Log in

View Full Version : Why Obama looks like a one-termer.



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

glambman
11-27-2008, 06:41 PM
I have not even started discussing rest the issues of my concern.


It never ends. Never ends. ;D

Lucy in the Sky
11-28-2008, 09:55 AM
This brings us back full circle to the underlying points. How much productivity ( added value ) is created by shining shoes or washing cars ?

Hmm. Classist much or what?

But anyway the true answers is not an exact one because it depends on the person purchasing those services. Some may find great value in not having to do those things for themselves. Some may find it increases their productivity too.

Example would be the CEO of this or that major company who stops to get his shoes shine at an airport because he knows he won't have time before his very important meeting. During that time he makes a new business contact, reads something he wouldn't have had time for if he shined his own shoes that increases both his company value and productivity.

VegasPrincess
11-28-2008, 06:47 PM
This brings us back full circle to the underlying points. How much productivity ( added value ) is created by shining shoes or washing cars ? What standard of living accompanies a person shining shoes or washing cars in Eastern Europe or Asia ? Who picks up the tab for the difference ?

.

Well, to be fair nowhere in the constitution does it say we are entitled to the fire department, police department, ETC. The fact remains that most civilized countries DO consider health care a basic right, amongst other things.

Also, believe it or not I did graduate both high school and college and I do know what productivity means. The fact is, I believe that everyone is entitled to health care, regardless of their work. I mean, how much productivity is created by getting naked for money, right? Not a lot.

It saddens me that people in this country remain sick, and die, because they can't afford health care. Productive or not, it's wrong. People on death row even get health care, FWIW

Melonie
11-28-2008, 11:22 PM
The fact is, I believe that everyone is entitled to health care, regardless of their work

This is certainly your perogative. But health care is not a 'right' defined in the US constitution ... any more than 'fire protection' is a right. While it is true that some cities and states have chosen to implement such services ( paid for by imposing taxes on the population of those cities and states). It is also true that some areas of the USA do not have 'fire protection', or have marginal 'fire protection' provided by unpaid volunteers.

However, it is a giant step from here to define health care as a 'right' on a national basis, with the federal gov't then empowered to impose taxes on all Americans to pay for it, WITHOUT the benefit of a nationwide vote to that effect. Such action is commonly referred to as 'legislating from the bench'.



I mean, how much productivity is created by getting naked for money, right? Not a lot.

Like every service industry, this strictly depends on the valuation made by those customers purchasing the service. In the case of most exotic dancers, the customer base has a high or very high productivity. But just like the people who are only qualified to wash cars or shine shoes, women who don't have the necessary 'qualifications' will not get jobs in the exotic dancing industry. You tell me how much a lap dance is worth when offered by a 55 year old woman weighing 250 pounds ! This is the issue of 'value' that applies to unskilled workers in America.

As further illustration, I would offer the following real world example. How much is a car wash worth if it is conducted by a dozen beautiful college girls wearing undersized bikinis ? Far more than if it is conducted by two ugly guys or by an automatic car wash machine !

Narcissus
11-29-2008, 05:21 AM
Interesting debate and interesting points.

[Steps on soapbox]

That same line of thinking leads to even more excessive government 'determination' of fairness and equality.

Eventually, using that same line of thought, strip clubs will not be able to refuse to hire (as a stripper) a 400 lb. man who recently had a sex change operation. Eventually, using that same line of thought, strip clubs will be forced to compensate the earnings of a 35 year old stripper that has had seven kids and looks like a walking bag of skin because she didn't make as much as the fit, and attractive, twenty-two year old.

The real question is when should the government 'back off' and stay out of social issues that are none of it's business?

I don't want the government taking my money (call me greedy) and giving it to some nasty whore that can't stop mass-producing babies (that are almost statistically guaranteed to be as much of a drain on society as her worthless ass) because in the government's view she has earned my tax dollars.

My taxes should not be used to pay for a socialized national health care program. When did our country become so politically correct (read: stupid) that it is considered 'correct' for me (and everyone else) to have to pay for those that are less fortunate? If I work, I earned what I made ... whether that be shining a shoe or working the mic at a strip club ... why in fuck does the government get to decide who gets a share of that money?

I am not saying that those less fortunate should not be helped ... I'm just saying that the government has no business deciding what morals I should and should not hold. If I want to help out someone and do the 'right thing' then that is my choice. What this absurd and vapid viewpoint is saying is that I no longer have that choice as the government has changed it to an obligation.

The government has several jobs, but none of those jobs should be stealing from Paul to support Peter. If Peter can't make it on his own, then unless an individual or a group of them decide to give him charity, tough shit. He should have studied harder, worked harder, etc.

