit are two different things. They have different meanings. It's not really Dogmas fault for being specific.
No. I'm just picky. And you can say meaningful in place of substantive merit and people will get the meaning of it from the context. We don't need to be word lawyers.
I don't really suggest saving it. There was a time when private industry wasn't willing to do what the Post Office does. At that time I can see why it was put into action. Now though I don't see why it really exists. Private industry has stepped in and is fulfilling the only roll it has left, and email has replaced it's other roll. Do we really need it?
I don't think we do, but I would like to see the funds spent on it used elsewhere to enable higher spectrum access. America has one of the worst telecommunications infrastructures in the developed world.
And you can't argue against the liberal media. It's more than blatant that mainstream media with the exception of Fox is slanted to the left. Fox on the other hand is just crazy.
Not really. MSNBC is a counterpoint to fox but it's not nearly so rabid. CNN is pretty unbiased and almost all of Rupert Murdochs holdings give a strong and clear conservative slant (all financial channels for instance). In televised media the split is pretty clean and even. In radio conservatives have sheer dominance in the political spectrum and conservative news print is every bit as common as liberal.
It's in every way a boogeyman. There is simply no leftist media bias in modern media.
We haven't had good honest objective reporting from our media in decades. Hence why I stopped watching the news. The only "news" source I buy is National Enquire. We all need a good laugh here and there and some of their stuff is so hilarious
I read a lot of BBC which has a government mandate to impartiality. I've also found that as long as you review enough media sources you will come away with a middle view of events with relatively little bias. You just have to know what to take and what to disregard.
No. I'm just picky. And you can say meaningful in place of substantive merit and people will get the meaning of it from the context. We don't need to be word lawyers.
I don't think thats Dogma being a word lawyer. I think this is just a case of you encountering relatively common terms of speech without knowing their meaning. Take this as an opportunity to increase your vocabulary instead of trying to pull others down.
ShumaGorath wrote:America has one of the worst telecommunications infrastructures in the developed world.
Definitely. A lot of our infrastructure is in bad shape. In the case of roads and bridges it's kind of falling apart
Not really. MSNBC is a counterpoint to fox but it's not nearly so rabid. CNN is pretty unbiased and almost all of Rupert Murdochs holdings give a strong and clear conservative slant (all financial channels for instance). In televised media the split is pretty clean and even. In radio conservatives have sheer dominance in the political spectrum and conservative news print is every bit as common as liberal.
I would disagree about CNN. I think some of the reporters are less biased but CNN as a whole has a left slant. I will however agree that none of the liberal media sources are anywhere near as crazy as Fox. Those guys are scary. I've never watched financial channels. I read books for that. I think conservative radio is just more well known than liberal radio. When you have a wonderful personality like Rush, it's hard to get ahead. I disagree about print media. There are a lot of conservative news prints but the biggest ones are all liberal slanted. Not that print media is lasting much longer.
I read a lot of BBC which has a government mandate to impartiality. I've also found that as long as you review enough media sources you will come away with a middle view of events with relatively little bias. You just have to know what to take and what to disregard.
Pretty much what I do. The internet rocks
I don't think thats Dogma being a word lawyer. I think this is just a case of you encountering relatively common terms of speech without knowing their meaning. Take this as an opportunity to increase your vocabulary instead of trying to pull others down.
It has nothing to do with putting people down or not knowing the definition. I just don't see the point in using such a term when a more common and simpler one can reach the same end and be more easily understood. And I was refering to you not dogma as a word lawyer. Dogma just used a word. You went into semantics over an issue I described as an espoused notion of my own because the definitions aren't homogeneous and as a result no human being can differentiate through context the intent of what was expressed. /end exaggerated sarcasm
Grignard wrote:He was making a comment about his beliefs in the deleterious effects of certain aspects of social welfare spending. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it isn't racist.
Dude, he said initiative had been bred out of most of a race of people. He said a specific character trait had been bred out of a race of people. That's pretty much what racism is.
I tell you, sometimes I think you're obsessed with racism on these forums.
I think there's a lot of unexamined privilege going on in this forum, but not a lot of outright racism.
But to answer the question, no, I'm not at all uncomfortable with that.
No, and nor would it bother me, to be honest. The form of things doesn't really matter compared to the substance. I mean, the Queen is notionally our head of state, but what really matters is that she plays absolutely no part in our politics, and she never will. Reciting a pldege in the morning, with or without God, doesn't mean anything if that's as far as it goes. As you said, something like inviting people in assembly to come down to make a public statement is much more worrisome.
My point really, is that while form doesn't worry me, it certainly worries other people. While it wouldn't be a cause I'd ever throw a lot of effort into, I get why other people, religious or not, do not believe in having 'under God' in the pledge. I'm a little puzzled at the number of people who aren't just indifferent, but actively in favour of including the line, despite the clear belief in the US of a seperation between Church and State.
What is the Oz pledge, " Your hood ain't crap Britain, F you for sending me here"? Just kidding, no offense meant there.
We don't have a pledge, at least I don't think we do. We're not really a pledging kind of people. We do have a really crap anthem, though, 'our home is girt by sea.' Just dreadful.
I don't think that is what he's saying, he's saying how things are, I think. I'm not sure how I read his posts though.
But he's not saying how things are. He's worrying about fantasies.
Frazzled wrote:
Da Boss wrote:Wow, that's...that's one hell of a sentiment.
Its reality. You can't live on that amount, and at that level I can get better employees. Wait, whats wrong with the statement in the first place? If you don't like the crap wages that are minimimum wage you improve your skills so you can get a better business. thats why we have universities, technical schools, training programs, and union based journeyman programs. Thats how its supposed to work.
Sure, it's important that people working basic jobs aren't paid very high salaries, to provide the incentive for people to train and work harder to move into higher paying jobs. But there is a big, big difference between a meagre income that is enough to live on while still encouraging a person to seek a higher income, and an amount of money that isn't enough to live on.
In Australia the minimum wage is $15, that works out at around 13.50 in USD. The US rate is $7.25, and while it's higher in some states it never gets higher than around $8.50. So it's about 60% higher here, and we still have historically lower rates of unemployment, and a lot smaller portion of our population on the minimum wage. This is largely because paying someone a living wage allows them the time and savings to acquire new skills, and move out of the poverty trap.
There really is no sound economic reason to have a stupidly low minimum wage, it's driven by ideology over economics, and by spite.
Stormrider wrote:I'm still waiting for some figures regarding median income.
What would it matter? If it was higher you'd declare the US minimum wage alright because it was only rich countries that can afford higher minimum wages. If it was lower than the US you'd just declare that evidence that a lower minimum wages is better fro the economy. Both answers would be crap.
BTW, I have taken classes in economics and statistics.
Then where did you get the idea that a smaller sample has some kind advantage. What is that? Seriously?
Frazzled wrote:Prior to Katrina storms were state issues. FEMA came after to help with support. It wasn't meant to be an emergency and long term recovery entity. Emergency response was local and state level issue. Its just that Nagin and Louisiana responded so ineptly they needed the Republican fed agency to blame.
That's incredibly not true. Did you just decide to believe that, or did someone tell it to you? Because if someone told you that they were lying. The primary purpose of FEMA is to provide disaster relief when the impact of a disaster is too great for local and state resources to cope with - this is explicit in the founding charter of the department.
Indeed, one of the biggest complaints against Blanco's management of the situation was that she didn't contact FEMA early enough.
LordofHats wrote:That depends on whether you're talking about the actual military or military spending. The US Military is extremely efficient.
No, the US military, like all militaries, is not efficient. It's an organisation designed to be very adaptable, and with many, many levels of redundancy. All that costs big dollars.
It is certainly effective. It is not efficient.
That only works in a economic situation like that in the US, where everything strives from the consumers wasting money on company A's useless gizmo for whatever reason Company A puts in its advertising.
No, it doesn't. There are wide range of economic situations in which varying levels of inefficiency can be accepted. None of them have anything to do with consumers buying based on advertising. That's just crap you just made up.
Seriously, economics is important, and not just something you can make up to fit with whatever you want to believe right now.
I would personally prioritize the health of the group over the individual liberties of peoples wallets.
I might agree, except that I don't see how prevantative care will help with obesity. These people already know it's unhealthy. We can't send Jillian Michaels to all of their houses.
The other options are the sorts of collectivist control that's talked about, saying what foods can and can't be sold, etc. etc. If this gets extreme enough, it's a terrible precedent to set. I'd rather just pay for fat people to be fat than to give the government the impression that it's wise for them to exert that level of control.
We were just talking about Reagan... He had success with deficit spending. Let somebody reduce costs by controlling what we're allowed to eat, and next thing you know all the Delta Minuses that follow will be trying to think of other freedoms they can take to better the country.
I'd like to see them forced to pay more taxes, but I'm sure they'd get around that by not having any money, plus crying about it.
Blaming it on obama is foolish, it was simply the reality of what was needed to stem a new depression. I fully expect spending levels to normalize and begin to drop over the next 14 years regardless of who is in the chair. The times simply demand it.
The necessity is debateable. I won't say you're wrong, but I also don't think it's at all emperical that you're right. If nothing else, you're treating a topic of legitimate debate as a closed case, which is not really something a lad of your lofty intellect should be doing. In fact, I dogma's very signature recommends against it, and he's your role model.
In any case, the $790B stimulus is not all that Obama did to increase spending. He's insanely reckless.
I also expect spending levels to drop, but watching Obama's casual regard for reality, and realizing he's probably the best we have to offer right now, I wonder if anybody will have the intellect or courage to deal with it.
MSNBC is a counterpoint to fox but it's not nearly so rabid.
I think Keith Olbermann would beg to differ.
Honestly, I think it's important to bear in mind personal perspective on these types of judgements. What seems reasonable to you will seem rabid to somebody with a conflicting ideology. My impression from reading your posts is that you're one of these urban liberal types who aren't totally convinced that conservatives are real.
It's that whole "but I don't even KNOW anybody that voted for Bush" attitude that a lot of liberals have. They think that conservative Americans are a fiction, when in reality they're the majority. They just don't frequent urban coffee shops and art galleries.
My problem with MSNBC isn't so much with MSNBC as with the fact that nobody really admits what it is. You hear CONSTANT prattle about how evil Fox is. If there was a voice out there saying that MSNBC was just the left's version of it, I'd be much more comfortable with the situation.
There is simply no leftist media bias in modern media.
That's just completely false.
The only way I can imagine that it'd not be false, is if you're using a different left-right continuum, or if you're doing some sort of odd inclusion of AM radio. American media is not to the left of the political center of the entire first world, but they're certainly to the left of the American center.
