My Country is Officially Stupid

[Rissan4ever]

Haidt makes a provocative claim about morality. He argues that moral judgments — and, by extension, political judgments — are like tastes. Just as some people prefer sweet food and others sour, so too do some people prefer to concern themselves with notions of harm and fairness while others are more concerned with liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Democrats have a taste for the first two values; Republicans have a more pronounced taste for the other values. Political partisans differ in their conception of fairness. For Democrats, the term summons up images of equality. For Republicans, fairness is about proportionality; meaning people should get what they deserve based on what they’ve done.
I found this really interesting. Basically, it tells me that it's not that conservatives are selfish or hateful (some are, but most aren't), but that they attach higher moral value to certain concepts. Particularly the issue of sanctity, with regard to gays being allowed into the "Institution of Marriage." This has allowed me some insight into the thought processes of the people on the other side of the debate.

The problem is, this is just telling us what we already know: Different people value different things, and they make decisions based on those values and passions. It doesn't get us any closer to finding a resolution.

[Nabterayl]

The problem is, this is just telling us what we already know: Different people value different things, and they make decisions based on those values and passions. It doesn't get us any closer to finding a resolution.
You know, I actually think that this:

Basically, it tells me that it's not that conservatives are selfish or hateful (some are, but most aren't), but that they attach higher moral value to certain concepts.
does get us closer to a resolution. Not very far, maybe, but the first thing people need to understand about their political opponents is that they aren't selfish or hateful.

[Rissan4ever]

I agree. The fact that people have different core values than you doesn't make them stupid or evil. It's when you realize that fact, that you can start looking at them as people with valid ideas instead of soulless automatons that are only there to thwart you. And THAT'S when compromise happens, and real progress is made.

[DarkLink]

Hmmm, I can think of a few people here who could stand to learn that.

[ElectricPaladin]

Additionally

http://24.media.tumblr.com/a628923c82d386199e98f46dba8578f3/tumblr_mufus4EsrU1rx70ego1_1280.jpg

[Rissan4ever]

Oh, come on! Next you'll be saying it's ok to admit when you're wrong. <---Sarcasm font

[DarkLink]

Yeah, what are you, a communist?

[Cap'nSmurfs]

but the first thing people need to understand about their political opponents is that they aren't selfish or hateful.

Well, no, because sometimes they genuinely are. You don't have to think too hard to come up with a long-ish list of people and movements that were selfish and hateful. The point is that one shouldn't assume that your political opponents must be selfish, hateful subhumans just because you don't agree. :)

[ElectricPaladin]

Well, no, because sometimes they genuinely are. You don't have to think too hard to come up with a long-ish list of people and movements that were selfish and hateful. The point is that one shouldn't assume that your political opponents must be selfish, hateful subhumans just because you don't agree. :)

I think it's true that many politicians are hateful, subhuman turds. Most of the poor saps who voted for them are just trying to be good people like everyone else.

[Mr Mystery]

It's kind of hard when you consider they're typically viewed through the lens of their most vocal (and therefore, most lunatic fringe nutter) exponents.

For instance, in the UK, it's genuinely hard to remember that not every Tory voter is all about '**** the poor'. Most just want financial conservatism.

Likewise in the US, the Tea Party are frankly terrifying, as are the left fringe weirdos who feel Wikileaks is essential, and hasn't put anyone in any danger ever....

[Rissan4ever]

It's kind of hard when you consider they're typically viewed through the lens of their most vocal (and therefore, most lunatic fringe nutter) exponents.

For instance, in the UK, it's genuinely hard to remember that not every Tory voter is all about '**** the poor'. Most just want financial conservatism.

Likewise in the US, the Tea Party are frankly terrifying, as are the left fringe weirdos who feel Wikileaks is essential, and hasn't put anyone in any danger ever....
Precisely. Some politicians and their attendant parties are maniacs. But most of them genuinely believe they're doing the right thing, and really do have the country's best interests at heart. Saying that they're ALL corrupt is just as absurd as saying that none of them are corrupt.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

the left fringe weirdos who feel Wikileaks is essential, and hasn't put anyone in any danger ever....

See, here's the thing: there's no evidence that it has. This is why at Chelsea Manning's trial it was decided that the prosecution didn't have to prove that direct harm had come from her leaking of the documents (because they couldn't, because there's no evidence that they did); merely that "the enemy" had access to them mostly by being aware of "the internet".

Wikileaks is an organisation which has its problems (the Cult of St. Julian is especially unpleasant) but acknowledging what they've done in terms of opening up knowledge of what world governments are doing - none of this is exactly information they were volunteering, especially when it related to crimes committed - is not a "fringe" position. Or else you're throwing millions of people worldwide, not to mention other governments, media institutions &c into the "fringe weirdo" camp. Which may be a defensible position; you'd have to back it up, however.

You can pick plenty of weird beliefs on the part of the so-called US left (try the 9/11 truth movement), but this ain't one of them.

[daboarder]

See, here's the thing: there's no evidence that it has. This is why at Chelsea Manning's trial it was decided that the prosecution didn't have to prove that direct harm had come from her leaking of the documents (because they couldn't, because there's no evidence that they did); merely that "the enemy" had access to them mostly by being aware of "the internet".

Wikileaks is an organisation which has its problems (the Cult of St. Julian is especially unpleasant) but acknowledging what they've done in terms of opening up knowledge of what world governments are doing - none of this is exactly information they were volunteering, especially when it related to crimes committed - is not a "fringe" position. Or else you're throwing millions of people worldwide, not to mention other governments, media institutions &c into the "fringe weirdo" camp. Which may be a defensible position; you'd have to back it up, however.

You can pick plenty of weird beliefs on the part of the so-called US left (try the 9/11 truth movement), but this ain't one of them.

Not to mention the vast majority of information leaked by wikileaks is usually corporate negotiations (where the *******s are gaming the system to **** people over) or governments violating the rights of their own citizens (and if your pro-gun or whatnot because you think the government would become a tyranny.....yeah you should probably be more worried about this.)

that being said, julian is an egomanical *******, and I think its funny almost no one voted for the wikileaks party during the aussie election.

[Mr Mystery]

See, here's the thing: there's no evidence that it has. This is why at Chelsea Manning's trial it was decided that the prosecution didn't have to prove that direct harm had come from her leaking of the documents (because they couldn't, because there's no evidence that they did); merely that "the enemy" had access to them mostly by being aware of "the internet".

Wikileaks is an organisation which has its problems (the Cult of St. Julian is especially unpleasant) but acknowledging what they've done in terms of opening up knowledge of what world governments are doing - none of this is exactly information they were volunteering, especially when it related to crimes committed - is not a "fringe" position. Or else you're throwing millions of people worldwide, not to mention other governments, media institutions &c into the "fringe weirdo" camp. Which may be a defensible position; you'd have to back it up, however.

You can pick plenty of weird beliefs on the part of the so-called US left (try the 9/11 truth movement), but this ain't one of them.

I just have issues with it in general. Like 'leaking' documents about Prince Andrew's personal thoughts. How did that benefit anyone? Except of course giving Mr Assange at least 'half a teacake' at the attention.

And for an organisation insisting on transparency and whining about justice. Mr Assange is hardly a shining example....

[Psychosplodge]

For instance, in the UK, it's genuinely hard to remember that not every Tory voter is all about '**** the poor'. Most just want financial conservatism..

I thought they were generally sick of being taxed to death for going to work for a living...

[Wolfshade]

I thought it was more akin to:
Labour taxes you a lot but provides universal services that are free (or subsidised cost) at point of use.
Conservatives taxes you less but you have to pay for the services, but you only pay for what you need.

Now I know it isn't quite that clear cut, but I think it is about financial responsibilty. We only have to look at the problems of allowing council tenants to be more responsible for their benefits to see the issues. So, instead of housing benefit being paid straight to the landlord, the claimant recieves it and pays the landlord. There are now loads of tenants in arrears because they do not budget, that should not be the responsbility of the government.

[daboarder]

the caveat being that paying for what you need makes each "need" more expensive.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

I just have issues with it in general. Like 'leaking' documents about Prince Andrew's personal thoughts. How did that benefit anyone? Except of course giving Mr Assange at least 'half a teacake' at the attention.

And for an organisation insisting on transparency and whining about justice. Mr Assange is hardly a shining example....

Now this I agree with.

Also, guys, please tell me more of this mythical fantasy land where the Tories lowered everyone's taxes and definitely didn't hike VAT up to a high-street destroying 20 per cent. What's that? One of the most effective recession era measures was Alastair Darling's temporary VAT cut to 15 per cent? But Labour! Taxes!

[Wolfshade]

the caveat being that paying for what you need makes each "need" more expensive.

While I certainly agree that there is economy of scale, the one public organisation I work along side has just completed an analysis that has shown that by implementing lean processes it could make efficiency savings in the order of 40% without it being service affecting. No public comapny could operate so inefficiently.
It is a regular occurence that I will be asked by this organisation to provide the same data and analysis for the same purpose by different members of their organisation. I think my all time record was 7 duplicated requests...

[Wolfshade]

Now this I agree with.

Also, guys, please tell me more of this mythical fantasy land where the Tories lowered everyone's taxes and definitely didn't hike VAT up to a high-street destroying 20 per cent. What's that? One of the most effective recession era measures was Alastair Darling's temporary VAT cut to 15 per cent? But Labour! Taxes!

Well the IFS state of the cut two important things:


This analysis suggests a short run fall in revenue from the VAT of about 13%. Finally, the rich will benefit somewhat more from this rate cut than the poor.
(http://www.ifs.org.uk/wps/wp0902.pdf)

So drop VAT, decrease tax income and give a benefit to the rich, sounds more blue than red, but ho-hum.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Yes, but that's the difference between "poor idea" and "poorly run".

[eldargal]

My problem with the Republicans isn't that I think they are selfish, amoral cartoon villains but that I find their actions grossly hypocritical even within the context of their belief system. They claim to be about individual freedom but the fact is you really cared about individual freedom you would be better off voting Democrat, for all their many, many faults they aren't trying to control peoples lives according to their own moral code. Which is the very opposite of freedom.

[Psychosplodge]

Yes but the puritans didn't flee religious persecution, they fled not being able to persecute other religions...

[Kaptain Badrukk]

And burn people, don't forget burning people.

[Psychosplodge]

So really it's just their culture...

[Bigred]

I've got a bad feeling about this upcoming week.

I REALLY want to believe that they will find a way to avoid a credit default by the US, but now the clock is ticking.

The 17th is very close and there are a lot of steps that have to all go just right to get stuff done in time and through both houses of Congress and to the Presidents desk.

And that's assuming everyone WANTS to get it done in time, which I'm beginning to think is an incorrect assessment.

It's difficult to see a way for Boehner to keep his speakership after this, but the time for recriminations is not now.

Seeing news reports of Fidelity investments selling all their shortterm US bonds "just in case" should get Congress' attention.

I don't know what happens to the Tea-party if the whole thing goes tits-up by end of week - but it wont be pretty.

This is completely uncharted waters.

[Psychosplodge]

So is there a way to legally secede the US?

[daboarder]

I think only texas retains the constitutional right to do that....And to be honest the last time a portion of the US tried to go their own way the other guys crushed them and dressed the whole thing in propaganda.

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah, but you'd be pissed off wunt you if everything goes to **** for you because of a few dozen people from somewhere you probably can't point at on a map?

[Wolfshade]

They could always sell Alaska back to Russia, that may raise a few Roubles.

[Mr Mystery]

Don't worry America.

Daddy is here to help.

As we speak, British Infantry men, well fed, well paid and even better trained will be arriving on your shores to help you. To make them extra visible, they have been issued with bright red overcoats. Do not be afraid. They are here to help.

[DarkLink]

Is that part of the USMC's new moving target marksmanship program?

[Mr Mystery]

It's alright. They'll never hit us. We're not allies this time :p :p :p

[DarkLink]

My problem with the Republicans isn't that I think they are selfish, amoral cartoon villains but that I find their actions grossly hypocritical even within the context of their belief system. They claim to be about individual freedom but the fact is you really cared about individual freedom you would be better off voting Democrat, for all their many, many faults they aren't trying to control peoples lives according to their own moral code. Which is the very opposite of freedom.

Democrats are just as bad. Instead of controlling aspects of, like, your marriage life, instead they try and control every aspect of your financial and business life. You have to pay tons of taxes on everything, you can only spend money on this and not that, you need a signed permit to mow your lawn (and that'll be a $50 processing fee for that permit, thank you very much).

Gay marriage is actually one of the only controls that the right really obsesses over. There are a few others, like banning drugs, but I can't think of too many. Of course, it depends on what type of republican you're thinking of, too. Or what kind of democrat, for that matter.

[eldargal]

Reminds me of a joke my grandfather used to tell about fighting in WWII:

When word that British planes were in the air, the Germans ducked for cover.
When word that German planes were in the air, the British ducked for cover.
When word that American planes were in the air, everyone ducked for cover.


Democrats are just as bad. Instead of controlling aspects of, like, your marriage life, instead they try and control every aspect of your financial and business life. You have to pay tons of taxes on everything, you can only spend money on this and not that, you need a signed permit to mow your lawn (and that'll be a $50 processing fee for that permit, thank you very much).

Gay marriage is actually one of the only controls that the right really obsesses over. There are a few others, like banning drugs, but I can't think of too many. Of course, it depends on what type of republican you're thinking of, too. Or what kind of democrat, for that matter.
Except you don't, that's mostly right wing mythology. The Democrats, at the last fiscal cliff fiasco last year, wanted to raise taxes on families earning more than 250k a year. The Republicans wanted to let a whole bunch of middle and lower class tax cuts expire, effectively raising taxes for a vast swathe of the populace. When it comes to businesses and corporations I have considerably less sympathy, unless tax rates are punitive (of which there is no evidence that hey would be) corporations deserve to pay more for the privileges they enjoy.

Gay marriage aside Republicans also want to control and regulate contraception and abortion, quite literally regulating womens bodies. Far, far more controlling than anything the Democrats have come up with. It's just most Republican,'freedom loving' Americans don't care because they are men who have never been faced with the prospect of not having control over their own body.

I don't like the Democrats, I really don't. I have a lot of respect for a certain brand of Republicanism (that of John McCain, for example). But when it comes to the current state of the parties I would never vote Republican.

[ElectricPaladin]

I have a lot of respect for a certain brand of Republicanism (that of John McCain, for example).

I had respect for McCain, until he decided to go soft on torture. I will never forgive him for that.

[eldargal]

Well I mean more for the type of Republicanism he represents, not the man and his record personally. I wasn't aware he had gone soft on torture (hint: it never works, even the CIA know that) though, sad. You would have thought he of all people would know better.

[ElectricPaladin]

You would have thought he of all people would know better.

My thoughts exactly.

He went hard again on torture later. It was all about getting the Bush base to support him during the election, which is what makes his shift even more disgusting. If he'd just changed his mind, I would have retained the smallest glimmer of regard for the man, but the way he shifted mid-election, then shifted back once he'd lost, made it really obvious what he was doing.

[Bigred]

Being from Texas, I can tell you the only folks who think we can legally secede are living in trailers deep in west Texas. The Civil War settled that...

Now about that Alaska - Russia deal...

Hmm, I don't think Putin would want Sarah Palin as a citizen.

[Mr Mystery]

Being from Texas, I can tell you the only folks who think we can legally secede are living in trailers deep in west Texas. The Civil War settled that...

Now about that Alaska - Russia deal...

Hmm, I don't think Putin would want Sarah Palin as a citizen.

Who does?

[daboarder]

Being from Texas, I can tell you the only folks who think we can legally secede are living in trailers deep in west Texas. The Civil War settled that...

Now about that Alaska - Russia deal...

Hmm, I don't think Putin would want Sarah Palin as a citizen.

could you elaborate? seriously curious, I thought "technically" texas still could, it would just be 1 utterly stupid to do so, and 2 completely un-texan.

[DarkLink]

Just because Texas claims they can quit the USA anytime they want, doesn't mean they can.

I just realized why I don't care too much about the federal shutdown. I live in Kalifornia, where the Democrats have been doing crap like this at the state level for as long as I've been, well, alive.

