USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Panda-PL- 0]

+1 to Wolfrug!  

Excuse me..... what does this bring in? Some people are having a discussion.

You want to see 40 posts with "+" and "-" further down the page? That will have no meaning, other than prove that people who posted thought being right is about being numerous.

[chops 111]

I was visiting my friend in Denmark a few years ago, we went to a pub in Copenhagen on a Tuesday afternoon. We sat down, had a couple of beers and chuckled to himself. When I asked why, he said some people at the other side of the bar were complaining about how far they had to travel to the social security office from the pub.

Here in Australia, being on the 'Rock n Roll' (dole), is often seen as a rite of passage. Whenever people say "I'm on the dole" it usually gets a "Yeah why not? Fuck work!" in response.

Though "Dole Bludgers" are a perennial target of the tabloid media.

I saw a doco on tv once, apparently wolves will save a bit of the kill for injured members of the pack. Can't see why we shouldn't throw the povotutionals a few crusts now and then too.

[sparks50 0]

What?

[scubaman3D 0]

I saw a doco on tv once, apparently wolves will save a bit of the kill for injured members of the pack. Can't see why we shouldn't throw the povotutionals a few crusts now and then too.

Nobody disagrees with this.

Nobody is calling for the elimination of all social programs in the US.

Everybody recognizes their significance.

Most people disagree with their implementation and the extend of their funding.

[Second 0]

Given that there will be winners and losers, I would prefer to make winners out of those people who are most beneficial to society.

The productive the independant, the self motivated, the frugal and the smart.

This is for the greater good.

If you really think you will work just as hard to make your self more comfortable when you are not hungry or cold, you haven't been there.

I suggest you re-evaluate your position on that one.

the thing is that system's which tries to contribute something to poors seems to work pretty filthy well. Sweden would be best example of being very productive nation, while taking care of all it citizens. And there individual humans likes to try to get forward, not to just sit down and start to suck their thumb. Those who has the drive will get forward, gets forward anyways. You probably see just as smart people up in ruling places ad so on. Poors just are not as desperate.

Sure poors works harder when they are cold and hungry and trying to get out of there. Then again if there is possibilities then less poor will too. More poor will just take more shitty jobs. After that point i'd say both have basically same will to move forward, if surrounding condition are similar.

I just don't see your point of view, or atleast it seem wrong from my point of view.  maybe i misunderstand you whole idea.. could be, morning is getting young soon adn i really should go to bed. I do agree with you that there are weaknesses in each system. Higher unemployment rate is curse of welfare states.

[Baff1 0]

Yes, but systems at the other end of the socialist scale such as America also work well.

The essential complaint being made by people here with socialist states is their efficiency.

The smaller the country the less of an issue this is.

it would not be sensible to imagine that what works well in one small rich country is necessarily going to work the same way in vastly larger more economically diverse places.

So if for example we took the GDP per capita of Sweden and compared it with say...California, still a much larger and more diverse area than Sweden we can see that Swedens GDP per capita is suddenly looking a bit second rate.

There are vast area's of the U.S. that simply aren't as profitable as Sweden. That never will be. The deep south will always be poor. It has no natural resources.

So while Sweden is an excellent example of functional and perhaps efficient social welfare, it isn't a readily comparable economy or society with the U.S.

If Norway nearby was welfare lite we might be able to compare the two systems against eachother in similar countries.

Instead of Sweden lets take France as another example. Here we have a socialist system that has crippled the country. great welfare systme, but ask them to work a 36 hour week and they start burning all the buildings down and refuse to come into work for three months.

While we are at it, lets take Italy too. Same problem.

Belgium! Lets not even go there, half the country is sucking on the productive minority so hard that they are verging on civil war to get the unproductive ones off their back. Slacking has become institutionalised. The norm for the country.

Hell, lets go all the way and look at a highly socialist country that matches America in terms of size, population and domestic resources. The daddy of them all. Russia.

Would you still argue that socialism has encouraged personal dynamism and greatly advanced the wealth of the nation in this country?