Stop pandering to the poor (of which ... a large portion of my family fits into that category). There will always be those people who have less than others ... spreading money to more evenly distribute it will hurt, not help our country. If I will make $45k a year, regardless of my job ... then why would I strive to work harder than the guy standing next to me? Why would I study to get a degree? Why would I be willing to do anything other than the most basic, simple, and least work-intensive job that I could do to 'receive my share'? For the generalized ideal of 'a better nation'?

Each baby step that this country takes towards socialism is a step in the wrong direction. Each step also makes it easier to take the next one. Where does it stop?

If most 'civilized' nations consider health care as a basic right ... then maybe, just maybe, our poor and underprivileged would be happy moving there. I'd gladly accept the government using my tax dollars to evacuate 75% or more of the people on SSI, welfare, etc. The vast majority of those people are nothing but leeches that could earn their own living but choose not to because they don't have to.

If being 'civilized' means that I have to support (key word is italicized) those less fortunate than me, then call me a barbarian. I'm sick to death of this recent wave of ideology that claims it is everyone's obligation to support those less fortunate or less qualified or (dare I say it) less motivated.

I don't have a time machine handy, but I seriously doubt that those that created our government ever intended for it to become the monstrosity that it is today.

[/steps off soapbox]

Barbarian

dlabtot
11-29-2008, 08:38 AM
This is certainly your perogative. But health care is not a 'right' defined in the US constitution ...

Our rights aren't given to us because they are defined in the Constitution... the Constitution doesn't grant or create rights, it merely acknowledges some of the natural rights that are inherent in being human. In your next reading of the Constitution, you might want to take a close look at the Ninth amendment.

threlayer
11-29-2008, 02:13 PM
We will always have tensions in our societal efforts because of our varying wants/needs. We all want different things and yet we all want the same things from our common pool of effort (government), and that's why we need leadership with common sense/judgement and not despotism.

The thing is that, like insurance we pool our collective money for common purposes and needs. But unlike insurance, that pooling is not voluntary. We need to find ways that everyone can contribute, even if only in time and effort. If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.

bem401
11-29-2008, 02:44 PM
. The fact is, I believe that everyone is entitled to health care, regardless of their work.

Everyone is entitled to purchase their own healthcare ( or find a job where it is provided for ) - it is not an entitlement. Nobody is denied anything. People make choices and then have to be responsible for them. In the world of dancers ( or any other world for that matter), for example, there are girls who pay for health care, there are girls who get it through a spouse, SO, or parents, and there are those who choose to go without coverage. They choose where they are in terms of health care. Those who argue for universal health care are just looking for something for free, and there is no such thing as free. Someone has to pay for it.

Melonie
11-29-2008, 03:16 PM
you might want to take a close look at the Ninth amendment.

What do you want me to say. There is a world of difference between Griswold v Connecticut ... which affirmed a right to 'marital privacy' and thus banned state laws prohibiting the sale of birth control (and thus allowed individuals to buy their own contraceptives) ... and affirming a right to national health care thus forcing hard working high earning fellow Americans to buy contraceptives and provide them to less hard working less high earning Americans (even though their own personal position may be against the use of birth control).

obviously I should have chosen a better example (i.e. arguably the American social welfare budget would be far lower if the use of birth control was forced upon those collecting social welfare benefits) ... but Griswold was the precedent setting 9th amendment case.

threlayer
11-29-2008, 09:21 PM
Mel, I think you should post more specific articles on the abuse of our entitlements and welfare systems. I know it is something many of us here are sensitive to.

Narcissus
11-30-2008, 02:06 AM
The thing is that, like insurance we pool our collective money for common purposes and needs. But unlike insurance, that pooling is not voluntary. We need to find ways that everyone can contribute, even if only in time and effort. If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.

Then consider me as part of the problem.

You do realize that your posts have a very socialistic tint to them, don't you? What exactly is your optimistic ideal of a perfect 'America'? I mean that question seriously, no sarcasm or such intended. I just don't understand that way of thinking as it is, to my mind, the antithesis of progress.


Everyone is entitled to purchase their own healthcare ( or find a job where it is provided for ) - it is not an entitlement. Nobody is denied anything. People make choices and then have to be responsible for them. In the world of dancers ( or any other world for that matter), for example, there are girls who pay for health care, there are girls who get it through a spouse, SO, or parents, and there are those who choose to go without coverage. They choose where they are in terms of health care. Those who argue for universal health care are just looking for something for free, and there is no such thing as free. Someone has to pay for it.

I seriously wished, while reading this, that I had full use of both of my arms as I would have clapped. I'm not entirely in agreement about it being just those that want something for 'free' as there are a lot of misguided 'civilized' people in this country, but a beautiful post just the same.

:clap:

Part of the problem Barbarian

Melonie
11-30-2008, 04:22 AM
Mel, I think you should post more specific articles on the abuse of our entitlements and welfare systems. I know it is something many of us here are sensitive to.