Virtually all major print publications are left leaning, the same for all the major television news outlets are as well. The only exceptions are the WSJ, Washington Times, New York Post and FOX. And AM radio.
On the other side of the scale you've got ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, all the other major papers, Hollywood, etc. etc. etc.
It's just not even close.
This whole thing with Journo-List should really tip you off.
Now, that's not to say that these organizations are all Communists. On the contrary, I find most of them to be moderate liberals, but very, VERY convinced of their own correctness, viewing it as a favor to the world to educate them on the truth.
Basically the mainstream media is Hillary Clinton. Moderate liberals with a progressive social agenda and a fondness for big business that's only slightly colored with anti-corporate suspicion.
By comparison, I think Obama and virtually all of his inner circle are to the left of the mainstream media.
I read a lot of BBC which has a government mandate to impartiality.
They also don't have a dog in the fight, so they're a lot less liable to follow strictly partisan patterns.
I recall reading a SCATHING article on Hillary Clinton witten by a British commentator, possibly in the Economist. I wish I could find it, but google doesn't seem to know where it is. Probably a conspiracy.
That said, they're also from a country that lives to the left of the US, so their perspective is going to favor the American left. What's reasonable to a British journalist is "liberal" to the American center.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The primary purpose of FEMA is to provide disaster relief when the impact of a disaster is too great for local and state resources to cope with - this is explicit in the founding charter of the department.
You're being a bit hyperbolic here... It's not "incredbily not true." As Frazz says, FEMA is there to extend the capabilities of the state in question, and in fact the policy in place is that the state itself (ie. Blanco) is to request the assistance of FEMA. It would actually be a usurpation of state power for Bush to have sent in Federal agencies without a request from Blanco.
[/qI might agree, except that I don't see how prevantative care will help with obesity. These people already know it's unhealthy. We can't send Jillian Michaels to all of their houses.
People being fat doesn't cause anything and preventative care significantly reduces the chances of becoming diabetic or experiencing heart disease. Thats how preventative care helps. By preventing the problem, which are the diseases being fat causes, not being fat. Being fat doesn't really do much but drive down productivity but drive up consumer spending which ends up being kind of a wash.
The necessity is debateable. I won't say you're wrong, but I also don't think it's at all emperical that you're right. If nothing else, you're treating a topic of legitimate debate as a closed case, which is not really something a lad of your lofty intellect should be doing. In fact, I dogma's very signature recommends against it, and he's your role model.
About what part? The spending normalisation or the stimulus? I don't know the future so I can't really say much in the way of certainty for normalisation, but the stimulus was passed without much resistance and followed the bank bailouts which were conservative in nature. Had the break happened in 2007 it's quite likely that bush would have written the second stimulus bill of his presidency. We didn't have that happen though and it's amazing how many conservatives jumped off the stimulus train once it got through so that they could seem like populist outsiders when they helped write it in the first place.
In any case, the $790B stimulus is not all that Obama did to increase spending. He's insanely reckless.
What else did he do? The auto bailouts? Those were politically risky but at this point look to have been a wash with the more financially sound of the automakers pulling through and paying back the loans (as opposed to going under and costing the U.S. more via unemployment).
I also expect spending levels to drop, but watching Obama's casual regard for reality, and realizing he's probably the best we have to offer right now, I wonder if anybody will have the intellect or courage to deal with it.
What the hell is a casual regard for reality?
I think Keith Olbermann would beg to differ.
And the Glenn Beck get off my phone you pinhead mixtape dances that disagreement into the fething dust. Olberman is a shadow of O'Rielly or Beck. He's got nothing on the insanity of foxes infotainment section.
Honestly, I think it's important to bear in mind personal perspective on these types of judgements. What seems reasonable to you will seem rabid to somebody with a conflicting ideology. My impression from reading your posts is that you're one of these urban liberal types who aren't totally convinced that conservatives are real.
I'm convinced they're usually stupid, but I'm pretty sure they're real. Some of my formative role models were outspoken conservatives.
It's that whole "but I don't even KNOW anybody that voted for Bush" attitude that a lot of liberals have. They think that conservative Americans are a fiction, when in reality they're the majority. They just don't frequent urban coffee shops and art galleries.
I know like 20 people that voted for bush. I lived next to the northeasts largest naval airstation for 20 years and wargamers are an oddly conservative bunch.
My problem with MSNBC isn't so much with MSNBC as with the fact that nobody really admits what it is. You hear CONSTANT prattle about how evil Fox is. If there was a voice out there saying that MSNBC was just the left's version of it, I'd be much more comfortable with the situation.
They are left slanted. I said that in the last post. They aren't really a mirror of fox though, fox isn't even a legitimate news network. It does yellow journalism. It doctors stories, it doctors photographs, it hires biased journalists, it fires unbiased journalists, and it's owned by one of the richest and most outspoken conservatives on the planet. It was created by one of the richest conservatives on the planet. Its the mouthpiece for the GOP. It keeps glenn beck in ugly sweaters, it keeps sarah palin on it's hundred thousand dollar talking head list, and it's sponsored republican conventions and was the media wing of the tea party protests.
hat's just completely false.
The only way I can imagine that it'd not be false, is if you're using a different left-right continuum, or if you're doing some sort of odd inclusion of AM radio. American media is not to the left of the political center of the entire first world, but they're certainly to the left of the American center.
I'm stating that the media isn't left biased, not that left bias doesn't exist in the media. I'm saying that it's a pretty balanced field.
Virtually all major print publications are left leaning, the same for all the major television news outlets are as well. The only exceptions are the WSJ, Washington Times, New York Post and FOX. And AM radio.
Fox is counterpointed by msnbc CNN is neutral The new york times is countered by the washington post No one reads the washington times The wall street journal is thriving The economist is thriving Newsweek is going out of business
No, print media doesn't have a universal leftist slant.
On the other side of the scale you've got ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, all the other major papers, Hollywood, etc. etc. etc.
ABC CBS and CNN combined equal Fox and local foxes ratings. You're already wrong about "all the major papers" and hollywood is biased towards making money with the vast majority of hollywood films being about talking animals or aliens attacking us. Next.
Now, that's not to say that these organizations are all Communists. On the contrary, I find most of them to be moderate liberals, but very, VERY convinced of their own correctness, viewing it as a favor to the world to educate them on the truth.
I think you need to be aware of your bias when your calling the vast majority of all media left leaning. Maybe you're just right leaning and disagree with reality.
Seriously? Yes it does. There are countless health issues that arise with obesity. The most obvious is probably diabetes, but there are myriad others. Being proactive in dealing with these issues certainly reduces the long term cost of them, but the fact is you can't prevent them all.
Of course I'm talking about obesity. Merely being overweight is far less of an issue, and the standards for "overweight" are actually pretty easy to meet.
The spending normalisation or the stimulus?
The stimulus. It's unclear if it was necessary.
He's got nothing on the insanity of foxes infotainment section.
That's just false. He certainly doesn't have the audience, but when it comes to vitriolic hatred, he's far, FAR worse than any of the conservatives. Even the right-wingers at SNL have acknowledged that in the composition of their skits.
He's a raving madman.
hollywood is biased towards making money with the vast majority of hollywood films being about talking animals or aliens attacking us.
I can see that there's no point in even trying to debate this. You're completely out of phase with reality. Name one movie with a right-wing bias, and I'll show you how it's not, and then find ten that are liberal biased. And I can do it all day. It's because EVERY movie out of Hollywood is liberal biased.
But let's not even bother with Hollywood. Let's stick to journalism. It's pretty much accepted fact that journalists are left of center politcally:
"There is also some evidence of an ideological divide in media usage. Republicans, for example, are more likely to regularly tune into the Fox News Channel, and Democrats more likely to set the remote for CNN."
And you're claiming CNN is neutral. It's just laughable.
So, whatever. You can have your opinion. But NUMEROUS non-partisan organizations disagree with you.
Universities are liberally biased.
Yeah, and they STILL admit the media has a liberal bias.
Olberman is a shadow of O'Rielly or Beck. He's got nothing on the insanity of foxes infotainment section.
I actually kind of feel sorry for O'Rielly. He's a much more reasonable guy than Beck and Rush, who are completely off their rockers. Granted he's still super conservative despite his attempts to appear moderate (no spin zone, funny), but he's no where near the Beck and Rush league of crazy.
As for the Tea Party, I actually think Fox makes them look worse than they really are. There was one at my university last year, and it was actually pretty tame compared to other rally's we'd had the year prior around election time.
Fox is like the Westboro Baptist Church. They make all conservatives look bad It is indeed yellow journalism. Probably the best example of it available right now. Though I wouldn't say they fabricate as much as take something and blow it completely out of proportion and wrap it in some crazy conspiracy theory that doesn't make much sense.
I'm convinced they're usually stupid
That's a little unfair. Most people are stupid, regardless of political ideology. I know people who still can't do 2 + 2 (seriously). I suck at math but not that badly. Both sides have a tendency of finding the dumbest examples of the other they possibly can and then they milk it for all its worth.
hollywood is biased towards making money with the vast majority of hollywood films being about talking animals or aliens attacking us.
I think he was referring to how Hollywood as a group tends to espouse left leaning ideals, both in film and out of it. Not every films does so. A lot are as you say just films. But there are a lot of films produced that thinly line themselves with left leaning rhetoric.
Maybe you're just right leaning and disagree with reality.
So, because he disagrees he's out of touch with reality? That doesn't seem biased to you (and I saw your comment too Phyx same goes for you)? A lot of people would argue your out of touch with reality, and then we end up in the endless debate of what truths and facts constitute reality. Arguing about what reality is is a pointless line of discussion as it relates to anything but an actual discussion on reality. EDIT: I'm actually pretty sure that's a logical fallacy...
Seriously? Yes it does. There are countless health issues that arise with obesity. The most obvious is probably diabetes, but there are myriad others. Being proactive in dealing with these issues certainly reduces the long term cost of them, but the fact is you can't prevent them all.
Please stop misquoting me. This is what I actually posted.
People being fat doesn't cause anything and preventative care significantly reduces the chances of becoming diabetic or experiencing heart disease. Thats how preventative care helps. By preventing the problem, which are the diseases being fat causes, not being fat. Being fat doesn't really do much but drive down productivity but drive up consumer spending which ends up being kind of a wash.
Stop doing that.
The stimulus. It's unclear if it was necessary.
Yes, people have said that about every single stimulus bill in the countries history.