[Kyban]

Here's some fun new info on the shutdown.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/13/house-republicans-rules-change_n_4095129.html

It's nice to know our government works so well.
/sarcasm

[Nabterayl]

could you elaborate? seriously curious, I thought "technically" texas still could, it would just be 1 utterly stupid to do so, and 2 completely un-texan.
I think it is fair to say that "the Civil War settled that." The American Civil War was very much about the question of whether a state can secede from the union without rebelling against the union. The answer (according to the victors, as well as the majority sentiment of the nation as a whole both at the time and since) is no. You're can decide to join but you can't decide to quit. We're like space marines that way.

That being the socio-political-military reality. If you're asking about what American law says on the subject, there is some room for doubt. Four years after the Civil War ended, the federal supreme court decided Texas v White, in which the [new] Texas government argued that the [defeated, Confederate] Texas government had illegally sold U.S. bonds to the Confederacy during the Civil War. In deciding the case, the supreme court had to decide whether Confederate Texas was still actually part of the union (albeit in rebellion at the time) or whether it had actually left the union and been conquered. The court decided that Texas never left the union to begin with, because you can't leave the union:


When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

If you buy Justice Chase's argument, then it is literally impossible to secede from the United States. You can agree with your fellow states to leave, and you can rebel (perhaps successfully), but you cannot just unilaterally leave. That is rebellion.

If you buy Justice Chase's argument.

The thing is, you don't have to buy Justice Chase's argument. Nothing in the constitution gives the federal supreme court final say over interpreting the federal constitution. In modern times, Americans frequently behave as if it does, but it doesn't, and the supreme court itself generally doesn't claim such power. So, if you're inclined to look for technicalities, what you really need is something in the constitution itself that says a state cannot unilaterally secede. Chase thought (or at least argued publicly) that was found in the Articles of Confederation, our first constitution, which declared the union to be "perpetual." In Chase's view, the second constitution (the one we currently operate under) did not completely replace the first constitution, and thus - even though the second constitution doesn't outright call the union "perpetual" - the union of the second constitution is still a "perpetual" one.

Reasonable people might not find that argument convincing. One of Chase's fellow justices did not. Other people since have also concluded that, socio-political-military reality be what it may, nothing in American law actually prohibits unilateral secession.

[Rissan4ever]

Screw this place. I'm moving to the Moon.

[Wolfshade]

Screw this place. I'm moving to the Moon.
The atmosphere is rare

[ElectricPaladin]

The atmosphere is rare

I hear it's cold this time of year, too.

[daboarder]

I think it is fair to say that "the Civil War settled that." The American Civil War was very much about the question of whether a state can secede from the union without rebelling against the union. The answer (according to the victors, as well as the majority sentiment of the nation as a whole both at the time and since) is no. You're can decide to join but you can't decide to quit. We're like space marines that way.

That being the socio-political-military reality. If you're asking about what American law says on the subject, there is some room for doubt. Four years after the Civil War ended, the federal supreme court decided Texas v White, in which the [new] Texas government argued that the [defeated, Confederate] Texas government had illegally sold U.S. bonds to the Confederacy during the Civil War. In deciding the case, the supreme court had to decide whether Confederate Texas was still actually part of the union (albeit in rebellion at the time) or whether it had actually left the union and been conquered. The court decided that Texas never left the union to begin with, because you can't leave the union:



If you buy Justice Chase's argument, then it is literally impossible to secede from the United States. You can agree with your fellow states to leave, and you can rebel (perhaps successfully), but you cannot just unilaterally leave. That is rebellion.

If you buy Justice Chase's argument.

The thing is, you don't have to buy Justice Chase's argument. Nothing in the constitution gives the federal supreme court final say over interpreting the federal constitution. In modern times, Americans frequently behave as if it does, but it doesn't, and the supreme court itself generally doesn't claim such power. So, if you're inclined to look for technicalities, what you really need is something in the constitution itself that says a state cannot unilaterally secede. Chase thought (or at least argued publicly) that was found in the Articles of Confederation, our first constitution, which declared the union to be "perpetual." In Chase's view, the second constitution (the one we currently operate under) did not completely replace the first constitution, and thus - even though the second constitution doesn't outright call the union "perpetual" - the union of the second constitution is still a "perpetual" one.

Reasonable people might not find that argument convincing. One of Chase's fellow justices did not. Other people since have also concluded that, socio-political-military reality be what it may, nothing in American law actually prohibits unilateral secession.

Thank you very much Nab, I learnt something interesting today cheers.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

It's always worth mentioning that as well as its secessionist tendencies, there is also a pro-Union political tradition in Texas, going back to Sam Houston. He's a man worth looking up.

[chicop76]

Just found out in Louisiana they cancelled Drill weekend until further noticed. Now this **** is causing me problems. Also I noticed the *******s waited till the new fiscal year to pull this stunt. They knew government agencies would spend their funds before the beginning of October. With funds exhausted going into October they ensured that several government agencies would have to work at minimum capacity.

My brother works as an Air Traffic controller and is receiving reducd pay due to the shut down as well.

Good jod Republicas. Piss off government workers, so they won't vote for you.PS: hate Obama too, but hating the Republican congressman even more.

[Wolfshade]

Ah but the question is whom should you hate more. The Republicans for blocking the bill in the house of representatives, or the Democrats for sending a bill that they know wouldn't be acceptable to them.

Both have a proportion of the blame.

[eldargal]

Republicans. If you don't like a bill you either try and defeat it or you repeal it, you don't cost the country billions of dollars and threaten to destabilise your own economy and the world economy because of it.

[Mr Mystery]

US Politics confuses me as to who has what power etc.

In the UK, it's easy. Head of State is Hereditary. Currently it's Queenie. Doesn't actually have a great deal of power, as although her signature is required on new laws, and she owns the army (not the country!) she's not actually allowed to say 'no'.

PM is the leader of the party with the largest count of MPs currently sitting in Parliament, aka House of Commons. These are your bread and butter politicians, there, ostensibly, to represent us, the wee man. They received lobbying and set up bills of parliament, which if passed, are signed off by Queenie into Acts of Parliament, becoming law.

House of Lords is semi-elected, with a few Hereditary Peers left. These are nominated by Parliament for the most part. They have some power, but it's very limited. They can bounce a Bill of Parliament back with suggested/recommended reviews to be made, but can only do this three (?) times per Bill, before it simply bypasses them. Although not exactly democratic, they do ensure democratic process. Take 1997, when Labour came to power on a massive landslide majority. They had the MPs to put through anything they wanted to, whether promised in their manifesto or not. Worst case scenario? PM uses said majority to dissolve democratic process with a democratic vote, giving us a dictator. House of Lords can block this, forcing revisions. So it kind of works.

But the US? Not. A. Clue. Are representatives more powerful than senators?

[chicop76]

Democrats are just as bad. Instead of controlling aspects of, like, your marriage life, instead they try and control every aspect of your financial and business life. You have to pay tons of taxes on everything, you can only spend money on this and not that, you need a signed permit to mow your lawn (and that'll be a $50 processing fee for that permit, thank you very much).

Gay marriage is actually one of the only controls that the right really obsesses over. There are a few others, like banning drugs, but I can't think of too many. Of course, it depends on what type of republican you're thinking of, too. Or what kind of democrat, for that matter.

Democrats keep the poor, poor. Look at welfare for example. It is a system that is design to keep you stuck relying on government aid. Who wants to work more and get paid less. Knowing that you will work the job you need, so you can make it on government aid.

The way the job market is, and how Walmart pays really low for Labour to cut cust. Sadly Walmart encourags workers to get on government support, so they don't have to pay the cost.

Than again corporations love to suck on the government nipple as well to cut cost. Bill Clinton's wife was a CEO for Walmart. During Clinton's administration he was very pro Walmart.

I really think democrats and republicans alike do not have your average Americans citizens well being in mind. In fact look at at abk rtion for example. You argue that 5% OF ABORTION cases have merit which means that 95% also have merit as well. I agree abortion is needed, but it shouldn't be used by everyone. It encourages having unprotected sex since if you get a woman pregnant you can simply opt for abortion to get rid of that mistake. Yes you can validate abortion, but again should it be legal for everone.

Abortion is just one example where you take extreme circumstances and justify it for everyone. That is one of the major problems with our legal system.

Also laws like lowering Congressman wages will never get passed since they vote on it themselves.

The issue I have with Republicans is they say they want government out of everything, which means big business can do what they want and screw the little man. Look at the issues India have and still have with Coke for example. Classic example of what companies would due with no oversight.

I do not have a problem paying taxes, I do with income tax. We should have a government tax on goods like a state tax. Company buys 1000 goods the government gets a profit. Even though the government can just make money. It needs to bring in revenue. No taxes equals no revenue, no fines equals no revenue. Why you think several states do not have economic problems, hmmm nit cause you pay a state tax on everything.

From the 1880s-1920s would be a good example of why the government should get involved in issues of a domestic nature. Heck that time period is why we have more government envolvement anyway. Unless you want to go to a type of government that the south had before the war. The only ones that really liked that government was rich land owners. The white yeoman farmers was screwed since they couldn't compete with the mega corporation of the huge slave plantations that can sell goods much cheaper than the average white farmer that couldn't own slaves.

Remember only 6% of whites in the south owned slaves. Even though 50% or more of the population was slaves in the south and whites had rented out slaves for different task.

[Psychosplodge]

u
house of lords is filled with failed politicians and political cronies and hangers on since the removal of the majority of hereditary peers?

ftfy

[Mr Mystery]

ftfy

I guess. But the replacing of braying, inbred chinless idiots was no bad thing...

Oh lordy.....A-Bomb has been set off.

Chicop. Let's keep this short and sweet. Womans. Right. To. Choose. Keep the Government out of her lady bits, and nobody gets hurt. Leave it to the individual.

[eldargal]

I guess. But the replacing of braying, inbred chinless idiots was no bad thing...

Replacing them with wealthy cronies of the political parties was much worse though.

[Mr Mystery]

Replacing them with wealthy cronies of the political parties was much worse though.

I remain to be convinced. I think it's precisely as poop. Hereditatries blocked stuff to guard their legacy and interests, and stuff the country.

Cronies block stuff on account of their leader of choice, and stuff the country.

[eldargal]

You had a well educated core of people whose livelihood didn't depend on political influence and didn't owe their position in the house of review to political allegiance. Which isn't to say some reforms weren't needed. A mechanism to bar Peers from voting where a conflict of interest existed (is there something like that? Hm) and the adoption of absolute primogeniture to ensure the peerage itself is more inclusive would be a plus. There is no question that it shouldn't be ALL hereditary peers, but I do believe they have a place.

[Mr Mystery]

I guess House of Lords is just one of those things. I suspect you'd struggle to find anyone with even the shakiest of grasps on it's concept espousing that it should become democratically elected. But how we otherwise pick those who sit is hard to say.

Unless we do it like Jury Duty. Letter comes through your door, boom, you're called to the House of Lords to sit for the Parliament. That could be good for a laugh.

[Wolfshade]

You had a well educated core of people whose livelihood didn't depend on political influence and didn't owe their position in the house of review to political allegiance. Which isn't to say some reforms weren't needed. A mechanism to bar Peers from voting where a conflict of interest existed (is there something like that? Hm) and the adoption of absolute primogeniture to ensure the peerage itself is more inclusive would be a plus. There is no question that it shouldn't be ALL hereditary peers, but I do believe they have a place.

Yes of course you also need your Lords Spiritual :p

[Kaptain Badrukk]

I guess House of Lords is just one of those things. I suspect you'd struggle to find anyone with even the shakiest of grasps on it's concept espousing that it should become democratically elected. But how we otherwise pick those who sit is hard to say.

Unless we do it like Jury Duty. Letter comes through your door, boom, you're called to the House of Lords to sit for the Parliament. That could be good for a laugh.

Ironically that would probably work.

[eldargal]

Yes of course you also need your Lords Spiritual :p

True.:)

[Psychosplodge]

There's no point having a second elected house.
At least the hereditary peers generally had a sense of responsibility.

[Mr Mystery]

There's no point having a second elected house.
At least the hereditary peers generally had a sense of greed and self interest rarely seen in the lower classes.


Left wing fix'd for you :p

[Psychosplodge]

I don't their lower class replacements are amply demonstrating one :p

[eldargal]

Actually you could argue that hereditary peers with established positions and usually some degree of inherited wealth are in a better position to maintain their integrity as they won't need to feather the nest in the dubious ways politicians do, selling influence in the guvmint for cushy jobs upon leaving politics.:p

[Mr Mystery]

Also means they're far more likely to be utterly out of touch with the common man, which is to my mind just as bad.

But thinking about it, House of Lords is starting to sound like the Big Brother house, except with hopefully less wine bottles inserted into inappropriate orifices in the pursuit of fleeting shame.

[chicop76]

I guess. But the replacing of braying, inbred chinless idiots was no bad thing...

Oh lordy.....A-Bomb has been set off.

Chicop. Let's keep this short and sweet. Womans. Right. To. Choose. Keep the Government out of her lady bits, and nobody gets hurt. Leave it to the individual.

So let's pull the plug on old people, children's rights. Let me kill my son at my leisure since I am his dad, parents rights. Let's kill a murder, victim's rights. Let's kill a person on my property, home owner's rights.....

People miss the point is you are taking a life. Like I said before I have no problem with rape victims and due to medical issues. I do have a problem when you kill a baby simply due to not wanting to deal with it.

I am tired of hearing abortion as a woman's right. If anything it's a man and woman's right. It takes a man and woman to have a baby. No sperm equal no baby. You can argue that a woman go through more than a guy in a pregnancy, but you wouldn't have the baby in the first place if the guy didn't impregnate the woman.

Lets keep this short and simple. Do not have sex unless you want the responsibility of having a child. How about that. How about this, have surgery so you can't get pregnant. For man and for woman. That way you can have sex to your hearts desire until you get a sexually transmitted disease. Actions have consequences. If you have sex you can have a baby.

You know why your government is all over abortion. It's because it became a federal case and a national issue that's why. I am tired of hearing its a woman's right since it says a lot of things. First if my wife got pregnant and instead of talking it over and spews the woman's right garbage I would tell her it's my men's right to leave her since obviously I don't have a say.

However not trying to derail the topic since I was only using abortion as an example of laws that causes issues. Also I would say the woman mostly have a choice over the male since most males would forfeit their choice for one reason or another. However saying that abortion is a woman's choice instead of a woman and man'S CHOICE you made the baby in the first place is already cosing isolation from the other party. However lets not get into an abortion debate. I hate them with a passion and inthe end no is really listening to the other side. That issue have moral, religion, and politics rolled all in it.

I just wanted to say that Obama in his first 4 years tried to go half way with the Republicans. However it caused the Republicans to get more than half since they typically want it all their way. People forget that the Republicans put a lot of sabotaged into the health care plan. Obama could had gone back to the drawing board instead of passing a bill that the Republicans themselves purposely made bad. This should not be a surprise since the Republicans said they would shut the government down long ago. At this point Obama can yield to the Republicans again or just say screw them and put his foot down.

I do blame Obama for the shut down, but how the Republicans been acting since Obama has been in office I woukd blame them a lot more. All I got to say if a Republican becomes president I wouldn't be surprised if democrats do the same thing.

I think voting independent may be a better avenue next election.

[eldargal]

In my experience the upper middle class are far more out of touch.

Chicop, you're spouting bull****. Old people aren't parasitic lifeforms entirely reliant on their host for survival. Foetuses are. The fact you even compare the two shows you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Even your son isn't that dependent on you as he can be taken from you and survive, a foetus cannot until quite late and even then only with artificial support and a considerable risk of long term health problems. On that basis I do oppose to late term abortions except when absolutely required to save the mothers life or some such issue.

[Mr Mystery]

Oh dear. Not a choice you'll ever have to make.

And you're working from some very peculiar, and uncited numbers 5% 'legitimate'?? Really? Protection fails. Johnnies split. Pill skips a beat. Bad stuff happens. Congenital defects.

Provide solid, peer reviewed evidence of abortion being used as a sort of 'morning after' contraceptive, and we'll talk.

[chicop76]

Replacing them with wealthy cronies of the political parties was much worse though.

That's the problem with our government in a nut shell. Due you cater to the average man or the lobbyists you gives you paid vacations, stock options, retirement funds, etc.

[eldargal]

Not to mention the considerable list of medications that can stop the pill from working properly, including some acne treatments which young women often take. It is also something that a lot of women, again particularly young women, are not educated about.