Unfortunately, much like fraudulent voter registrations, statistics on abuse of entitlement programs is something that the government and mainstream media are NOT anxious to publicize. Thus what can be found in the way of actual proof of abuse is mostly anecdotal ... i.e. 30 people being busted recently in one upstate NY city, or a handful of dancers being busted for collecting social welfare benefits for themselves and their children while earning $50k+ in unreported income.

What CAN be found are statistics on the 'minimum standard of living' of Americans who are eligible for entitlement programs, as compiled by the US Census Bureau and other institutions ...

(snip)"the per capita expenditures of the lowest income fifth of the U.S. population exceeded the per capita expenditures of the median American household in 1955, after adjusting for inflation."(snip)

(snip)"In 1965 the black illegitimate birth rate was 28 percent; today it is 64 percent. Properly measured, the number of persons in material poverty has shrunk since 1965, but at the unnecessary cost of producing a burgeoning underclass. The current welfare system has created entire communities where work is rare, intact families virtually unknown, and dependence on government a way of life passed on from generation to generation."(snip)

(snip)"In counting the incomes of poor persons the Census Bureau actually excludes almost all welfare assistance. Some 75 percent of welfare spending in the U.S. is in the form of "non-cash" assistance. Yet the Census Bureau ignores all non-cash benefits in determining the income of poor persons. Non-cash programs such as food stamps, public housing, energy assistance, school lunch and breakfast programs, and the Women, Infants, and Children's (WIC) food program are excluded from the Census Bureau's poverty calculations entirely. Thus, the Census Bureau counts most persons receiving non-cash welfare as poor even if the total value of the welfare assistance received greatly exceeds the poverty income thresholds."(snip)

(snip)The strongest effect of welfare is to diminish work effort, reducing earned income and thus making families more dependent on welfare. In the mid-1970s the U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare undertook the most extensive and thorough controlled experiment on the behavioral consequences of welfare ever attempted in the United States: the Seattle/Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, known as "SIME/DIME," involving nearly 5,000 families over seven years. The SIME/DIME experiment showed that every $1.00 of welfare given to low income persons reduced labor and earnings by 80 cents.40 In other words, while welfare is very ineffective in raising the incomes of the poor, it is very effective in replacing work with dependence. Recent national data show that among the poorest 20 percent of U.S. households there is only one full-time worker for every seven full-time workers in the most affluent 20 percent of households.41

Tragically, the system designed to alleviate poverty in large part has been responsible for destroying the work ethic in low-income neighborhoods. There has been an enormous growth in the number of non-working poor families since the advent of the "War on Poverty." In the 1950s, nearly one-third of poor families as defined by the Census Bureau were headed by adults who worked full-time throughout the year. In those days the problem was low earnings. In 1988, only 16.4 percent of poor families had full-time working heads of households.42 Today, the problem is that adults do not work."(snip)

from

Arguably, while these official statistics based observations do not technically constitute evidence of 'abuse', they certainly illustrate the cumulative effects of 'moral hazard'. In other words, it is not technically considered to be 'abusing' social welfare programs when beneficiaries choose to quit their jobs rather than risk earning an amount that would push them above the eligibility threshold for receiving continued benefits.

Also, arguably, the 'moral hazard' situation of full time work at unskilled wage rates versus losing social welfare benefit eligibility ( i.e. voluntary unemployment ) has been a major reason that legal and illegal immigrants have been attracted to the USA to fill unskilled wage rate jobs.

threlayer
11-30-2008, 10:56 AM
Then consider me as part of the problem. If you are and you realize it, then part of my job is done. :)


You do realize that your posts have a very socialistic tint to them, don't you? What exactly is your optimistic ideal of a perfect 'America'? I mean that question seriously, no sarcasm or such intended. I just don't understand that way of thinking as it is, to my mind, the antithesis of progress.... Simple...social responsibility. This country has become increasingly narcissistic over the last several decades; and that is NOT for the better. A much better mix of personal choice and social responsibility is what I wish for. That would be significant progress.

threlayer
11-30-2008, 11:08 AM
Unfortunately, much like fraudulent voter registrations, statistics on abuse of entitlement programs is something that the government and mainstream media are NOT anxious to publicize. Thus what can be found in the way of actual proof of abuse is mostly anecdotal ... i.e. 30 people being busted recently in one upstate NY city, or a handful of dancers being busted for collecting social welfare benefits for themselves and their children while earning $50k+ in unreported income....

Yes. I have a feeling that only 30 cheats in 4-5 years or so is understating the problem. Yet this info might be easier to obtain than insurance or income tax cheats (where suspect cases are a lot more than follow-up cases). I'll keep a watch out for it too. It'll always be non-zero, but at what point does it become a significant social burden? And is it there now? Those are my issues.