That's just false. He certainly doesn't have the audience, but when it comes to vitriolic hatred, he's far, FAR worse than any of the conservatives. Even the right-wingers at SNL have acknowledged that in the composition of their skits.
He's a raving madman.
No. This is a raving madman. If you can't tell the difference then you need mental help.
I can see that there's no point in even trying to debate this. You're completely out of phase with reality.
Yes. I'm the one.
It's pretty much accepted fact that journalists are left of center politcally:
"There is also some evidence of an ideological divide in media usage. Republicans, for example, are more likely to regularly tune into the Fox News Channel, and Democrats more likely to set the remote for CNN."
And you're claiming CNN is neutral. It's just laughable.
So, whatever. You can have your opinion. But NUMEROUS non-partisan organizations disagree with you.
You only posted one non partisan organization and NUMEROUS non-partisan organizations also DISAGREE with you. I said that there was an even slant though, so I'm not sure what kind of magic juice your on. Please stop misquoting me.
Interestingly enough, the political leanings of journalists do not part in parcel reflect the political leanings of popular media. The book whose information you are siting "The American Journalist in the 21st Century: US News People at the Dawn of a New Millenium" used a sample of of 1,500 journalists from "Print, news, and online journalism". Thats a terrifically small sample size for any sort of accurate appraisal of the political leanings of a highly dispersed industry. It's findings are also misleading, political views within journalists to not necessarily abjectly effect coverage and goes along with advertising and corporate bias which are just as powerful on the editors table.
The propaganda model posits that advertising dollars are essential for funding most media sources and clearly have an effect on the content of the media. For example, according to Fair, ‘When Al Gore proposed launching a progressive TV network, a Fox News executive told Advertising Age (10/13/03): "The problem with being associated as liberal is that they wouldn't be going in a direction that advertisers are really interested in.... If you go out and say that you are a liberal network, you are cutting your potential audience, and certainly your potential advertising pool, right off the bat.”[6] Furthermore “an internal memo from ABC Radio Networks to its affiliates reveals scores of powerful sponsors have a standing order that their commercials never be placed on syndicated Air America programming that airs on ABC affiliates…. The list, totaling 90 advertisers, includes some of largest and most well-known corporations advertising in the U.S.: Wal-Mart, GE, Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Bank of America, Fed-Ex, Visa, Allstate, McDonald's, Sony and Johnson & Johnson. The U.S. Postal Service and the U.S. Navy are also listed as advertisers who don't want their commercials to air on Air America.”[7]
I know it's fun to report on the liberal bias, but it's funny how you never hear the corporate bias being reported.
Yeah, and they STILL admit the media has a liberal bias.
I was being sarcastic and if you're going to make a blanket assertion support it with a link or something. Or does that still make you sick?
Automatically Appended Next Post lord hat lord hat lord hat:
That's a little unfair. Most people are stupid, regardless of political ideology. I know people who still can't do 2 + 2 (seriously). I suck at math but not that badly. Both sides have a tendency of finding the dumbest examples of the other they possibly can and then they milk it for all its worth.
And how many films are out there exposing/blowing up the communist threat? Or have leftist megalomaniacs attempting to take over the world? Hollywood films tend to have a populist leaning which typically emphasizes the fight against corporate greed, environmental destruction, rampant militarism, or dogmatic and violent idealism. These aren't really conservative points though. Movies/documentaries like bowling for columbine certainly do have a leftist slant, but in the same vein shows like 24 have a conservative one. Movies appear to have a leftist bias but thats largely attributable to the concepts of progressivism and utopianism as they relate to movies. Avatar wasn't liberally biased, it just hated militarism and corporate greed, which I'm pretty sure is part of the tea party platform checklist of things it hates.
So, because he disagrees he's out of touch with reality? That doesn't seem biased to you (and I saw your comment too Phyx same goes for you)? A lot of people would argue your out of touch with reality, and then we end up in the endless debate of what truths and facts constitute reality. Arguing about what reality is is a pointless line of discussion as it relates to anything but an actual discussion on reality.
I was most responding to his assertion that I was out of touch with reality. We do that to eachother a lot.
And how many films are out there exposing/blowing up the communist threat? Or have leftist megalomaniacs attempting to take over the world? Hollywood films tend to have a populist leaning which typically emphasizes the fight against corporate greed, environmental destruction, rampant militarism, or dogmatic and violent idealism. These aren't really conservative points though. Movies/documentaries like bowling for columbine certainly do have a leftist slant, but in the same vein shows like 24 have a conservative one. Movies appear to have a leftist bias but thats largely attributable to the concepts of progressivism and utopianism as they relate to movies.
Most of the things you listed are typically considered part of the liberal platform, so I don't really see how portraying those things constantly isn't a left lean. Though I see your point that it may be more populist related than an effort on part of Hollywood to be liberal.
which I'm pretty sure is part of the tea party platform checklist of things it hates
It's a little premature for that. The Tea Party movement is too young and too varied at the moment to make any concrete statements about it's ideology or beliefs beyond the most basic elements of the movement; fiscal conservatism and anti-incumbent sentiment. I honestly doubt we'll see any real push for a unified platform for Tea Partiers until after the november elections, when the movement either makes or breaks. A lot of groups right now claim to represent the entirety of the Tea Party but there are just too many individual bands and in some cases mobs. I've been saying since last year when they first started showing up that we're going to need to wait for mid-2011 to really see what path the TP is going to take in the long hall if it lasts that long.
And how many films are out there exposing/blowing up the communist threat? Or have leftist megalomaniacs attempting to take over the world? Hollywood films tend to have a populist leaning which typically emphasizes the fight against corporate greed, environmental destruction, rampant militarism, or dogmatic and violent idealism. These aren't really conservative points though. Movies/documentaries like bowling for columbine certainly do have a leftist slant, but in the same vein shows like 24 have a conservative one. Movies appear to have a leftist bias but thats largely attributable to the concepts of progressivism and utopianism as they relate to movies.
Most of the things you listed are typically considered part of the liberal platform, so I don't really see how portraying those things constantly isn't a left lean. Though I see your point that it may be more populist related than an effort on part of Hollywood to be liberal.
which I'm pretty sure is part of the tea party platform checklist of things it hates
It's a little premature for that. The Tea Party movement is too young and too varied at the moment to make any concrete statements about it's ideology or beliefs beyond the most basic elements of the movement; fiscal conservatism and anti-incumbent sentiment. I honestly doubt we'll see any real push for a unified platform for Tea Partiers until after the november elections, when the movement either makes or breaks. A lot of groups right now claim to represent the entirety of the Tea Party but there are just too many individual bands and in some cases mobs. I've been saying since last year when they first started showing up that we're going to need to wait for mid-2011 to really see what path the TP is going to take in the long hall if it lasts that long.
Yes, but I dont think their platform is going to be pro corporate greed or rampant militarism. My point was that these aren't left or right ideological points. No ones really a fan of corporate exploitation or genocide, nor is anyone a fan of overt non sensical military force. If conservatives see themselves represented in such villainous events thats on them. Also the reduction of militarism and anti corporate greed are on the tea party platform, it's just not really a very sensical platform and it tends to change depending on which tea partier you are talking too. They seem to hate all "bad" things, even when those things conflict with one another.
I probably could have used a different example then avatar. Both the Island and Irobot were exploratory films into the dangers of progressivism and technology while critiquing the out of control corporate entity at the same time. The small government movement is very well represented in films alongside the anti corporate line.
My point was that these aren't left or right ideological points. No ones really a fan of corporate exploitation or genocide, nor is anyone a fan of overt non sensical military force. If conservatives see themselves represented in such villainous events thats on them.
I think its that they view what seems to them a constant outpouring of films where corporate executives are evil by their own nature as an assault on the idea of free market capitalism and liberal propaganda, and that films portraying US troops doing bad things as unpatriotic and an assault on the troops. It's part of the storm of rhetoric that is overwhelming US politics where one side automatically reacts to what the other one does even without thinking. Whether or not that is the case isn't really registering to them as they live in a country that is slowly moving away from the ideals the beliefs they hold true, leaving them with a feeling of isolation and that the government doesn't care about them. It's probably one of the factors that contributes to how well Fox does in the ratings. Conservatives feel as if all these factors are being stacked against them, and Fox tells them that it's true in a very fantastic manner.
Kind of like a group think daddy doesn't love me complex that's been building over the past 20 years.
Also the reduction of militarism and anti corporate greed are on the tea party platform, it's just not really a very sensical platform and it tends to change depending on which tea partier you are talking too. They seem to hate all "bad" things, even when those things conflict with one another.
Hence why it's too early to make any statements. They haven't reached a level of organization to have a Tea Part platform. They're at the stage where they're going back and forth with each other about what the problems are and natural selection will gradually cut everything is bad down to an actually platform. The movement has to last for that to happen, and independent voters are very fickle people.
How much of your lifestyle was funded by your parents or the government? Also when was this? 1935?
1359?
.
.
.
.
BC?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Vene wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Da Boss wrote:Wow, that's...that's one hell of a sentiment.
Its reality. You can't live on that amount, and at that level I can get better employees.
Wait, whats wrong with the statement in the first place? If you don't like the crap wages that are minimimum wage you improve your skills so you can get a better business.
thats why we have universities, technical schools, training programs, and union based journeyman programs. Thats how its supposed to work.
And it doesn't work, I'm college educated and getting paid gak because the economy is so bad. And how is somebody on minimum wage supposed to be able to afford to survive as well as go to school?
Go to school part time. Relying on the minimum wage to survive is not going to work. In the words of the Immortal Bard: "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life son."
I did a degree at evening classes while I worked full time as a mid-level manager.
Exactly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vene wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Vene wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Da Boss wrote:Wow, that's...that's one hell of a sentiment.
Its reality. You can't live on that amount, and at that level I can get better employees.
Wait, whats wrong with the statement in the first place? If you don't like the crap wages that are minimimum wage you improve your skills so you can get a better business.
thats why we have universities, technical schools, training programs, and union based journeyman programs. Thats how its supposed to work.
And it doesn't work, I'm college educated and getting paid gak because the economy is so bad. And how is somebody on minimum wage supposed to be able to afford to survive as well as go to school?
Go to school part time. Relying on the minimum wage to survive is not going to work. In the words of the Immortal Bard: "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life son."
Explain to me how having a degree in chemistry makes me stupid. Oh, and just to be clear, I do make more than min. wage in the States, but min wage in some other industrialized nations is greater than my pay.
