My Country is Officially Stupid

[Bigred]

Ugg. I remember how well these political games went in 1996 and this won't be any different.

When even the architect of the first shutdown Newt Gingrich is saying "don't do it" elected officials should pay attention.

Still, at least the New York rags are having fun with it.

5181

[eldargal]

It is rather breathtaking.

[Rissan4ever]

What's even more breathtaking is that by the time the next major election cycle comes around, people will basically have forgotten about all this, and the turds who caused it will have a decent chance of reelection.

[ElectricPaladin]

It's a conspiracy*! You see, the corporate-military oligarchs know that the US military is too loyal for a coup, so they've got their far right looney minions jamming up the government in the hopes that they can provoke total chaos!

*No it's not.

[Mr Mystery]

Before I break into full on lefty stride, I actually quite like the US system here, as it can prevent a President just spending on whatever.....

But really....social healthcare is something to be feared and abhorred?

Grow up Republican America. Seriously. Yes it's expensive, but it keeps your workforce you know, working. As it prevents people with relatively minor, but debilitating ailments falling by the way side because they either can't find insurance, or can't afford the high premiums their condition brings with it.

No the NHS isn't perfect, but as I've said before, it patches you up and ships you out. And it's saved my life on numerous occasions!

For another example, Mumsie Mystery, who has severe epilepsy, which is controlled through a veritable cocktail of daily medicines. Without these, Mumsie will fit. Easily more than once a day. NHS provides her prescription. And in return, another tax payer is capable of working and contributing.

In the USA?? You tell me. It's likely any private medical insurance would cost a lot, if they'd cover her at all.

So really....social healthcare is immoral and wrong because???

[Nabterayl]

So really....social healthcare is immoral and wrong because???
I like this thought (http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/im-safe-on-board-pull-up-the-life-rope) from the late Roger Ebert on the subject:


It is "socialism." Again, yes. The word socialism, however, has lost its usefulness in this debate. It has been tainted, perhaps forever, by the malevolent Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who succeeded somehow in linking it with the godless Commies. America is the only nation in the free world in which "socialism" is generally thought of in negative terms. The only nation in which that word, in and of itself, is thought to bring the discussion to a close.

[Mr Mystery]

I despair. I really do.

[DarkLink]

But really....social healthcare is something to be feared and abhorred?

Grow up Republican America. Seriously. Yes it's expensive, but it keeps your workforce you know, working.

It's not just republicans. In this case, it's the majority of america who disapproves of obamacare, by a pretty solid margin. It mainly stems from the fact that obama has been very unclear about what it actually does. Most americans dont understand obamacare, and so they don't trust it.

On top of that, most of what i do know about it sounds stupid. Any companies that used to offer healthcare to lower level employees will no longer do so, because the fine they pay is a lot less than the costs they would have to cover. So places like trader joes will just hand their employees $500 to get their own healthcare. But the way the market looks to be set up, you have a lot more money going out in the form of "free" healthcare than you have going in to actually pay for it, so a lot of people are thinking 'wtf, how does this math work out'. Things just dont seem to add up, so people aren't supporting it.

[Aenir]

Im for the shutdown, but not because I don't care for helping other people. I live in Illinois, which seems to me the most corrupt individual state (or near) in the US, and the Federal govt. imo is only slightly behind it. The shutdown helps because it gets fingers out (however temporarily) of people's business and that can only be good. Government is good for keeping other countries out of your face, and should do the same itself with its own people. I mean look at the posts around here in the Oubliette, how many of them are oh, stupid representative voicing an opinion or change to a law that would accomplish absolutely nothing but a hassle? Having less of that can only be a plus. Maybe its due to my youth, or as I mentioned, where I live, but I think there is a bit of anarchist (due to the inefficiency and corruption of govt.) in me that sees govt. shutdown as only good.


In short, government messes crap up, less government should equal less screw ups.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

DarkLink, not to be This Guy, but you are constantly claiming "majorities" and "mosts" for things without any evidence. If you're going to make these claims, you need to have numbers, dude. Evidence.

Now, the Affordable Care Act is pretty bad. It's as bloated as hell, it's little more than a cash handout to the insurance industry, and doesn't do very much to address the serious problems in American healthcare. US healthcare is a mess run by an insurance cartel and rampant think-of-a-number pricing; it's a racket, not a market. You could go a long way with a healthcare reform which made US healthcare actually obey some kind of market pressures. It currently doesn't, which is why it's hilarious that the ACA is being derided as "socialist", it's nothing of the sort. But however you do it, you need a reform; this isn't that, not even remotely. So it's true that it's murky and nobody is sure exactly how it works. Basically it doesn't work! I'm not sure it's worth supporting EXCEPT as a necessary foot in the door for something better down the road.

Let's also not forget that the Administration has already caved and holed its own legislation below the waterline by putting back the fines for businesses which aren't providing healthcare to 2015. The fines for private individuals are coming in as planned, of course. Because you just don't count if you're just an ordinary person in our glorious modern world.

Now, as awful as this piece of legislation is: the House passed it, the Senate passed it, the Executive signed it in, the Supreme Court upheld it. That's how the system works. This constant run of 40 attempts to defund it - tilting at windmills - and now holding the government hostage is just childishness. Ted Cruz is sat in the aisle of the supermarket, screaming his head off because momma won't do what he wants, and he's gonna scream and scream and scream. It's probably going to come back and bite them in the *****. Ask Newt!

The wider systemic problem with the US federal government at the moment is that it's predicated on a state of permanent crisis for partisan political ends. Both parties are involved in this. Y'all remember the Sequester, right? I forget which one of the six-monthly crises was before this.

[Rissan4ever]

In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.
-Theodore Roosevelt
My cousin, who's working a minimum wage job, had no access to health insurance before the AFA. Now, she has access to health insurance. It's far from perfect, but it's better than nothing. Socialism isn't a dirty word, nor is universal healthcare. It works pretty well for most of the rest of the Western world. I don't see why it can't work here.

[ElectricPaladin]

Aenir and DarkLink, with all due respect - I assume that you are both very bright, I know that - you are making two important mistakes:

1) The "majority" that opposes Obamacare doesn't exist. The election established that. Healthcare was a major issue in the election, and if the majority had opposed Obamacare, we would not currently have a President Obama.

2) The amount of harm that is done by a Federal shutdown is incredible. I'm not just talking about setting our economy back. I'm talking about people who will have to work without pay, or who will not be able to work in order to earn their pay. And we're not just talking about highly-paid government employees, we're talking about security guards and park rangers and other people who basically live paycheck to paycheck. For ****'s sake, it was a close call making sure the military got paid during this interregnum. More locally, we are talking about people in federally subsidized housing who might be kicked out into the streets.

I will never support a politician who endorsed this kind of behavior, regardless of their politics. If the Democrats are ever the underdog party and one of them pulls this bull****, that mother****er looses my vote for the rest of his or her political life.

When you are the opposition party, your job is not to be obstructionist. Your job is this:

1) Work to mitigate the harm you see being done by the dominant party by forcing compromises (note: not by blocking **** up so the entire country suffers the equivalent of an intestinal blockage).

2) Try to include your ideas in small ways, or on a local level, in order to convince the people of the rightness of your ideas.

3) Do your ****ing job and make sure that basic **** gets done: the bills get paid, the highways get fixed, the laws get debated and adapted as needed. Regardless of your politics, that's what I pay you to do.

Government shutdowns are not ok. They are a slap in the face to those of us who are doing ok and a kick in the nuts to those of us who are weakest and most vulnerable. This is not an acceptable political tactic. It is the equivalent of political terrorism. It's holding a gun to the economy's head and shouting demands. It's inexcusable, and I will never support it in any politician for any reason.

[DarkLink]

I'm pretty sure i linked to an article with some statistics on it not too long ago. Maybe in the healthcare thread i started. Anyways, something like 53% now oppose obamacare, which is a lot higher than it was a year or two ago, compared to like 40% supporting it, and 70% "didn't understand it". And literally every single person I've talked to has been like 'wtf is up with this, I can't figure out how this is supposed to actually do what it claims it will'.

We certainly could use some healthcare reform. I don't know if obamacare is the reform we need, though.

[DarkLink]

It's some pretty majorly flawed logic to assume that just because Obama got reelected, that obviously means that healthcare was the only important election issue and that the majority of americans support obamacare specifically.

Nor am i in the camp that assumes the government never does anything useful and a shutdown doesn't matter. I know from my personal experience that none of America's infrastructure would exist were it not for the government, or it might exist, but buildings and bridges and levys would be breaking down left and right, because contractors don't care about that. Or more precisely, they only car about their little slice of the pie, but not about what slips between the gaps. If it's not their responsibility, it's not their problem. It's the department of transportation's job to make sure the job gets done right.

[ElectricPaladin]

I'm pretty sure i linked to an article with some statistics on it not too long ago. Maybe in the healthcare thread i started. Anyways, something like 53% now oppose obamacare, which is a lot higher than it was a year or two ago, compared to like 40% supporting it, and 70% "didn't understand it". And literally every single person I've talked to has been like 'wtf is up with this, I can't figure out how this is supposed to actually do what it claims it will'.

We certainly could use some healthcare reform. I don't know if obamacare is the reform we need, though.

I'd love to see those statistics. I'm curious to read them myself.

[Rissan4ever]

Obama did win reelection, and from that, it can be inferred that the people who voted for him (myself included) are in favor of his policies. I don't see how that's flawed.

However, the election was pretty close, as I recall. In my view, that means the country is split down the middle, more or less. That's why issues like gay marriage, immigration reform, and healthcare reform are so hot. If things were clearly one way or the other, there wouldn't be so much controversy.

[Denzark]

I like this thought (http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/im-safe-on-board-pull-up-the-life-rope) from the late Roger Ebert on the subject:


It is "socialism." Again, yes. The word socialism, however, has lost its usefulness in this debate. It has been tainted, perhaps forever, by the malevolent Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who succeeded somehow in linking it with the godless Commies. America is the only nation in the free world in which "socialism" is generally thought of in negative terms. The only nation in which that word, in and of itself, is thought to bring the discussion to a close.