Abortion costs vastly more than contraception, in the US something like six months worth of contraception pills. No one in their right mind would use it as a form of contraception, that is just right wing bull**** fed to a moronic public. Morning after pills are morning after contraception, not abortion. Another common lie is that morning after pills are abortion pills, they are not. They prevent ovulation until the sperm die, once ovulation has occurred they do nothing. There is an abortion pill but that is something different entirely.

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

And this is why I am a firm believer in a woman's right to choose. I'm neither pro nor anti abortion. Just pro-choice, which includes better education and information all round. Not the right wing ignorance and blame factory.

[chicop76]

In my experience the upper middle class are far more out of touch.

Chicop, you're spouting bull****. Old people aren't parasitic lifeforms entirely reliant on their host for survival. Foetuses are. The fact you even compare the two shows you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Even your son isn't that dependent on you as he can be taken from you and survive, a foetus cannot until quite late and even then only with artificial support and a considerable risk of long term health problems. On that basis I do oppose to late term abortions except when absolutely required to save the mothers life or some such issue.

Old people are parasitc at a certain point, especially if they on life support. The abortion topic reminds me of another topic like parenting. I'm tired of hearing parenting advice from people who have no kids. Unless you raised a kid you really have no clue. Same with abortion. Unless you go through pregnancy and have an abortion or consider having an abortion It's a different story. Again like I said before that parasitic organism comes from a substance generated by a man, unless that substance comes into contact with eggs no parasitic organism can come into being. Long story short no sex equals no abortion. Now I am talking from a man and woman s stand point instead of a woman left alone to face a pregnancy stand point. The two are very different. Often the woman and man stand point like I said from the beging is often ignored by the alone woman, rape, medical, financial, or other reason stand points.

[chicop76]

Yup.

And this is why I am a firm believer in a woman's right to choose. I'm neither pro nor anti abortion. Just pro-choice, which includes better education and information all round. Not the right wing ignorance and blame factory.

No one is blaming anyone. Do you have a wife? Or a girlfriend. You know if either got an abortion and spouted woman's rights to the other they shouldn't be surprised if their significant other just leaves them. That's like a big screw you to their partner. Not ignorance.

[Psychosplodge]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/d64d017d32e38cb611007133b03f63a6/tumblr_mtwuum7YCp1rw7rvuo1_500.jpg

[Kaptain Badrukk]

No one is blaming anyone. Do you have a wife? Or a girlfriend. You know if either got an abortion and spouted woman's rights to the other they shouldn't be surprised if their significant other just leaves them. That's like a big screw you to their partner. Not ignorance.

Whilst I'm sure you are both well meaning and have pure intentions this debate is only going to get nasty fast.
I'd suggest we all drop it before it gets that way.

[Psychosplodge]

It normally does...

[eldargal]

Old people are parasitc at a certain point, especially if they on life support. The abortion topic reminds me of another topic like parenting. I'm tired of hearing parenting advice from people who have no kids. Unless you raised a kid you really have no clue. Same with abortion. Unless you go through pregnancy and have an abortion or consider having an abortion It's a different story. Again like I said before that parasitic organism comes from a substance generated by a man, unless that substance comes into contact with eggs no parasitic organism can come into being. Long story short no sex equals no abortion. Now I am talking from a man and woman s stand point instead of a woman left alone to face a pregnancy stand point. The two are very different. Often the woman and man stand point like I said from the beging is often ignored by the alone woman, rape, medical, financial, or other reason stand points.
No, just not. Being on life support is in no way comparable to having a creature living inside you utterly dependent on you that, when birthed, will change your life forever and cost you hundreds of thousands of pounds before it becomes fully independent. If a woman wants to carry that responsibility good for her, if she doesn't, she should have that choice. unless you are her partner you have zero right to influence her decision.

[Mr Mystery]

No one is blaming anyone. Do you have a wife? Or a girlfriend. You know if either got an abortion and spouted woman's rights to the other they shouldn't be surprised if their significant other just leaves them. That's like a big screw you to their partner. Not ignorance.

So every woman in a relationship who has an abortion does it behind their partners back? Good argument there. Or perhaps you're saying the man should have the deciding vote, even though its far, far easier (including psychologically) for the man just to do a runner in either situation? Good argument. Honest. Not a flaw to be seen. Really. I mean it.

At the moment, I am between relationships. But I have several friends who have had abortions, some in relationships, some outside of relationships.

And guess what! Having not put said bun in said oven it was nothing to do with me what they did!. And seeing it's nothing to do with me, and I actually know them. then it's certainly nothing to do with you or anyone else either!. Unless of course you are claiming moral superiority over the rest of mankind?

[Wolfshade]

Quick weigh in.

In the abortion issue there are three people to consider:

1. The mother
2. The father
3. The child

Now legally speaking number 3 isn't a person so has no rights. I am not going to jump on that one as even if we acknowledge that they are a person from the instance of conception we have and will have no way of knowing what they wanted. Indeed, I know people who wish that they had never been born.

The father has no say. If he chooses that it should be aborted what right does he have to put a woman through that. If he chooses to keep it what right does he have to put a woman through that.

The mother has all the say. It is her body and she has to cary the child or undergo the procedure to have it terminated. She has to live with the consequences, where she keeps it and the father doesn't want it you end up forcing the father to pay up keep for a child that probably wasn't wanted or discussed.

There is no way that there can ever be a "fair" system and their can never be a reconcilliation between the different aspects because of it.

As for raising children, surely if I through tax am contributing to someone's child I have a right to voice my opinion if they are doing it right or wrong. Indeed look at Supernanny Jo Frost, no children yet she gives germane advice and teaches parents to be parents without being one herself. To think people without kids have no experianced of it themselves or knowledge is crazy. It is like saying you cannot comment on something unless you have experaince of doing it yourself. I have no experiance of murder but I will say it is wrong.

[ElectricPaladin]

No, just not. Being on life support is in no way comparable to having a creature living inside you utterly dependent on you that, when birthed, will change your life forever and cost you hundreds of thousands of pounds before it becomes fully independent. If a woman wants to carry that responsibility good for her, if she doesn't, she should have that choice. unless you are her partner you have zero right to influence her decision.

Bingo.

Look, chicop76, I know people who have had abortions. Nobody likes them. At the very least, you must understand that they are unpleasant and invasive procedures that leave one's girl-bits feeling thoroughly wrung out. Imagine if you could either use a condom or do the medicalized equivalent of sounding (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sounding+fetish) - warning, not even slightly safe for work - which would you chose?

Yeah, condoms. Me, too.

The thing is that condoms fail. They're effective 90% of the time if used correctly. If you screw up, that effectiveness drops to 80%, or 70%, or less...

And that's assuming that you use a condom. Nobody wants to rely on abortion, but thanks to abstinence-only sex ed (another brilliant Republican idea, by the way...) we have lots of kids who just don't know what to do. In their ignorance, they let their hormones take over and just knock boots and hope. We all know how that works out. What's worst, the grooves left by that kind of ignorance can last forever, and we have adults doing the same thing.

Look, nobody likes abortion. There's no one handing out free abortions at bus stops. Nobody is saying "ah, abortion, what a wonderful thing!" We all like babies. Even if we don't like babies, we at least acknowledge that it's important that someone be having them (well, except for my wife's old friend from middle school who is part of some voluntary human extinction cult...). Anyway, abortion isn't a good thing. What it is, though, is the lesser of the available evils, both from a societal standpoint and a personal standpoint. The former is established by many studies - I can't be bothered to find them right now, I need to get in the shower - that establish that abortion is cheaper for society because of all the other costs associated with unwanted children that it cuts. And from a personal standpoint... if you can't sympathize with someone stuck carrying, birthing, and potentially even raising a baby she does not want, there's nothing I can do for you.

[chicop76]

Whilst I'm sure you are both well meaning and have pure intentions this debate is only going to get nasty fast.
I'd suggest we all drop it before it gets that way.

I should qoute myself saying I didn't intend to get into an abortion debate. I made the mistake of using it as an example. I am personally tired of the abortion debate. This coming from when I was younger I was pro abortion. Now I am in the middle. Education helps and personal experience and visiting abortion clinics. In the end people will still take different things from said experiences. You either going to be pro life or pro abortion for the most part. I think it's funny a lot of pro lifers are for euthanasia and for the death penalty. Abortion have an impacts on whole families and even some communities.

Everybody have an opinion. My opinion is I am tired of our government using laws to further others agenda. Like having to hire a certain percentage of a race and gender. Yes it is needed. Not saying that it's not. In hindsight they should be able to move up through the company ladder. Also they should have a meaningful job, also have the same opportunities as their coworkers. Also have the experience and know how to be able to perform that job.

The problem with our laws is that it is a general blanket statement that have party line influence where the law causes more harm than good. Welfare is a prime example. Do republicans care that wellfare recipients are on drugs or not, no. They just want less people on wellfare and a drug test does that. If they cared to try to get the people off drugs and if they don't want to get off taking wellfare from them can be a solution, but to say you on drugs, so no wellfare is screwd up.

[Psychosplodge]

Does anyone know anything about this article 2 section 3 post I saw last night that suggests the president can call both houses and lock them in till they sort it?

[Mr Mystery]

No, but it sounds like a laugh to me!

They should lock them in the room with some windy fattyboombooms. Might count as chemical warfare, and therefore breach the Geneva convention, but I think it's called for :p

[chicop76]

No, just not. Being on life support is in no way comparable to having a creature living inside you utterly dependent on you that, when birthed, will change your life forever and cost you hundreds of thousands of pounds before it becomes fully independent. If a woman wants to carry that responsibility good for her, if she doesn't, she should have that choice. unless you are her partner you have zero right to influence her decision.

Ummm you could be be paying thousands for an old person to be put on life support or even into the millions in some cases, heck paying for old people care, medications, foster care, etc. Is very taxing. Do you go. " hey gramps you're really expensive, so please die." Usually most family members would make it work whioe others would pull the plug.

If no partner is involved than it is a woman's choice. No argument about that. Well some argument, but legally speaking yes it's the woman's choice if no partner is involved.

Yeah I know what a woman goes through. Like I said before I said you can have tubes tied, etc. Their are surgical procedures that prevent men from impregnating a woman and from a woman from getting pregnant. Hmmm lets see I been through 2 children births so far, one is mine. I can say it is very taxing on the woman more than a man, learned not to watch the baby from the doctor's end. However it is a very heavy burden on both individuals. All I can really say at this point which I said earlier. People take different things from experience. I am already heated from the shut down since it impacts me, the drill s I will have to make up sigh. Anyway. Everyone have an opinion. I can try to make you see mine or tell you mine and leave it at that. This subject angers me a lot and I choose to not really get in to it. Just know I have some experience with the subject and you are not going to really change my opinion. My experiences have only formed a stronger opinion on the abortion subject. Now 20 years ago you probably could change my mind, but I am almost hitting 40 an have a lot of experience with family, military, some medical with the crisis unit working with mentally ill, and assisted NOPD for 3 years after Katrina.

[eldargal]

It's still no way comparable, those old people will have had decades of working life behind them in most cases and should have assets to help offset the cost, an infant does not. The entire cost is on the parents and in many cases in this context that means the mother.

[Wolfshade]

Of course if we were to off the oldies it would decrease the pension pot and help sort the budget out...

[Mr Mystery]

Of course if we were to off the oldies it would decrease the pension pot and help sort the budget out...

Would probably slash tax as well.

But then there's a world of difference between a Pensioner, and a clump of cells incapable of independant life.

[ElectricPaladin]

So, I guess we're talking about abortion now.

Here's what bugs me.

You seem upset about the idea of someone using abortion as birth control... my question is, who cares? Whose business is it? So, a woman wants to not be pregnant anymore... so what?

There is no other medical procedure - short of self-destructive ones - that you can't have done if you want to. You can have the shape of your nose changed. You can have your ability to reproduce excised. You can have fat sucked out from under your skin. Hell, this one guy had his freaking thumbs made narrower so he could type on his blackberry more easily.

And we are arguing about abortion.

There is no other issue over which we question someone's right to bodily integrity. You can do whatever you want with your own body. You can accept or reject treatment for any condition. Do you like cancer? Want to name it Bob, keep it as a pet? Go to town! There's nothing a doctor can do but shake his head sadly and pour himself a double.

But if a women is knocked up, suddenly the whole damn society has an opinion about it. Even more weirdly, they have a say.

I just don't get it. Why are theoretical people more important than actual people? Why is your opinion about what's right and wrong more important than someone else's bodily integrity because of her sex?

[Psychosplodge]

See I thought pro-choice would fit in more with the Republican ideology of Self determination

[chicop76]

It's still no way comparable, those old people will have had decades of working life behind them in most cases and should have assets to help offset the cost, an infant does not. The entire cost is on the parents and in many cases in this context that means the mother.

That's if the old person was working to begin with. Nowadays some kids live with their parents until they live off the death benefits of their dead parents. Not all old people have assets to work off the cost.


However if your child was Bill Gates I think you would see returns for your investment.
Well if your son is the next Bill Gates I think that would offset his growing up cost.

[KaiZie]

To each their own, quite simply.

I'm pro abortion, pro choice, pro-sexuality. Do what's right for you! You shouldn't suffer when you have options.

[chicop76]

See I thought pro-choice would fit in more with the Republican ideology of Self determination

That is wierd. It's due to during aroun Reagans time they picked up a lot of the religious crowd. So no killing babies, but old people and criminals are ok.

The whole abortion issue is whether or not you have a right to take a child's life. Same reasoning is it mortally ok to go around killing people. If the baby is born and the mother kills the baby is it still ok since she didn't want any possible damage to her body if an abortion was done to her.

All I can say is the issue comes down to when a baby is sentient or not. If it shows sentient life than overall it is as bad as killing anyone. If it has no sentience than it is ok to kill it since it's not defined as an intelligent thinking human life forma

Since we have laws for killing people in general. The thought is does the law apply to babies as well. Looking further into the situation you have justified circumstances where killing the baby is your best option. Out of what everreason they allowed everyone to be able to abort. Now the issue is and always will be is it justified to kill a baby just because a woman wants too or not.

[KaiZie]

The Question is then, are people people before they are born into the world? Can someone/something be a citizen if it doesn't actually live in the world yet? or does it already live in the world via the process of pregnancy? Do people have a right to make decisions over the life of someone in their care if they cannot choose for themselves?

[Cap'nSmurfs]

See I thought pro-choice would fit in more with the Republican ideology of Self determination

This should really make one consider how far "self determination" really is the Republican ideology. For some segments, yes. For others, really no.

[Psychosplodge]

That is wierd. It's due to during aroun Reagans time they picked up a lot of the religious crowd. So no killing babies, but old people and criminals are ok.

The whole abortion issue is whether or not you have a right to take a child's life. Same reasoning is it mortally ok to go around killing people. If the baby is born and the mother kills the baby is it still ok since she didn't want any possible damage to her body if an abortion was done to her.

All I can say is the issue comes down to when a baby is sentient or not. If it shows sentient life than overall it is as bad as killing anyone. If it has no sentience than it is ok to kill it since it's not defined as an intelligent thinking human life forma

Since we have laws for killing people in general. The thought is does the law apply to babies as well. Looking further into the situation you have justified circumstances where killing the baby is your best option. Out of what everreason they allowed everyone to be able to abort. Now the issue is and always will be is it justified to kill a baby just because a woman wants too or not.

Well I've yet to hear a ball of cells object...

[chicop76]

The Question is then, are people people before they are born into the world? Can someone/something be a citizen if it doesn't actually live in the world yet? or does it already live in the world via the process of pregnancy? Do people have a right to make decisions over the life of someone in their care if they cannot choose for themselves?

Yup. That's it in a nuttshell. The reason why abortion is one of those debates and why the government is involved.

[chicop76]

Well I've yet to hear a ball of cells object...

Same with people on life support in a coma. Pull the plug and they can't object either.

[Psychosplodge]

I've already proposed elsewhere that assisted suicide be legal.

[KaiZie]

I've already proposed elsewhere that assisted suicide be legal.

Somewhat agree. However even with a written and signed letter of concent you're still done for murder

[Psychosplodge]

Yep.
And again unless you're proposing squads to go round unplugging life support machines, euthanising the elderly, and forcing people to have abortions.
How is it anyone's but those directly involved business?

[Wolfshade]

Because otherwise we can't spend £1000s/day keeping them alive against their will? How else will my monies be spent?

[Mr Mystery]

One of the issues with euthanasia is of course the inheritance.

Many old people have a great deal of assets, whether liquid or not. And many old people with a great deal of assets have greed inspired family who just want the money.