You just said you make more than minimum wage so you're not in the equation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
BTW, I have taken classes in economics and statistics.
No offense, but it really doesn't appear that way.
You just said you make more than minimum wage so you're not in the equation.
Thats not the point though. The suggestion is that if someone with a degree in a technical field ( same degree as me, btw) makes less than the minimum wage in some other prosperous nations, then perhaps we should look critically at the minimum wage in this country and why people are compensated what they are. I think we need to ask if the market is working the way we want it to.
You just said you make more than minimum wage so you're not in the equation.
Thats not the point though. The suggestion is that if someone with a degree in a technical field ( same degree as me, btw) makes less than the minimum wage in some other prosperous nations, then perhaps we should look critically at the minimum wage in this country and why people are compensated what they are. I think we need to ask if the market is working the way we want it to.
1. Not appropriate. You have to compare costs and income streams between countries.
2. So what? What are you going to do about it? Life sucks, then you die, usually horribly and alone.
(Frazzled bringing a ray of sunshine to every thread)
You just said you make more than minimum wage so you're not in the equation.
Thats not the point though. The suggestion is that if someone with a degree in a technical field ( same degree as me, btw) makes less than the minimum wage in some other prosperous nations, then perhaps we should look critically at the minimum wage in this country and why people are compensated what they are. I think we need to ask if the market is working the way we want it to.
1. Not appropriate. You have to compare costs and income streams between countries.
2. So what? What are you going to do about it? Life sucks, then you die, usually horribly and alone.
(Frazzled bringing a ray of sunshine to every thread)
I'm not good at this, are you being facetious or serious? I have difficulty picking up on that face to face and certainly over text.
You just said you make more than minimum wage so you're not in the equation.
Thats not the point though. The suggestion is that if someone with a degree in a technical field ( same degree as me, btw) makes less than the minimum wage in some other prosperous nations, then perhaps we should look critically at the minimum wage in this country and why people are compensated what they are. I think we need to ask if the market is working the way we want it to.
1. Not appropriate. You have to compare costs and income streams between countries.
2. So what? What are you going to do about it? Life sucks, then you die, usually horribly and alone.
(Frazzled bringing a ray of sunshine to every thread)
I'm not good at this, are you being facetious or serious? I have difficulty picking up on that face to face and certainly over text.
Serious. I always bring a ray on sunshine to every thread.
To the topic. You can't compare salaries across countries (or regions for that matter-technical tip guys!) unless you compare costs of living. It has to be an apples to apples comparison.
but assume thats correct. So what? Again what are you going to do about it? You have two options: 1) Whine and bitch, or 2) improve your condition. No one is going to help you. Baby Jebus loves you but no else cares.
I agree with Shuma, the media is about 50/50, but Fox News is all kinds of crazy.
Ive been following them for years actually, i kinda stalk them. Ive seen all the videos, and that one Shuma posted is funny gak as well. I kinda got fascinated with them when i lived over in the US because i think the right wing media is truly ludicrous over there.
Im right wing myself, i mean, i love the military, im sick of immigrants, i hate hippies and pinkos... but gak, the USA has all kinda of crazy mo fos polluting their airways. And having only the BBC over here i have always found them US style guys to be great viewing!
But because they are ludicrous, so ludicrous that i find it hilarious.
My missus votes Dem as well, and she finds it bizzare that i love Hannitys radio show, listen to Glenn Beck and Bill O Reilly et al (oh an Micheal Savage, now theres a nice chap) They make me laugh my ass of they are so bat gak crazy.
Anyway, this makes me think though...
Is a reason that they get good ratings possibly because people like me (who disagree with 80% of what they say) still enjoy listening to them?
mattyrm wrote:I agree with Shuma, the media is about 50/50, but Fox News is all kinds of crazy.
Ive been following them for years actually, i kinda stalk them. Ive seen all the videos, and that one Shuma posted is funny gak as well. I kinda got fascinated with them when i lived over in the US because i think the right wing media is truly ludicrous over there.
Im right wing myself, i mean, i love the military, im sick of immigrants, i hate hippies and pinkos... but gak, the USA has all kinda of crazy mo fos polluting their airways. And having only the BBC over here i have always found them US style guys to be great viewing!
But because they are ludicrous, so ludicrous that i find it hilarious.
My missus votes Dem as well, and she finds it bizzare that i love Hannitys radio show, listen to Glenn Beck and Bill O Reilly et al (oh an Micheal Savage, now theres a nice chap) They make me laugh my ass of they are so bat gak crazy.
Anyway, this makes me think though...
Is a reason that they get good ratings possibly because people like me (who disagree with 80% of what they say) still enjoy listening to them?
Frankly I don't like any political commentator like that regardless of politics. I don't like Hannity, I can't stand Michael Moore ( hypocrite ), and I think Glenn Beck is almost dangerous. I can tolerate Limbaugh and O'Reilly, but I don't make a point of listening to them.
Also, wing politics are probably different between the U.S. and Europe.
My missus votes Dem as well, and she finds it bizzare that i love Hannitys radio show, listen to Glenn Beck and Bill O Reilly et al (oh an Micheal Savage, now theres a nice chap) They make me laugh my ass of they are so bat gak crazy.
Agreed. I like OReilly because I respect holes, but can't stand most commentators, left or right. I hate Beck and Hannity with a passion. Anyone on MSNBC makes me want to hunt them Predator style.
I do like Beyond the Beltway and Fox's Sunday morning. I used to love Meet the Oppressed (Tim Russert was a titan among dwarves).
http://www.beyondthebeltway.com/
Frazzled wrote:
Serious. I always bring a ray on sunshine to every thread.
To the topic. You can't compare salaries across countries (or regions for that matter-technical tip guys!) unless you compare costs of living. It has to be an apples to apples comparison.
but assume thats correct. So what? Again what are you going to do about it? You have two options: 1) Whine and bitch, or 2) improve your condition. No one is going to help you. Baby Jebus loves you but no else cares.
Alright, I'll give you that, but is it unreasonable to compare salaries across countries with similar costs and standards of living to ours.
First off, I'm not unhappy about my condition. I consider myself very fortunate to have what I have. I realize, that everything good could disappear at a moment's notice. A storm could level my house. I could come down with cancer. I could be laid off ( I doubt that where I work, but it is possible ). I realize that there is a certain responsibility to prepare for those things. I have insurance on my home, and fortunately I get insurance from my employer for my health ( This has been critical for my family, and since I know others don't have this, this is why I support public option health coverage), and I keep my resume up to date. There are some things, however, no one can reasonably prepare for. This is why we have the social safety net. I don't know about you, but I'm willing to give up a little so that everyone has some degree of security.
How are people supposed to improve their condition if they can't get money to start with. For instance, you know a whole lot better than I do that if you have 400000$ spread out in, say, no load mutual funds, high yield CD's, and muni's, just to use an example, you're going to make a lot more money than my measly 4000 dollars in Fidelity Contrafund. It isn't just a matter of return, you're going to be able to do things like have collateral to borrow to increase your holdings. If you're in poverty, none of that has any practical meaning to you, if you understand it at all.
Yes, whining and bitching is an option. That is what people do when they see something wrong. If I order a Big Mac at McDonalds, but I get one of those thin crappy cheeseburgers, I'm going to complain about not getting what I paid for.
The fact that I'm doing ok has made me look out and see that things are not just. I am going to moan and bitch and try to do something about things that aren't right.
Whining an bitching is an option, but at the end of the day it doesn't improve your condition.
Whining and pitching that the other guy has more money doesn't improve your condition. Again life sucks. They won life's lotto and you (and I) didn't. We can't do anything about where we started, but we can influence where we end up, and more importantly where our children start.
Now of course if you are taking steps to improve your condition or, more importantly, the lives of your children, then its ok to whine and bitch, as long as it doesn't distract you.
I know from my point of view, I look at a lot of other countries and think 'I would give my right arm to live there', like New Zealand, Australia and the US - I find myself envious of the lifestyle, culture and weather.
But when you actually consider emigration and go into it in some detail, you actually find out that you aren't as worse off as you think.
Frazzled wrote:Whining an bitching is an option, but at the end of the day it doesn't improve your condition.
Whining and pitching that the other guy has more money doesn't improve your condition. Again life sucks. They won life's lotto and you (and I) didn't. We can't do anything about where we started, but we can influence where we end up, and more importantly where our children start.
Now of course if you are taking steps to improve your condition or, more importantly, the lives of your children, then its ok to whine and bitch, as long as it doesn't distract you.
No, no, that isn't really what I'm trying to say. This isn't about worrying about how much money the other guy has, nor is it crying about not being able to afford a new big screen TV. It's about whether the other guy can eat and feed his family. In terms of self interest, its about knowing that everything good in your life can disappear, and the desire to give up a little now to insure that there is something for everyone to fall back on.
How exactly are people going to improve their condition if they can't get the resources to even get started? Do you disagree that poverty can be self perpetuating?
How exactly are people going to improve their condition if they can't get the resources to even get started? Do you disagree that poverty can be self perpetuating?
How exactly are people going to improve their condition if they can't get the resources to even get started? Do you disagree that poverty can be self perpetuating?
Its irrelevant. Thats not the US.
That doesn't answer the questions. What makes that not the U.S.? I don't understand what you're getting at here, isn't this why we vote?
How exactly are people going to improve their condition if they can't get the resources to even get started? Do you disagree that poverty can be self perpetuating?
Its irrelevant. Thats not the US.
That doesn't answer the questions. What makes that not the U.S.? I don't understand what you're getting at here, isn't this why we vote?
No one is in that state in the US, hence why its irrelevant.
Outside of the US, yep its different and hard. Thats wehy we have 20MM illegal aliens here. Conditions where thats at don't have minimum wage laws though, so again, its not relevant to the discussion. Wait this is way off whatever the OT is as well, so I guess it is!
How exactly are people going to improve their condition if they can't get the resources to even get started? Do you disagree that poverty can be self perpetuating?
Its irrelevant. Thats not the US.
That doesn't answer the questions. What makes that not the U.S.? I don't understand what you're getting at here, isn't this why we vote?
No one is in that state in the US, hence why its irrelevant.
Outside of the US, yep its different and hard. Thats wehy we have 20MM illegal aliens here. Conditions where thats at don't have minimum wage laws though, so again, its not relevant to the discussion. Wait this is way off whatever the OT is as well, so I guess it is!
What do you mean no one is in that state in the US. I see some pretty deep poverty where I live, not to mention people who are homeless. For that matter, there are plenty of uninsured middle income people who are one accident away from disaster. I think there are plenty of people right here at home who are going to have a heck of a time getting out of the poverty trap.