Or like me do you believe it has, in this example, encouraged state dependancy, corruption and inefficiency?

That few places on earth have a more pronounced divide between rich and poor and a greater lack in social mobility?

In the end these comparisons are all too complex to draw rock solid conclusions from.

It's just basic animal nature I am going on. If you reward people for behaving in a dependant fashion, they will become increasingly dependent by nature.

If this doesn't make sense to you, it still does to me.

If like here and in Australia being on the old rock'n'roll bears no social stigma, more people will do it.  

If it is easier to get a well piad job with the government somewhere then do something that generates wealth, people will take those jobs in preference. It's the path of least resistance.

So instead of looking at Sweden and thinking how well the welfare systems works (which I do), I am looking at them and thinking 1 in every 2 employees produces nothing, that is a drain on the national resource and unfair on 50% of the workforce.

How much more decent health care they could afford say, how much would their average standard of living rise say... if 25% of their workforce "got a proper job".

That alone would half their taxes and add 50% to their GDP. Double income for everyone! Double!

50% of the Swedish workforce is sucking the milk out of the 50% in the private sector. They have skimmed off all the cream.

They could all be driving Porsches instead of Volvo's.

Swedish people are happy, they live good lives. I'm not knocking it. Quality of life is a big factor in these things.

They have it sussed, but er... I like Porsches and I can't get one for my wife with the state hanging around my neck like a millstone.

She doesn't want a Volvo.

[lecholas 2]

Would you still argue that socialism has encouraged personal dynamism and greatly advanced the wealth of the nation in this country?

Or like me do you believe it has, in this example, encouraged state dependancy, corruption and inefficiency?

That few places on earth have a more pronounced divide between rich and poor and a greater lack in social mobility?

Here'a a tip for undecided:

Homo Sovieticus on Wiki

Anyway, we'll see how Sweden looks like in 20 years

[Second 0]

It's just basic animal nature I am going on. If you reward people for behaving in a dependant fashion, they will become increasingly dependent by nature.

EDIT: True, but then we are not talking about Scandinavian model anymore.

Sure i can't argue about that Porsche vs Volvo thing (i drive year -91 Nissan Bluebird, but i'm Finnish and Bluebird is nice car). But like you said it's about point of view and values.

[General Barron 0]

Quote[/b] ]

In short: socialism is there to patch up where society as a whole has failed. No, you can't hope "charity" will do it for you, that's a ridiculous idea in a pure capitalist system. I know that if I get sick, I can get help from the government. I know that if I am without work, I will get help from the government until I find more work. I know that my education is FREE, which means I can study whatever I want for no cost at all. I know that if I had children, I could send them to school for free, where they will be fed for free, and given free books and free lessons - and in addition to this, I would be given aid from the state to support my children. I would be given fully-paid, government assured (as in, they're not allowed to fire you because of it) paternity leave from work to be with them.

I need to correct something here: "the government" isn't providing you with ANYTHING. It is the taxpayer who is providing you with those things. And they are only doing it because they are being forced to comply, under threat of imprisonment.

What if those people who are funding all these government programs suddenly decided they weren't going to work anymore. Say they went on the government dole too. Where would these amazing "free" services come from then?

Quote[/b] ]The primary guilty is your own heart because you have decided to remove compassion and charity in your comfortable homes.

THIS I agree with. If you feel compassion for the poor, you should donate your time or money to charity. You should not force your neighbor to do the same via government.

That is just forcing your beliefs on someone else. We should live in a world where you and I are free to have our own beliefs, without forcing them on each other.

If 52% of the US wants Obama's socialist programs, then those 52% should pay for 100% of them. The 48% that don't agree shouldn't be entitled to those programs, but they shouldn't have to pay for them either. That way we can all live our own beliefs.

basically what you're all saying is the difference between rich people and poor people is that the one has "good" qualities that allow them to become rich (such as thriftiness and the ability to plan ahead), the other has "poor" qualities (such as slothfulness and wastefulness) that leave them at the bottom rung of society.

I am not talking about qualities, I am talking about actions.