It's not - socialism is a dirty word in the UK. I appreciate universal healthcare - but I would make people work for their welfare. Am I a socialist? Think not. What is that Thatcher quote - 'The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money to spend'.

[Chronowraith]

Polls rarely show the whole picture though. Of that 52% you quoted, 7% of the people dislike the AHA because it doesn't go far enough to improve healthcare access for all (i.e. the proponents of a single payer system). Additionally, another poll indicated that if you asked "Do you approve of Obamacare" 46% of the respondents responded negatively (older poll than the one you are quoting). However if asked "Do you approve of the Affordable Healthcare Act?" only 36% of the people polled responded negatively.

Polls usually give only enough information to support whoever is giving the poll and the questions that are asked are usually biased enough to poison the well. So saying that the "majority" of Americans disapprove of the Affordable Healthcare Act based on a single poll is a bit misleading.

I'm not saying the healthcare is perfect... it could likely use some work to make it less confusing and less burdensome to navigate, especially for businesses. However, it's better than the alternative in my opinion (which was nothing).

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/01/healthcare-obamacare-affordable-care-act

[Mr Mystery]

Especially when some mad old nutter imposes short term self offs and raises the cost of living.....

But she did kind of have a point. Socialism doesn't mean free. But I firmly believe a government should look after its populace. After all, that's their job. NHS does that. State pension does that. Social security? It should be there to help you when times are tough, but in the UK it's gone a bit beyond that, with people now living off it long term.

Much as my fellow lefties have knocked Osborne's recent one, it does have merit.

[ElectricPaladin]

...but I would make people work for their welfare.

Minor point from BoLS's resident works-with-families-in-one-of-America's-most-stricken-cities (WWFIOOAMSC for short): most of America's poor are what we call "working poor." They have jobs, but the jobs don't pay enough for them to support their families without assistance. You can bring that up the next time someone argues against raising the minimum wage. Making sure these families can get health insurance - most of those crappy jobs don't offer it, and it hurts the adults and the children in those families - will help a lot, too.

Sorry, but it's a pet peeve of mine. The myth of the "welfare mom" with a dozen kids, no job, and no interest in having one is just that - a myth. All the moms I know in my blighted inner city neighborhood work their ***** off. It's hard to acknowledge that America is such a grossly unfair place that people can work hard and never get ahead, but it's still true.

[Aenir]

Obama did win reelection, and from that, it can be inferred that the people who voted for him (myself included) are in favor of his policies. I don't see how that's flawed.

However, the election was pretty close, as I recall. In my view, that means the country is split down the middle, more or less. That's why issues like gay marriage, immigration reform, and healthcare reform are so hot. If things were clearly one way or the other, there wouldn't be so much controversy.


Also keep in mind only 57.5 percent of people voted last election... so he won a majority (barely) of the 42.5 % of people who voted.

As far as the other people who may be hurt (well not to them, but to the programs) Why is the federal government running those things anyway? It is so wasteful, Shouldn't it fall down to the local people to take care of local problems? I had more that I was going to type, but I seem to have forgotten it... if I remember, I will post again :)

[Wolfshade]

It's not - socialism is a dirty word in the UK. I appreciate universal healthcare - but I would make people work for their welfare. Am I a socialist? Think not. What is that Thatcher quote - 'The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money to spend'.

"Red" Ed is bringing it back. But it is important to note that both parties (Democrats and Republicans) are both members of conservative international. There is no "left" in american politics.
I also recall someone once linked a study that suggested that the average insurance cost would actually decrease with a national health service.

This latest round of brinksmanship is interesting, neither side are willing to back down. Either one sure that the other will back down and willing to risk voter alienation to do this.

The BBC did rather unhelpfully point out that Syria despite a massive civil war still continues a governemnt and government employees are still paid on time.

[DarkLink]

Polls rarely show the whole picture though. Of that 52% you quoted, 7% of the people dislike the AHA because it doesn't go far enough to improve healthcare access for all (i.e. the proponents of a single payer system). Additionally, another poll indicated that if you asked "Do you approve of Obamacare" 46% of the respondents responded negatively (older poll than the one you are quoting). However if asked "Do you approve of the Affordable Healthcare Act?" only 36% of the people polled responded negatively.

Polls usually give only enough information to support whoever is giving the poll and the questions that are asked are usually biased enough to poison the well. So saying that the "majority" of Americans disapprove of the Affordable Healthcare Act based on a single poll is a bit misleading.

I'm not saying the healthcare is perfect... it could likely use some work to make it less confusing and less burdensome to navigate, especially for businesses. However, it's better than the alternative in my opinion (which was nothing).

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/01/healthcare-obamacare-affordable-care-act


My point is, though, that it's not just a handful of stubborn republicans. For various reasons, many of which amount to 'we dont understand it', a lot of people don't like it. And that number has grown quite a bit in the last year or two. Take that for what you will.

[DarkLink]

Obama did win reelection, and from that, it can be inferred that the people who voted for him (myself included) are in favor of his policies. I don't see how that's flawed.

However, the election was pretty close, as I recall. In my view, that means the country is split down the middle, more or less. That's why issues like gay marriage, immigration reform, and healthcare reform are so hot. If things were clearly one way or the other, there wouldn't be so much controversy.

Correlation, especially one as weak as that, does not imply causation. For all you know, Obama was reelected for his foreign policy and charming good looks, in spite of his healthcare plans. You. Don't. Know.

Since you don't know, if you want to know, you have to look at specific data. A couple years ago, i think it was pretty 50/50, now a majority oppose for one reason or another. Given that, it should be pretty obvious that the aforementioned assumption is flawed.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

There is no "left" in american politics.

There's barely any left in mainstream politics anywhere you look in the West. No, not Labour. No.

[daboarder]

I like this thought (http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/im-safe-on-board-pull-up-the-life-rope) from the late Roger Ebert on the subject:


It is "socialism." Again, yes. The word socialism, however, has lost its usefulness in this debate. It has been tainted, perhaps forever, by the malevolent Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who succeeded somehow in linking it with the godless Commies. America is the only nation in the free world in which "socialism" is generally thought of in negative terms. The only nation in which that word, in and of itself, is thought to bring the discussion to a close.

Well said nab,

Another good example, oppehmiemer, In Britain they would have given him a medal, in america they crucified him.

You know I was waiting for this thread to start, me being a rather vocal in my politics, but I just can't seem to bring my self to bother pointing out all the stupid the actions of american republicans.

Suffice to say, access to healthcare is one of the major things that determines the health of a society.

Furthermore, Cuba! as better health care than the US. (though to be fair they have better health care than most places)

[DarkLink]

So I just found this: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/30/five-reasons-americans-already-love-obamacare-plus-one-reason-why-theyre-gonna/

Literally the first relatively non-partisan, broken down explanation with some references that I've came across. I could probably find all that information if I looked, but I haven't stumbled across it until now.

Kind of backs up my point that most people don't understand what obamacare is and don't want to risk it. I'm still questionable on some provisions, but I certainly don't think it's worth shutting down the government over it.


Edit:
Also

http://i.imgur.com/5F0bJE7.jpg

[Nabterayl]

So I just found this: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/30/five-reasons-americans-already-love-obamacare-plus-one-reason-why-theyre-gonna/

Literally the first relatively non-partisan, broken down explanation with some references that I've came across. I could probably find all that information if I looked, but I haven't stumbled across it until now.
Those are all the reasons I am in favor of the ACA, and kind of disgusted with my party's representatives for opposing it so vociferously.

[DarkLink]

It's definitely partisan politics. BTW, this is awesome: http://www.collegehumor.com/article/6889842/if-congress-got-stuff-done-like-roommates

I love how everyone is borderline illiterate and a bunch of petty squabblers, then Paul Ryan comes along with "I have a comprehensive organizational plan to get us back on track, which I have attached in PDF form. Have a happy Monday, Ryan." And everyone just ignores him.

[Nabterayl]

That was pretty epic.

[ElectricPaladin]

Aenir, I want you to consider two things.

First of all, regardless of your principles, it's right and honorable to pay your debts. No principle can stand if there is not honor and integrity backing it up. Let's say I decide that I don't believe in having dental work done. I've decided that it's the sort of thing a real man knows how to do for himself. So, half way through an appointment, I get up out of the chair and walk out. I say to the dentist: "I don't believe in dental work anymore, so I'm not going to pay you for your time, or the cleaning of your equipment, or any of the other things people normally pay you for. I'm just gone. Additionally, you'd better keep my appointment for next month open, just in case, or I will write you nasty reviews on Yelp, which will hurt your practice."

You can't do that. Even if you decide that you don't believe in having something done, you damn well pay the person who does it for you. If you decide not to pay that person anymore, you give them their last check and then let them go cleanly rather than jerking them around.

Second, it's stupid to have the federal government just stop. The states just aren't set up to suddenly start doing what the fed was doing. To continue in metaphorlandia, it's one thing to say "I believe that self-driving cars are the way of the future," and then start working on making this technology real. It's something else to say to your car while you're doing 80 on the freeway: "Ok, car, you better start driving yourself," and then lean your seat back and take a nap.

All this together adds up to a rather desperate amount of harm that will be done to real live people. Real live people, Aenir, not "the federal government." There are people who rely on government jobs for their livelihood. There are people who rely on federal programs for a place to sleep at night.

Honestly, shutting down the federal government is going to have the opposite effect from the one you want. People aren't going to say "Oh, wow, they pulled the fed out from under us and that went great. Let's cut government programs!" Because it's not going to go great. It's going to hurt a lot of people and cost the economy a whole ton of growth. They're going to say "Sweet mother of lizards, that was awful. Don't ever leave us, federal government!"

That's what I meant when I posted earlier about how what the opposition party needs to do is find ways to convince the public - and then wait for the next election - rather than ramming stuff down the public's throat with procedural malpractice. This isn't just destructive, it isn't going to help.