Please stop misquoting me. This is what I actually posted.
I didn't misquote you. You said that preventative care can prevent the diseases caused by being fat. It can't. That's false. It can reduce them, limit their impact, but if a person is obese it WILL eventually make them sick, and our current science is simply not capable of preventing it.
No. This is a raving madman. If you can't tell the difference then you need mental help.
I was unaware that only one person in the world could be a raving madman at any given time.
Logical fallacy. You lose.
Also, how much do you actually listen to Glenn Beck? Not to montages of him, but to his actual show?
I never watch his TV show, but his radio show is on when I drive home. He's really pretty placid. He certainly has strong, sometimes insane opinions, but his presentation is generally placid, humorous, or boo-hoo emotional. There's really very little anger and yelling, if any at all.
Limbaugh is similar, mostly placid, some humor, the occasional rant. Similar to Olbermann but less vitriolic, more "aw shucks." Hannity is much less capable of humor. He just sorta drums home talking points in stacatto, but also, not really a yeller.
Olbermann is a fuming yeller. He gets REAL angry (or at least portrays it as part of his act). He also has a lot of humor as well in his show, but he seems to feel that portraying anger is a valid means of getting his point across.
Yes. I'm the one.
Right, because even though I have support from journalism.org, the Pew Reasearch Center, and any number of other polling organizations, I'm the one that doesn't get it.
Nobody agrees with you, except for the far left fringe, people like Noam Chomsky.
NUMEROUS non-partisan organizations also DISAGREE with you
What, like MediaMatters? They're "non-partisan?" Are you trolling now?
If conservatives see themselves represented in such villainous events thats on them.
Please, dude. Do you WATCH movies? It's not just the events in the film, there's always a little dig thrown in to make sure the viewer knows who the badguy is. Even in movies you'd think were just plain old movies, no politics at all, they find a way.
I just watched "Edge of Darkness" the other night. Pretty generic "government/corporations are evil" conspiracy movie, but there's also an evil Senator in it. He's a snobbish, effete sort of guy from Massachusetts. What party is he? Why a Republican, of course. A Republican Senator from Massachusetts. Cause, you know, if you're just trying to pick a logical party for "Massachusetts Senator" the one that jumps out is "Republican."
How, exactly, is that "on me?" The movie specifically told me that the villain was a Republican. I didn't have to guess, based on his tie color. It TOLD me he was a Republican.
Frazzled wrote:No in is in that state in the US. You're talking about not being able to survive. There are far too many programs insuring that is not the case.
Thats assuming people have access to those programs, but that is beside the point.
But earlier you said that minimum wage shouldn't be enough to survive on. Also, this gets back to what you mentioned about comparing apples and oranges. I'm sure that there isn't any comparison between poverty on a worldwide scale and poverty in the United States. It also costs more to get by here than in, say, Chad, so the definitions of poverty are completely different.
I think we should be shooting a little higher than bare survival. Sure, if you are uninsured and you have to have medical care, they'll treat you. You'll just be broke the rest of your life. People who are poor tend to stay poor because of the self perpetuating nature of poverty. If you're poor, you probably came from a poor family, which means you'll probably have other things to deal with growing up than staying in school. You might well have to drop out of high school to care for a child or relative. If you have a mental illness, which are highly overrepresented in the homeless, you probably won't receive effective care for it. This all compounds into a cycle.
Lets set aside the utterly destitute for a moment and talk about the middle income range. College is getting more and more expensive, which means its harder to save up for. So much spending in the past few years was generated from debt, not wealth, so I question if real incomes were ever increasing at all over the years.
How can people improve themselves when they're unemployed and the jobs just aren't there?
Please stop misquoting me. This is what I actually posted.
I didn't misquote you. You said that preventative care can prevent the diseases caused by being fat. It can't. That's false. It can reduce them, limit their impact, but if a person is obese it WILL eventually make them sick, and our current science is simply not capable of preventing it.
No. This is a raving madman. If you can't tell the difference then you need mental help.
I was unaware that only one person in the world could be a raving madman at any given time.
Logical fallacy. You lose.
Also, how much do you actually listen to Glenn Beck? Not to montages of him, but to his actual show?
I never watch his TV show, but his radio show is on when I drive home. He's really pretty placid. He certainly has strong, sometimes insane opinions, but his presentation is generally placid, humorous, or boo-hoo emotional. There's really very little anger and yelling, if any at all.
Limbaugh is similar, mostly placid, some humor, the occasional rant. Similar to Olbermann but less vitriolic, more "aw shucks." Hannity is much less capable of humor. He just sorta drums home talking points in stacatto, but also, not really a yeller.
Olbermann is a fuming yeller. He gets REAL angry (or at least portrays it as part of his act). He also has a lot of humor as well in his show, but he seems to feel that portraying anger is a valid means of getting his point across.
Yes. I'm the one.
Right, because even though I have support from journalism.org, the Pew Reasearch Center, and any number of other polling organizations, I'm the one that doesn't get it.
Nobody agrees with you, except for the far left fringe, people like Noam Chomsky.
NUMEROUS non-partisan organizations also DISAGREE with you
What, like MediaMatters? They're "non-partisan?" Are you trolling now?
If conservatives see themselves represented in such villainous events thats on them.
Please, dude. Do you WATCH movies? It's not just the events in the film, there's always a little dig thrown in to make sure the viewer knows who the badguy is. Even in movies you'd think were just plain old movies, no politics at all, they find a way.
I just watched "Edge of Darkness" the other night. Pretty generic "government/corporations are evil" conspiracy movie, but there's also an evil Senator in it. He's a snobbish, effete sort of guy from Massachusetts. What party is he? Why a Republican, of course. A Republican Senator from Massachusetts. Cause, you know, if you're just trying to pick a logical party for "Massachusetts Senator" the one that jumps out is "Republican."
How, exactly, is that "on me?" The movie specifically told me that the villain was a Republican. I didn't have to guess, based on his tie color. It TOLD me he was a Republican.
And that's a MEL GIBSON movie...
I think i might have jumped onto too powerful of a crazy grenade.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think its that they view what seems to them a constant outpouring of films where corporate executives are evil by their own nature as an assault on the idea of free market capitalism and liberal propaganda, and that films portraying US troops doing bad things as unpatriotic and an assault on the troops.
What movies are showing u.s. troops as evil? In the vast majority they are the heros of the films (in transformers for instance they save the day despite a limp wristed democratic leadership attempting to hold them back). Corporations have always been a pretty good target for films though, populism tends to sell tickets and there is no time in history where america wasn't willing to demonize big business. I wouldn't really consider it a leftist slant, corporate business is just a punching bag for the little guy.
It's part of the storm of rhetoric that is overwhelming US politics where one side automatically reacts to what the other one does even without thinking. Whether or not that is the case isn't really registering to them as they live in a country that is slowly moving away from the ideals the beliefs they hold true, leaving them with a feeling of isolation and that the government doesn't care about them. It's probably one of the factors that contributes to how well Fox does in the ratings. Conservatives feel as if all these factors are being stacked against them, and Fox tells them that it's true in a very fantastic manner.
Kind of like a group think daddy doesn't love me complex that's been building over the past 20 years.
I've never really understood the mindset of people that believe American values are under assault. A fairly casual historical look will show that we're doing better than we were during many of the darker times of the last 100 years. I kind of like Fight Clubs take on the issue, this generation has no great war or great depression, it's war is a spiritual one, and its fought in the mind between the haves and the have nots. America always needs some great enemy to rally against, and when we have no great enemy we become it ourselves.
Hence why it's too early to make any statements. They haven't reached a level of organization to have a Tea Part platform. They're at the stage where they're going back and forth with each other about what the problems are and natural selection will gradually cut everything is bad down to an actually platform. The movement has to last for that to happen, and independent voters are very fickle
I don't really think thats true. They've already made a significant impact on local elections and come the lower elections I suspect that they will grab a few seats even without a sensical platform. Being outside the establishment is enough to garner votes in this political environment, even without a platform.
Grignard wrote:How can people improve themselves when they're unemployed and the jobs just aren't there?
Last I heard, libraries allow free access to books for self improvement and learning. Also just because a desired job that allows a person the quality of life that they think they deserve or are conditioned to believe they are entitled to are unavailable, doesn't mean that one can't downgrade to lower wager jobs or multiple jobs.
I find the disregard for entrepenuership and creativity disturbing. I paid for my first year of college by walking to every house asking for any work, be it basic "handyman" (move my furnature, hang this pictures, patch a hole in my drywall, paint this room, etc), lawn mowing, snow shoveling, or any other bits of scrap jobs. Did it suck? Yup. Did I get to enjoy anything fun other than a few hours of TV or games, or a night out with the friends once every other week? Nope. Did I get by? Yup. (Yes I did file all of that earned cash on my taxes)
Grignard wrote:How can you work harder when your hours are cut?
Last I heard, libraries allow free access to books for self improvement and learning. Also just because a desired job that allows a person the quality of life that they think they deserve or are conditioned to believe they are entitled to are unavailable, doesn't mean that one can't downgrade to lower wager jobs or multiple jobs.
Self training programs don't typically give degrees or marks of completion that are required for better paying jobs. They're great for self motivation or preparation for training, but they are a poor substitute for actual schooling.
Grignard wrote:Lets set aside the utterly destitute for a moment and talk about the middle income range. College is getting more and more expensive, which means its harder to save up for. So much spending in the past few years was generated from debt, not wealth, so I question if real incomes were ever increasing at all over the years.
And, as I tried to point out (and you caught onto), that debt is becoming harder and harder to pay off, what with graduates getting pitiful wages.
Edit:
Oh, and Frazzled, there's something I can do about it. I can go to a more prosperous country. But, there's a problem with that for the US as a whole, brain drain. I've already contributed to it in my home state of Michigan because there was absolutely nothing there, and Michigan is having serious problems with educated people leaving. It's good for me, it's good for the country I move to, but bad for the US.
Grignard wrote:Lets set aside the utterly destitute for a moment and talk about the middle income range. College is getting more and more expensive, which means its harder to save up for. So much spending in the past few years was generated from debt, not wealth, so I question if real incomes were ever increasing at all over the years.
And, as I tried to point out (and you caught onto), that debt is becoming harder and harder to pay off, what with graduates getting pitiful wages.