Hence any legislation would have be ridiculously stiffly worded and inflexible as to how a person can give permission. Me, I'm all for it. History of Alzheimer's on both sides of the family now, and my mind is the thing I treasure most. I start going loopy? Kill me. Quickly.

[Rissan4ever]

Because otherwise we can't spend £1000s/day keeping them alive against their will? How else will my monies be spent?
LOL!

But seriously, I agree with the right to die. Some people want to live hooked up to machines in the hope that medical science will find a cure, fix their injury, or revive them in some way; I have a friend who has said exactly that. But other people state that they just want to be let go, and I don't think the rest of us have any right to stand in their way. Even regular suicide, I don't think should be illegal. Obviously, it's not good, and people should be counselled against it, but I don't think it's a sin.

Regarding abortion, I don't think it's a good idea to assign citizenship to a fetus. That would mean that every woman who has a miscarriage is guilty of manslaughter, and that's just ridiculous. In general, I don't think abortion is a good idea unless there's some kind of health risk to either the mother or the baby. Even in the case of rape or incest, it's not the kid's fault. However, I do believe in a woman's right to decide what happens to her own body. Therefore, I'm anti-abortion, but pro-choice. I don't think it's a good idea, but I'm not about to restrict someone else's right to control their own body.

[Wolfshade]

If in doubt I shall inherit it. Sounds fair?

[eldargal]

LOL!

But seriously, I agree with the right to die. Some people want to live hooked up to machines in the hope that medical science will find a cure, fix their injury, or revive them in some way; I have a friend who has said exactly that. But other people state that they just want to be let go, and I don't think the rest of us have any right to stand in their way.

Regarding abortion, I don't think it's a good idea to assign citizenship to a fetus. That would mean that every woman who has a miscarriage is guilty of manslaughter, and that's just ridiculous. In general, I don't think abortion is a good idea unless there's some kind of health risk to either the mother or the baby. Even in the case of rape or incest, it's not the kid's fault. However, I do think that the fetus is part of the woman's body, and it's her right to decide what happens to her own body. Therefore, I'm anti-abortion, but pro-choice. I don't think it's a good idea, but I'm not about to restrict someone else's right to control their own body.

An American state recenrly drafted laws to that effect actually. Women who miscarried could be charged with negligence, the assumption being something they did caused it.

[Rissan4ever]

An American state recenrly drafted laws to that effect actually. Women who miscarried could be charged with negligence, the assumption being something they did caused it.
Which state was that? My state, Virginia, tried something like that, but the law didn't pass because it's ludicrous.

[Wolfshade]

With the case of rape I know of a child who was the result of rape, they didn't abort for their own reasons, but the child suffered from emotional abuse at the hands of the parents as she was never accepted as a child of the family. She was treated like a third class citizen. Now don't get me wrong she was fed and given clothes and what not but her mother was reminded of the rape each time she saw the daughter and so would not bond with her and treated her significantly differently to the others.
Now I am not saying that that is always the case but it does happen and in extreme cases the child can be held accountable for the rape and suffer as a result of it.

[eldargal]

Which state was that? My state, Virginia, tried something like that, but the law didn't pass because it's ludicrous.\
I forget, it may have been Virginia. I think the laws were defeated in this case as well but I'm not sure. Or was it Louisiana? Hm, it was on Lipstick Feminists if I had time I'd find it but I have to go do things and stop wasting time posting humorous medieval art found on tumblr.

[chicop76]

You know. Thinking about it more abortion as a legal issue have been around for about 50 years. I am curious what we xid almost 300 years prior. However since women can vote and help supported the country in the last two world wars ii tbink the woman's rights movement is what brought this issue to light., which means a lot of wasted time looking up abortion history. K may look it up anyway in America of course. Wbo wants to go through thousands of years and hundreds oc regions.

Why is murder an issue. If you are on my property I shoot till you dead. Why is it anyones business.

[Psychosplodge]

Why is murder an issue. If you are on my property I shoot till you dead. Why is it anyones business.

I have little issue with that.

I believe they took things that induced a miscarriage, but might also kill you as they didn't really know what they were doing?
Or jam a knitting needle in and swirl it round pre 60's iirc from pse.

[Rissan4ever]

With the case of rape I know of a child who was the result of rape, they didn't abort for their own reasons, but the child suffered from emotional abuse at the hands of the parents as she was never accepted as a child of the family. She was treated like a third class citizen. Now don't get me wrong she was fed and given clothes and what not but her mother was reminded of the rape each time she saw the daughter and so would not bond with her and treated her significantly differently to the others.
Now I am not saying that that is always the case but it does happen and in extreme cases the child can be held accountable for the rape and suffer as a result of it.
That's child abuse/neglect/bad parenting, which could happen to any kid. And, it's a reason I'm pro-choice. In this case, the mother probably should have gotten an abortion or put the baby up for adoption.

[chicop76]

An American state recenrly drafted laws to that effect actually. Women who miscarried could be charged with negligence, the assumption being something they did caused it.

Probably the samd stae that allows a rapist child visitation righs.

[Mr Mystery]

And as the world waits for the USA to grow up and stop acting like a spoilt child (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24542216), Iran surprises everyone by suddenly not just defaulting to being an arse!

[Rissan4ever]

And as the world waits for the USA to grow up and stop acting like a spoilt child (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24542216), Iran surprises everyone by suddenly not just defaulting to being an arse!

Iran's new president does seem like less of a psycho. I hope this works out. A world with fewer nukes a good thing.

[Mr Mystery]

Iran's new president does seem like less of a psycho. I hope this works out. A world with fewer nukes a good thing.

Absolutely.

And I think it's just encouraging that two countries which have been at loggerheads pretty much all my life (born 1980, can't remember when Iran became Iran precisely) are starting to chill, and realise it's pretty much a pointless exercise.

[Rissan4ever]

I don't think the U.S. thinks it's pointless to have nuclear weapons. Even with all our talk if disarmament and stopping proliferation, we still have several thousand nukes ready to launch at a moment's notice. And I think it's rather hypocritical of us to still have them when we're telling other countries they can't have them.

[chicop76]

I don't think the U.S. thinks it's pointless to have nuclear weapons. Even with all our talk if disarmament and stopping proliferation, we still have several thousand nukes ready to launch at a moment's notice. And I think it's rather hypocritical of us to still have them when we're telling other countries they can't have them.

Isn't the us the only county to ever used a nuke on another. We havd zhown that we do nog have a problem using them.

[Mr Mystery]

I have a difference of opinion there.

I think the only country to have used them in anger is exactly the one to listen to when they insist proliferation is a bad, bad idea.

Just as I'm inclined to believe a man who has stuck his knob in a blender that sticking your knob in a blender is a bad, bad idea.

[Rissan4ever]

I have a difference of opinion there.

I think the only country to have used them in anger is exactly the one to listen to when they insist proliferation is a bad, bad idea.

Just as I'm inclined to believe a man who has stuck his knob in a blender that sticking your knob in a blender is a bad, bad idea.
But would you still believe him if he had his knob in hand, ready to stick it in a blender AGAIN if he felt like it?

[Mr Mystery]

Yeah. I would. Still doesn't mean I should follow suit, or adopt a similar stance.

[Rissan4ever]

It's not a terribly appropriate metaphor anyway. It would be more apt to call the US a man armed to the teeth, telling other people they shouldn't have guns.

[Nabterayl]

Is it? I haven't really followed the tone of our negotiations, but I thought it was more along the lines of a man armed to the teeth saying to other people they CAN'T have guns. I mean, I don't think there's really a moral element here other than, "Yeeeah ... we just don't trust you."

[Rissan4ever]

Regardless, a world with fewer nuclear weapons is a safer world for everybody.

[daboarder]

Quick weigh in.

In the abortion issue there are three people to consider:

1. The mother
2. The father
3. The child

Now legally speaking number 3 isn't a person so has no rights. I am not going to jump on that one as even if we acknowledge that they are a person from the instance of conception we have and will have no way of knowing what they wanted. Indeed, I know people who wish that they had never been born.

The father has no say. If he chooses that it should be aborted what right does he have to put a woman through that. If he chooses to keep it what right does he have to put a woman through that.

The mother has all the say. It is her body and she has to cary the child or undergo the procedure to have it terminated. She has to live with the consequences, where she keeps it and the father doesn't want it you end up forcing the father to pay up keep for a child that probably wasn't wanted or discussed.

There is no way that there can ever be a "fair" system and their can never be a reconcilliation between the different aspects because of it.

As for raising children, surely if I through tax am contributing to someone's child I have a right to voice my opinion if they are doing it right or wrong. Indeed look at Supernanny Jo Frost, no children yet she gives germane advice and teaches parents to be parents without being one herself. To think people without kids have no experianced of it themselves or knowledge is crazy. It is like saying you cannot comment on something unless you have experaince of doing it yourself. I have no experiance of murder but I will say it is wrong.


I'm sorry but bull****!

it takes both sexes to have a kid, who gives a **** if the woman goes through labour, if the bloke is willing to then raise the bloody kid for the next 18 years he should have an equal say in the situation. Equal rights!

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

it takes both sexes to have a kid, who gives a **** if the woman goes through labour, if the bloke is willing to then raise the bloody kid for the next 18 years he should have an equal say in the situation. Equal rights!But "equal say" in this case means taking away a person's right to control what's happening to their own body.

[daboarder]

So the other person gets their rights destroyed? Could someone tell me when women became asexual? If you cant sort that **** out between you then you should have taken precautions

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

So the other person gets their rights destroyed? Could someone tell me when women became asexual? If you cant sort that **** out between you then you should have taken precautionsEither option will violate a "right" (her right to control her body or his right to his child), I simply believe that right to control what's going on with your body is more important than an issue of emotional attachment.

[daboarder]

and your entitled to the opinion, but I disagree. As I said that 9 months and labour may be incredibly inconvenient and uncomfortable (and painful), but as I said, I don't believe that even comes close to equaling a lifetime of care and family....as such the only appropriate way to deal with such a situation is for both parties do have equal rights.

[eldargal]

Fun fact about Iran: Back after 9/11 when Bush gave his 'you're either with us or against us' speech Iran jumped up and said 'hell yeah, we're with you!' and were basically told to go **** themselves. Iran wanted detente with the West, it genuinely wants nuclear power to free up up more oil to export and the only reason it wants the capacity to produce nuclear weapons is because Israel has them and has threatened them with them. It wouldn't take much effort at all to sort the problems with Iran out.

[daboarder]

Fun fact about Iran: Back after 9/11 when Bush gave his 'you're either with us or against us' speech Iran jumped up and said 'hell yeah, we're with you!' and were basically told to go **** themselves. Iran wanted detente with the West, it genuinely wants nuclear power to free up up more oil to export and the only reason it wants the capacity to produce nuclear weapons is because Israel has them and has threatened them with them. It wouldn't take much effort at all to sort the problems with Iran out.

The problem is that there is so much corruption in iran that people dont trust them to responsibly guard both the fissile material and the expended fuel......of course when you realise that pakistan and russia both have nuclear weapons and give even less of a **** about global stability.......

[eldargal]

Certainly there would need to be some mechanisms in place to reduce the risk.

So, crisis averted for now and no default today, yay.

[Psychosplodge]

So the other person gets their rights destroyed? Could someone tell me when women became asexual? If you cant sort that **** out between you then you should have taken precautions

Precautions fail. Why should we condemn someone to celibacy just in case? Totally unfair and unrealistic.


and your entitled to the opinion, but I disagree. As I said that 9 months and labour may be incredibly inconvenient and uncomfortable (and painful), but as I said, I don't believe that even comes close to equaling a lifetime of care and family....as such the only appropriate way to deal with such a situation is for both parties do have equal rights.

It's more than 9 months discomfit. You know a labour can permanently damage a woman's body? with lifetime consequences.
Why do you think without modern medicine (and in the US if you can't afford it) the childbirth mortality rate is so high?

[Wolfshade]

I'm sorry but bull****!

it takes both sexes to have a kid, who gives a **** if the woman goes through labour, if the bloke is willing to then raise the bloody kid for the next 18 years he should have an equal say in the situation. Equal rights!

Sorry I obviously didn't make my point clear, with the "who has the say" that is reporting as-is and not how it should be or could be or anything.

[eldargal]

If you're in a long term relationship you should have some input into the decision. You still don't get any kind of right to make the decision or change the mothers decision.

Fun fact: The maternal mortality rate in the UK is 8.2/100k, the murder rate is 1.2/100k. In the US it is 16.6/100k.

[Mr Mystery]

Long term relationship. Again, I can't see a great many women going behind their partners backs to have a quick flush out of her bits.

It might happen now and again on the tellybox, but in real life? Really really?

And it would remain situational. If it's the 'kept woman' wife of a wealthy middle class man, the sort of lady who lunches, that's one thing. But the partner of a known violent person, who physically threatens them on a regular basis? That's another.

[Wolfshade]

Fun fact: the killed in car accident rate is 5.1/100k vehicles.

[Psychosplodge]

Long term relationship. Again, I can't see a great many women going behind their partners backs to have a quick flush out of her bits.

It might happen now and again on the tellybox, but in real life? Really really?

I genuinely believe my ex did. But considering how we fell apart if she did it was for the best.

[Mr Mystery]

It's rare and isolated I'd guess. Not one of those things you can realistically gather info on.

But ultimately, the woman should have more of a say than the man. They carry the sprog for 9 months, and as mentioned, risk ruining their body giving birth.

Yes in an ideal world it should be for both parties to have input into. But what if there's a deadlock? Who would have the deciding vote? Some might say the man, but I can't think of a decent reason why.

[Psychosplodge]

Exactly.
At the time I was more bothered by the thought she'd not told me despite any problems we were having than getting rid.

[KaiZie]

If you're in a long term relationship you should have some input into the decision. You still don't get any kind of right to make the decision or change the mothers decision.

Fun fact: The maternal mortality rate in the UK is 8.2/100k, the murder rate is 1.2/100k. In the US it is 16.6/100k.

Free Health Care and no guns (unless your in Nottingham or near a farm) will skew that in our favour. It's a shame really that the US still doesnt have a national health program to get free medical care to people regardless of illness or social standing.

Interestingly, there was an Ad campaign in Poland that was informing women to travel to the UK (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/7441990/Polish-women-encouraged-to-come-to-UK-for-free-abortions-on-NHS.html) to get an abortion on the NHS as it was safer and cheaper than in Poland.

Now doesn't that tie everything together nicely.

[Wolfshade]

Free Health Care and no guns (unless your in Nottingham or near a farm) will skew that in our favour. It's a shame really that the US still doesnt have a national health program to get free medical care to people regardless of illness or social standing.

Wasn't that the Family Guy episode from last night where Peter goes back in time via death and ends up not meeting louis.

[eldargal]

The US figure isn't that bad on a global level really, the worst country for maternal mortality (Afghanistan) has a ratio of 1500/100k and most developing/undeveloped countries range from 300-700 or so. I wasn't trying to make a point about the US, just giving their figure given that this topic is supposed to be about 'merica.:)

[Psychosplodge]

Interestingly, there was an Ad campaign in Poland that was informing women to travel to the UK (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/7441990/Polish-women-encouraged-to-come-to-UK-for-free-abortions-on-NHS.html) to get an abortion on the NHS as it was safer and cheaper than in Poland.

Now doesn't that tie everything together nicely.

Is that enough evidence Mystery?

[KaiZie]

Wasn't that the Family Guy episode from last night where Peter goes back in time via death and ends up not meeting louis.

Haha, the Molly Ringwald one?

[Mr Mystery]

Free Health Care and no guns (unless your in Nottingham or near a farm) will skew that in our favour. It's a shame really that the US still doesnt have a national health program to get free medical care to people regardless of illness or social standing.

Interestingly, there was an Ad campaign in Poland that was informing women to travel to the UK (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/7441990/Polish-women-encouraged-to-come-to-UK-for-free-abortions-on-NHS.html) to get an abortion on the NHS as it was safer and cheaper than in Poland.

Now doesn't that tie everything together nicely.

Safer and cheaper not so much. Just easier to arrange, as our laws are a lot more sensible in that area. But of course, being Das Torygraph, I'm not surprised they claimed it was health tourism....

Campaign was put together by a pro-choice campaign, not a goverment. And frankly, it was good advice. We have the same thing with women in Eire, so precisely why the Torygraph singled out Poland...