I'm all for principled arguments: heck, I'm a utopian. I love it when principle and action line up. I just don't see anything principled about abandoning your obligations and screwing over your employees.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

A Lannister always repays his debts.

[Gotthammer]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BVhnsllCIAAmGqe.jpg

[daboarder]

isn't that what they're doing?

[eldargal]

Lol.

[Denzark]

Minor point from BoLS's resident works-with-families-in-one-of-America's-most-stricken-cities (WWFIOOAMSC for short): most of America's poor are what we call "working poor." They have jobs, but the jobs don't pay enough for them to support their families without assistance. You can bring that up the next time someone argues against raising the minimum wage. Making sure these families can get health insurance - most of those crappy jobs don't offer it, and it hurts the adults and the children in those families - will help a lot, too.

Sorry, but it's a pet peeve of mine. The myth of the "welfare mom" with a dozen kids, no job, and no interest in having one is just that - a myth. All the moms I know in my blighted inner city neighborhood work their ***** off. It's hard to acknowledge that America is such a grossly unfair place that people can work hard and never get ahead, but it's still true.

You might think it is a myth there, I know for a fact it isn't a myth here. For the benefit of my compatriots, I DO get that a Daily Mail Story once a month about some council sink-estate family on their 11th nipper does not indicate an epidemic - but the level of outrage at even one such case is probably merited. Given it is such a regular occurence (have you watched Jeremy Kyle?) I can't relegate it to mythology.

Incidentally, I have just read a well-rationalised article about how simply raising minimum wage is not enough - as the pressure it applies to some companies is more damaging to the economy than leaving the minimum wage where it is. Ie if they can't afford the newly raised wage bill because the current financial climate has left them with tight margins, they have 2 options really - lose jobs from the wage bill, or the company crashes. Then we get less taxes and yet more unemployed burdening the state.

[Wolfshade]

It is perhaps worth noting the Belgium government style.

Beligum has a problem that it is in actuality two different different countries. Wallonia and Flanders, they are poles apart, the Wallonians are French and socialists, the Flanderians are Flemish and nationalisitic. They both represent about 50% of the country.
Despite having 589 days without an elected government, everything continued.

I think the idea of the shut down was a good thing, it was a brilliant threat as no one would like a shut down. It is like the MAD solution, no one wants that so you avoid it. Unfortunately where you have both parties believing that they are right and that the others will fold. It is a poker game with the highest stakes.

I suppose the next question is how long can this go on for?

[Wolfshade]

Incidentally, I have just read a well-rationalised article about how simply raising minimum wage is not enough - as the pressure it applies to some companies is more damaging to the economy than leaving the minimum wage where it is. Ie if they can't afford the newly raised wage bill because the current financial climate has left them with tight margins, they have 2 options really - lose jobs from the wage bill, or the company crashes. Then we get less taxes and yet more unemployed burdening the state.

I have been saying this for a while now...

[Gotthammer]

In the UK and others, maybe, but did you see that thing a while ago where McDonalds put out a hilarious example cashbook for its employees (http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2013/07/18/why-mcdonalds-employee-budget-has-everyone-up-in-arms/) - it has them working a second full-time job, and look at how much the expenses are judged to be. $20/mo. for health insurance, doesn't include things like, you know, food. More figures in the link.

McDonalds made $5.5 billion in profits last year, I think they can afford to help their workers out. Also most minimum wage workers are over 25 and many have families. Also a recent survey stated that "Our study found while 27.9% of respondents see the American Dream as retiring at 65 and 18.2% see it as owning a home, 23% view the American Dream as being debt-free." Admittedly is it from a financial website, but this is the breakdown:

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r314/Gotthammer/American-Dream-1_zpsba94ecee.jpg

[Psychosplodge]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BVhnsllCIAAmGqe.jpg


http://i44.tinypic.com/2e4zr5s.png

[daboarder]

BAHHAHAHA, I like that one!

[Psychosplodge]

I think Gott's post makes it more effective...

[Wolfshade]

Of course the car and insurances are optional...

[Psychosplodge]

Time to reclaim the colonies gents

http://i40.tinypic.com/zvadk.gif

[Denzark]

In the UK and others, maybe, but did you see that thing a while ago where McDonalds put out a hilarious example cashbook for its employees (http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2013/07/18/why-mcdonalds-employee-budget-has-everyone-up-in-arms/) - it has them working a second full-time job, and look at how much the expenses are judged to be. $20/mo. for health insurance, doesn't include things like, you know, food. More figures in the link.

McDonalds made $5.5 billion in profits last year, I think they can afford to help their workers out. Also most minimum wage workers are over 25 and many have families. Also a recent survey stated that "Our study found while 27.9% of respondents see the American Dream as retiring at 65 and 18.2% see it as owning a home, 23% view the American Dream as being debt-free." Admittedly is it from a financial website, but this is the breakdown:

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r314/Gotthammer/American-Dream-1_zpsba94ecee.jpg


Gotty - we run the risk of starting the perennial debate about the duties of a company. As highlighted ad infinitem (GW), in the UK, a company has a legal obligation to its shareholders. MacDonalds can afford to help its employees out, for sure - but is there any obligation for a company to act morally in this way?

If you took half that profit, split it equally between the 1.8 million employees of the company worldwide (1527.77), split that into 12 (for months = 127.314) then split that into 160 - for 4 x 40 hour weeks = a pay rise of $0.796 per hour.

That is not applying any extra taxation to the amount.

Is that really going to change the price of fish for those people? And again, thats if you can get the company to do so - which requires either workers not to take the jobs (someone always will) or the customers not to support the firm. Unfortunately people whinging about it whilst filling their pie-holes with Big Mac won't change anything.

[Gotthammer]

And then what happens if said worker gets injured or sick from having to walk to work? They lose their job since they're since they can't work. Also they have no insurance so have to somehow pay for healthcare with the money they weren't earning. Also assumes employment is within reach of foot or public transport. Also assumes people can get two jobs - with some places still having over 10% unemployment where are people going got get these jobs?
And in uncertain economic times people cut back on spending, which means retailers cut back on staff, which means one of the fastest shrinking job pools in an economic downturn are entry-level and low paying jobs.

You have a class of people working two full time jobs who can barely make ends meet as is. It doesn't leave time for studying to "get an education", anyone who's worked in those places know promotion is seldom an option (franchises especially) and if you don't have a car it can often severely limit your job prospects further. And what if this worker has a family? No car and no insurance? How do they get groceries home? What if the kids get sick or hurt? It's an appalling thing that regardless of your views on it nobody questions the vast sums of money spent on warfare, yet people would do so much damage to their own country over paying for their citizens to have healthcare. I do not understand it.


Edit: Denzark - they wouldn't need to split that profit amongst every employee as our governments force them to pay us a living wage. If a company wont act morally, the government should be looking to the welfare of its people first above a company's bottom line. I mean I can work a minimum wage job here and survive. I won't be living well, given Sydney is horrifically expensive, but elsewhere in the country working at Maccas is a relatively viable income. I won't be worrying about being out on the street, of having to work two jobs just to pay not all of my bills.

[daboarder]

what gott said

I mean hell, if what people said against things like minimum wage and healthcare were true, then australia as a country wouldn't function.....never mind coming out of the GFC as well as we have. We're living proof

[Wolfshade]

The problem with living wage is that it is a myth.
Imagine if they started to pay a minimum wage of $20/hr. What would actually happen? Would these people be able to buy more stuff? No, what would happen is that inflation will rise to a point where we are now and things are just that the money will be devalued to pre $20/hr wage limits.

[Denzark]

The other problem is a refusal by people to live within their means. I read through the piece posted about the MacDonald's budget. I then followed a link to an employee commenting on how she manages to live on a MacDonalds minimum wage. She makes $200-$600 per month. Her rent is $650. But she has 4 children.

Who the hell keeps popping sprogs into this nasty world when they can't actually afford them?

[Wolfshade]

The other problem is a refusal by people to live within their means. I read through the piece posted about the MacDonald's budget. I then followed a link to an employee commenting on how she manages to live on a MacDonalds minimum wage. She makes $200-$600 per month. Her rent is $650. But she has 4 children.

Who the hell keeps popping sprogs into this nasty world when they can't actually afford them?

When the government keeps giving benefits and tax breaks for every one...

[eldargal]

Who the hell keeps popping sprogs into this nasty world when they can't actually afford them?
A woman who lives in a country where reliable contraception is expensive*? Or a Catholic. Or she lost her job and had to work at McDonalds out of desperation. Or...


*500-1000USD/year in some US States without insurance, an awful lot if you're earning 600 a month, paying rent and buying food.

[Gotthammer]

The other problem is a refusal by people to live within their means.

A lot of that is situational (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/09/201391813014939356.html). It also assumes the poor have always been poor and are being irresponsible:


Larry, 52, used to manage a large customer service department. But two years ago he lost his job and house. Today he lives in a motel room with his wife and two children and scrapes by on $820 dollars a month, welcoming tourists to Disney World. After he has paid the motel fees, he's left with just $70 a week for food and other necessities.

Terry used to be a sales manager and enjoyed a good life until he was made redundant. He ended up roaming from motel to motel in Florida in his car and eventually was judged 'economically incapable' of raising his six children. The three eldest were placed in foster care.

Great documentary if you can find it.


Some lighter news (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/01/wwii-veterans-memorial_n_4023667.html) :)

[Wolfshade]

A woman who lives in a country where reliable contraception is expensive*? Or a Catholic. Or she lost her job and had to work at McDonalds out of desperation. Or...


*500-1000USD/year in some US States without insurance, an awful lot if you're earning 600 a month, paying rent and buying food.

Abstenense is so expensive, I forgot...

[daboarder]

Well it serves them right for being poor gott.

[Psychosplodge]

Abstenense is so expensive, I forgot...

You shouldn't be forced to abstain just because you're poor. I'd be far happier for the government to provide contraceptives(which we do free iirc) as opposed to the free house.