Edit: Oh, and Frazzled, there's something I can do about it. I can go to a more prosperous country. But, there's a problem with that for the US as a whole, brain drain. I've already contributed to it in my home state of Michigan because there was absolutely nothing there, and Michigan is having serious problems with educated people leaving. It's good for me, it's good for the country I move to, but bad for the US.
Average wages in RPB in the U.S. are higher than in most western countries, we're renowned for it. You could go to Oman or switzerland, but you're going to have a learn a new language.
Last I heard, libraries allow free access to books for self improvement and learning. Also just because a desired job that allows a person the quality of life that they think they deserve or are conditioned to believe they are entitled to are unavailable, doesn't mean that one can't downgrade to lower wager jobs or multiple jobs.
Self training programs don't typically give degrees or marks of completion that are required for better paying jobs. They're great for self motivation or preparation for training, but they are a poor substitute for actual schooling.
True, and it leads to CLEPing a class towards a college degree, look it up. Now combine self taught knowledge with starting your own enterprise, where does it say, anywhere , that you have to have a degree to start your own business.
Last I heard, libraries allow free access to books for self improvement and learning. Also just because a desired job that allows a person the quality of life that they think they deserve or are conditioned to believe they are entitled to are unavailable, doesn't mean that one can't downgrade to lower wager jobs or multiple jobs.
Self training programs don't typically give degrees or marks of completion that are required for better paying jobs. They're great for self motivation or preparation for training, but they are a poor substitute for actual schooling.
True, and it leads to CLEPing a class towards a college degree, look it up. Now combine self taught knowledge with starting your own enterprise, where does it say, anywhere , that you have to have a degree to start your own business.
EDIT: grammar/spelling
A CLEP test, which you have to pay for. As for starting a business, not everyone has talent for it. So if you don't have the people skills or knowledge to start a business then you just deserve to be poor?
Last I heard, libraries allow free access to books for self improvement and learning. Also just because a desired job that allows a person the quality of life that they think they deserve or are conditioned to believe they are entitled to are unavailable, doesn't mean that one can't downgrade to lower wager jobs or multiple jobs.
Self training programs don't typically give degrees or marks of completion that are required for better paying jobs. They're great for self motivation or preparation for training, but they are a poor substitute for actual schooling.
True, and it leads to CLEPing a class towards a college degree, look it up. Now combine self taught knowledge with starting your own enterprise, where does it say, anywhere , that you have to have a degree to start your own business.
EDIT: grammar/spelling
Businesses require startup capital, and thats hard to attain without relevant degrees or certifications. Banks are stingy these days for obvious reasons.
Grignard wrote:A CLEP test, which you have to pay for.
I didn't say it was free, however it is cheaper than for the equivalent of a semester of CLEPs than a semester's worth of tuition.
Grignard wrote:As for starting a business, not everyone has talent for it. So if you don't have the people skills or knowledge to start a business then you just deserve to be poor?
A lack of talent hasn't stopped anyone from being successful. If you don't have the initiative or will to provide for yourself or the foresight to plan ahead, then you deserve what you get.
To preempt the inevitable "What about handicaps, elderly, etc.." Since they are no longer apart of the workforce, they do not apply here.
ShumaGorath wrote: Businesses require startup capital, and that's hard to attain without relevant degrees or certifications. Banks are stingy these days for obvious reasons.
For the example I've listed from my personal experience it cost me $10 for a basic tool set from Salvation Army, and $40 for a push mower, gas, oil and a gas can.
For an official business:
bizlaw wrote:What is the cost to form an LLC? You will need to pay a fee for filing your Articles of Organization/Certificate of Organization. This fee varies by state, but it is usually between $50 and $200. If you have an attorney do this filing, it can cost you an additional $500 or more. If the attorney prepares the Operating Agreement, that will be another cost, probably $1000 or more.
For the example I've listed from my personal experience it cost me $10 for a basic tool set from Salvation Army, and $40 for a push mower, gas, oil and a gas can.
You're not seriously going to say that you put yourself through college by being the town lawnboy... Did you deliver newspapers too?
Grignard wrote:
A CLEP test, which you have to pay for. As for starting a business, not everyone has talent for it. So if you don't have the people skills or knowledge to start a business then you just deserve to be poor?
They don't deserve anything. they don't deserve to be poor. They don't deserve to be rich. There is no judgement of what should be.
For the example I've listed from my personal experience it cost me $10 for a basic tool set from Salvation Army, and $40 for a push mower, gas, oil and a gas can.
You're not seriously going to say that you put yourself through college by being the town lawnboy... Did you deliver newspapers too?
Uhhhh theres a 17 year old in our neighborhood (he does my lawn to) charges 25 bucks a lawn, does 4 lawns a day, mon-friday...
500 bucks a week is not bad considering.
1) he is 17
2) it takes him about 90 minutes per lawn, tops, so lets say 5 hours per day... (some lawns take him no more than 45 minutes)
So he is probably making around 20 dollars per hour, consider gas for all the equipment... so minus 1 dollar per lawn, he is making like 475 dollars a week, and its not taxed...
For the example I've listed from my personal experience it cost me $10 for a basic tool set from Salvation Army, and $40 for a push mower, gas, oil and a gas can.
You're not seriously going to say that you put yourself through college by being the town lawnboy... Did you deliver newspapers too?
Uhhhh theres a 17 year old in our neighborhood (he does my lawn to) charges 25 bucks a lawn, does 4 lawns a day, mon-friday...
500 bucks a week is not bad considering.
1) he is 17
2) it takes him about 90 minutes per lawn, tops, so lets say 5 hours per day... (some lawns take him no more than 45 minutes)
So he is probably making around 20 dollars per hour, consider gas for all the equipment... so minus 1 dollar per lawn, he is making like 475 dollars a week, and its not taxed...
For the example I've listed from my personal experience it cost me $10 for a basic tool set from Salvation Army, and $40 for a push mower, gas, oil and a gas can.
You're not seriously going to say that you put yourself through college by being the town lawnboy... Did you deliver newspapers too?
Uhhhh theres a 17 year old in our neighborhood (he does my lawn to) charges 25 bucks a lawn, does 4 lawns a day, mon-friday...
500 bucks a week is not bad considering.
1) he is 17
2) it takes him about 90 minutes per lawn, tops, so lets say 5 hours per day... (some lawns take him no more than 45 minutes)
So he is probably making around 20 dollars per hour, consider gas for all the equipment... so minus 1 dollar per lawn, he is making like 475 dollars a week, and its not taxed...
Damn. I only got 10 when I was working the lawns.
yeah my dad only gave me 10 bucks to do the lawn...
For the example I've listed from my personal experience it cost me $10 for a basic tool set from Salvation Army, and $40 for a push mower, gas, oil and a gas can.
You're not seriously going to say that you put yourself through college by being the town lawnboy... Did you deliver newspapers too?
No to the newspapers, but I did minor landscaping, int/ext painting and what I pitched as "Handymaning" (spring cleaning of the garage, heavy moving for frail old people, general maintainance, yard work, etc). It wasn't fabulous pay that allowed for that many luxuries, but it worked for what I needed to do.
For the example I've listed from my personal experience it cost me $10 for a basic tool set from Salvation Army, and $40 for a push mower, gas, oil and a gas can.
You're not seriously going to say that you put yourself through college by being the town lawnboy... Did you deliver newspapers too?
No to the newspapers, but I did minor landscaping, int/ext painting and what I pitched as "Handymaning" (spring cleaning of the garage, heavy moving for frail old people, general maintainance, yard work, etc). It wasn't fabulous pay that allowed for that many luxuries, but it worked for what I needed to do.
And you should be proud of that, but you can't expect your experiences to apply for everyone else.
I'm willing to bet you didn't have health insurance. What if you'd gotten very sick during that period. All of that money would have been gone, and you'd be in debt too. It still gets back to the fact that people who aren't natural entrepreneurs can contribute to society. In fact, the vast majority of the work being done isn't being done by self employed go getters like yourself, its done by people who work.
The problem is that the argument is built to be unfalsifiable. If you work hard you'll succeed, therefore if you don't succeed you didn't work hard enough. You're defining the second part by the first, so it has to be true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Grignard wrote:
A CLEP test, which you have to pay for. As for starting a business, not everyone has talent for it. So if you don't have the people skills or knowledge to start a business then you just deserve to be poor?
They don't deserve anything. they don't deserve to be poor. They don't deserve to be rich. There is no judgement of what should be.
Are you morally ok with living in a society of great wealth that just allows people to slip through the cracks?
Frazzled wrote:Morality is irrelevant. Its life. You play the hand you're dealt.
Except unlike cards, you can do a lot to change the odds... Either for good or for bad... There are some things you have no control over, but many you do....
You cant say slacking off in school and then dropping out was a hand dealt to you, you looked through the deck and chose a gakky hand in that case.
Frazzled wrote:Morality is irrelevant. Its life. You play the hand you're dealt.
Except unlike cards, you can do a lot to change the odds... Either for good or for bad... There are some things you have no control over, but many you do....
You cant say slacking off in school and then dropping out was a hand dealt to you, you looked through the deck and chose a gakky hand in that case.
Thats is true. As noted, you can only improve or fall from where you start, not where you wished you started or deserved to start. Is it fair (define fair)? yes, no, its still irrelevant.
Frazzled wrote:Morality is irrelevant. Its life. You play the hand you're dealt.
Except unlike cards, you can do a lot to change the odds... Either for good or for bad... There are some things you have no control over, but many you do....
You cant say slacking off in school and then dropping out was a hand dealt to you, you looked through the deck and chose a gakky hand in that case.
Thats is true. As noted, you can only improve or fall from where you start, not where you wished you started or deserved to start. Is it fair (define fair)? yes, no, its still irrelevant.
Yeah you get dealt one hand, when your born....
Through hard work and what not you can improve that hand.... Or through stupid decisions you can make it worse....
Every now and then you get thrown a joker (some idiot slams into the side of your car)
Grignard wrote:And you should be proud of that, but you can't expect your experiences to apply for everyone else.
It's repeatable, measureable and I'm not the first to do it. So I can expect that it will apply for everyone else provided they put in the same effort as I did or those who have done it before me.
Grignard wrote:I'm willing to bet you didn't have health insurance. What if you'd gotten very sick during that period. All of that money would have been gone, and you'd be in debt too.
What if, what if, what if, I also didn't say that it was risk free either.
Grignard wrote:It still gets back to the fact that people who aren't natural entrepreneurs can contribute to society.
I never said that they couldn't.
Grignard wrote:.... the work being done....[is]....done by people who work.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Grignard wrote:The problem is that the argument is built to be unfalsifiable. If you work hard you'll succeed, therefore if you don't succeed you didn't work hard enough. You're defining the second part by the first, so it has to be true.