[eldargal]

If it saves womens lives then I'm all for it, **** whatever the Daily Mail types say.

[Psychosplodge]

Because haven't the Republics citizens always been able to move to the UK if they fancied it?

It does raise an interesting point about a "united europe" though. If the laws are so different how can we possibly be expect to become a federal superstate? It'll just end uplike that mess overthere

[KaiZie]

Safer and cheaper not so much. Just easier to arrange, as our laws are a lot more sensible in that area. But of course, being Das Torygraph, I'm not surprised they claimed it was health tourism....

Campaign was put together by a pro-choice campaign, not a goverment. And frankly, it was good advice. We have the same thing with women in Eire, so precisely why the Torygraph singled out Poland...

This campaign was from a while back, but it was big news for a while across the BBC etc. It does just scream "more immigration" though, and puts a strain on an already stretched NHS. i can only imagine that if the post said "Go to Italy" instead of England, Italy would have just put up massive walls and said "do one"

[daboarder]

Fun fact: humansa arent asexual....equality should be the social goal not just a tit for tat one over the other. You cannot have a child without a man, so why would it possibly be ok to limit the rights of the man. We certainly dont limit the responsibility of the male.

Edit: and wolf sorry if I miss interpretes your previous post. I was skim reading what id missed and just noticed that one in particular

[Gotthammer]

Fun fact: humans arent asexual....

Some are ;)

[eldargal]

Fun fact: humansa arent asexual....equality should be the social goal not just a tit for tat one over the other. You cannot have a child without a man, so why would it possibly be ok to limit the rights of the man. We certainly dont limit the responsibility of the male.
Not yet. Also giving women the right to control their bodies is not tit for tat, it is equality. Men already have total control over their bodies, you can do whatever the hell you want with yours.

Also as Gott says, some humans are asexual.

[daboarder]

Wait.....transexual and asexual are two different things right? I was under the impression that the op was pretty much "cosmetic"....you couldnt actually get yourself pregnant....could you?

[Kaptain Badrukk]

No. But there are humans who naturally have both (although one or both often don't work).

[Gotthammer]

Asexual means having no sex/gender. Being capable of asexual reproduction is something entirely different.

And to answer your question, no.

[Psychosplodge]

Also it's used to mean people with zero interest in sex isn't it?

[Kirsten]

only women should ever have a legal say. if they are in a loving stable relationship, the father will be consulted and they can decide between them. if they are not, then who cares what he thinks?

[Mr Mystery]

Not yet. Also giving women the right to control their bodies is not tit for tat, it is equality. Men already have total control over their bodies, you can do whatever the hell you want with yours.

Also as Gott says, some humans are asexual.



Having lived with a willy post-puberty for around 18-19 years now, I find your claim of men being in total control of their body to be optimistic! And I'm being serious. He doesn't rule the head as such, but he definitely has a mind of his own.

[Wolfshade]

Edit: and wolf sorry if I miss interpretes your previous post. I was skim reading what id missed and just noticed that one in particular

No worries :)

So, the debt ceciling has been raised and the next ceiling is expected to be hit 15 January 2014. This 16 day shut down has an estimated cost of $24bn and would damage growth in the final quarter of this year.

Though this does still ask the question what is going to happen with this ever increasing debt:
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/70510000/gif/_70510542_us_debt_2013_624_v2.gif
No country can continue to spend more than it brings in from tax and indeed it is a global problem.
Very few countries debt is expected to decrease. With the exceptions being China and Germany, both have growing economies (and rather rapidly when compared with their neighbours).
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/70524000/gif/_70524425_global_debt_total_borrowing_464.gif

Though having signficant debt isn't necessarily a problem as long as you can afford to pay it off, a better measure is to consider the debt as a % of economic out put.
The story is a slightly better one:
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/70532000/gif/_70532713_global_debt_borrowing_percentage_gdp_464 .gif
Here most nations debt will decrease relatively, though of course there are issues with predicitve forecastings.
In the sample there are but three nations whose total debt is and is expected to be more than the GDP. Japan (3rd largest economy), Italy and the US.

We are all facing the same issues of trying to live within our means, that is bringing in more than we spend. The IMF believe that by 2018 all of the top 12 largest economies will decrease their deficits (with the possible exception of India) but only Australia and China will be able to have a surplus. Germany will continue to do so, as they did last year.

The issue of this political brinksman ship and the use of the US$ as the defacto world currency questions the reliance on it. Indeed to quote the Nan Fang Daily: "If we want to get out of this passive unfavourable situation in the long term, we can only reduce the role of the US dollar and the US debt in the global market"

[daboarder]

only women should ever have a legal say. if they are in a loving stable relationship, the father will be consulted and they can decide between them. if they are not, then who cares what he thinks?

I that case why should a man ever have to pay child support. ..if legally all his paternal rights are subservient to maternal o es why shouldnt his paternal responsibility also be secondary. Please note is that all ive said is that given it takes both males and females tk reproduce its only just and fair that they have equal parental rights....otherwise your just allowing sexual discrimination.

[Kirsten]

the father pays child support because he was involved in creating the child and therefore must be responsible for his upkeep. he does not get a legal say in abortion because it creates situations whereby rapists try to sue their victims for having an abortion, or try to decide whether one is had at all.

[KaiZie]

the father pays child support because he was involved in creating the child and therefore must be responsible for his upkeep. he does not get a legal say in abortion because it creates situations whereby rapists try to sue their victims for having an abortion, or try to decide whether one is had at all.

That's easy to solve though, If you are a victim of this sort of crime, then within the law, rights are forgone by the fact that you have commited this crime and the result was pregnancy.

This does assume that rpae in the first instance can be proven.

[daboarder]

What he said. I mean that is why we have detailed legislation.


And since when was it appropriate to hold all males responsible for the actions of rapists?

[ElectricPaladin]

I that case why should a man ever have to pay child support. ..if legally all his paternal rights are subservient to maternal o es why shouldnt his paternal responsibility also be secondary. Please note is that all ive said is that given it takes both males and females tk reproduce its only just and fair that they have equal parental rights....otherwise your just allowing sexual discrimination.

Man, it all comes down to bodily integrity. You can demand that a woman carry your child when a woman can walk up and demand that you give her any three of your fingers, or refrain from undergoing a medical procedure you want to undergo.

I'm sorry. I get where you're coming from - I really do. I'd be crushed if a woman I'd impregnated wanted to abort a baby I'd grown fond of. I agree that child support is an awkward and potentially unfair solution to an awkward and unfair problem.

But the fact is that between her physical integrity and your your emotional and financial integrity you lose. This is her body we're talking about. Her freaking body. There are lots of situations in life that can impinge upon your emotional and financial integrity. You might feel really bad about how the IRS screws up your taxes and undercharges you. Man, that sucks! Paying them back for the next five years might be a real financial pain in the butt. You thought that money was yours, and you spent it, and now what are you supposed to do!? But, the only situation in which we allow someone's bodily freedoms to be impinged upon is if they commit a crime and are sentenced to jail by a jury of her peers.

Is getting pregnant a crime?

Is your dick a jury of her peers?

No?

Then you don't have the right to impinge upon her physical integrity because it costs you a buck or gives you a sad.

[KaiZie]

Add to that, it's not impossible, or unheard of, for a woman to rape a man. What if she got pregnant from that? Where does the Law stand on that one? Does the male have no obligation as he was forced? Has the female have any right in the first place to raise that child?

[Kaptain Badrukk]

I that case why should a man ever have to pay child support. ..if legally all his paternal rights are subservient to maternal o es why shouldnt his paternal responsibility also be secondary. Please note is that all ive said is that given it takes both males and females tk reproduce its only just and fair that they have equal parental rights....otherwise your just allowing sexual discrimination.

Agree in a sense. As far as I see it you end up with a grey area, allow me to tell three stories all about someone I know;
Story 1:
Girl (and i do mean girl, they were teenagers at the time) and guy have a relationship. As it is coming to an end (because he's flakey as hell) she gets pregnant, they know it's over but she's catholic so carries to term. He's not interested in being a dad, but helps her anyway (totally getting his **** together in the process) and turns out to be a doting parent.
She gets a new bloke, and wants him to be "dad" because the relationship is never coming back. She slowly but surely shuts the biological father out of the kids life, which he's not happy about, apart from one thing money.
She's replaced the dad, shut him completely out of his kid's life (and courts side with her), but he's still expected to pay for a child he didn't want (originally anyway) and has no access to now.
Her right to choose, his life utterly changed in ways beyond his control by her choices.
Oh, and they were using contraception it just didn't work.

Story 2:
Woman has 1 night stand with bloke she's not massively keen on the idea of a long term thing with, but she figures she'll give short term a try.
Again birth control = fail.
She decides to keep the kid and tells him she's not bothered if he's involved or not.
He decides not.
They go their separate ways without any fuss.

Story 3:
Woman has one night stand.
Get's pregnant.
Decides to carry to term.
Never tells father (to this day she hasn't anyway).

Spot a power dynamic issue here?
Now I'm not saying that there isn't a MAJOR imbalance in the gender power dynamic the other way.
Nor am I saying that a woman shouldn't have a right to choose whether to carry a baby to term or not.
BUT I am saying that in two of these cases the father got screwed and they're both totally socially acceptable.

Should a woman have a right to choose?
To quote one of the two Prophets;
"You're not right to lifers are you?"
"Hell no! A woman's body is her own damn business!"

Should paternal rights be as carefully defined and enshrined in law as a woman's right to choose?
Yes.

Also a fetus up to a certain point is basically a sensation-less bundle of cells, no more self aware than a chicken's egg. So they don't get rights.
Once they start having higher brain functions THEN they're people.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Man, it all comes down to bodily integrity. You can demand that a woman carry your child when a woman can walk up and demand that you give her any three of your fingers, or refrain from undergoing a medical procedure you want to undergo.

I'm sorry. I get where you're coming from - I really do. I'd be crushed if a woman I'd impregnated wanted to abort a baby I'd grown fond of. I agree that child support is an awkward and potentially unfair solution to an awkward and unfair problem.

But the fact is that between her physical integrity and your your emotional and financial integrity you lose. This is her body we're talking about. Her freaking body. There are lots of situations in life that can impinge upon your emotional and financial integrity. You might feel really bad about how the IRS screws up your taxes and undercharges you. Man, that sucks! Paying them back for the next five years might be a real financial pain in the butt. You thought that money was yours, and you spent it, and now what are you supposed to do!? But, the only situation in which we allow someone's bodily freedoms to be impinged upon is if they commit a crime and are sentenced to jail by a jury of her peers.

Is getting pregnant a crime?

Is your dick a jury of her peers?

No?

Then you don't have the right to impinge upon her physical integrity because it costs you a buck or gives you a sad.

Agree provided you have enshrined visitation and parental rights, provided you're not a rapist.

[chicop76]

You know how many moms are unfit to be moms. You have several dads who now raise kids on their own while the mom pays child support.

I am with daborder on this, 95% of the time I am not. Any way no one is arguing that their is a baby in her body. However like I said before, no wonder why the divorce rate is sooo high, it takes two to tangle. Some of the man's DNA is in the women's body, but he has no say is absurd.

I think some people are really missing the poing here. If dad knowingly know if having the baby would cause said moms death and said mom who doesn't want to die and wants to abort to save her life of course the mom should have more of a say, but even than the child in her body is both their child and not hers alone.

I mean why you think men dump the woman and let her do it byherself. It's issues like this. The attitude carries into the relationship that the child is more hers than his, with being pregnant thrown in the man's face every time.

I really hate racial and gender bias. Affirmative Action is a good example. Minorities and females scream for equal rights, but when a social bias benefits them they do not want to give it up and take advantage of it. Example is a female in the military that is in the same field and refuse to do the heavy work and lands an office job since she is a female. Than said female get pissed off if she is overlooked on promotions and want to scream about glass ceilings and equal rights. Sorry if you got outside and did all the work asked from you, guess what you will get promoted. The sad thing is other females outside the unit ban together and get said female promoted simply due to outside pressures. Than that promotion causes more animosity in the work place. I mean who wants to listen to a person that can't do their job and got an easier job, because they flat out refused to do it and than get promoted due to spouting equal right bs.

We do need help when a hard working female is doing a lot of work and can't get promoted. Than I am all for her promotion or any minority for that matter when it is earned.

Actually in real life you have females who would go behind the man's back to get an abortion. They would test the waters alittle and see if he wants a child. If she gets the fib that he doesn't want a child she may abort behind his back, so he doesn't know and keep him ignorant of the matter.

Abortions and Pregnancys are very emotional to go through with all parties involved. During a pregnancy for exame the man has to do more especially during the late periods.

[Psychosplodge]

But that's the point, you don't plan complications that lead to death. It's a chance that is there for every woman. And to suggest her alternative is don't have sex in case you contraceptive fails is inhumane.
If you personally disagree with abortion - don't have one...


Generally no one who does the actual work gets promoted, then they'd have to find someone else capable. It's the useless muppets that kiss arse that get promoted.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Generally no one who does the actual work gets promoted, then they'd have to find someone else capable. It's the useless muppets that kiss arse that get promoted.

Let's hope your boss doesn't read this!

In seriousness though maybe we should stop having this cyclic argument about something that only a tiny handful of us will ever experience (thank god, the metal rod up my wang for the one and only STD test I've ever had to have was bad enough, can't imagine how bad an abortion must be for a woman). Let us instead talk about the fact that the Democrats have just essentially surrendered any form of presidential potency to avoid giving up their health reforms and having the country collapse.

[chicop76]

But that's the point, you don't plan complications that lead to death. It's a chance that is there for every woman. And to suggest her alternative is don't have sex in case you contraceptive fails is inhumane.
If you personally disagree with abortion - don't have one...


Generally no one who does the actual work gets promoted, then they'd have to find someone else capable. It's the useless muppets that kiss arse that get promoted.

You can have surgery that can prevent getting or being pregnant.

Well depends on the work area. I seen deserving people in one area get promoted and in another that kiss butt to get promoted. Sadly the place with deserving promotions got more done and their was less stress and bickering.

[Mr Mystery]

You can have surgery that can prevent getting or being pregnant.

Well depends on the work area. I seen deserving people in one area get promoted and in another that kiss butt to get promoted. Sadly the place with deserving promotions got more done and their was less stress and bickering.

And if it's non-permanent surgery, it can still fail.

And it's a serious surgical procedure on women, with potentially unpleasant consequences if it goes a bit wrong.

[chicop76]

Let's hope your boss doesn't read this!

In seriousness though maybe we should stop having this cyclic argument about something that only a tiny handful of us will ever experience (thank god, the metal rod up my wang for the one and only STD test I've ever had to have was bad enough, can't imagine how bad an abortion must be for a woman). Let us instead talk about the fact that the Democrats have just essentially surrendered any form of presidential potency to avoid giving up their health reforms and having the country collapse.

Just look through some stats, bias do to being a pro life site. I mean I seen stats go from a lot of extremes and I visted three sites so far. Anyway 1/3 of all women is said to have an abortion by the time they hit 45.

[chicop76]

And if it's non-permanent surgery, it can still fail.

And it's a serious surgical procedure on women, with potentially unpleasant consequences if it goes a bit wrong.

Than don't have sex.

[Psychosplodge]

Than don't have sex.

And we get to the truth. A man telling a woman who she should and shouldn't be sleeping with.

[chicop76]

And we get to the truth. A man telling a woman who she should and shouldn't be sleeping with.

Actually I was referring to both man and woman since my earlier post I said both could have surgery to prevent having kids. Don't drink and don't have sex solves a lot of problems. Ohh and don't do drugs.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

chicop dude, give it up.
Whilst I respect your commitment to your cause (even if i disagree fundamentally on a variety of points), you're just going to get shouted down here.
This will not be productive.
Instead let us return to the original reason this thread was spawned.
Could someone more versed in the realities of American politics please tell me why both sides of this debacle are claiming victory over what seems to be a draw that benefits no-one?

[Psychosplodge]

possibly on the basis no one got what they want?
I don't know the BBC seems a bit vague.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

I've been reading the r/News coverage to get an american view and it seems to me that everyone in the Teaparty is an idiot.
Other than that i'm lost.

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah but they were an idiot before this.
And i thought they hated tea?