I could go out today and ruin myself financially. Or, I could start the next Microsoft in my basement, setting myself up for financial success. Instead, I am sitting here on my computer, typing. So my financial situation isn't changing at all.

Either way, I am making a choice, and that choice determines my financial future.

If you really want to help the "poor", you should teach them how to make better financial decisions. In the US, we leave that to parents to teach. Hence, the rich teach their kids rich habits, while the poor teach their kids poor habits.

I learned some of both as a kid. Since then, I have made it my mission to learn rich habits. I don't play video games. I read books on money. I have nobody to blame for my lack of knowledge but myself.

Quote[/b] ]You compare that to a hispanic, first generation woman who speaks English as her second or third language. Is it her fault her skin colour is different, she didn't learn English in school, or the inescapable fact that she's a woman? No, it's not, yet in the REAL world, these factors matter.

Your example is so moot to me. I know or have read about so many women, minorities, uneducated, non-native, ethnic, you-name-it's who have become wildly successful financially. How come they weren't prevented from succeeding due to their race / whatever?

Do you really think that only for those people, race / etc didn't matter, but for those people who fail financially, it was in fact due to race / etc? Wouldn't it be more logical to look for some OTHER explanation for why some people succeed, and others fail?

Person A: sits on his butt all day playing computer games, and spends all of his money on beer for himself.

Person B: spends all his time finding out what goods his neighbors need, and trying to build a business to provide those. All his money is spent on that business that helps other people, not just himself.

Which person sounds more likely to succeed? Which one is more deserving of our "compassion" if he fails?

You should date a debt collector. I did, and she told me all sorts of stories about people who can't "afford" to pay their debts back. Yet they have cable TV, new cars, etc etc. Meanwhile we made less money then those people, and had none of those luxuries. Yet we paid our bills.

It *is* a choice. Most people just don't realize that.

My beliefs are empowering and inspiring. I believe that the individual has control over his own life. This belief applies to all three aspects of a successful life: health, wealth, and relationships. This is what drives me to become a better person every day.

I have friends who feel that nothing in their life is in their control. I've got a fat friend who blames his weight on "genetics". He eats fatty foods and candy all the time, and never exercises. He's got a brother with the same genes, who works out and eats well, and isn't fat.

Its a choice.

[Wolfrug 0]

I already bowed out of this conversation so I'm not going to take it up again in an organized fashion. Let it be said that I am wholly and entirely opposed your world view, which in my subjective eyes seems to be nothing but <edited out> -> basically I do not agree with them.

There is no difference between actions and qualities, qualities define what actions you take, so you're still saying the same thing. Poor people being poor is their own damned fault. I refuse to believe that, although it doesn't stop me from believing in extraordinary people fighting their way out of poverty and oppression and standing like a shining example before everyone else. I'd just like it so that they wouldn't have to do that. Since heroes tend to get shot.

And, I would like you please not to put words in my mouth in the future. I am paying my taxes quite happily, hell, I'd pay more taxes if I could : and the same does everyone else who votes for a government that promises to raise taxes to benefit education or health care. That's how a democracy works.

I could answer the rest of your points but I really don't think we can see eye to eye on this. Maybe you should stop reading so many books on economics, read a couple of books about, like, people, and play some computer games. Relax

(final note: the government "dole" is less than the pay they'd get for working as teachers and doctors and nurses, so what possible reason could these people have to stop working? They haven't so far! Besides, being on the "rock n' roll" just means they are obliged to be looking actively for work, otherwise they won't be getting any money will they? At least that's how it works here.)

Thank you.

Regards,

Wolfrug

[Commando84 0]

lol General Barron About Person B is supplying the goods that his neighbours want? So Person B can be a drug dealer?  

Yeah as Wolfrug said, maybe a couple of years ago it was easier to live on the couch and watch tv all days or sit in a park and use your unemployement cash on beer but now a days its a fulltime work to show that you search for jobs to be accepted to even recieve the unemployed money

Besides what you gonna do with those people that have strange deceases like mental stuff and can't work?