Just because you work hard doesn't mean you will succeed. If you put in the effort and go about it in a way that doesn't allow failure then you will succeed. Out of a city of about 25,000 people, I did work for 3 out of the 5 local subdivisions, I didn't get a damn bite from anyone in the first 2 I visited, then I went to the richer side of town and door-to-doored it there. I worked just as hard selling myself to the first 2 subs as I did the last 3. The difference was how I went about it. The richer folks had money to spare, and thus my bread and butter. You get out of it what you put into it, but that doesn't mean you can do it without a plan.
Wealth and job placement aren't inherently moral things. If they were (and people acted on it) parents giving their wealth to their children would be illegal and we would all go to equally capable schools. Conservatives hate communism though.
ShumaGorath wrote:Wealth and job placement aren't inherently moral things. If they were (and people acted on it) parents giving their wealth to their children would be illegal and we would all go to equally capable schools. Conservatives hate communism though.
Frazzled wrote:
To the topic. You can't compare salaries across countries (or regions for that matter-technical tip guys!) unless you compare costs of living. It has to be an apples to apples comparison.
That's what purchasing power parity is for.
Frazzled wrote:
but assume thats correct. So what? Again what are you going to do about it? You have two options: 1) Whine and bitch, or 2) improve your condition. No one is going to help you. Baby Jebus loves you but no else cares.
If the issue is being considered from the standpoint of policy, then the question of what any given individual will do with respect to his situation is irrelevant; meaning that your argument from 'you can improve your condition, so the minimum wage is unimportant' holds no water.
Frazzled wrote:Conditions where thats at don't have minimum wage laws though, so again, its not relevant to the discussion.
Of the 197 countries and independent territories in the world, only 23 do not have minimum wage laws, and the majority of those set some form of regional/sectoral minimum wage through collective bargaining.
Frazzled wrote:Morality is irrelevant. Its life. You play the hand you're dealt.
Except unlike cards, you can do a lot to change the odds... Either for good or for bad... There are some things you have no control over, but many you do....
You cant say slacking off in school and then dropping out was a hand dealt to you, you looked through the deck and chose a gakky hand in that case.
Thats is true. As noted, you can only improve or fall from where you start, not where you wished you started or deserved to start. Is it fair (define fair)? yes, no, its still irrelevant.
You've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em Fraz. And in the end the gambler broke even, which is the best you can hope for apparently...( damnit Fraz, now I"m listening to Rhapsody, I have chores to do today!)
I'm not saying that everyone should have what they want and everyone should be equal, not at all. Some people are driven to get rich, and I think they should have the opportunity to do so. My opinion is that pursuit of wealth and goods can only lead to a feeling of emptiness and "running on a treadmill" just to keep up. However, I'm open minded enough to realize that some people actually aren't fooling themselves and honestly get great satisfaction from being successful in money.
I can't really argue this because its a matter of worldview. You're seeing that the world isn't fair and accepting that fact, while I see the same thing and expect to make rules to put things right. The way I explain it is that instead of free trade, I believe in fair trade. Capitalism works when trade is between those with equal knowledge of the trade. If you sell someone a pig in a poke, that isn't fair is it? People should play the game, but they should play fair. I know I use that "F" word a lot, as my father in law puts it. Thats something I've always been big on, is being fair.
I've always heard older people tell younger people with this viewpoint that they'll change when they have to work for a living. That wasn't the case with me. I find myself very fortunate to be in the position I am, even though it isn't always satisfying. I've see others who didn't get the same opportunities, and I worry that anything could happen at any time to my good fortune. I've seen that in the world the hardest workers and the brightest thinkers aren't necessarily who is getting rewarded.
As far as things like universal healthcare, food stamps, what have you, don't you think people would actually be more willing to take a risk and start a business if they knew they had a safety net?
Red9 wrote:It's repeatable, measureable and I'm not the first to do it. So I can expect that it will apply for everyone else provided they put in the same effort as I did or those who have done it before me.
Just as an aside, if you went door to door in the area that I grew up in, or the city I went to college in, you would have a fair chance at being arrested. In my experience there a lot of places in the US that require you to have a permit to solicit, if they haven't made it outright illegal.
Frazzled wrote:Morality is irrelevant. Its life. You play the hand you're dealt.
Take that religions of the world !
This is what boggles me about how people have managed to mesh this philosophy with Christian faith. I mean, I used to have those same political convictions, but I wasn't that religious. I've read the Bible, and from my experience the J.C. wasn't big on hoarding wealth.
Frazzled wrote:Morality is irrelevant. Its life. You play the hand you're dealt.
Wait, so if a certain person is dealt a gun, but not a lot of money, and morality is irrelevant, is it then acceptable for them to engage in armed robbery?
Red9 wrote:It's repeatable, measureable and I'm not the first to do it. So I can expect that it will apply for everyone else provided they put in the same effort as I did or those who have done it before me.
Just as an aside, if you went door to door in the area that I grew up in, or the city I went to college in, you would have a fair chance at being arrested. In my experience there a lot of places in the US that require you to have a permit to solicit, if they haven't made it outright illegal.
Yes, living next door to Beaver Cleaver would definitely make the whole door to door service selling more practical. Some people have more limited options. Entrepreneurs in these areas usually obtain a .40 smith and a dime bag as their initial investment.
ShumaGorath wrote:Wealth and job placement aren't inherently moral things. If they were (and people acted on it) parents giving their wealth to their children would be illegal and we would all go to equally capable schools. Conservatives hate communism though.
I fail to see the relevency of this.
The discussion was about about the inherent morality to capitalistic society, I stated my belief that it's inherently outside of morality and that moral social concepts have been thought up and are often times deemed immoral.
Red9 wrote:It's repeatable, measureable and I'm not the first to do it. So I can expect that it will apply for everyone else provided they put in the same effort as I did or those who have done it before me.
Just as an aside, if you went door to door in the area that I grew up in, or the city I went to college in, you would have a fair chance at being arrested. In my experience there a lot of places in the US that require you to have a permit to solicit, if they haven't made it outright illegal.
Yes, living next door to Beaver Cleaver would definitely make the whole door to door service selling more practical. Some people have more limited options. Entrepreneurs in these areas usually obtain a .40 smith and a dime bag as their initial investment.
ShumaGorath wrote:Wealth and job placement aren't inherently moral things. If they were (and people acted on it) parents giving their wealth to their children would be illegal and we would all go to equally capable schools. Conservatives hate communism though.
I fail to see the relevency of this.
The discussion was about about the inherent morality to capitalistic society, I stated my belief that it's inherently outside of morality and that moral social concepts have been thought up and are often times deemed immoral.
A free market is amoral, and you can engineer an economy on a moral basis,but is it not a case of 1 or 10? Isn't that the point of a mixed economy, where people are allowed to have ownership, but that they have to follow the rules. One of the things I was glad to hear about this financial reform is they're creating some sort of consumer protection agency. We've needed that ever since banks became fee oriented businesses and probably before that. I've been told that one of the things exacerbating this latest downturn was that people were sold financial products that they didn't understand, could not be expected to understand, and by people who did not make an effort or actively avoided enlightening them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Morality is irrelevant. Its life. You play the hand you're dealt.
Wait, so if a certain person is dealt a gun, but not a lot of money, and morality is irrelevant, is it then acceptable for them to engage in armed robbery?
It could be argued that trade cannot be compared to behavior. They're apparently separated in laws.
Red9 wrote:It's repeatable, measureable and I'm not the first to do it. So I can expect that it will apply for everyone else provided they put in the same effort as I did or those who have done it before me.
Just as an aside, if you went door to door in the area that I grew up in, or the city I went to college in, you would have a fair chance at being arrested. In my experience there a lot of places in the US that require you to have a permit to solicit, if they haven't made it outright illegal.
Yes, living next door to Beaver Cleaver would definitely make the whole door to door service selling more practical. Some people have more limited options. Entrepreneurs in these areas usually obtain a .40 smith and a dime bag as their initial investment.
Thats why they suck and will never amount ot anything. A 9mm is cheaper and just as efficacious. The money they saved could have been invested in a quarter bag. Its just thats kind of short term thinking and lack of good business analytics that hold the illicit narcotics industry back.
Last I heard, libraries allow free access to books for self improvement and learning. Also just because a desired job that allows a person the quality of life that they think they deserve or are conditioned to believe they are entitled to are unavailable, doesn't mean that one can't downgrade to lower wager jobs or multiple jobs.
Self training programs don't typically give degrees or marks of completion that are required for better paying jobs. They're great for self motivation or preparation for training, but they are a poor substitute for actual schooling.
True, and it leads to CLEPing a class towards a college degree, look it up. Now combine self taught knowledge with starting your own enterprise, where does it say, anywhere , that you have to have a degree to start your own business.
EDIT: grammar/spelling
You can't get a degree through CLEP, there are a lot of courses that universities and colleges won't let you CLEP out of. They require you to actually take some classes. So, this really isn't a good alternative.
Grignard wrote:
It could be argued that trade cannot be compared to behavior. They're apparently separated in laws.
I agree that they're not comparable. The point I was trying to make is that the reason they aren't comparable is a moral one.
If morality is irrelevant, then Bernie Madoff was not a criminal, but a shrewd businessman with an entrepreneurial mind.
But there is some similarity then. Its sort of like Dante writing about those who squandered their money in hell, which he judged as a crime of violence. To the modern mind, I think it is puzzling why its a sin in the first place, and why it is violent. The reasoning is that wasting money is a violent act against the means of your own sustenance, you know, like shoeing a horse with silver f'ing horseshoes. Would that reasoning make collective ownership of property immoral, as taking someone's property is violence against the person, just like striking them?
ShumaGorath wrote:
Not all laws are moralistic in nature.
No, but they all need to have some foundation in morality, its just that said foundation might be relatively insignificant. After all, in order to make something illegal we must first understand it as something bad.
Last I heard, libraries allow free access to books for self improvement and learning. Also just because a desired job that allows a person the quality of life that they think they deserve or are conditioned to believe they are entitled to are unavailable, doesn't mean that one can't downgrade to lower wager jobs or multiple jobs.
Self training programs don't typically give degrees or marks of completion that are required for better paying jobs. They're great for self motivation or preparation for training, but they are a poor substitute for actual schooling.
True, and it leads to CLEPing a class towards a college degree, look it up. Now combine self taught knowledge with starting your own enterprise, where does it say, anywhere , that you have to have a degree to start your own business.