Melonie
11-30-2008, 12:47 PM
at what point does it become a significant social burden? And is it there now? Those are my issues

again the technical distinction arises between being a 'welfare cheat' versus legally using social welfare benefit eligibility to voluntarily reduce working hours. While I'm not going to search for it again, at some point I found and posted a statistic showing that, on the average, adults in households receiving social welfare benefits work only 16 hours per week. The motivation for this development is obviously the 'moral hazard' created by gov't eligibility rules ... which essentially results in a 20 cent on the dollar actual rate of return for additional work effort ... at least up to the point of working 'full time' at an unskilled wage rate. Put another way, a person choosing to work full time and earn $30k without social welfare benefits is no better off, and is arguably WORSE off in terms of health care etc., than if they voluntarily cut working hours back to the point where annual earnings are $20k but full eligibility for medicaid, subsidized rent, subsidized utilities, food stamps etc. is maintained.

From my personal point of view, the problem doesn't actually lie with the social welfare recipients ... it lies with the gov't for setting down eligibility rules that have created this 'moral hazard' disincentive towards work.

As to the degree of social burden, several states now have some 10% of their populations collecting social welfare benefits in one form or another. The stat for the state of Michigan is over 12%. Arguably, the 'moral hazard' social welfare benefit eligibility issue will contribute to a slower economic recovery than was the case in the 1930's. The reason of course is that, back then without social welfare benefits providing a 'minimum acceptable standard of living', long term unemployed (or unemployable) people had a strong incentive to move to different areas of the country where work WAS available. However, under today's level of social welfare benefits, long term unemployed (or unemployable) people can stay where the jobs AREN'T for as long as their social welfare benefits continue to be paid. To make matters worse, as state and local tax rates are increased to cover the increasing cost of providing social welfare benefits to a rising percentage of state and local residents, a stronger and stronger incentive is created for higher earning state residents and state businesses to consider relocation. This has all the ingredients of creating a snowball effect ... as the states of Michigan, California, New Jersey etc. are now discovering with great distress.

Circling back on topic, Obama has announced plans to adopt federal economic policies re national health care, re federal grants to (particular) cities etc. which will, for the first time, spread the cost of the 'generous' social welfare programs instituted by states like Michigan, California, New Jersey etc. among ALL federal taxpayers.

Narcissus
11-30-2008, 03:37 PM
Then consider me as part of the problem.
If you are and you realize it, then part of my job is done. :)

You misunderstand: I don't see myself as part of the problem. I was stating that you should see me that way as your ideal of what a problem is ... well, it is the opposite of what mine is.

It seems that you want socialistic social programs removing freedom of choice from individuals for the betterment of society.

I want freedom of choice to actually mean what it says. I'm not against the 'betterment of society', I just feel that it is an individual's choice to make.


You do realize that your posts have a very socialistic tint to them, don't you? What exactly is your optimistic ideal of a perfect 'America'? I mean that question seriously, no sarcasm or such intended. I just don't understand that way of thinking as it is, to my mind, the antithesis of progress.
Simple...social responsibility. This country has become increasingly narcissistic over the last several decades; and that is NOT for the better. A much better mix of personal choice and social responsibility is what I wish for. That would be significant progress.

Instead of attacking the social inadequacies our society faces, you would choose to force on the people what, in your opinion, is the best for the people. That sounds similar to a socialistic despotism to me. Who needs free will when we have the government to tell us what is wrong or right?

I think it is a little strange that you say you want a better mix of personal choice and social responsibility when your stated viewpoint is to take away the right for an individual to choose what his/her social responsibility is.

Narcissus

threlayer
12-01-2008, 01:26 PM
...From my personal point of view, the problem doesn't actually lie with the social welfare recipients ... it lies with the gov't for setting down eligibility rules that have created this 'moral hazard' disincentive towards work....

I'll get back to this in a couple of days. But for now, I agree that our govt shows great lack of coordination and insight regarding the effect of these assistance programs. As well as many other programs. And that's just irresponsible.

threlayer
12-01-2008, 01:37 PM
...Instead of attacking the social inadequacies our society faces, you would choose to force on the people what, in your opinion, is the best for the people. That sounds similar to a socialistic despotism to me. Who needs free will when we have the government to tell us what is wrong or right?

I think it is a little strange that you say you want a better mix of personal choice and social responsibility when your stated viewpoint is to take away the right for an individual to choose what his/her social responsibility is.


Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved In my opinion our society has turned very narcissistic over the last several decades. I would like to see a reverse of this, though it is quite unlikely. I believe capitalism, if not controlled, quickly and tragically leads to a class-driven society. Exploitation is characteristic that we share with all other animals; yet we profess to be 'humane.' Yeah, right. Lord of the Flies is more like it.

FBR
12-04-2008, 08:25 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081205/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_sidelines

Frankly, I think president elect Obama is showing some statesmanship by understanding he is not the president until Jan 20. His time will come and only then should his feet be held to the fire, especially by his fellow dems.