[KaiZie]

I've been following it all somewhat closely, I get msnbc news straight to my inbox at work, but for the life of me it looks like a bunch of people who really cant agree on anything and only do something when they're up against the wall

[Nabterayl]

Could someone more versed in the realities of American politics please tell me why both sides of this debacle are claiming victory over what seems to be a draw that benefits no-one?
I don't actually think both sides are claiming victory. Whenever a compromise occurs, of course, both sides point to the part of it that they like and say, "Look! We won!" (in this case, all the Republicans really got was slightly better income verification for the parts of the ACA that require income to be verified). But even so, the impression I get over here is that Republicans lost, and they know it.

As to the tea party ...

They call themselves the Tea Party on the grounds that they're originalists - it's a way of saying, "We are the party of the original patriots, the ones who stood up for American independence even before the Revolution."

In fairness to the Tea Party, not all of their goals are terrible. While I don't agree with their idea that government is inherently incompetent, and inherently separate from the people even in a representative democracy, I do sympathize quite a bit with their idea that we simply cannot continue to finance national operations primarily through debt. As Wolfshade pointed out, we're increasingly weird that way, and I think Americans are starting to come around to the idea that Something Must Be Done. The fact that the Tea Party are the only force in American politics who are willing to say that continues to give them some cachet, I think, even though many other things about the party (sorry, the movement) are objectionable to lots of folks, and even though not everybody agrees with them about what must be done. The rest of the Republican party doesn't seem offer any kind of serious response to the deficit problem - what used to be the party of fiscal conservatism is ceding that label to the Tea Party. I don't personally think even the Tea Party goes far enough in that regard, and I think they can't without compromising on their ridiculous opposition to raising taxes as a matter of principal, but they go farther than either Democrats or moderate Republicans in acknowledging that it is a problem, and that drastic measures must be taken.

The current compromise is sort of emblematic of that. Democrats and moderate Republicans seem focused on avoiding default by hook or by crook. The Tea Party is saying, "Yeah, but at what cost? If we continue to raise the debt limit every six months, sure, we avoid default, but at some point we'll have short-term-solution'd ourselves into disaster." And there's a certain truth to that.

[ElectricPaladin]

I don't actually think both sides are claiming victory. Whenever a compromise occurs, of course, both sides point to the part of it that they like and say, "Look! We won!" (in this case, all the Republicans really got was slightly better income verification for the parts of the ACA that require income to be verified). But even so, the impression I get over here is that Republicans lost, and they know it.

As to the tea party ...

They call themselves the Tea Party on the grounds that they're originalists - it's a way of saying, "We are the party of the original patriots, the ones who stood up for American independence even before the Revolution."

In fairness to the Tea Party, not all of their goals are terrible. While I don't agree with their idea that government is inherently incompetent, and inherently separate from the people even in a representative democracy, I do sympathize quite a bit with their idea that we simply cannot continue to finance national operations primarily through debt. As Wolfshade pointed out, we're increasingly weird that way, and I think Americans are starting to come around to the idea that Something Must Be Done. The fact that the Tea Party are the only force in American politics who are willing to say that continues to give them some cachet, I think, even though many other things about the party (sorry, the movement) are objectionable to lots of folks, and even though not everybody agrees with them about what must be done. The rest of the Republican party doesn't seem offer any kind of serious response to the deficit problem - what used to be the party of fiscal conservatism is ceding that label to the Tea Party. I don't personally think even the Tea Party goes far enough in that regard, and I think they can't without compromising on their ridiculous opposition to raising taxes as a matter of principal, but they go farther than either Democrats or moderate Republicans in acknowledging that it is a problem, and that drastic measures must be taken.

The current compromise is sort of emblematic of that. Democrats and moderate Republicans seem focused on avoiding default by hook or by crook. The Tea Party is saying, "Yeah, but at what cost? If we continue to raise the debt limit every six months, sure, we avoid default, but at some point we'll have short-term-solution'd ourselves into disaster." And there's a certain truth to that.

I think it's important to remember that the Tea Party's failings include blatant racism, nativism, classism, homophobia, misogyny... they're pretty awful human beings. I also agree that we need to revise how we spend money, but the Tea Party cannot be allowed to claim any kind of power in America.

[chicop76]

Basically the Republicans now realize if they keep listening to the Tea Party they will isolate moderate Republicans. So want I been reading they will support more moderate views and be more willing to be bipartisan in the future. When you are more extreme then Newt Gingrich than that's pretty bad. I think they now realize how loony the tea party is and will in the future support Ron Pauls, and John Huntsmans instead of Tea Partiers and super conservatives.

[eldargal]

Is there any serious talk of cutting US defense spending? That's around 19% of the budget from memory and unlike dollars spent on social security or other civilian matters money spent on the military generates far less in return.

[Mr Mystery]

Hey America!

Want to save money?

Why not make military cuts! Because, you know. Your military budget is pretty obscene....


Ninja'd by EG!

[chicop76]

I think it's important to remember that the Tea Party's failings include blatant racism, nativism, classism, homophobia, misogyny... they're pretty awful human beings. I also agree that we need to revise how we spend money, but the Tea Party cannot be allowed to claim any kind of power in America.

You have independens and constitutionalist saying that for year. Its just the tea party was smart and latched on the the Republican party to get their word out. However the Tea Party comes off as an anti Obama Party simply due to him being black. They been disruptive since he's been elected.

[ElectricPaladin]

Hey America!

Want to save money?

Why not make military cuts! Because, you know. Your military budget is pretty obscene....


Ninja'd by EG!

This is particularly relevant fact for me, as a teacher. I am always struck by the fact that the largest portion of America's budget is the military, and we have as a result the best military in the world. Our education budget is the lowest, and as a result, we have the ****tiest education system in the First World.

And yet, take a look at Australia. They spend among the lowest on their military and among the most on their educational system, and as a result... hey look at that. They've only got the third best military in the world - not the first, but not bad, either - and also a competitive educational system.

I wonder if there's a connection there.

I mean, I can tell you that a lot of kids in the community I teach leave high school with very low academic skills, and a lot of those kids want to go into the military. I guess the military has to finish teaching them to read? Or something? I wonder if maybe there's a more efficient way for us to be going about this...

[chicop76]

Is there any serious talk of cutting US defense spending? That's around 19% of the budget from memory and unlike dollars spent on social security or other civilian matters money spent on the military generates far less in return.

Military bases bring in revenue from the surrounding areas who build business that cater to soliders, airmen, and sailors. Seeing how I like my annual pay raise I think more money should go to the military. Especially towards retirement.

[Psychosplodge]

This is particularly relevant fact for me, as a teacher. I am always struck by the fact that the largest portion of America's budget is the military, and we have as a result the best military in the world.


No merely the most over funded :D
With plenty of gadgets.

[eldargal]

Military bases bring in revenue from the surrounding areas who build business that cater to soliders, airmen, and sailors. Seeing how I like my annual pay raise I think more money should go to the military. Especially towards retirement.
Yes, and the same money spent on civilian development generates something like 6 dollars for every dollar spent rather than two dollars. Military spending creates jobs, civilian spending creates more jobs.

[chicop76]

This is particularly relevant fact for me, as a teacher. I am always struck by the fact that the largest portion of America's budget is the military, and we have as a result the best military in the world. Our education budget is the lowest, and as a result, we have the ****tiest education system in the First World.

And yet, take a look at Australia. They spend among the lowest on their military and among the most on their educational system, and as a result... hey look at that. They've only got the third best military in the world - not the first, but not bad, either - and also a competitive educational system.

I wonder if there's a connection there.

I mean, I can tell you that a lot of kids in the community I teach leave high school with very low academic skills, and a lot of those kids want to go into the military. I guess the military has to finish teaching them to read? Or something? I wonder if maybe there's a more efficient way for us to be going about this...

Lets see. In 4years in the military you can make between 30-40 thousand a year and in some case over 50 thousand. I am counting bah, bas, and per diem on top of base pay. Also you get free training and experience that can possibly transfer to the civilian market and get a retirement check in 20 years. Not to mention things like 911 gi bill and incentive pay. By the time you hit 37 you can make about 30k a year sitting on your butt and if you go to work you can demand higer than others with no work experience.

However if you go infantry and score low on the asvab all I can say is good luck with that.

[Mr Mystery]

Or you could educate your general populace to the point where they have options beyond 'crime' and 'get shot/shouted at for a living'.

You know. Just sayin'.

[Psychosplodge]

Or you could have some of that free healthcare like the rest of the civilised world...

[chicop76]

Yes, and the same money spent on civilian development generates something like 6 dollars for every dollar spent rather than two dollars. Military spending creates jobs, civilian spending creates more jobs.

Actually military spending also helps when lets say an air force air traffic controller switch to the civilian market. They get paid training and don't need to go to college since they are already doing the job with military aircraft. I see a lot of them stay 4-8 years in the military and than jump to the civilian market since they can get 2-3 times more pay doing that.

[Earl Harbinger]

This is particularly relevant fact for me, as a teacher. I am always struck by the fact that the largest portion of America's budget is the military, and we have as a result the best military in the world. Our education budget is the lowest, and as a result, we have the ****tiest education system in the First World.

And yet, take a look at Australia. They spend among the lowest on their military and among the most on their educational system, and as a result... hey look at that. They've only got the third best military in the world - not the first, but not bad, either - and also a competitive educational system.

I wonder if there's a connection there.

I mean, I can tell you that a lot of kids in the community I teach leave high school with very low academic skills, and a lot of those kids want to go into the military. I guess the military has to finish teaching them to read? Or something? I wonder if maybe there's a more efficient way for us to be going about this...

You can pick any recent year you look and examine federal spending and see that entitlement spending dwarfs military spending. Yes, military spending is the largest percentage of discretionary spending but Social Security, Medicare, etc. more than double our military spending. Choose any source your want, pick any year you want and you'll find that to be factually true.

Of course, the Senate hasn't passed a budget in almost a decade so it's difficult for anyone in Congress to engineer legislation to make any real reform to federal spending since we've been funding the govt on continuing resolutions for years now.

If you have problems with how schools are funded in California you should real seek redress at the state level as Congress really doesn't and shouldn't control state spending. Unless of course you think No Child Left Behind was awesome flawless legislation and you want the federal govt to take over state public schools by tying federal subsidies to student performance on mandatory tests.

[chicop76]

Or you could educate your general populace to the point where they have options beyond 'crime' and 'get shot/shouted at for a living'.

You know. Just sayin'.

Or they can join the military and get free college. Actually I should say get paid to go to college.

[eldargal]

Or they can join the military and get free college. Actually I should say get paid to go to college.

Or they could live in a society where they could afford to go to college and be educated enough to have a shot at it without having to volunteer to serve in the armed forced and potentially kill or be killed in some ridiculous cabinet war in some foreign hell hole that doesn't want them there.

[Mr Mystery]

Or they could live in a society where they could afford to go to college and be educated enough to have a shot at it without having to volunteer to serve in the armed forced and potentially kill or be killed in some ridiculous cabinet war in some foreign hell hole that doesn't want them there.

Yup.

And that Military college thing? Sounds terribly socialist to me....

[Nabterayl]

Is there any serious talk of cutting US defense spending? That's around 19% of the budget from memory and unlike dollars spent on social security or other civilian matters money spent on the military generates far less in return.
19% is correct, at least for 2012. Serious talk? No. I think the Temple of Janus is still very much open over here in the public mind, even in the minds of people who want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan completely.

It's probably obvious to you foreigners, but if you were to judge from the way American politicians talk, nobody over here is serious about wanting to reduce our debt. Part of the problem is that neither party is really willing to use both tools in the box. Democrats are sort of willing to talk about reducing debt by increasing federal revenues (but only sort of). Republicans are sort of willing to talk about reducing debt by decreasing federal spending (but only sort of). Using 2012 numbers, you could eliminate the entire Department of Defense - $716 billion dollars - and we'd still be overspending by $611 billion.

That's hardly an exhaustive case study, but to me, it's indicative that if we actually want to reduce our debt, we're going to have to raise taxes and cut spending. But nobody wants to do that, because then you're taxing people more and giving them less (or at least it looks like you're giving them less). Well, not nobody. I know a fair number of young parents like me who are willing to do that, because we look at it as the choice between screwing our grandparents and screwing our kids ... and frankly, if I have to choose (and I think I do), I choose kids over grandparents.

[ElectricPaladin]

You can pick any recent year you look and examine federal spending and see that entitlement spending dwarfs military spending. Yes, military spending is the largest percentage of discretionary spending but Social Security, Medicare, etc. more than double our military spending. Choose any source your want, pick any year you want and you'll find that to be factually true.

Of course, the Senate hasn't passed a budget in almost a decade so it's difficult for anyone in Congress to engineer legislation to make any real reform to federal spending since we've been funding the govt on continuing resolutions for years now.

If you have problems with how schools are funded in California you should real seek redress at the state level as Congress really doesn't and shouldn't control state spending. Unless of course you think No Child Left Behind was awesome flawless legislation and you want the federal govt to take over state public schools by tying federal subsidies to student performance on mandatory tests.

It's a problem in nearly every state. That puts it firmly into the category of "problems that maybe the federal government should consider attacking" for me.

[eldargal]

19% is correct, at least for 2012. Serious talk? No. I think the Temple of Janus is still very much open over here in the public mind, even in the minds of people who want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan completely.

It's probably obvious to you foreigners, but if you were to judge from the way American politicians talk, nobody over here is serious about wanting to reduce our debt. Part of the problem is that neither party is really willing to use both tools in the box. Democrats are sort of willing to talk about reducing debt by increasing federal revenues (but only sort of). Republicans are sort of willing to talk about reducing debt by decreasing federal spending (but only sort of). Using 2012 numbers, you could eliminate the entire Department of Defense - $716 billion dollars - and we'd still be overspending by $611 billion.

That's hardly an exhaustive case study, but to me, it's indicative that if we actually want to reduce our debt, we're going to have to raise taxes and cut spending. But nobody wants to do that, because then you're taxing people more and giving them less (or at least it looks like you're giving them less). Well, not nobody. I know a fair number of young parents like me who are willing to do that, because we look at it as the choice between screwing our grandparents and screwing our kids ... and frankly, if I have to choose (and I think I do), I choose kids over grandparents.

Yup, that is pretty much how it seems. No one really wants to cut spending and reduce debt, they just want to get elected while promising to do so but maintaining all the spending to various interests and ideological platforms. Raising taxes or at least widening the tax base is an absolute no-no because Reasons.

[Earl Harbinger]

19% is correct, at least for 2012. Serious talk? No. I think the Temple of Janus is still very much open over here in the public mind, even in the minds of people who want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan completely.

It's probably obvious to you foreigners, but if you were to judge from the way American politicians talk, nobody over here is serious about wanting to reduce our debt. Part of the problem is that neither party is really willing to use both tools in the box. Democrats are sort of willing to talk about reducing debt by increasing federal revenues (but only sort of). Republicans are sort of willing to talk about reducing debt by decreasing federal spending (but only sort of). Using 2012 numbers, you could eliminate the entire Department of Defense - $716 billion dollars - and we'd still be overspending by $611 billion.

That's hardly an exhaustive case study, but to me, it's indicative that if we actually want to reduce our debt, we're going to have to raise taxes and cut spending. But nobody wants to do that, because then you're taxing people more and giving them less (or at least it looks like you're giving them less). Well, not nobody. I know a fair number of young parents like me who are willing to do that, because we look at it as the choice between screwing our grandparents and screwing our kids ... and frankly, if I have to choose (and I think I do), I choose kids over grandparents.

It's all just unserious posturing and political pandering. Giving people tax cuts makes them more likely to vote for you, giving people money/programs makes them more likely to vote for you. Pournelle's Iron Law explains the ever growing govt leviathan and the resistance to ever cut a program. Therefore, spending continues and eventually there will be consequences and those consequences will be bad.

[chicop76]

Or they could live in a society where they could afford to go to college and be educated enough to have a shot at it without having to volunteer to serve in the armed forced and potentially kill or be killed in some ridiculous cabinet war in some foreign hell hole that doesn't want them there.

So you saying we should be like Switzerland. The bigger the government the bigger the problems. Honestly I feel like every citizen should serve for atleast 4 years in the military, I think star ship troopers is a bit extreme with service equals being a citizen. Not everyone can be in the military. However traveling abroad, etc will help broaden a lot of people s horizons.

The military do more than fight wars. They also responded to the tsunami in india, the nuclear reactor explosion in japan, the earth quake in Haiti, hurrican Katrina in New Orleans. The military support or do a lot of relief missions and save lives. Its very easy nowadays to spend 20 years in the military and fight to do only relief missions instead of fighting on the battlefield, unless you are special forces, marines, and army.