[General Barron 0]

Quote[/b] ]There is no difference between actions and qualities, qualities define what actions you take, so you're still saying the same thing. Poor people being poor is their own damned fault. I refuse to believe that

Let's say I go out today, withdraw my life savings, and spend it all on lottery tickets. Every last penny. Heck, say I max out my credit cards on lottery tickets too. And I refinance my house, and spend that on lottery tickets too.

Now say I lose the lottery. I am now thousands of dollars in debt, and have no money to speak of.

Would you say that my situation was caused by my actions (buying the tickets)? Or would you say that it was due to circumstances outside of my control (losing the lottery)?

A case could be made either way. Personally I would argue the former. I could just as easily NOT taken those actions, and I wouldn't be in the situation. By making better decisions on the things I can control (my actions), I am able to put myself in better situations then if I rely on things I can't control.

Let it be said that I am wholly and entirely opposed your world view, which in my subjective eyes seems to be nothing but <edited out> -> basically I do not agree with them.

There really is no point in either of us trying to convince the other to change (or even understand) each others world view.

Instead, I should try to convince you that we should both be allowed to have and live our respective views on the world. You should have the right to live your view, but I should also be given the right to live my own.

If you believe in higher taxes, you should be given the right to pay them. If you believe in socialized medicine, you should be given the right to pay for it. Likewise, if I disagree with these things, then I should be given the right to opt out of them.

There is no need to have the views of 51% of the population be forced on the other 49%. Both should be allowed to keep their beliefs, and live together in harmony.

[lecholas 2]

Good to see that there are still people who belive in freedom and responsibility. By the way amishes in US do not pay for social security and they can't use it. They think that their little community is enough insurance for them, they do not need the state. And it's written in the law. The do not have to pay for social security. So if amishes can be exempted from paying for social security (I'm not sure about the other taxes) why can't other people be?

One other thing. In the most of the socialistic states there are poor, uneducated people without perspectives. Usualy a state (if it doesn't have rich natural resources) can't help them because help forced by the law (and non voluntary) is ineffective. So in most cases there a not that much difference in numbers and state of poor people between social and liberal countries. The only difference is that in one it is written in law that a state is obliged to provide people with help (which it is unable to provide) and in the other there is no such an obligation for the state.

But for some reason it makes people more happy if there is a law; even ineffective; that describes their wishes. I wish that everybody were happy. So I can make a law that says that everybody has right to be happy (to be educated, to have a home, to be accepted, etc.). Would it be effective? No. Does it have any sense? No. Who cares? Noone.

[froggyluv 2136]

@General Barron

You must be very proud of President-Elect Obama, as he's the epitome of the very "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" philosophy that you espouse.

As far as only paying what you believe in ( taxwise), would you exempt anti-war proponents from paying their share under Bush's crusade?

[General Barron 0]

You must be very proud of President-Elect Obama, as he's the epitome of the very "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" philosophy that you espouse.

I didn't vote for Obama, but I do have a lot of respect him as a person.

I have even more respect for the thousands of anonymous people like him who choose to become business leaders instead of politicians, though. I think they do far more good for humanity than any politician ever could.

Quote[/b] ]As far as only paying what you believe in ( taxwise), would you exempt anti-war proponents from paying their share under Bush's crusade?

Absolutely.

Quote[/b] ]So I can make a law that says that everybody has right to be happy (to be educated, to have a home, to be accepted, etc.). Would it be effective? No. Does it have any sense? No. Who cares? Noone.

Exactly.

Its funny, but we are slowly starting to try and legislate certain people into happiness in non-financial aspects as well.

Example: they passed a law in Spain banning models under a certain weight from being on the catwalk of fashion shows. Somehow this is supposed to make other people (not the models) healthier. It's absurd.

Happiness (and unhappiness) comes from within, not without. That goes for health, wealth and relationships. Some people need to stop blaming others for their own problems.

[DrBobcat 0]

While I am an individual who favors socialistic ideals, I can wholeheartedly concede that there are persons who exploit the systems put in place by the government. I have personally known a few and they are bothersome. ("Woe is me! Let's crack open another cold one!")