Barney Frank is such a dick no pun intended :D

FBR

glambman
12-04-2008, 08:37 PM
I believe capitalism, if not controlled, quickly and tragically leads to a class-driven society. Exploitation is characteristic that we share with all other animals; yet we profess to be 'humane.'



Aren't communist and other anti-capitalist countries also class driven. Substitute Exxon CEO with Communist Party Chairman, and so on and so forth, and whalla, you still have a class driven society.

Who has had the greatest level of exploitation in the 20th century, capitalist corporations or anti-capitalist states?



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081205/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_sidelines

Frankly, I think president elect Obama is showing some statesmanship by understanding he is not the president until Jan 20. His time will come and only then should his feet be held to the fire, especially by his fellow dems.

Barney Frank is such a dick no pun intended :D

FBR

I was going to link the article with the caption "Don't count your chickens before they hatch".

NWoD
12-07-2008, 12:09 PM
Since it is obvious that no actual citations will be forthcoming, I guess I'll simply note that both Ronald Reagan and George Bush initiated massive tax cuts along with massive spending increases, not that I think they are good role models for President-elect Obama.

Further, the idea that "95% of Americans" constitutes a "special interest group" is rather ludicrous (the American people are a special interest group?), but not surprising, considering the source.

Somehow, I suspect that it is the tax increase on the 5% making more than $250,000, rather than the tax cut on everyone else, that has your ire. But of course, to mention that would undercut your bogus argument by acknowledging that the revenue reality does not match up to your oversimplification.

So, supposedly we have on one side of these contradictory promises, a "special interest group" made up of 95% of Americans. I wonder, who is the competing "special interest group" to whom Obama made this supposed promise to "increase gov't social spending by ~$800 billion"?

}:D Great comeback LoL

threlayer
12-07-2008, 01:31 PM
Aren't communist and other anti-capitalist countries also class driven. Substitute Exxon CEO with Communist Party Chairman, and so on and so forth, and whalla, you still have a class driven society.

Who has had the greatest level of exploitation in the 20th century, capitalist corporations or anti-capitalist states?


Anti-capitalist states control vastly more people than capitalist corporations do. Anyhow you cannot substitute 'capitalism' for 'democracy.' It's not democracies that exploit people, it's non-regulated capitalists corporations. Non- or loosely regulated corporations. It isn't the principle of capitalism, it's in the actualization of it that it can fall apart.

glambman
12-07-2008, 01:50 PM
Anti-capitalist states control vastly more people than capitalist corporations do. Anyhow you cannot substitute 'capitalism' for 'democracy.' It's not democracies that exploit people, it's non-regulated capitalists corporations. Non- or loosely regulated corporations. It isn't the principle of capitalism, it's in the actualization of it that it can fall apart.


So unregulated capitalists are responsible for China's ills? lol When the govt owns/ controls the production, it takes away the incentive to benefit. Even Castro had strike busters. He even sent tens of thousands of them to help Chavez in Venezuela.

threlayer
12-07-2008, 08:15 PM
So unregulated capitalists are responsible for China's ills? They are? I didnt know that. (China is grooming capitalists that the gov't can control, but their gov't doesn't care about the people either.)

When the govt owns/ controls the production, it takes away the incentive to benefit.... I NEVER said govt should own production, just that government should regulate capitalists who are in a strong position to exploit others. You are going way beyond what I said to control both sides of this discussion.

Melonie
12-08-2008, 06:36 AM
It's not democracies that exploit people

again one needs to be careful with semantics in regard to 'people'. How do you categorize a democratically cast vote by a majority on NON income tax paying citizens ... i.e. those whose incomes are low enough to fall below the IRS progressive tax rates (less tax credits), plus those who are rich enough to shield their incomes from high taxes (via tax credits, tax free muni bonds, offshore havens etc.) ... electing a new administration that will increase de-facto gov't subsidy payouts to themselves at the expense of a 'minority' of middle class taxpayers ?

That certainly flirts with the term exploitation ! Actually, this principle has for many years been referred to as the 'tyranny of the majority'.

glambman
12-08-2008, 08:56 AM
It's not democracies that exploit people

Actually, it is.

The Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea, Russia, and on.

Did you know we (the United States) are not a democracy. Nowhere in the Constitution does it even say we are a democracy.

threlayer
12-08-2008, 10:07 AM
...Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea, Russia, and on...Did you know we (the United States) are not a democracy. Nowhere in the Constitution does it even say we are a democracy.Baloney and you know it. Besides the Constitution is not a dictionary.

threlayer
12-08-2008, 10:18 AM
...How do you categorize a democratically cast vote by a majority on NON income tax paying citizens Voting is extended to all citizens of legal age and standing (thinking here of felons).