Atleast you are giving back to the country at least and in some ways the community.

[Nabterayl]

As a follow-up ... to balance the 2012 budget (let alone start reducing the debt) through revenue increases alone, we'd have to scare up about another $1.3 trillion, increasing revenue by about 54%. That suggests to me that, contrary to Democratic and Republican wishes, we're going to have to cut things that are super important if we actually want to reduce the debt. It's not just going to be useless things that nobody cares about.

[Earl Harbinger]

It's a problem in nearly every state. That puts it firmly into the category of "problems that maybe the federal government should consider attacking" for me.

Every state has a state budget, every state budget includes public education for the children of that state. I fail to see how you think a few hundred people in DC, the vast majority of whom aren't even from California, have the knowledge, desire and ability to miraculously fix California's school system when they don't even have an incentive to do so. Why would you want ham fisted one size fits all bureaucratic nightmare solutions devised by people thousands of miles away who are wholly ignorant of the reality on the ground level for the problems in your own backyard?

[eldargal]

So you saying we should be like Switzerland. The bigger the government the bigger the problems. Honestly I feel like every citizen should serve for atleast 4 years in the military, I think star ship troopers is a bit extreme with service equals being a citizen. Not everyone can be in the military. However traveling abroad, etc will help broaden a lot of people s horizons.

The military do more than fight wars. They also responded to the tsunami in india, the nuclear reactor explosion in japan, the earth quake in Haiti, hurrican Katrina in New Orleans. The military support or do a lot of relief missions and save lives. Its very easy nowadays to spend 20 years in the military and fight to do only relief missions instead of fighting on the battlefield, unless you are special forces, marines, and army.

Atleast you are giving back to the country at least and in some ways the community.
Switzerland has a smaller government than you. It's a highly democratic republic with a much smaller government footprint than the US and an extremely decentralised, community driven take on democracy. Which is really only possible due to it's small geographic size. I'm not saying you should be like Switzerland though, I'm saying you should be like every other vaguely civilised state and try to give your young more than a choice between crime ridden poverty and military service.

This is the big problem you have in America, you think your military is a tool for every problem. It is not. While the military can be useful for civilian aid relief it is still a very expensive way of doing it and it needn't be the size it is to do so. No one is talking about abolishing the military altogether, but it could be scaled back to a defense force rather than a global policing force and it would save America hundreds of billions a year potentially.


As a follow-up ... to balance the 2012 budget (let alone start reducing the debt) through revenue increases alone, we'd have to scare up about another $1.3 trillion, increasing revenue by about 54%. That suggests to me that, contrary to Democratic and Republican wishes, we're going to have to cut things that are super important if we actually want to reduce the debt. It's not just going to be useless things that nobody cares about.

The key is not to cut things that are vital for future growth, like education and science spending. There seems to be an incredible amount of waste in the US. I mean you have a population six times ours and an economy ssix times ours but our books are slightly better balanced and we also deliver an excellent health system and social benefits scheme. I don't claim we are hugely better off but we have a better prospect of looking after our population and balancing the books than the US. We could also stand to reduce our military spending slightly.

A better example would be Australia come to think of it. An economy one tenth that of the US, a population one fifteenth of the US, negligible government debt and world leaders in health, education etc. and widely regarded as having a formidable military more than capable of defending itself from any likely threat. If they can do it, why can't the US?

[chicop76]

Yup.

And that Military college thing? Sounds terribly socialist to me....

America is not a true capitalistic society anyway. We just lean towards capitalism with socialist programs and industrial oversight.

Anyway by serving in the military the government will fund whatever college you decide to attend. For example my 911 in Teaxs covers 13k a semester. Not saying I get that much, but the government will pay that much. On top of that I get 1, 500 dollars to attend school. I have to keep my grades up by the way. On top of grants I can get about 3k at the semester beginning. When 911 runs out I can fall back to Hazelwood which pays for schooling as well.

[chicop76]

Switzerland has a smaller government than you. It's a highly democratic republic with a much smaller government footprint than the US and an extremely decentralised, community driven take on democracy. Which is really only possible due to it's small geographic size. I'm not saying you should be like Switzerland though, I'm saying you should be like every other vaguely civilised state and try to give your young more than a choice between crime ridden poverty and military service.

This is the big problem you have in America, you think your military is a tool for every problem. It is not. While the military can be useful for civilian aid relief it is still a very expensive way of doing it and it needn't be the size it is to do so. No one is talking about abolishing the military altogether, but it could be scaled back to a defense force rather than a global policing force and it would save America hundreds of billions a year potentially.

But in many ways the military is cheaper. Everyone have a set wage for the most part. In some cases doing the same job in the civilian world you would receive less pay, while in other cases you can see higher pay going civilian. I seen the military as a way for people to get paid training and experience to elevate and circumvent the normal way of doing things. Like military doctors for a good example. They get the experience and go. Why stay if you can make 4x more as a civilian.

[eldargal]

The military is not cheaper, that is a myth. The military is hugely expensive and provides outcomes, like education, at a vast inflated cost.

[Earl Harbinger]

As a follow-up ... to balance the 2012 budget (let alone start reducing the debt) through revenue increases alone, we'd have to scare up about another $1.3 trillion, increasing revenue by about 54%. That suggests to me that, contrary to Democratic and Republican wishes, we're going to have to cut things that are super important if we actually want to reduce the debt. It's not just going to be useless things that nobody cares about.

There's a constituency behind every dollar, the bigger the program the bigger the constiuency the stronger the resistance. The govt spends too much money and too few people pay taxes. Unfortunately there are real structural economic issues that need to dealt with, preferably by smarter better people than those that currently work in DC. A primary reason behind our govt spending beyond our means is an insane level of govt dependency, Social Security, Medicare, farm subsidies, military spending, welfare, food stamps, Social Security Disability, etc. coupled with a private sector build on retail/service industries that are being undercut by unstoppable technological advances.

We can certainly cut things like military spending but that is going to close business and make a lot of people unemployed. What happens then? What private sectory industry absorbs those laid off workers and allows them to be productive tax paying citizens? Cutting military spending but putting all the ex-mil workers on unemployment/disability/welfare etc. doesn't cut spending.That's not to say that we can't or shouldn't cut spending but that we need to do so in a way that actually promotes economic growth.

[Earl Harbinger]

The military is not cheaper, that is a myth. The military is hugely expensive and provides outcomes, like education, at a vast inflated cost.

Yes the military is govt and every outcome produced by the govt comes at an inflated cost.

[eldargal]

On that we agree. Big military amounts to big government, big military budgets breeds corruption and pork barreling because it's easy to exploit patriotism to make a taboo of questioning military spending. Cutting military spending is not an instant cure and needs to be done carefully but it needs to be done if you want to balance the book. Does the US go in for middle/upper class welfare? That's another thing that be tightened up. there is a big difference between taxing the wealthy and overtaxing them so they move elsewhere. Plenty of other countries manage it.

[Earl Harbinger]

Or you could have some of that free healthcare like the rest of the civilised world...

One of the most ignorant statements ever. Healthcare is never free.

[Psychosplodge]

ffs Free at the point of use.
If you reduced millitary spending which is something like the same as the next three biggest spenders globally combined you could provide free at the point of use healthcare without raising taxes. I didn't realise you'd need it explaining in minute detail.

[Nabterayl]

Does the US go in for middle/upper class welfare?
I don't know what you mean by that phrase.

[eldargal]

I don't know what you mean by that phrase.
Benefits aimed at people who don't really need it. Excessive
taxbreaks for middle-upper income earners, the wealthy etc. Giving money to people who don't need it to try and get their votes basically.

[ElectricPaladin]

Sweet lizard... I'm giving my students the CELDT test today. I'm not teaching, which means that I'm bored, and not in a "Ciaphas Cain when there are no Tyranids around" sort of way. More like a "Black Templar when there are no heretics to smash" sort of way. Can we please have some actual wargames related posts to keep me amused?

[Mr Mystery]

Sweet lizard... I'm giving my students the CELDT test today. I'm not teaching, which means that I'm bored, and not in a "Ciaphas Cain when there are no Tyranids around" sort of way. More like a "Black Templar when there are no heretics to smash" sort of way. Can we please have some actual wargames related posts to keep me amused?

No. :p

[chicop76]

Reducing military spending isn't really a solution. What that does is cause people to lose jobs. General A goes I want this big plane. Congress goes big plane is rather expensive you need to make some cuts. General A consults with several Generals and they close base x and y in America to pay for the big plane.

Case in point the 259th in Alexandria was supposed to close down which was an Air Traffic Control base per order of the United States Air Force. The local community and several Louisiana Congressman fought to keep the base open.

In the end of the day if base was closed the Alexandria airport would have two options.
1. Hire more civilian ATC controllers which would cost 2 to 3 times more than the guard controllers
2. Stop being a 24hr international airport.

Money talked so that base stayed open since it was cheaper on the local community that it stayed.

Military members also do government work which they get paid less than they would if on active status and even less than the civilian equivalent. It's not a myth when in many cases the military is indeed cheaper. It is also cheeper in the case of the airport scenerio since they do not have to pay for the extra controllers using their tower.

When military expenses is too high they than contract out. The military have a lot of contracted work. The exchanges, gym, dining facilities, etc. Are contracted out to civilians which get paid less than what the military member would cost. Cutting funding would see cuts on the civilian contractors since the military like to reduce contracts over not retaining military members. Cutting contracts means less work for civilians.

Also what happens is with less personnel you start doing more work. For example services which used to be military cooks now do mortuary, lodging, mwr, fitness, affess, library, clubs, and base programs. Also like groud radio have picked up taca , ils, runway lights as well as maintaining communication equipment between contorllers and operators.

[eldargal]

Of course it's not a solution, it's part of the solution.

[Nabterayl]

In that case yes, but I don't know if we do to an extent that would rise to a level you'd consider middle/upper class welfare.

In absolute terms, we certainly have some programs that disproportionately benefit the middle and upper classes. Tax breaks for homeowners, for instance, while aimed at promoting a social policy of residents owning their residences regardless of income class, is inevitably mostly a tax break for the middle and upper classes.

That said, there are countervailing factors. Most of America by population contributes virtually nothing to the federal revenues, at least not directly. This summary (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/AverageFedTaxRates2007.pdf) by the Congressional Budget Office, while six years out of date, explains it fairly well. According to the chart on the last page, the top 20% of earners in America are responsible for 69% of all federal tax income (not just income tax). The bottom 60% of earners are responsible for only 14.4% of federal tax income. According to this article (http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes) (which claims to be based on federal data, though I can't verify that), even our top 1% accounts for 37% of all federal income taxes, which you'd expect the wealthiest would be in the best position to minimize.

So I don't know that it's fair, overall, to say that the upper and middle classes are being given a free ride. Yes, there are various policies that only they are realistically positioned to take advantage of, but they also pay way, way more in taxes than the lower classes. One could certainly quibble about the percentages - maybe the top 1% should account for more half of federal income taxes, instead of just over a third; maybe the top 20% should account for 90% of federal tax revenue, instead of just 69%. And obviously the lower income classes' national contribution is not the same as their federal contribution - the fact that they don't pay taxes doesn't mean they don't contribute to society. You could vaporize 20% of American adults tomorrow and the federal tax revenue would barely notice, but certainly the economy as a whole would. But it is certainly true that those who make the most contribute the most, by a significant margin, to the federal coffers.

[chicop76]

The biggest problems I see is government can't make a profit. For example with the military with the bx they are only allowed to make a small profit. If they was allowed to make a profit they can bring in bigger returns.

I figure if every citizen pays 500 dollars towards the dept than the issue would be resolved. Oh I should say for everyone living in America should pay 500 dollars.

You can cut programs, but how are you going to pay the debt is my question. You have to cut programs and raise taxes. When looking at cuts you have to also loom at returns as well.

Who do you hurt more. People on wellfare or a person that works for the government. One that is not likely to vote or a person who is likely to vote. A person who looks out for government interests or a person who looks out for themselves. A person who served or a person who didn't. Which on is more likely to spend money on the economy? If I had the decision to make cuts these the type of questions I would ask. Like who more likely become a criminal? How much would it cost if their is an increase in local crime?

A huge problem with America is a lot of things is handled on a state level. To be fair united states education should be rated by state than as a whole. For example a pubic school in Louisiana is not on the same level as a pubic schoolin Texas. Than add in private schools provide more education than public schools. For example if I took the worst public school in america and put them with the best public school in America it would be like comparing America to Haiti.

My question is what country have the best school in education overall. I wouldn't be surprised that America have the best higb school in the world even though they rank like 20th in overall education.

[Mr Mystery]

In that case yes, but I don't know if we do to an extent that would rise to a level you'd consider middle/upper class welfare.

In absolute terms, we certainly have some programs that disproportionately benefit the middle and upper classes. Tax breaks for homeowners, for instance, while aimed at promoting a social policy of residents owning their residences regardless of income class, is inevitably mostly a tax break for the middle and upper classes.

That said, there are countervailing factors. Most of America by population contributes virtually nothing to the federal revenues, at least not directly. This summary (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/AverageFedTaxRates2007.pdf) by the Congressional Budget Office, while six years out of date, explains it fairly well. According to the chart on the last page, the top 20% of earners in America are responsible for 69% of all federal tax income (not just income tax). The bottom 60% of earners are responsible for only 14.4% of federal tax income. According to this article (http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes) (which claims to be based on federal data, though I can't verify that), even our top 1% accounts for 37% of all federal income taxes, which you'd expect the wealthiest would be in the best position to minimize.

So I don't know that it's fair, overall, to say that the upper and middle classes are being given a free ride. Yes, there are various policies that only they are realistically positioned to take advantage of, but they also pay way, way more in taxes than the lower classes. One could certainly quibble about the percentages - maybe the top 1% should account for more half of federal income taxes, instead of just over a third; maybe the top 20% should account for 90% of federal tax revenue, instead of just 69%. And obviously the lower income classes' national contribution is not the same as their federal contribution - the fact that they don't pay taxes doesn't mean they don't contribute to society. You could vaporize 20% of American adults tomorrow and the federal tax revenue would barely notice, but certainly the economy as a whole would. But it is certainly true that those who make the most contribute the most, by a significant margin, to the federal coffers.

For me, it's all about the percentage of disposable income. Someone on the lower rungs isn't likely to be able to pay much tax, on account they don't earn much.

I reckon a flat XX% across the board would be fairest. Sadly, it's when you start offering breaks and incentives that you leave loopholes to be exploited to pay less than your required share, regardless of how staggering a figure you remain paying.

[ElectricPaladin]

My question is what country have the best school in education overall. I wouldn't be surprised that America have the best higb school in the world even though they rank like 20th in overall education.

The best schools in the world are in Poland, South Korea, and the Netherlands. The main differences are:
1) Teaching is a high status, highly paid profession (six figures). Teachers require the equivalent of a PhD.
2) Schools give very little homework.
3) Pedagogy focuses on student-student interaction, though the direct instruction is also very effective.
4) All schools have the tools they need, but the budgetary focus is on securing high-quality staff, rather than technology.

[chicop76]

In that case yes, but I don't know if we do to an extent that would rise to a level you'd consider middle/upper class welfare.

In absolute terms, we certainly have some programs that disproportionately benefit the middle and upper classes. Tax breaks for homeowners, for instance, while aimed at promoting a social policy of residents owning their residences regardless of income class, is inevitably mostly a tax break for the middle and upper classes.

That said, there are countervailing factors. Most of America by population contributes virtually nothing to the federal revenues, at least not directly. This summary (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/AverageFedTaxRates2007.pdf) by the Congressional Budget Office, while six years out of date, explains it fairly well. According to the chart on the last page, the top 20% of earners in America are responsible for 69% of all federal tax income (not just income tax). The bottom 60% of earners are responsible for only 14.4% of federal tax income. According to this article (http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes) (which claims to be based on federal data, though I can't verify that), even our top 1% accounts for 37% of all federal income taxes, which you'd expect the wealthiest would be in the best position to minimize.