[Wolfshade]

Yes it was flippant I admit, but the point is if you do not want to have children and you cannot afford to have children there is only one way to guarantee that.

You would also imagine that the cost of the contraseptives would be split across both parties.

It just seems wrong to me for people to complain about the costs of having children when a) nobody forces you to have them and b) you have to make a concious decision for them to happen.

[eldargal]

You shouldn't be forced to abstain just because you're poor. I'd be far happier for the government to provide contraceptives(which we do free iirc) as opposed to the free house.
Right, it's also condescending to just say 'well you're poor and can't afford contraceptives because we allow corporations to artificially inflate the price so no sex for you ever!' and again it assumes she was always in the position she is now. I read somewhere that providing cheap contraceptives would save the US economy 18bn a year, much more than it would cost.

[Gotthammer]

You're ignoring people who were in a sound economic condition and then found themselves in poverty. What do they do with their kids?

[Mr Mystery]

UK Government used to offer funding for single parents to do further education.

Lass I ws (and I think I still am) chasing was studying to be an accountant whilst raising her kids. Nightclasses you see. She was keen to pay back societies investment (divorcee as well) in her by qualifying for a decent job.

Then the Tory 'aspiration nation' kicked in, and cut funding for this sort of thing. She's semi-qualified now, which is something, but has been denied the opportunity to spend her time wisely getting it up to degree level.....

So yeah...aspire, but on your own time and your own money, because....well, I want to keep all my money, whilst whining on and on about the poor.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Yes it was flippant I admit, but the point is if you do not want to have children and you cannot afford to have children there is only one way to guarantee that.

You would also imagine that the cost of the contraseptives would be split across both parties.

It just seems wrong to me for people to complain about the costs of having children when a) nobody forces you to have them and b) you have to make a concious decision for them to happen.

You're forgetting at least three other ways for them not to happen "Giggedy".
But seriously, to expect a married couple to go without because they can't afford kids? Harsh.

[Psychosplodge]

You're ignoring people who were in a sound economic condition and then found themselves in poverty. What do they do with their kids?

Euthanise them of course :rolleyes:

[Wolfshade]

You're forgetting at least three other ways for them not to happen "Giggedy".
But seriously, to expect a married couple to go without because they can't afford kids? Harsh.

Even with contraceptives there is a risk that they will not work, each time you do you are exposing yourself to a risk and it is all about whether or not you are willing to accept that risk. If you are willing to accept that risk and all the consequences then fine, but if not don't complain about the consequences.

It is like walking across a road with your eyes closed and then complaining the one day you get hit, despite having done it hundreds of times without issue.

My own view is that healthcare should be universal and as splogy has pointed out you can get all manner of stuff over here.

I will leave advice from Northampton NHS:
http://0.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/88/23/1a9392ccc1a4a4a694351d2233c3968f.jpg

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Edit: blah.

[ElectricPaladin]

You might think it is a myth there, I know for a fact it isn't a myth here...

I've heard that. All I can say is that the myth isn't consistent with my experience, but my experience involves working in America, so for all I know the situation is different on your end.

Re: Kids and Contraception.

I really don't think we want to get into this. The issue is extremely complicated. I can tell you that everyone I know with more kids than they can manage that I have met is in their position for a very good reason. It might not look like sound logic from the outside, but every step of the way made perfect sense to her, or at the very least was a comprehensible mistake.

She got pregnant that first time when she was only 16, so it's a bit hard to blame it all on her. She was just a kid. Her sex ed program was pitifully underfunded, she was in an abusive home, and once she had gotten pregnant by accident, a bit of adulthood seemed like a very attractive way to get out of her situation. She was only 16.

She never expected her second boyfriend to ditch her. He had seemed like such a nice guy. She was lax with the birth control because it was expensive, and because they were committed to each other, but once she got pregnant he changed, and then he was gone.

Her third boyfriend was a standup guy. He had a lot of money and supported her. He wanted a child, and she loved him, and was happy to go through it again. He was killed in a drive-by. She still maintains that he wasn't involved in gang stuff himself and was just an innocent bystander, but she's probably the only one.

Do you see what I mean? Each kid is either the result of a small, probably-shouldn't-ruin-your-life mistake. The trouble is that America's poor live so close to the line of absolute destruction that even little mistake build up.

Additionally, we have the problem where a big portion of our poor are traumatized beyond all reason. Let me tell you some of the things that I have learned about just this week at my school:
• One kids "uncle" (actually his father's best friend stepping in now that dad has been deported) brought to tears just be thinking about "something bad" that happened to the boy - he regained his composure and decided to bring it up with just his therapist, not all of us.
• A pair of twins raised by grandma. Why? Because their dad killed their mom when they were eighteen months old.
• A girl who's a lesbian whose mom is pushing her to date a boy so she can "change."
• A teenage boy who lost several cousins and - I believe - his brother, all to gang violence, all at once.

And that's just what I've learned about this week.

You know what they say about judging a man, his shoes, etc? It's actually a pretty apt fable. America's urban poor - the hardcore poor who stay there for generation after generation - makes decisions that don't look good from the outside because they basically live in a different universe from you. They're all ****ed up. They are in survival mode, working with broken tools, looking at the world with broken goggles.

There are also some incredibly strong and resilient people in this community. I have seen some people with toughness, brilliance, and vision, and a lot of them still come with the baggage of kids and trauma. Have some sympathy.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

I've heard that. All I can say is that the myth isn't consistent with my experience, but my experience involves working in America, so for all I know the situation is different on your end.

Re: Kids and Contraception.

I really don't think we want to get into this. The issue is extremely complicated. I can tell you that everyone I know with more kids than they can manage that I have met is in their position for a very good reason. It might not look like sound logic from the outside, but every step of the way made perfect sense to her, or at the very least was a comprehensible mistake.

She got pregnant that first time when she was only 16, so it's a bit hard to blame it all on her. She was just a kid. Her sex ed program was pitifully underfunded, she was in an abusive home, and once she had gotten pregnant by accident, a bit of adulthood seemed like a very attractive way to get out of her situation. She was only 16.

She never expected her second boyfriend to ditch her. He had seemed like such a nice guy. She was lax with the birth control because it was expensive, and because they were committed to each other, but once she got pregnant he changed, and then he was gone.

Her third boyfriend was a standup guy. He had a lot of money and supported her. He wanted a child, and she loved him, and was happy to go through it again. He was killed in a drive-by. She still maintains that he wasn't involved in gang stuff himself and was just an innocent bystander, but she's probably the only one.

Do you see what I mean? Each kid is either the result of a small, probably-shouldn't-ruin-your-life mistake. The trouble is that America's poor live so close to the line of absolute destruction that even little mistake build up.

Additionally, we have the problem where a big portion of our poor are traumatized beyond all reason. Let me tell you some of the things that I have learned about just this week at my school:
• One kids "uncle" (actually his father's best friend stepping in now that dad has been deported) brought to tears just be thinking about "something bad" that happened to the boy - he regained his composure and decided to bring it up with just his therapist, not all of us.
• A pair of twins raised by grandma. Why? Because their dad killed their mom when they were eighteen months old.
• A girl who's a lesbian whose mom is pushing her to date a boy so she can "change."
• A teenage boy who lost several cousins and - I believe - his brother, all to gang violence, all at once.

And that's just what I've learned about this week.

You know what they say about judging a man, his shoes, etc? It's actually a pretty apt fable. America's urban poor - the hardcore poor who stay there for generation after generation - makes decisions that don't look good from the outside because they basically live in a different universe from you. They're all ****ed up. They are in survival mode, working with broken tools, looking at the world with broken goggles.

There are also some incredibly strong and resilient people in this community. I have seen some people with toughness, brilliance, and vision, and a lot of them still come with the baggage of kids and trauma. Have some sympathy.

It's easy to forget how hard the american poor have it over here in the UK, where I know that if i lose my job I'll get looked after.
So yeah, thanks for the reminder, and bringing me down :(

[Denzark]

Um - I don't get where it is a fair or reasonable mindset to expect a private company to pay extra in wages whilst simultaneously not expecting people to procreate responsibly.

Reliable contraception too expensive? Is there no free condoms in America? Is it not a first world nation? Are people not educated enough to use them reliably?

Here is a condom question. Can I afford condoms at RRP? No? Then I certainly can't afford to feed and clothe children.

Religious issues with contraception? So, if you can't/won't use contraception - then I suppose no one can - because there must be parity of treatment, right? Or maybe like gay priests/marriage etc, we in the first world expect you to come out of the 11th Century. Anyway, Catholics - do I need to point out how frequently their priests deviate from the rules of society for their own pleasure, so why not deviate from dogma and use contraception?

I do not recommend abstinence. Of course not. That is ridiculous. Its just here is a little lesson for the boys: Don't ********* inside anyone you don't want to pay maintenance/child support to for 18 years. In the interests of equality, for the ladies: Don't let anyone ********* inside you if you cannot afford, with any projected child support/maintenance if the male doesn't stay with you, to bring up all the offspring - it might be more than one. There are many other options other than abstinence, again, well within the abilities of even poorly educated people, in 1st world countries. I won't spell them out here, it is a family website.

Yes, I suppose the lady at the link could have lost her executive grade banking job at Lehmann Brothers when things went Pete Tong in 2008, and her four cherubs got pulled from private school and Miccy D's was all she could get - but I respectfully doubt that - her answers would not seem to indicate that to me.

[daboarder]

Just gas them all, it worked so well last time a modern society decided it need to get rid of its undesirables.....


WAIT haven't we had this conversation before?

Seriously most of the arguments here can be boiled down to, the poor don't deserve to have basic human rights.

Here I still have the link from the last time we had this conversation

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/#atop

Read it, learn and stop being so bigoted people.

[Psychosplodge]

Just gas them all, it worked so well last time a modern society decided it need to get rid of its undesirables.....


WAIT haven't we had this conversation before?