...incomes are low enough to fall below the IRS progressive tax rates (less tax credits), plus those who are rich enough to shield their incomes from high taxes (via tax credits, tax free muni bonds, offshore havens etc.) This leaves the 'middle class.' You would have low income people pay taxes? The rich helped design the loopholes for their own purposes. That's exploitation also.

...electing a new administration that will increase de-facto gov't subsidy payouts to themselves at the expense of a 'minority' of middle class taxpayers ? You don't know what he is going to do, especially with the new economic situation. Hell, the huge finance companies did it because they were stupid. Those payouts have not lubricated the lending system. And they are now wasting it in the sense that it is not directed at the mortagage problem and spending some of it on 'boondoggles.' and now they want the 'rest' of it.


That certainly flirts with the term exploitation ! .... Yes, I'd say that is.

glambman
12-08-2008, 10:50 AM
Baloney and you know it. Besides the Constitution is not a dictionary.


Then please show me where it says we are a democracy in the Constitution.

threlayer
12-08-2008, 12:49 PM
"Democracy: Please see all the below."

You mised that? LOL

glambman
12-08-2008, 04:05 PM
"Democracy: Please see all the below."

You mised that? LOL


Nope, it isn't there. ;D

NWoD
12-08-2008, 05:06 PM
^^^ actually, once I'm gone I'll probably depart from SW as well ... at least in terms of being a moderator. And I haven't totally committed to Costa Rica yet either. Given recent developments, it may turn out that Panama may be a wiser choice for a long term ex-pat despite the fact that it will be a bit more complicated and expensive (i.e. business investor visa). But if the Panamanian business investor option can't be brought together by mid January, Costa Rica it is ( i.e. I don't intend on spending more than 30 days per year in the USA once 2009 arrives).

~

Don't let the door hit your a** on the way out LoL

eagle2
12-08-2008, 06:42 PM
Interesting debate and interesting points.

[Steps on soapbox]

That same line of thinking leads to even more excessive government 'determination' of fairness and equality.

Eventually, using that same line of thought, strip clubs will not be able to refuse to hire (as a stripper) a 400 lb. man who recently had a sex change operation. Eventually, using that same line of thought, strip clubs will be forced to compensate the earnings of a 35 year old stripper that has had seven kids and looks like a walking bag of skin because she didn't make as much as the fit, and attractive, twenty-two year old.

The real question is when should the government 'back off' and stay out of social issues that are none of it's business?

I don't want the government taking my money (call me greedy) and giving it to some nasty whore that can't stop mass-producing babies (that are almost statistically guaranteed to be as much of a drain on society as her worthless ass) because in the government's view she has earned my tax dollars.


This is nonsense. You don't know what every person's situation is that receives government assistance. I would bet that you received some government asistance of one form or another sometime in your life.



My taxes should not be used to pay for a socialized national health care program. When did our country become so politically correct (read: stupid) that it is considered 'correct' for me (and everyone else) to have to pay for those that are less fortunate? If I work, I earned what I made ... whether that be shining a shoe or working the mic at a strip club ... why in fuck does the government get to decide who gets a share of that money?


Because that’s what the people who elected the government want.




I am not saying that those less fortunate should not be helped ... I'm just saying that the government has no business deciding what morals I should and should not hold. If I want to help out someone and do the 'right thing' then that is my choice. What this absurd and vapid viewpoint is saying is that I no longer have that choice as the government has changed it to an obligation.

The government has several jobs, but none of those jobs should be stealing from Paul to support Peter. If Peter can't make it on his own, then unless an individual or a group of them decide to give him charity, tough shit. He should have studied harder, worked harder, etc.


It’s the government’s job to do what the people who elected them want them to do (Unless it violates the Constitution).




Stop pandering to the poor (of which ... a large portion of my family fits into that category). There will always be those people who have less than others ... spreading money to more evenly distribute it will hurt, not help our country. If I will make $45k a year, regardless of my job ... then why would I strive to work harder than the guy standing next to me? Why would I study to get a degree? Why would I be willing to do anything other than the most basic, simple, and least work-intensive job that I could do to 'receive my share'? For the generalized ideal of 'a better nation'?

Each baby step that this country takes towards socialism is a step in the wrong direction. Each step also makes it easier to take the next one. Where does it stop?

If most 'civilized' nations consider health care as a basic right ... then maybe, just maybe, our poor and underprivileged would be happy moving there. I'd gladly accept the government using my tax dollars to evacuate 75% or more of the people on SSI, welfare, etc. The vast majority of those people are nothing but leeches that could earn their own living but choose not to because they don't have to.

If being 'civilized' means that I have to support (key word is italicized) those less fortunate than me, then call me a barbarian. I'm sick to death of this recent wave of ideology that claims it is everyone's obligation to support those less fortunate or less qualified or (dare I say it) less motivated.


I'm sure that like most conservatives, you'll fight vehemently against any type of government assistance to those who are less fortunate, until you actually need assistance yourself. “Conservative” is just a polite term for being selfish and thoughtless.