So I don't know that it's fair, overall, to say that the upper and middle classes are being given a free ride. Yes, there are various policies that only they are realistically positioned to take advantage of, but they also pay way, way more in taxes than the lower classes. One could certainly quibble about the percentages - maybe the top 1% should account for more half of federal income taxes, instead of just over a third; maybe the top 20% should account for 90% of federal tax revenue, instead of just 69%. And obviously the lower income classes' national contribution is not the same as their federal contribution - the fact that they don't pay taxes doesn't mean they don't contribute to society. You could vaporize 20% of American adults tomorrow and the federal tax revenue would barely notice, but certainly the economy as a whole would. But it is certainly true that those who make the most contribute the most, by a significant margin, to the federal coffers.

I personally think states make to much money and do not really contribute to the government, not all states like Louisiana makes money due to corruption. However states like to receive money from the government, but don't really donate to the government. I think the federal government should have more state oversight. Less government equates to less I care about what happens to said government. Sadly the most patriotic are the ones wanting less government so we can go back to pre labor law days.

[chicop76]

The best schools in the world are in Poland, South Korea, and the Netherlands. The main differences are:
1) Teaching is a high status, highly paid profession (six figures). Teachers require the equivalent of a PhD.
2) Schools give very little homework.
3) Pedagogy focuses on student-student interaction, though the direct instruction is also very effective.
4) All schools have the tools they need, but the budgetary focus is on securing high-quality staff, rather than technology.

Umm teachers in America depending on state and some private schools pay teachers a lot. The problem is you have states like Louisiana that pays like 20k to teachers and students do no have the proper learning tools.

Which goes back to my question. Do the top schools in Poland for example out class the top American school or is it the other way around. From experience I can say first hand that American schools differ a lot.

[ElectricPaladin]

Which goes back to my question. Do the top schools in Poland for example out class the top American school or is it the other way around. From experience I can say first hand that American schools differ a lot.

Poland's top schools top America's top schools. Their bottom schools do, too. Their entire education system is head and shoulders above our entire education system.

By the way, most private schools - numerically - pay teachers worse than public schools. They can get away with it because they don't have to deal with the union.

[Nabterayl]

For me, it's all about the percentage of disposable income. Someone on the lower rungs isn't likely to be able to pay much tax, on account they don't earn much.

I reckon a flat XX% across the board would be fairest. Sadly, it's when you start offering breaks and incentives that you leave loopholes to be exploited to pay less than your required share, regardless of how staggering a figure you remain paying.
Disposable income is in my opinion the strongest argument against a flat percentage rate tax. Say that tax rate is 10% (it could be anything and the argument still works, but 10% makes the math easy for the illustration). Let's say I'm married and, as a household, I make $20,000 a year. On the 10% flat tax, I pay $2,000 in taxes and have $18,000 left over. That hurts a lot - I care about that first 10% of my income. If instead my household makes $200,000 a year, I pay $20,000 in taxes and I have $180,000 left over. That hurts barely at all - I don't care that much about 10% of my income.

Under the American system, if my household make $20,000 a year, I pay literally nothing in taxes - the tax code assumes I can't afford to lose any of that income. If I make $200,000 a year, I pay roughly 19% of my income in federal taxes, and up to about that much again in state and local taxes depending on where in the country I live.

I do make about $200,000 a year, and I would not exactly say I am "comfortable" - I live in among the most expensive parts of the country, with the highest state and local taxes, and given my family and social ties, professional markets, etc., I'm likely to stay that way for the rest of my working life. But I have good friends who do make about $20,000 a year - some by choice (e.g., teachers), and some by necessity (i.e., it's the only work they can get, and even if it's barely better than welfare they'd rather work for their money). As much as I would like more money to fund my retirement, my daughter's education, and maybe a house for my wife, I have to say that the current progressive scheme seems like a fairer arrangement than if everybody had a flat tax. I can (and do) lose 40% of my income to taxes and still get by. My friends who make $20,000 a year would be hard pressed to lose even 10% of their income to taxes.

One can take this principle too far, of course, but I don't think we have. Even though I pay way more in taxes than my poor friends, I am still significantly more comfortable than they are, and I am confident that if I were to make more money I would be more comfortable still, even though my share of taxes would increase. So I pay a tax I can afford, still obtain immediate benefits from my comparatively exalted income, and still have an incentive to become richer, while my poor friends pay a tax they can afford (i.e., nothing), and have similar incentives to become richer (though some of them - my teacher friends - will choose to remain poor). That seems like a fair system to me.

[chicop76]

Disposable income is in my opinion the strongest argument against a flat percentage rate tax. Say that tax rate is 10% (it could be anything and the argument still works, but 10% makes the math easy for the illustration). Let's say I'm married and, as a household, I make $20,000 a year. On the 10% flat tax, I pay $2,000 in taxes and have $18,000 left over. That hurts a lot - I care about that first 10% of my income. If instead my household makes $200,000 a year, I pay $20,000 in taxes and I have $180,000 left over. That hurts barely at all - I don't care that much about 10% of my income.

Under the American system, if my household make $20,000 a year, I pay literally nothing in taxes - the tax code assumes I can't afford to lose any of that income. If I make $200,000 a year, I pay roughly 19% of my income in federal taxes, and up to about that much again in state and local taxes depending on where in the country I live.

I do make about $200,000 a year, and I would not exactly say I am "comfortable" - I live in among the most expensive parts of the country, with the highest state and local taxes, and given my family and social ties, professional markets, etc., I'm likely to stay that way for the rest of my working life. But I have good friends who do make about $20,000 a year - some by choice (e.g., teachers), and some by necessity (i.e., it's the only work they can get, and even if it's barely better than welfare they'd rather work for their money). As much as I would like more money to fund my retirement, my daughter's education, and maybe a house for my wife, I have to say that the current progressive scheme seems like a fairer arrangement than if everybody had a flat tax. I can (and do) lose 40% of my income to taxes and still get by. My friends who make $20,000 a year would be hard pressed to lose even 10% of their income to taxes.

One can take this principle too far, of course, but I don't think we have. Even though I pay way more in taxes than my poor friends, I am still significantly more comfortable than they are, and I am confident that if I were to make more money I would be more comfortable still, even though my share of taxes would increase. So I pay a tax I can afford, still obtain immediate benefits from my comparatively exalted income, and still have an incentive to become richer, while my poor friends pay a tax they can afford (i.e., nothing), and have similar incentives to become richer (though some of them - my teacher friends - will choose to remain poor). That seems like a fair system to me.

Man if more people thought like this.

[chicop76]

Poland's top schools top America's top schools. Their bottom schools do, too. Their entire education system is head and shoulders above our entire education system.

By the way, most private schools - numerically - pay teachers worse than public schools. They can get away with it because they don't have to deal with the union.

Not all private schools. Most private school teaches indeed get paid less, but this is not always the case. Which is why I worded what I said the way I done did.

Are you so sure or that's your opinion. I can believe poland bottom schools easily beat our mid and bottom schools, but I am talking top American shcools vs top Poland schools. Not the general average. It may be the case, but seeing how diverse and experiening the diversity of our schools first hand I do not believe that.

[ElectricPaladin]

Not all private schools. Most private school teaches indeed get paid less, but this is not always the case. Which is why I worded what I said the way I done did.

Are you so sure or that's your opinion. I can believe poland bottom schools easily beat our mid and bottom schools, but I am talking top American shcools vs top Poland schools. Not the general average. It may be the case, but seeing how diverse and experiening the diversity of our schools first hand I do not believe that.

To be honest, I question your judgment and your compassion if you want to compare the parts of the systems independently. It is my opinion that a society is no better than the lot of its least fortunate. So, perhaps our system succeeds admirably with some - it still fails far, far too many. This makes the systems I'm writing about infinitely superior, because they do not fail so many with such reliability.

[ElectricPaladin]

I'm sorry - I meant "my opinion is that a society is..." but I lost the edit button...

Edit: Oh, there it is...

[chicop76]

To be honest, I question your judgment and your compassion if you want to compare the parts of the systems independently. It is my opinion that a society is no better than the lot of its least fortunate. So, perhaps our system succeeds admirably with some - it still fails far, far too many. This makes the systems I'm writing about infinitely superior, because they do not fail so many with such reliability.

http:// http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinehoward/2013/09/10/the-worlds-top-colleges-2013/

The above article is an example of what I am talking about. For college we still have the top schools for example, still looming up high school.

When you rank America as a whole we easily fall into the 20th. If we have most of the top colleges in the world I wouldn't be surprised to seeing us having the top high school or elementary school elements.

Now if you compare your average student to an average student in other countries than yes most countries will out perform our students.

You point out the obvious that if you are rich in America than you don't have to work about education or other issues. Heck why you think a lot of socialist rich live in America, it's not because of the huge tax brakes compared to their country they decided to leave. America is the place for the rich to get richer.

However America is not the place to have a business. You can't bribe, pay overtime, pay for safety, etc, oh and pay a minimum wage too.

[Earl Harbinger]

Disposable income is in my opinion the strongest argument against a flat percentage rate tax. Say that tax rate is 10% (it could be anything and the argument still works, but 10% makes the math easy for the illustration). Let's say I'm married and, as a household, I make $20,000 a year. On the 10% flat tax, I pay $2,000 in taxes and have $18,000 left over. That hurts a lot - I care about that first 10% of my income. If instead my household makes $200,000 a year, I pay $20,000 in taxes and I have $180,000 left over. That hurts barely at all - I don't care that much about 10% of my income.

Under the American system, if my household make $20,000 a year, I pay literally nothing in taxes - the tax code assumes I can't afford to lose any of that income. If I make $200,000 a year, I pay roughly 19% of my income in federal taxes, and up to about that much again in state and local taxes depending on where in the country I live.

I do make about $200,000 a year, and I would not exactly say I am "comfortable" - I live in among the most expensive parts of the country, with the highest state and local taxes, and given my family and social ties, professional markets, etc., I'm likely to stay that way for the rest of my working life. But I have good friends who do make about $20,000 a year - some by choice (e.g., teachers), and some by necessity (i.e., it's the only work they can get, and even if it's barely better than welfare they'd rather work for their money). As much as I would like more money to fund my retirement, my daughter's education, and maybe a house for my wife, I have to say that the current progressive scheme seems like a fairer arrangement than if everybody had a flat tax. I can (and do) lose 40% of my income to taxes and still get by. My friends who make $20,000 a year would be hard pressed to lose even 10% of their income to taxes.

One can take this principle too far, of course, but I don't think we have. Even though I pay way more in taxes than my poor friends, I am still significantly more comfortable than they are, and I am confident that if I were to make more money I would be more comfortable still, even though my share of taxes would increase. So I pay a tax I can afford, still obtain immediate benefits from my comparatively exalted income, and still have an incentive to become richer, while my poor friends pay a tax they can afford (i.e., nothing), and have similar incentives to become richer (though some of them - my teacher friends - will choose to remain poor). That seems like a fair system to me.

You're omitting the key fact that the person making $20,000 doesn't simply not pay income tax currently but also gets money from the govt, the earned income tax credit is essentially a tax refund for people who don't even pay taxes. A flat tax could still allow for people earning a low income to not pay taxes, you could simply set the floor at a number like $40,000, eliminate tax refunds for people who don't pay taxes, have a progressive scale for broad income brackets, ie 5%, 10%, 15% and 20% for the highest earners, eliminate deductions to simply the tax code and likely increase federal revenue.

Expanding the tax base doesn't have to mean forcing destitute people to cough up a self destructive amount of income tax. The more people that pay into the govt the more people with a vested interest in holding the govt accountable. The more people benefitting from govt largesse the more people with a vested interest in keeping the govt spending money like a drunk sailor.

[Earl Harbinger]

The best schools in the world are in Poland, South Korea, and the Netherlands. The main differences are:
1) Teaching is a high status, highly paid profession (six figures). Teachers require the equivalent of a PhD.
2) Schools give very little homework.
3) Pedagogy focuses on student-student interaction, though the direct instruction is also very effective.
4) All schools have the tools they need, but the budgetary focus is on securing high-quality staff, rather than technology.

From the California Dept of Education:
The 2012–13 state budget includes $38 billion for kindergarten through grade twelve (K–12) education. Overall spending for California public schools is about $68 billion when federal funds and other funding sources are added.

If the state is already spending $68,000,000,000 on education and the system is wretched then your problem isn't a lack of funding it's a matter of poor budgeting and incompetence. Education budgets have gone up every year for decades yet the enormous increase in funding doesn't seem to be increasing the quality of education by any objective measure.

1. Teaching in the US is high status. I've never in my life heard anyone say that teaching isn't a noble worthy profession and I've never met anyone that didn't have at least one great teacher during the course of their education that greatly helped them.
2. The amount of homework given is dependent on individual teachers to a certain degree, to the curriculum and lesson plan to a larger degree. I don't think it's fair to say there is a specific sweet spot for the amount of homework a class should have because it is very dependent a variety of factors for a given class, subject, age group, curriculum, etc.
3. I agree with you that there should be a greater emphasis on different teaching style and learning styles that isn't always allowed into public schools. However, unions also have a lot to do with how much power schools have over dictating methods teachers can or must use.
4. I agree that better teaching staff is more important than better technology. Unions often oppose the ability for school districts to fire bad teachers, reward good teachers with merit pay and holding teachers accountable for student performance. Teachers unions exist to help teachers not students, the students don't pay the dues.

[Earl Harbinger]

ffs Free at the point of use.
If you reduced millitary spending which is something like the same as the next three biggest spenders globally combined you could provide free at the point of use healthcare without raising taxes. I didn't realise you'd need it explaining in minute detail.

Fiddle around with the billing cycle however you want, it's still NOT FREE.

[chicop76]

Actually everyone pays taxes. You still get taxed every pay check. For example if you paid 2,400 dollars in taxes and getting a 1k refund you still paid 1, 400 in taxes. Now being head of house hold helps, but you need a home. Wait you are paying taxes on your home. Lets say 500 in taxes a year. Hmmm and you get 250 in earned income credit. Unless you have kids and a lot of dependants you are not really getting anything come tax time. Heck its arguable if you get anything since you are paying taxes anyway. Just some people get some money back and some people have to pay more.

If you have tax exempt income than you are golden.

[Nabterayl]

1. Teaching in the US is high status. I've never in my life heard anyone say that teaching isn't a noble worthy profession and I've never met anyone that didn't have at least one great teacher during the course of their education that greatly helped them.
It's high status in the sense that most people admire it, yes. That isn't what "high status" generally means in this context, though. In this sort of discussion, "status" refers to the level of education or certification required, which is a better predictor of professional pay scales than how much people admire the people doing the job. Lawyering is a high status profession in that sense - it requires a doctorate-level degree and a separate professional certification, and is much more highly paid than teaching even though it's widely considered the less noble profession. Certainly some U.S. high school teachers have doctorates, and I'm sure some of them do command six-figure salaries, but a country in which most high school teachers have doctorates and command six figure salaries certainly considers that kind of teaching "higher class" than America does.

[DarkLink]

We do pay more per student than most anyone else, though. The raw amount of money we spent is not the issue.

[Nabterayl]

Does anybody have anything else to say or ask that will bring us back on topic?

[ElectricPaladin]

Does anybody have anything else to say or ask that will bring us back on topic?

I kind of think it's time for this thread to be exterminatus-ed. We're running in circles here.

[daboarder]

Yup.

And that Military college thing? Sounds terribly socialist to me....

For some people the discipline is required to learn, military colleges aren't a bad thing by themselves....of course that doesn't preclude the other points made in this thread being accurate.

[chicop76]

For some people the discipline is required to learn, military colleges aren't a bad thing by themselves....of course that doesn't preclude the other points made in this thread being accurate.

Military college is mostly for officers that want to be the top in the military.

[daboarder]

I know, I was referring to Duntroon, the Royal Australian military college where your officer training can be done in conjunction whit a university degree. Incentives such as easier entry and lower HECS and the like are offered, as well as looking good on your resume when your done, not to mention that the Undergrad degree and officers training takes up the better part of your required period of service.

that being said theres been a number of high profile scandals involving the college in the last 2 years but its not anything you don't see happening at other unniversities and the like.

[Learn2Eel]

I'm not too clued up on this but the general consensus I'm getting is...

McCarthyism is one of the worst things to happen to America.

[daboarder]

the senator? **** oath he was......seriously he crucified the man that GAVE THEM THE ATOMIC BOMB!, as if that wasn't enough the FBI then hounded his daughter to the point where she killed herself......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer

[Psychosplodge]

Does anybody have anything else to say or ask that will bring us back on topic?


http://25.media.tumblr.com/2ef219842b4de0b8f79cc4c34b602052/tumblr_muqlrqgkyZ1qzy3w8o1_500.png

Close enough?