Yes, and didn't we decide it was a good idea you'd had? :D

[Denzark]

@EP I hear what you are saying. I do sympathise with what you are saying. I just cannot see how any of the situations you describe would be made easier by any of the individuals deciding to have a child. Whilst I will find as white upper middle class, it difficult to empathise with the daily survival battles of these people, I can't believe that they are oblivious to and incapable of understanding that unprotected penetrative vaginal sex can lead to children and that caring for children costs money ergo if you can't afford it don't do it.

You don't buy a car you can't aford to put petrol in, you don't have a kid you can't afford to put food in.

[daboarder]

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.


edit: that really is a very interesting document, it manages to say so much with relatively little words.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

US constitution?

[daboarder]

UN, Universal declaration of Human Rights.....kinda trumps it all really.

[eldargal]

Whilst I will find as white upper middle class, it difficult to empathise with the daily survival battles of these people, I can't believe that they are oblivious to and incapable of understanding that unprotected penetrative vaginal sex can lead to children and that caring for children costs money ergo if you can't afford it don't do it.
In many American states sex ed is still controversial, I can well believe that there are many people in the US who do not understand how it works and what the consequences are. Even in areas where sex ed is part of the curriculum you can still have kids whose parents opt them out on religious grounds and then suffer for it later. It is a complex issue, boiling it down to 'they shouldn't have kids if they can't afford them' is no more helpful than saying that their parents shouldn't have had kids if they couldn't support them properly. You have to deal with the REALITY of it now and decide whether you want to spend a bit of money to try and break the poverty cycle or just let it get worse and worse until there is a massive, criminalised underclass.


You don't buy a car you can't aford to put petrol in, you don't have a kid you can't afford to put food in.
But what do you do when you have a decent job, have a child, then lose it or your partner clears off and halves your income? Talking about it like it is a choice people shouldn't have made in their situation is grossly simplistic. It may apply to some cases but for many it doesn't.

[Denzark]

Just gas them all, it worked so well last time a modern society decided it need to get rid of its undesirables.....


WAIT haven't we had this conversation before?

Seriously most of the arguments here can be boiled down to, the poor don't deserve to have basic human rights.

Here I still have the link from the last time we had this conversation

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/#atop

Read it, learn and stop being so bigoted people.

Just confirm - I get we take care of the poor in society. We do, I agree it to be necessary, nay even desireable. The level of care can be debated ad infinitem. But - do you think it an inalienable human right for someone who is incapable of living day to day, without some or even total support from their society (medical, welfare, housing, whatever), to bring another person into that society?

And if you do think that should be a right, just confirm you think that anyone who disagrees is automatically bigoted?

How enlightened.

[Mr Mystery]

And who is to blame? The parents.

Who is it that suffers with the right wing 'can't feed, don't breed?'

The kid.

And that is why 'can't feed, don't breed' is a morally reprehensible stand point from the off. People will have kids regardless. And it's not the kids fault nor responsibility.

[DarkLink]

Incidentally, I have just read a well-rationalised article about how simply raising minimum wage is not enough - as the pressure it applies to some companies is more damaging to the economy than leaving the minimum wage where it is. Ie if they can't afford the newly raised wage bill because the current financial climate has left them with tight margins, they have 2 options really - lose jobs from the wage bill, or the company crashes. Then we get less taxes and yet more unemployed burdening the state.

I've got a study somewhere that proposed that, bases specifically on historical data from the UK, if you raise the minimum wage to more than 50% of the average wage for an entry-level worker in a given industry, it only hurts workers because the companies have to cut enough jobs that net income drops. So you get higher wages, but a lot fewer jobs.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Not to mention that the affluence of the middle classes is dependent on there being a ready supply of labor which can only be provided by allowing EVERYONE to breed. Or would you rather have 5 kids because "you can afford it" so that 4 of them can work for next to nothing in a state of poverty induced abstinence to allow one of them a lifestyle comparable lifestyle to your own?
Remember that the majority of the poor in the US are the WORKING poor, without whom your lifestyle would be utterly unsustainable.

[ElectricPaladin]

And who is to blame? The parents.

Who is it that suffers with the right wing 'can't feed, don't breed?'

The kid.

And that is why 'can't feed, don't breed' is a morally reprehensible stand point from the off. People will have kids regardless. And it's not the kids fault nor responsibility.

Also, not to mention the fact that "can't feed, don't breed" is used as a justification for failing to enact programs to help those people to get out of poverty... which then contributes to the kids being just as traumatized and embattled as the parents, promoting the vicious spiral.

[Denzark]

UN, Universal declaration of Human Rights.....kinda trumps it all really.

I note Article 22 says in accordance with the resources of each state. I read nothing that implies that Article 16 gives a right to breed like rabbits if those state resources are insufficient to look after said family.



But what do you do when you have a decent job, have a child, then lose it or your partner clears off and halves your income? Talking about it like it is a choice people shouldn't have made in their situation is grossly simplistic. It may apply to some cases but for many it doesn't.

Yes a fair point. Clearly this is something to consider pre-coitus - my whole point is that it is too late afterwards. More needs to be done to hold disappearing partners responsible.


And who is to blame? The parents.

Who is it that suffers with the right wing 'can't feed, don't breed?'

The kid.

And that is why 'can't feed, don't breed' is a morally reprehensible stand point from the off. People will have kids regardless. And it's not the kids fault nor responsibility.

'Can't feed don't breed' is clearly as I repeatedly say, common sense pre-coitus. You need to change the 'people having kids regardless bit'. Difficult, but not impossible- we used to marry at 13 in this country, now that would be called paedophilia. Society can change, the default shouldn't be 'social group x does y regardless, therefore better educated and paid social group z should tighten their belts and enable it by providing more funds.'

[Kaptain Badrukk]

I've got a study somewhere that proposed that, bases specifically on historical data from the UK, if you raise the minimum wage to more than 50% of the average wage for an entry-level worker in a given industry, it only hurts workers because the companies have to cut enough jobs that net income drops. So you get higher wages, but a lot fewer jobs.

Australia - living minimum wage, economy going along fine.
UK - Just about a living minimum wage, economy wobbly.
America - Minimum wage below living wage, economy wobblier.

To put it in really simplistic terms.

[daboarder]

Always found it funny how quickly people can backpeddle an argument, or show a tendency to assume that everything written is about them personally, whats wrong denzark aren't willing to admit you just proposed violating the human rights of large portions of the population? Guess you feel you need to attack the poster rather than the information provided.

For the record, yes anyone who thinks that "poor" people don't deserve to have children and has expressed the view that poor people are poor because they are either drinking all their money or otherwise acting irresponsible as opposed to environmental effects is by definition bigoted.


The other problem is a refusal by people to live within their means. I read through the piece posted about the MacDonald's budget. I then followed a link to an employee commenting on how she manages to live on a MacDonalds minimum wage. She makes $200-$600 per month. Her rent is $650. But she has 4 children.

Who the hell keeps popping sprogs into this nasty world when they can't actually afford them?

[Psychosplodge]

But that punishes the rest of us responsible low paid, can't get a house the councils are busy inflating rents by paying over the
odds to house the less responsible.

And the private landlords force up prices buying up the lowest priced houses.

Are these human rights only to be selectively applied?

[daboarder]

There are many ways to make the system work and solutions can't be adequately expressed within the framework of this conversation. Suffice to say look to Australia for a general idea on how to make government assistance work. The only arguments we have are usually the amount not the who and why. We have a graduating system, just because you do have a job doesn't mean your on your own, every member contributes to the health of the society.

[ElectricPaladin]

But that punishes the rest of us responsible low paid, can't get a house the councils are busy inflating rents by paying over the odds to house the less responsible.

Society is a team. We will rise together, or the ones we leave behind will pull us down. Do you want to live in a world that is grossly unfair and unjust, in a country burdened by an angry, traumatized, undereducated, unengaged, criminalized underclass? Or do you want to admit that the world is unfair and then do something about it?

Do you want Star Trek or do you want Cyberpunk?

[Mr Mystery]

Again Denzark.....


Why is the child punished for the sins of the parents? That. Is. Immoral. Not a hard concept here.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

So, here's a thing: a lot of you guys seem to believe that the problems of financing government services and social programmes are the fault of the people receiving those services. From unemployment to incapacity to birth rates etc. etc. etc.

Why do you believe this? Is it based on evidence, or on observations and anecdotes? Is it based on what politicians and newspapers are telling you? Why do you think they're telling you this?

Because I can tell you now, I'm not seeing much of a cogent socio-political analysis developing here amid the howls of SMASH THE POORS. The ideology of 'personal responsibility' is an ideology; its an idea, the idea serves a purpose, and it has a history. How much do you know about this?

The reason these threads tend to be rubbish is because most participants aren't thinking, but yelling. It breaks down along easily predictable partisan divides, and nothing constructive ever comes of it.

Not singling anyone out. This thread isn't even the worst. More of a general observation.

[Denzark]

But that punishes the rest of us responsible low paid, can't get a house the councils are busy inflating rents by paying over the
odds to house the less responsible.

And the private landlords force up prices buying up the lowest priced houses.

Are these human rights only to be selectively applied?

Exactly


Always found it funny how quickly people can backpeddle an argument, or show a tendency to assume that everything written is about them personally, whats wrong denzark aren't willing to admit you just proposed violating the human rights of large portions of the population? Guess you feel you need to attack the poster rather than the information provided.

For the record, yes anyone who thinks that "poor" people don't deserve to have children and has expressed the view that poor people are poor because they are either drinking all their money or otherwise acting irresponsible as opposed to environmental effects is by definition bigoted.


I fail to see how I am backpeddling. Article 22 - within the resources of the state. Those resources are finite, therefore the number of children should be finite. As Psycho points out, councils paying over the odds to look after those who can't do it themselves, has an impact on those who are at the lower end of the economic strata but trying to get by on their own steam. Who is impinging on whose rights here?

[Psychosplodge]

Do you want Star Trek or do you want Cyberpunk?

We already have the cyberpunk dystopia the futurologists of the seventies onwards promised us.