I don't have a time machine handy, but I seriously doubt that those that created our government ever intended for it to become the monstrosity that it is today.

[/steps off soapbox]

Barbarian

I really couldn't care less what those that created our government intended, considering many of them intended that people with dark skin were to be nothing more than someone's property.

Our laws should be based on what is best for society, not what the thinking was in 18th century America.

glambman
12-08-2008, 06:52 PM
Because that’s what the people who elected the government want.

We are a Republic, not a democracy. Screw mob mentality.

It’s the government’s job to do what the people who elected them want them to do (Unless it violates the Constitution).

That's the problem, they don't have he right under the Constitution to do even a quarter of what they've done.

I'm sure that like most conservatives, you'll fight vehemently against any type of government assistance to those who are less fortunate, until you actually need assistance yourself. “Conservative” is just a polite term for being selfish and thoughtless.

Look at any statistic, conservatives are more generous to charities. You liberals tend to think that a govt program is a charity. Well, it is not.

Our laws should be based on what is best for society, not what the thinking was in 18th century America.

Who sets the standard of what's best for society? Maybe w need 'what's best for individuals.


I'm in bold.

eagle2
12-08-2008, 07:06 PM
We are a Republic, not a democracy. Screw mob mentality.

We are a democracy. Our leaders are elected by the people. Republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive.




That's the problem, they don't have he right under the Constitution to do even a quarter of what they've done.


Yes they do. Conservatives can’t convince the majority of people that their policies are best so they resort to saying that policies they oppose are not Constitutional.


Look at any statistic, conservatives are more generous to charities. You liberals tend to think that a govt program is a charity. Well, it is not.

I doubt that.



Who sets the standard of what's best for society?

The people do, through their elected officials.

glambman
12-08-2008, 07:59 PM
1.We are a Republic, not a democracy. Screw mob mentality.

We are a democracy. Our leaders are elected by the people. Republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive.

http://www.c4cg.org/republic.htm Look up Benjamin Franklin, even he disdained a direct democracy.


2. That's the problem, they don't have he right under the Constitution to do even a quarter of what they've done.


Yes they do. Conservatives can’t convince the majority of people that their policies are best so they resort to saying that policies they oppose are not Constitutional.

lol We conservatives don't vote for people who are promising us stuff. We are not just looking for gain for ourselves through he govt.

3.Look at any statistic, conservatives are more generous to charities. You liberals tend to think that a govt program is a charity. Well, it is not.

I doubt that.

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

4.Who sets the standard of what's best for society?

The people do, through their elected officials.

They have a framework to work with they've ignored and we get activist judges who read something in that was never there.

threlayer
12-08-2008, 08:11 PM
REPRESENTATIONAL DEMOCRACY
PRESIDENTIAL FORM

A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch, but in which the people (or at least a part of its people) have impact on its government. The word originates from the Latin term res publica, which literally translates as "public thing" or "public matter".

Democracy is a form of government in which power is held by people under a free electoral system. In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes. The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties. There are several varieties of democracy some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others.
However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated to avoid an uneven distribution of political power with balances such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule is able to accumulate power in a way that is harmful to democracy itself. The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the "tyranny of the majority". An essential process in representative democracies are competitive elections, that are fair both substantively and procedurally. Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests.

glambman
12-08-2008, 08:20 PM
Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Melonie
12-08-2008, 10:57 PM
Don't let the door hit your a** on the way out LoL

I really appreciate your 'bon voyage' wishes !!!



Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

... a fitting commentary given recent election results and the underlying reasons behind them !

Narcissus
12-08-2008, 11:09 PM
Last time I checked, we were still a democratic republic.

Last time I checked, elected officials do pretty much whatever they damn well please. Example: I voted for Bush (first term) and was against going to war in Iraq (at least for the reasons given). Just because someone is an elected official, doesn't mean that his actions are representative of what 'the people' or 'the people who voted for him/her' want.

So again I state:


My taxes should not be used to pay for a socialized national health care program. When did our country become so politically correct (read: stupid) that it is considered 'correct' for me (and everyone else) to have to pay for those that are less fortunate? If I work, I earned what I made ... whether that be shining a shoe or working the mic at a strip club ... why in fuck does the government get to decide who gets a share of that money?

Look at the numerous government assistance programs that you and I (I'm assuming that you pay taxes) are paying for already and the way that they are abused by so many people. You want more of them?

Understand, I'm not against helping people. In many circumstances, I'm not even against the government helping people. It just depends on the situation: what the person needs, why they need it, how long they will need it, and if they will have to pay it back. However, I am against the government forcing me to pay for everyone's health care (most especially when that plan includes illegals). I am against many of the current programs running today (at least in their current incarnation), and anyone with any sense should be as well.