Still, I highly doubt they are the majority of the individuals out there. I know you Conservative folks will argue that such a belief is "wishful thinking" and "naive." However, I have spent years now buried in books on criminology, education, poverty, and race. I fail to see how it possibly could be all "made up." If it were, it would be one of the greatest lies in the history of mankind. (next to religion, that is! *zing*)

I apologize for coming across so strongly before, but hearing someone say "race is no longer a problem" just touched the wrong nerve. Oh well.

*-*

Regarding personal freedoms, I believe there is a fine line between one man's personal freedom and another man's oppression. For every person on Earth to pursue his or her own goals is absolutely impossible. Sacrifice is, and always will be, necessary.

Why must our views be dichotomous, anyway? Is there no balance?

- dRb

[General Barron 0]

Why must our views be dichotomous, anyway? Is there no balance?

I agree, especially in American politics, we tend to be very "tribal", and always divide ourselves into "us vs them" situations, where we vilify our opponents, instead of trying to understand them.

When it comes to the topic of social welfare, I think it would be much more productive to focus on the most needy, and how to best help them.

The problem is, we are increasingly focusing on middle-class welfare. The masses have discovered that they can vote themselves money from the treasury, so they are starting to do so.

By middle class welfare, I mean recent programs like "free" medical insurance and "saving" homeowners from foreclosure. If you can afford a home, you can afford private medical insurance; even if you have to choose only one. If you can afford a home, you can afford to have it foreclosed and return to renting.

These people do NOT need my tax money in order to survive. I don't have a home because it is cheaper to rent. Why should I subsidize someone who chooses the extra expense? I spend less money on my car, movies, etc, so that I can afford private health insurance. Why shouldn't I be able to expect others to do the same?

I would be much more open to discussing socialist welfare programs, if I knew they would only apply to those who are truly in need.

The problem I see, is that the definition of "those in need" gets broader and broader over time.

[lecholas 2]

The problem I see, is that the definition of "those in need" gets broader and broader over time.

And it will get broader and broader. It's inevitable in democracy. Politics will promise more and more to specific groups (miners, nurses, teachers, homeless, those who can't afford their own cars/airplains/spaceships - I can see it in Poland and in whole Europe very clearly) to win their votes. No politics would take away any privilages from a specific group because they would loose their support (and support from a lot of sensible intelectualists who think nurses/miners/teacher/left-handed/homeless/minorities etc. can't be taken away their privilages because they're so special). That happens when the law is made with emotions not with reason.

And no minorities will say 'we don't need those privilages' if they're offered them. It's because people are egoistic and very few think of the common good more than of their own good.

Imagine that Obama recognizes the needs of one of American minorities - OFP/ARMA gamers and forces a law that General Barron has to convert his briliant Hand signals commanding engine from OFP to ARMA. Would you resist? I would have difficult time saying 'you don't have right to force General Barron' to do this

[Second 0]

The problem I see, is that the definition of "those in need" gets broader and broader over time.

And it will get broader and broader. It's inevitable in democracy.

No it wont, necessarily. Again i ask to look at Scandinavia. Sure there is talk that it getting too costly, but system has functioned well already for at least 50 years with heavy taxing and wide social security system. Suffered from economical disasters also, Finland had severe hit early 90s. Becomming "cooling down" in world markets will show us does it survive this as well, but i doupt it will be as harsh as 90s was.

Maybe we Scandinavians are just not so self-centric. It has been said that Scandivian countries pretty much thru all their history have had higher "human-values" (canyon between rich and poor has stayed small compared to western world).

Also Welfare system has been state "sponsored" for a long time (id say 100 years), so there's in no need for drastic measures as foundation has been constructed during long time, while it has had support of most political parties and people.

[Sophion-Black 0]

Yes, but systems at the other end of the socialist scale such as America also work well.