I don't see whats fair about being pushed out of having a proper future by those that are getting given it for nothing.

[Denzark]

Society is a team. We will rise together, or the ones we leave behind will pull us down. Do you want to live in a world that is grossly unfair and unjust, in a country burdened by an angry, traumatized, undereducated, unengaged, criminalized underclass? Or do you want to admit that the world is unfair and then do something about it?

Do you want Star Trek or do you want Cyberpunk?

Boom. Society implies everyone sacrifices to the whole. In this concept, that society cares for those who cannot do so off their own backs. Those who need that care, contribute to that society to not adding extra burden to it.

Society means everyone has to take part and sacrifice.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

That argument doesn't follow, Denzark. The resources of the state are finite, but the amounts it spends on different things are a matter of political priorities. We're happy to spend money on guns and bombs rather than kids. We could easily cut one and spend more on the other; a hard limit on the children of the poor doesn't come into it.

Besides, the problems aren't caused by an overbreeding underclass. The evidence does not support this idea. You're just repeating a spiteful ideology which is older than the 19th century poor law reforms.

[daboarder]

Missed this one did you Denzark?

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

In other words,

These are the rules, its up to societies to figure out how to make them work and asking people to "sacrifice" their rights is not on the cards.

[Denzark]

Again Denzark.....


Why is the child punished for the sins of the parents? That. Is. Immoral. Not a hard concept here.

So you have acknowledged the parents are doing something wrong then. That's a start point thank you. I am not repeat not talking about taking away anything from any child. I am talking about trying anything necessary to get it into parents heads that they should act responsibly.

Possible solutions - government decides what is needed to keep a child healthy and bring it to adulthood. Then those things are provided to the parents. Or vouchers only exchangeable for those things. The parents don't get money to squander on cigarettes and gin whilst the child suffers.

[daboarder]

Because everyone on welfare are alcoholic, drug addicted leaches?

[Kaptain Badrukk]

But that punishes the rest of us responsible low paid, can't get a house the councils are busy inflating rents by paying over the odds to house the less responsible.

I agree that we should not be in a situation similar to the UK right now, which is that it can be more financially attractive to be unemployed that employed when the basic rate of pay is lower than the benefit you'd receive unemployed.
The answer is simple
A) Make people work for non-profits organisations their benefits
There are urban renewal projects, community service initiatives and charities out there that NEED people. People who are languishing because they lack the skills these positions could teach them.

B) Make a decent assessment of what standard of life one has the RIGHT to, and ensure that benefits meet that standard.
Believe me it'd be pretty damn meager and things like TV, cigarettes and alcohol would NOT feature had I the reigns.

C) Ensure that minimum wage exceeds that to the extent that working for a minimum wage job is a significant improvement to working for your benefits, and give small businesses a tax break that allows them to maintain staffing and wages. Have stict and fair rights and responsibilities form employees and employers, and enforce them harshly BOTH WAYS.
Encouraging people to escape dependence on the state, by reserving the luxuries in life for those who are not dependent.

What happens here?
Non-profit concerns get a massive growth workforce.
Urban decay is reversed as a result.
The unskilled learn skills.
The unemployed are not "scrounging".
Small businesses get a wider range of staff to choose from without losing out.
Big businesses suck up the increase in wage from their billions in profits, because a great many already run on as small a workforce as possible anyway. And have a bigger market to which to sell their services as the individual is more affluent.
The lazy employee and the negligent employer are held accountable.

Sadly none of this will ever happen, because there is a vast quantity of money poured into convincing us that it would never work.
Because at the end of the day the people who would take the biggest hit are the 1%, and they hold all the power. Because they hold the money, and we live in a capitalist world.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Cigarettes and gin? You really have walked out of the 1834 commissions, haven't you? You'll divide them into "deserving" and "indigent" poor next.

Not one of you yet has engaged with the reality of either A. long-term wage stagnancy from the 1980s onwards, which meant that the gains made by increased worker productivity went up but that people weren't paid more as a result (the gains were instead siphoned upwards to a predatory overclass); instead the era of cheap access to credit was introduced which paved the way for B. the massive, once-in-a-generation financial crash and the ongoing crisis we're still inveigled in. Cheap and easy credit is over. That era is gone; it was all that was holding the system together.

I'm not seeing anything about wider economic structures, either. People don't live or work in a vacuum, kids.

[daboarder]

already been done a few pages back cap the division I mean.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

I'm just going to sum up my position as "Karl Marx was right, you dingbats", with a sideline of "read a ****ing book".

[Psychosplodge]

Karl Marx was right

Nope.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

You ever read him? ;) You don't have to advocate for Communist revolution to admire the man's analysis.

[Psychosplodge]

I read some a long time a go, and it wound me up too much to finish.

[Denzark]

That argument doesn't follow, Denzark. The resources of the state are finite, but the amounts it spends on different things are a matter of political priorities. We're happy to spend money on guns and bombs rather than kids. We could easily cut one and spend more on the other; a hard limit on the children of the poor doesn't come into it.

Besides, the problems aren't caused by an overbreeding underclass. The evidence does not support this idea. You're just repeating a spiteful ideology which is older than the 19th century poor law reforms.

I am not stating that any 'problems' are caused by an overbreeding underclass. I am stating a fact that there are people who already can't take care of 100% of their interests without intervention of others, who compound their individual problems by taking on more costs they cannot afford - in this case children.

I agree we could cut defence spending or do any number of things. But, again, in terms of this wonderful hivelike society, if some are making sacrifice, all should make sacrifice. If I sacrifice money, and someone else in society does not have a similar amount of money to sacrifice, what do they do to contribute fairly? Please explain that to me - I contribute something substantive - what does someone without as much, or indeed any, 'substance' give up for the good of the whole?


Missed this one did you Denzark?

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

In other words,

These are the rules, its up to societies to figure out how to make them work and asking people to "sacrifice" their rights is not on the cards.

I did indeed miss this one. I am now totally convinced to revoke my position - people shouldn't live within their means, they should keep consuming resource infinitely because it is their right to do so. Don't budget, don't pay tax, just take take take because it is your right to do so, and good ole' Article 30 means your government must simply go back in their bank and open another box of treasure.

[Psychosplodge]

I did indeed miss this one. I am now totally convinced to revoke my position - people shouldn't live within their means, they should keep consuming resource infinitely because it is their right to do so. Don't budget, don't pay tax, just take take take because it is your right to do so, and good ole' Article 30 means your government must simply go back in their bank and open another box of treasure.

Just tried that in Greece haven't they?

[daboarder]

Denzark how bout you pull your finger out and actually contribute to the conversation, wheres the data for these claims your making mate? Put up or shut up.


edit: you know what **** it! I'm not wasting my time trying to convince a bigoted, self indulgent greedy bloke how wrong he is. Again I've got evidence of a society that works despite all your "sky is falling" claims. at the end of the day all you peddle is fear and hyperbole.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Fair enough. No-one can force you to do it. But if we're going to have this discussion we need to have some kind of grounds for a discussion - an analysis - or we're just going to yell at each other and repeat unhelpful talking points.


But, again, in terms of this wonderful hivelike society, if some are making sacrifice, all should make sacrifice.

People who have way more than you, I, or anyone less fortunate than us, seem to get by fine without making much of a sacrifice. Oh, sure, they piss and moan about it, but they've still got helicopters and yachts. Where's their sacrifice?

[Denzark]

Sadly none of this will ever happen, because there is a vast quantity of money poured into convincing us that it would never work.
Because at the end of the day the people who would take the biggest hit are the 1%, and they hold all the power. Because they hold the money, and we live in a capitalist world.

Badrukk I agree with all your options given - common sense. However this last piece is the dangerous one.

That 1% already pay more than their fair share. When they buy a 120k Bentley the taxes (VAT) fund the equivalent of an NHS nurse. When they get a 300k wage, they pay 45% top rate. So not only more full stop goes to the treasury, but more pennies per pound proportionately. So I can listen to an Islington Champagne socialist who has just had a dinner party with his bezzer Tony and Cherie with their 10m property portfolio, tell me the 1% need to do more. Then when I increase his taxes, he uses his economic mobility ot go and live in the Caymans and we lose the whole buck, just because we were trying to milk the stone more.

[Denzark]

Denzark how bout you pull your finger out and actually contribute to the conversation, wheres the data for these claims your making mate? Put up or shut up.

Which claim specifically DAB - the fact that people should live within their means is merely a matter of my opinion - I would clearly contend that is common sense. That government's resources are finite? I think that is a fact in the UK but i will happily acknowledge data to the contrary.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

They don't buy those Bentleys very often, and there aren't many of them. Also, those taxes aren't routed directly to nurses.

So if five of them buy five Bentleys in a year, they maybe pay for a small fraction of a nurse, total.

Furthermore, this is the class which avoids as much tax as it possibly can.

[DarkLink]

Australia - living minimum wage, economy going along fine.
UK - Just about a living minimum wage, economy wobbly.
America - Minimum wage below living wage, economy wobblier.

To put it in really simplistic terms.

...that's... lovely logic there. The economy didn't take a hit from the collapse of the housing market. Nor from the mismanaged investment firms collapsing several of the largest banks in the world. It was all because we didn't pay teenagers enough.

But on a different note, you might want to go back and re-read my post. Did I say that minimum wage is too high in America? Because I don't recall mentioning America at all.
I specifically noted UK, and I only said that historical data shows that, beyond a certain point, raising minimum wage is counter productive. Presumably this would apply to other nations, bit not necessarily, and I don't know what the average wage in the USA is relative to the minimum wage (I'll just add that different states have different minimum wages. California is like $8 or so an hour, I don't know what other states are. But California is one of the highest min wages in the US, but economically one of the weakest atm. Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.)

You ever read him? ;) You don't have to advocate for Communist revolution to admire the man's analysis.


If you want to go there, Ayn Rand was a ****ing prophet. Say what you will about strawmen, the worldbuilding in Atlas Shrugged sounds like she built a time machine and studied big businesses in bed with politicians breaking the economy.