EDIT: grammar/spelling
You can't get a degree through CLEP, there are a lot of courses that universities and colleges won't let you CLEP out of. They require you to actually take some classes. So, this really isn't a good alternative.
I think its great how people say that you need to work harder or get more skills if you want to get ahead, and then call you a whiner if you mention that breaking your ass through 4 or more years of difficult material didn't pay off quite the way you had hoped.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Not all laws are moralistic in nature.
No, but they all need to have some foundation in morality, its just that said foundation might be relatively insignificant. After all, in order to make something illegal we must first understand it as something bad.
Not really, especially within financial law much of it is there to ensure smooth function in the financial sector. Many laws simply exist because they are required for others to function properly, not because something like overdraft interest correlation on online draft fees is a moral stand against the tyranny of greed. Many laws are clerical in nature.
mattyrm wrote:Woah woah woah woah... lets all slow down.
20 bucks a lawn?!!
Im coming over in September, anyone want their lawn mowing?!
Ill do it for $19.50!
Hell, i've heard of people getting a lot more than that, and not for lawns that are huge. Its sad when you've seriously considered a career change as an adult to get into that.
Grignard wrote:
But there is some similarity then. Its sort of like Dante writing about those who squandered their money in hell, which he judged as a crime of violence. To the modern mind, I think it is puzzling why its a sin in the first place, and why it is violent. The reasoning is that wasting money is a violent act against the means of your own sustenance, you know, like shoeing a horse with silver f'ing horseshoes. Would that reasoning make collective ownership of property immoral, as taking someone's property is violence against the person, just like striking them?
Potentially, though it could be argued that the use of collective property, with the ultimate interests of the collective in mind, does not constitute a violent act against the sustenance of any member of that collective. However, the misuse of collective property certainly would entail a violent act, per that reasoning.
There are countless films where military officials are participating in conspiracies (Green Zone), or where they're the misguided idiots making everything worse (The Day the Earth Stood Still). Whether or not the movies are actually anti-military never really filters in. They see the military portrayed doing something wrong, and they assume it to be an attack.
I've never really understood the mindset of people that believe American values are under assault. A fairly casual historical look will show that we're doing better than we were during many of the darker times of the last 100 years.
Those folks who failed English? They failed history too
There are differing opinions on what exactly the American values are. The conflict arises from what conservatives deem there values to be, and that in pop culture, the government, and the media, they find situations where these values are dismissed as not important (The concept of the Nuclear family for example) or belittled (A lot of conservatives are also Christians. Christianity takes a lot of flak these days). Whether or not there is an assault doesn't factor in. There is one that has been perceived. I could give twenty paragraphs running through my explanation of this but I don't really think it would be beneficial XD. People don't usually react logically to problems, and sometimes they see problems where none exist. It doesn't make sense but there are a lot of events that just work out that way. It's sort of like a much tamer version of the Red Scare.
America always needs some great enemy to rally against, and when we have no great enemy we become it ourselves.
It's true of any nation. Nations stand strong when threatened by outside forces but quickly turn on themselves when things seem okay. Ironically though there is an outside threat to the US now in the form of Islamic Terrorism, yet, we don't seem as united against it as we did against the Japanese in WWII, or even the Spanish in the Spanish-American War, even though the tragedy that caused the current conflict had a much higher death toll than the previous combined.
My dad pays the same guy that does my lawn 40 bucks each time, takes the kid about 75 minutes.
Dang. I mowed the lawn for my neighbor and I got a quarter
mattyrm wrote:Woah woah woah woah... lets all slow down.
20 bucks a lawn?!!
Im coming over in September, anyone want their lawn mowing?!
Ill do it for $19.50!
Hell, i've heard of people getting a lot more than that, and not for lawns that are huge. Its sad when you've seriously considered a career change as an adult to get into that.
What does that last bit mean?
Oh, and 20 bucks a lawn is great when you are the local broke teenager, but it really stops being enough when you do upwards of 8 lawns per day. I have known some maintenance crews/individuals that have found neighborhoods full of people that need basic maintenance, but the ones that are successful as businesses usually install the lawns and service the irrigation. There are just too many people with trucks and lawnmowers to make a decent living, even ignoring the cost of tool maintenance and gas.
You need a wider net to make a good living doing maintenance. I have met several people that do high-end maintenance and make 50 bucks an hour easily. That isn't common mind you, and their skills are generally so much more diverse than a simple cut-n'-trim service, it seems a bit odd to compare them. My tangent though, whatever.
I have done both high-end, and low-end maintenance, varying from mowing an acre of 2-3ft. tall grass with a dinky lawnmower and a weedtrimmer, to aesthetic pruning and planting. Guess what pays better? You can start off as a grunt, get training and certification, then move onto more advanced well paying labor. When there is no work, there is no work, it is really as simple as that.
Diving headfirst into labor in general is a pretty bad plan right now, considering how hard it is to find work in any type of construction, and the fact that serious money is in construction/installation and not maintenance. Having solid connections matters more than how hard you can work, there will always be someone willing to work harder than you, not to say having a good work ethic is a bad thing; you can easily overwork yourself though. Starting a cut-n'-trim service seems like a terrible idea to me, unless you live in or near an area which actually has demand for it. People save money by mowing their own lawns, your balls are on the chopping block with a company such as that.
ShivanAngel wrote:My dad pays the same guy that does my lawn 40 bucks each time, takes the kid about 75 minutes.
That's a big lawn!
When I was in high school I would work at an auto shop for a couple months every summer, the owner was one of my dad's parishioners so he was even willing to pay me under the table. There are plenty of ways to make money provided you have the right connections.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Not really, especially within financial law much of it is there to ensure smooth function in the financial sector.
First you have to establish that a financial sector that runs smoothly is a good thing, and that is a moral judgment.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Many laws simply exist because they are required for others to function properly, not because something like overdraft interest correlation on online draft fees is a moral stand against the tyranny of greed. Many laws are clerical in nature.
Sure, but the end goal, and point of departure are grounded in moral judgment. There's a reason jurisprudence if often thought of as the formal extension of ethics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrexasaur wrote:Having those connections makes all the difference in the world. People need a familiar face in order to feel secure.
You have no idea how easy it is to profit from being a PK. People will place all sorts unjustified trust into you.
Little did the parishioners know that, at that time in my life, I was a dirty atheist.
mattyrm wrote:Is a reason that they get good ratings possibly because people like me (who disagree with 80% of what they say) still enjoy listening to them?
I remember some FOX news numbers that put the number of left leaning college age kids as a significant portion of their viewing audience, presumably they were all in it for the lolz. It wasn't more than about a 1/3 at any time, but it was frequently bigger than CNN's whole audience.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Morality is irrelevant. Its life. You play the hand you're dealt.
Yeah, you accept the hand your dealt. And if you're lucky, you look and see what other people are dealing with and you help them if you can. And that extends to society, we as a whole look to build structures that aim to stop as many people as possible slipping through the cracks.
But I shouldn't have to write that. It's very obvious. You're being disingenuous in approaching this issue purely at the personal level of the victim, and not considering through the eyes of the wealthy, or of society as a whole.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grignard wrote:
reds8n wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Morality is irrelevant. Its life. You play the hand you're dealt.
Take that religions of the world !
This is what boggles me about how people have managed to mesh this philosophy with Christian faith. I mean, I used to have those same political convictions, but I wasn't that religious. I've read the Bible, and from my experience the J.C. wasn't big on hoarding wealth.
Yeah, all that stuff about charity and good works is kind of problem, but don't worry, there's conservatives fixing that!
This is what boggles me about how people have managed to mesh this philosophy with Christian faith. I mean, I used to have those same political convictions, but I wasn't that religious. I've read the Bible, and from my experience the J.C. wasn't big on hoarding wealth.
Yeah, all that stuff about charity and good works is kind of problem, but don't worry, there's conservatives fixing that!
They're re-writing the bible to take out all the liberal bias that's gotten in there. Seriously.
Are you sure that isn't tounge in cheek? They mentioned it was on the Colbert Report. If it isn't meant as sarcasm, I have to wonder if it isn't a false flag.
The only reason I question it so much is that I know some VERY socially conservative people who would not be cool with that at all, if for no other reason than they don't believe in the sanctity of *any* translation except the KJV ( which in itself is a translation that could be argued had political motivations, but that is a whole 'nother argument).
If it is real, its not only silly, its dangerous. Its basically an example of thought engineering to achieve a political goal, which scares the hell out of me. This isn't a right wing or a left wing thing, because both have done it, but it hasn't ended well in the past.
It does seem over the top, even for the Schlafys, but given how nutty that family is I wouldn't presume that its fake. Then again, I also wouldn't presume that its representative of conservatism. There are some pretty well known (and not necessarily respectable) conservative bloggers that have sounded off against that particular part of conservapedia.
dogma wrote:It does seem over the top, even for the Schlafys, but given how nutty that family is I wouldn't presume that its fake. Then again, I also wouldn't presume that its representative of conservatism. There are some pretty well known (and not necessarily respectable) conservative bloggers that have sounded off against that particular part of conservapedia.
As far as I can tell, it's real. After all, this is also the guy who thinks that the theory of relativity is bogus.
dogma wrote:It does seem over the top, even for the Schlafys, but given how nutty that family is I wouldn't presume that its fake. Then again, I also wouldn't presume that its representative of conservatism. There are some pretty well known (and not necessarily respectable) conservative bloggers that have sounded off against that particular part of conservapedia.
I have no idea who the Schalfys are. Is that something that I could look up on wikipedia or some such thing?
Kilkrazy wrote:Well the "strength" of Wikipedia is that everyone can edit it, so why don't you make an entry for her>
Or do you have to be tight with Jimmy Wales now?
The entry would likely be removed or deleted before it went live. Everyone can create or edit things on wikipedia, but the chances of making it through the mod patrols for more than a few hours is slim.
Phyllis Schlafly is noted for stating that she does not believe that rape can occur under the auspices of marriage.
Most of it was of the extreme end of the spectrum, and while I may not agree with it, it wasn't all wacko. That particular line though is really weird, and made my skin crawl just a little.
It is merely the traditional view of marriage which applied legally in the UK until 1994. It was held that by contracting marriage, the wife had given perpetual consent to intercourse with her husband.
Personally I don't agree with it, but I can understand a older, socially conservative person hewing to that line.
)
.
It's quite frustrating when you're choices are Democrats with political agenda's you don't agree with or Republicans who couldn't find their way out of an empty room with a door on each wall.