Uh not really. Socialism within America seems to hinder a lot of politics. Since its based on everyone being the same it totally overlooks that everyone is very different. Im actually hoping the US backs away from socialism federally and move more towards confederalism. I think the US is too big to set policies as a whole for one population. de-cetralize the power and put it in the states and a lot more can be done to satisfy the population. That way the sub-cultures can be contient with the policies made for them.

[Commando84 0]

isn't it like that already? with states having differences in their laws and stuff? I heard wacky stories about state laws and stuff from time to time that i can't imagine why they are left in the modern times

[gsleighter 0]

It was like that because before mass communications made it possible, it was difficult and time-consuming to govern Florida the same way as New York, since there were no phones, cars, planes, or the internet.

The problem with decentralizing power is that states don't all have access to the same resources. West Virginia will never be able to afford the same amount of social programs as California, because the population of West Virginia is one of the poorest in the nation. I know that there's a lot of poor people in CA, but there's also a much larger population of rich people, with a greater gap between high and low earners in that state.

Some things, like social welfare programs, can (and should) be administered on a national level. Other things, like gun control, doesn't make sense to handle that way. The need for gun control is very different if you're in Arizona, or Washington DC, and small areas can enact stricter controls on gun ownership to meet their own needs.

[GeneralCarver 0]

I am embarrased to call myself an American sometimes. First off, I belive the two party system is totally broken. It is really a one party system which has been bought out by Wealthy internationalists and the military industrial complex.

Disagree? Since World War 2 we have done nothing but get deeper and deeper into debt, much to most American's disagreement. And we keep getting involved in conflicts where we spend a lot of money, but nothing good ever really comes from it (Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Afgan, Iraq etc.)

Both republican and democrates have been involved in these situations. Heck, the recent banking bail out was under the Republican Bush administration not democrates.

I think America will only get back in line if we get some third party or independent people into office. People who live and vote on principles not who puts money in their pockets.

[gsleighter 0]

It was some sort of voting theory. IIRC it goes something like this.

In a 2 party system, requirement for winning in popular vote is to capture a bit more than 50%. So it is easy for each party to position themselves closer to the middle.

In a 3 party system, in order to get more than the 1/3 for each party, at least one party will overlap with other parties, and that will cause loss in the one of the other two parties.(or both). In other words, say party A had 1/3 of the votes. In order to increase their votes, they can adopt policy stances that overlap with party B which will cause one of two things. 1. party A loses some of its vote to party B, or 2. party B loses some of its vote to party A.

In both scenarios one party will dominate the game(say party A gained B's vote), so B will either become obsolete or have to merge with C. And that means we will end up with two results

1) A and B dominating, and C is marginalized(like US, you have GOP, Dem, and others)

2) A will still be standing, but have to face coalition of B & C, which is practically two sides fighting for votes.

Better explained earlier in this thread, so here it is again. Third party candidates for the president are pretty much going to continue to be shut out, and even if the two parties were abolished, the same system would eventually coalesce out of the remains.

[Sophion-Black 0]

well mass media helped accelerate the accident (I'll call it that for now) of the majority of the power being put in the national level. What really kicked it off was the US Civil war. Hidden under all the "fight against slavery" is something overlooked completely. One of the major factors was the southern states refusing to be overseen by federal policy they felt was unconstitutional. They looked at the possibility of being "forced" in enforce federal policy imposed on them and the 10th amendment and thought that it simply wasn't their [the Federal Government] place to set such policies.

After that Washington became a platform for other states to knock policies or believes of other states (i.e. Senator Benjamin Wade and Representative Henry Winter Davis). After a while, the federal US Policies became challenged in Civil Rights movements. In conjunction with mass media being introduced, the stories of the federal government being challenged led people on to the illusion that policies could only be changed at a federal level. Since then we haven't realized that the 10th amendment still exists or that the states are quite capable of taking responsibility of their own citizens.

What I think shouldn't happen is introductions of federal policies regarding all states to comply unless all of the states approve. If its not one voice from the whole nation wanting it, then its not the whole nation that wants it. thus it shouldn't be a federal action, it should be left up to the states. because simply, that's imperialism of our own land.