[Gotthammer]

Also this is meant to be about the US system, where one can work 70+ hours a week and still barely feed oneself. What sacrifices should that person be making? They've sacrificed time, by working those hours. They're sacrificing family, either unable to have one or unable to see one. They're sacrificing their future as even if they could afford.to study they don't have time. They're sacrificing their heath because they have poor healthcare, often leaving ailments untreated. And they're sacrificing their humanity by daring to be poor as they are assumed to be ignorant, greedy, and have only themselves to blame (and they aren't doing enough to deserve help).

I've been poor. I've been homeless. I've been long term unemployed. When you go through that there is very little left to give that will leave you a functional person. If you've ever wondered why addicts are disproportionately represented by the underclasses of society, think how adults that existence must be that for so many people destroying you mind with heroin or crack or booze or whatever is preferable to reality.


Edit: slightly unrelated note, but the irony of the producers of the third Atlas Shrugged movie going to Kickstarter asking for funding is delicious.

[Psychosplodge]

Good point Gott, unfortunately we can only really offer experience of our own systems...
Ignorance is Bliss...

[eldargal]

You ever read him? ;) You don't have to advocate for Communist revolution to admire the man's analysis.
Yup. The problem with Marx is while he correctly and succinctly identifies problems with he nineteenth century capitalist system his solutions were based on unfounded and idealistic notions of class identity superseding national identity and group interest superseding individual interest.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Badrukk I agree with all your options given - common sense. However this last piece is the dangerous one.

That 1% already pay more than their fair share. When they buy a 120k Bentley the taxes (VAT) fund the equivalent of an NHS nurse. When they get a 300k wage, they pay 45% top rate. So not only more full stop goes to the treasury, but more pennies per pound proportionately. So I can listen to an Islington Champagne socialist who has just had a dinner party with his bezzer Tony and Cherie with their 10m property portfolio, tell me the 1% need to do more. Then when I increase his taxes, he uses his economic mobility ot go and live in the Caymans and we lose the whole buck, just because we were trying to milk the stone more.

You know what, I'd agree with you 100%
I'd agree if the ****s didn't buy the bently as a company car and claim back their VAT.
I'd agree if they didn't donate to a vanity project charity and fiddle his income into bonuses and expenses to pull his rate of tax down to parity with a middle class employee
I'd agree if they then didn't get their accountant to ensure that they get paid offshore into offshore accounts to get it down to a rebate.
I'd agree if they then didn't have the temerity to claim that his tax money actually helps the poor.
I'd agree if they didn't live a life of luxury while telling people that they couldn't possibly afford to give any of it up, and they'd rather leave the country than let their workers off 0 hour contracts that forbid other employment and an hourly wage that ensures that they live on the cusp of debt.
Then I'd agree with you.

@daboarder - I know that the whole cigarettes and gin argument seems archaic, but I don't see why the state should fund any of it.
I don't have a view of the poor (or benefit claimants) as scallies and skivers, i'm from a working class family and my mum & dad raised me (and two siblings) while working part time and claiming benefits.
You know what they didn't do?
They didn't have TV
They didn't smoke
They didn't drink
(apart from some fairly foul homebrew my dad made from picking fruit and elder flowers he'd grown himself).
It worked.
I genuinely believe in the welfare state.
I don't believe in handouts.
I believe that welfare should encourage and enable, not promote dependency and de-skill.
As a product of people who used the welfare state to get a better life for themselves and their kids (all three working in decent jobs (one while still at uni)) I have this to say, if there had been room in my parent's budget for a bottle of wine and 2 packets of cigarettes a week our lives wouldn't have been any better. If they'd chosen to spend that (over her 18 years of life) then they'd not have been able to pay my little sister's way into uni.
That is all.

[Mr Mystery]

See, when it comes to fiscal conservatism, I agree with the theory, but I oppose the Tory implementation.

Take the Workfair thing.

Doley gets given a job to do, and has to do it for three months, or lose their benefits.

Fine. Awesome idea. Gives a taste of the working world, and may help install a stronger work ethic.

But the implementation? Essentially slave labour. You have to do a more or less menial job, for far, far less than the minimum wage.

That doesn't encourage anything other than resentment. If only the companies employing the Doley had to pay them the going rate, offset by the total benefits claimed by the Doley. Then you might see a more positive response, as the Doley realises 'hey, work pays more', in the vast majority of cases.

Likewise Osborne's latest brainchild, work and that for the long term unemployed. Again, I applaud this, in theory. Two years unemployed is a hell of a long time. Surely you'll be able to find something by then? But I do fear it will be used to simply provide free labour for manual jobs, taking the pay away from those currently doing them, and adding another name to the dole queue.

[Wolfshade]

The gin and cogarttes isn't that arcahic. Family of 8 from north Wales. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185

£240 a week spent of food including 24 cans of larger, 200 ciggies, 1 large pouch of rolling baccy, which at the time I worked (based on tesco prices) was somewhere between 70-130 on non-food items.

I personnaly don't have any benefits yet I am not sure I could afford 24 cans of larger a week, 200 ciggies, 20 a week with my mates in the pub.

Not to mention that this actually costs the economy more in the long run thanks to NHS costs.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Yup. The problem with Marx is while he correctly and succinctly identifies problems with he nineteenth century capitalist system his solutions were based on unfounded and idealistic notions of class identity superseding national identity and group interest superseding individual interest.

Word. The skill with any thinker is knowing what to discard and what to use. I think his analyses of the problems of Capitalism qua Capitalism stand up pretty well; I'm backed up in this by the resurgence of interest in Marx even among the professional economist classes in the current crisis. And also he never really went away in History. :) I'd honestly also say that his "solutions" were always vague; they're mostly just there because the Communists wanted a revolutionary programme they could use.

[Wolfshade]

Word. The skill with any thinker is knowing what to discard and what to use. I think his analyses of the problems of Capitalism qua Capitalism stand up pretty well; I'm backed up in this by the resurgence of interest in Marx even among the professional economist classes in the current crisis. And also he never really went away in History. :) I'd honestly also say that his "solutions" were always vague; they're mostly just there because the Communists wanted a revolutionary programme they could use.

The "trouble" with capitalism is that it works if there is infinite wealth (resources) so the rich can continue to get richer and the poor, poorer, it will never reach a stage of equilibrium, because that is not what it is designed to do. So you either need a revolt to redistribute wealth and restart the system or you get to a point where money is useless. Consider the Roman Empire, it was growing and sucessful because it was growing and sucessful. It's economic might meant it could expand militarily. Imagine if the 4th Century invasions were not so well co-ordinated and Roman had capacity to take out each one individually, the empire would continue to grow. Consider the British Empire, tiny island located in an awkward place, yet had the largest empire ever known, why? Because it controlled trade and with that came money and the money made expansion easy. Why did it fall, rebellion. We've all played total war (or should have) so we all know that it is all about money.

[Mr Mystery]

The gin and cogarttes isn't that arcahic. Family of 8 from north Wales. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185

£240 a week spent of food including 24 cans of larger, 200 ciggies, 1 large pouch of rolling baccy, which at the time I worked (based on tesco prices) was somewhere between 70-130 on non-food items.

I personnaly don't have any benefits yet I am not sure I could afford 24 cans of larger a week, 200 ciggies, 20 a week with my mates in the pub.

Not to mention that this actually costs the economy more in the long run thanks to NHS costs.

Depend on the brand, Tabs are anywhere from £7-£9 for 20, so that's anywhere £70-£90 a week. Baccy? 50g is around £17. But you'd need to add papers onto that. Probably a multipack of Rizla would last 50g, and that's roughy £1. Booze? Again, depends on the brand, but locally (South East England), it's roughly £1 a can when you take offers into account.

Adding up, that's....erm...anywhere from £108 to £128 a week. Assuming of course the tabs and baccy are from legitimate sources, and not bootleg which would reduce the cost considerably!

Hold up...they have Sky at £15 a week as well. So they've likely got the Movies package. Quite possibly Sports as well, seeing as phone and internet are separated out (I've got movies, and pay £70 a month all in).

Mobiles....yeah ok. Modern world, I can kind of allow that. But £32 a week?? Seriously. When you have no job, who exactly do you need to phone that much?

[Wolfshade]

^^ This is the problem.

You have a minority of people who seemingly abuse the system. I strongly refute the notion that anyone on state benefit should have a higher standard of living than someone who works. But we live in a society that is broken, not jsut in the something for nothing culture but in loads of ways.

[eldargal]

The "trouble" with capitalism is that it works if there is infinite wealth (resources) so the rich can continue to get richer and the poor, poorer, it will never reach a stage of equilibrium, because that is not what it is designed to do. So you either need a revolt to redistribute wealth and restart the system or you get to a point where money is useless. Consider the Roman Empire, it was growing and sucessful because it was growing and sucessful. It's economic might meant it could expand militarily. Imagine if the 4th Century invasions were not so well co-ordinated and Roman had capacity to take out each one individually, the empire would continue to grow. Consider the British Empire, tiny island located in an awkward place, yet had the largest empire ever known, why? Because it controlled trade and with that came money and the money made expansion easy. Why did it fall, rebellion. We've all played total war (or should have) so we all know that it is all about money.
Actually that's not true, Capitalism creates wealth and is not reliant on a constant influx of resources the way previous systems like mercantilism were. Rome failed because (amongst other reasons) it's economy was dependent on slave labour and constant expansion as much of it's infrastructure development was dependent on regular influxes of loot. Capitalism lets us grow our economy sustainably, literally grow it. We find more things to do with the resources we have and we actually create new resources to exploit by finding uses for things which previous may have had no use, or limited use.


^^ This is the problem.

You have a minority of people who seemingly abuse the system. I strongly refute the notion that anyone on state benefit should have a higher standard of living than someone who works. But we live in a society that is broken, not jsut in the something for nothing culture but in loads of ways.
They are very much the minority though, under ten percent going by what statistics I've seen. The problem is these debates are always framed using the small minority of abusers rather than the majority of unfortunates who would like to work but can't for various reasons and try to live within their means.