Look, when a family (regardless of how many people ~ kids, mother, father) is surviving solely off of government assistance ... something is wrong. However, that happens quite often. Then when you consider the birth rate in those families (consider those kids are, according to statistics, going to be in the same situation as their parents) and all that entails, it is absurd. These worthless bags of protoplasm can't survive without the government, yet they can raise a family?!? They can because our government is so politically correct, it forces me, you, and everyone else to pay for them to do it. That is the same ideology that you are defending: do what is best for the people regardless of whether the receiving part of 'the people' is often the part that doesn't deserve it.

Anyway, believe whatever you want ... my opinion isn't going to change your beliefs.

Narcissus

Melonie
12-09-2008, 04:36 AM
^^^ ah yes, but your 'worthless bags of protoplasm' do something very important that a lot of taxpaying citizens do not ... they overwhelmingly vote for politicians that promise to give them even larger gov't checks and/or additional 'free' gov't benefits !

America's becoming a more and more 'democratic' country is arguably leading to the same place as the Roman Empire's experiment with democracy ... 'Bread and Circuses'.

Rosary
12-09-2008, 04:46 AM
Yeah I think we're already there.

threlayer
12-09-2008, 08:12 AM
At least King George is almost gone and we can be a republic again. LOL



... they overwhelmingly vote for politicians that promise to give them even larger gov't checks and/or additional 'free' gov't benefits.... And this is recognized as the bug-a-boo of representative democracies worldwide. As people become better settled into their world of comfort, they dream of their world getting even better and easier for them. So they demand more from the faceless source of money, and then they complain when the money starts running out. It's human nature, I guess, to exploit and when it is not anyone you know (such as a huge company or the government), it is even easier.

threlayer
12-09-2008, 08:14 AM
"Democracy Index as published in January, 2007. The palest blue countries get a score above 9.5 out of 10 (with Sweden being the most democratic country at '9.88'), while the black countries score below 2 (with North Korea being the least democratic at 1.03)."

This from Wikipedia ("Democracy")

eagle2
12-10-2008, 04:10 AM
Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Again, "Republic" and "Democracy" are not mutually exclusive. Why is this so difficult for conservatives to understand?

Melonie
12-10-2008, 04:24 AM
^^^ the American founding fathers distinguished between 'republic' and 'democracy' by establishing requirements for 'registered voters' which went significantly beyond merely residing in America at the time of an election ! Arguably, the founding fathers' intent was to limit voting to those Americans who had an active 'stake in the game' i.e. property owners.

Over the years, the courts have indeed moved away from the founding fathers' original intent such that America allows virtually everyone with a pulse who is residing in America at the time of an election to vote. Yes this is far more 'democratic'. However, it also has created a situation where 40%+ of American voters have no active 'stake in the game' ... because in a modern context 40%+ of Americans pay no income taxes (thus escaping any negative personal financial consequences of their vote).

eagle2
12-10-2008, 05:29 AM
Practically all Americans pay taxes of one form or another. Besides income taxes, there are payroll taxes, gasoline tax, cigarette tax, tax on alcoholic beverages. Just because an American doesn't pay income tax doesn't mean they don't have a stake in the outcome of the election.

Melonie
12-10-2008, 08:33 AM
^^^ horses#!t ! Payroll a.k.a. Social Security and medicare taxes, gasoline taxes, etc. are all targeted to fund particular programs which are not at issue during elections (so far at least). The election issues that ARE being voted on involve increased taxation of the 'rich', increased social welfare program spending, bailout policy, environmental policy etc. - none of which have any direct negative consequences on Americans whose incomes are low enough that they aren't required to pay the income taxes which actually fund these programs at issue in the election. However, some direct positive consequences are involved i.e. social welfare program generosity.

threlayer
12-10-2008, 10:38 AM
Arguably, the founding fathers' intent was to limit voting to those Americans who had an active 'stake in the game' i.e. property owners.

Over the years, the courts have indeed moved away from the founding fathers' original intent such that America allows virtually everyone with a pulse who is residing in America at the time of an election to vote. Yes this is far more 'democratic'....

I don't believe it is just arguable; to me it is an obvious fact. Also, they didn't even believe that such a restricted populace was competent to elect a President. That's why were just elect electors who in turn vote their preferences. Of course this has turned from a popularity contest of the electors into a popularity contest of the voters, just what they didn't intend. (That become more evident in every election.) Nor were they brave enough to make a decision on slavery; that only started 70 years later. Further there are political theories that the Constitution was a product of the framers' own self-serving natures, as evidenced by features such as the above. It is regarded as an imperfect document that still needs to be tuned up rarely.

jester214
12-10-2008, 11:24 AM
Nor were they brave enough to make a decision on slavery; that only started 70 years later.

What nonsense is this? They made a decision it was the decision to have a country made up of all the 13 colonies and not just the ones above Virginia.