[Wolfshade]

Actually that's not true, Capitalism creates wealth and is not reliant on a constant influx of resources the way previous systems like mercantilism were. Rome failed because (amongst other reasons) it's economy was dependent on slave labour and constant expansion as much of it's infrastructure development was dependent on regular influxes of loot. Capitalism lets us grow our economy sustainably, literally grow it. We find more things to do with the resources we have and we actually create new resources to exploit by finding uses for things which previous may have had no use, or limited use.

But those resources are only finite, if those resources don't exist it doesn't matter how many novel ways of using resources are because they aren't there.

[eldargal]

But those resources are only finite, if those resources don't exist it doesn't matter how many novel ways of using resources are because they aren't there.
It depends what your definition of finite is and what resources you mean. Contrary to what neo-Malthusians will tell you we are a long way from exhausting any of the really important basic resources like iron and agricultural land. There is vast, vast tracts of agricultural land in Africa that isn't being farmed at all let alone at modern industrial levels, it is an incredibly fertile continent. Even with oil as the price rises more extraction methods become economically viable.

[Denzark]

The problem is that any of these resourcers you mention EG, may be so vast as not to be running out this decade or even century. It may be even that the human rate of consumption versus birth rate means they will never run out. Regretably getting these resources is not cost free - A government's ability to gain resource is irreversibly linked to fiscal capability - I can't think how this will chnage without replicator technology or a universal agreement worldwide, to all share resources based on need and not cost.

[DarkLink]

Just for reference, and this is obviously anecdotal, I have a buddy who worked at Costco for several years. He saw people buying luxury items like alcohol with food stamps all the time. So it definitely happens, and it's not exactly rare, but I don't know how common it really is precisely, nor how much actual waste it produces.

In my opinion, the government does two things. It is primarily a protector. It provides a military to protect against foreign threats, police to protect against domestic threats, and laws and regulations to protect against economic threats (scams, cons, etc, and I'll note that manipulative business practices are essentially large scale cons). Essentially, the primary purpose of the government is to protects the people's rights.

Secondly, and less importantly, though it's still pretty important, the government is an enabler. It provides education to boost the quality of the work force, labor laws to protect workers, etc.

None of this should cause any real conflict with a productive society. In this case, the minimum wage should be just high enough that it benefits workers, but not so high that it hurts them. There is a lot of stuff the government does that is just plain wasteful, and excessive economic regulation falls into that category.

So I'm not interested in a "higher" minimum wage. I'd want the "right" minimum wage.

[Denzark]

Eminently sensible.

[eldargal]

Actually military spending is the single most wasteful thing a government does. A government putting money into economic development can generate something like six dollars for every one spent. The US military is far too vast and bloated to be simply a defense force, if you had a truly economically fiscal government over there they would cut military spending by at least half. It won't happen though because Americans, guvmint and populace, are convinced the military can solve all problems.


The problem is that any of these resourcers you mention EG, may be so vast as not to be running out this decade or even century. It may be even that the human rate of consumption versus birth rate means they will never run out. Regretably getting these resources is not cost free - A government's ability to gain resource is irreversibly linked to fiscal capability - I can't think how this will chnage without replicator technology or a universal agreement worldwide, to all share resources based on need and not cost.
Asteroid mining is nearly viable, if we expand into space, and we are already doing so, then our options increase even further.

[ElectricPaladin]

Just for reference, and this is obviously anecdotal, I have a buddy who worked at Costco for several years. He saw people buying luxury items like alcohol with food stamps all the time. So it definitely happens, and it's not exactly rare, but I don't know how common it really is precisely, nor how much actual waste it produces.

In my opinion, the government does two things. It is primarily a protector. It provides a military to protect against foreign threats, police to protect against domestic threats, and laws and regulations to protect against economic threats (scams, cons, etc, and I'll note that manipulative business practices are essentially large scale cons). Essentially, the primary purpose of the government is to protects the people's rights.

Secondly, and less importantly, though it's still pretty important, the government is an enabler. It provides education to boost the quality of the work force, labor laws to protect workers, etc.

None of this should cause any real conflict with a productive society. In this case, the minimum wage should be just high enough that it benefits workers, but not so high that it hurts them. There is a lot of stuff the government does that is just plain wasteful, and excessive economic regulation falls into that category.

So I'm not interested in a "higher" minimum wage. I'd want the "right" minimum wage.

Darklink, you and I disagree on many points, but I happen to think that nevertheless, you and I could easily found a great civilization together. We'd argue a lot on the details, but we have very similar principles and would come to many productive compromises.

[DrLove42]

I just saw a wonderful post to sum it up

Even if Obama put through a law to make Ronald Reagan recognised as the national deity, the Republicans would still block it just to be annoying

[Wolfshade]

Eg you are right, about the length of time, and with "global" warming, more and more of Russia opens up to farming. But they are ultimately finite.

But that is perhaps why we need Dyson spheres.

Lots can be done if governments actually think long term, this is where I would say China has the advantage, big long costly public projects can be implemented because there is only one government. Now parties seem un-willing to implement long term projects that would start to deliver the benefits in another governments leadership.

[DarkLink]

Of course military spending is wasteful. So is police spending, and fire departments, and the like. But really it's more complicated than that. There's a lot of waste that can be safely eliminated, but at the same time the military drives technology as much as any other single industry. So, yes and no.



Darklink, you and I disagree on many points, but I happen to think that nevertheless, you and I could easily found a great civilization together. We'd argue a lot on the details, but we have very similar principles and would come to many productive compromises.

The devil is in the details. I try not to take sweeping ideological arguments too seriously. A well managed government in a country as profitable and robust as America should have plenty of excess to be able to afford free healthcare and welfare without dragging down the economy. I just feel a lot of our current measures do just that, along with problems like an over-complicated tax code and misfocused educational system. And then people start talking about banning semiautomatic rifles and stuff and I'm like screw that, if you want to address violence then we'd better start overhauling welfare and policing to eliminate ghettos and slums, because that's what will actually help the problem.

Plus, libertarians are a lot less republican than they tend to sound. I'm definitely more republican than democrat, but it's more accurate to say I'm neither.

[ElectricPaladin]

...if you want to address violence then we'd better start overhauling welfare and policing to eliminate ghettos and slums, because that's what will actually help the problem.

See, I think that we should also ban the military-style guns, but I don't really care which comes first. And if we can solve the actual problem of people dying in hideous numbers, then I don't particularly care what kind of gun is legal. Bazookas can be legal, as long as we're all too civilized to use them on each other.

[daboarder]

You know what, I'd agree with you 100%
I'd agree if the ****s didn't buy the bently as a company car and claim back their VAT.
I'd agree if they didn't donate to a vanity project charity and fiddle his income into bonuses and expenses to pull his rate of tax down to parity with a middle class employee
I'd agree if they then didn't get their accountant to ensure that they get paid offshore into offshore accounts to get it down to a rebate.
I'd agree if they then didn't have the temerity to claim that his tax money actually helps the poor.
I'd agree if they didn't live a life of luxury while telling people that they couldn't possibly afford to give any of it up, and they'd rather leave the country than let their workers off 0 hour contracts that forbid other employment and an hourly wage that ensures that they live on the cusp of debt.
Then I'd agree with you.

@daboarder - I know that the whole cigarettes and gin argument seems archaic, but I don't see why the state should fund any of it.
I don't have a view of the poor (or benefit claimants) as scallies and skivers, i'm from a working class family and my mum & dad raised me (and two siblings) while working part time and claiming benefits.
You know what they didn't do?
They didn't have TV
They didn't smoke
They didn't drink
(apart from some fairly foul homebrew my dad made from picking fruit and elder flowers he'd grown himself).
It worked.
I genuinely believe in the welfare state.
I don't believe in handouts.
I believe that welfare should encourage and enable, not promote dependency and de-skill.
As a product of people who used the welfare state to get a better life for themselves and their kids (all three working in decent jobs (one while still at uni)) I have this to say, if there had been room in my parent's budget for a bottle of wine and 2 packets of cigarettes a week our lives wouldn't have been any better. If they'd chosen to spend that (over her 18 years of life) then they'd not have been able to pay my little sister's way into uni.
That is all.

Ahh Badrukk, You always seem to be able to say what I want too so much more elegantly.

[Aenir]

Aenir, I want you to consider two things.

First of all, regardless of your principles, it's right and honorable to pay your debts. No principle can stand if there is not honor and integrity backing it up. Let's say I decide that I don't believe in having dental work done. I've decided that it's the sort of thing a real man knows how to do for himself. So, half way through an appointment, I get up out of the chair and walk out. I say to the dentist: "I don't believe in dental work anymore, so I'm not going to pay you for your time, or the cleaning of your equipment, or any of the other things people normally pay you for. I'm just gone. Additionally, you'd better keep my appointment for next month open, just in case, or I will write you nasty reviews on Yelp, which will hurt your practice."

You can't do that. Even if you decide that you don't believe in having something done, you damn well pay the person who does it for you. If you decide not to pay that person anymore, you give them their last check and then let them go cleanly rather than jerking them around.

Second, it's stupid to have the federal government just stop. The states just aren't set up to suddenly start doing what the fed was doing. To continue in metaphorlandia, it's one thing to say "I believe that self-driving cars are the way of the future," and then start working on making this technology real. It's something else to say to your car while you're doing 80 on the freeway: "Ok, car, you better start driving yourself," and then lean your seat back and take a nap.

All this together adds up to a rather desperate amount of harm that will be done to real live people. Real live people, Aenir, not "the federal government." There are people who rely on government jobs for their livelihood. There are people who rely on federal programs for a place to sleep at night.

Honestly, shutting down the federal government is going to have the opposite effect from the one you want. People aren't going to say "Oh, wow, they pulled the fed out from under us and that went great. Let's cut government programs!" Because it's not going to go great. It's going to hurt a lot of people and cost the economy a whole ton of growth. They're going to say "Sweet mother of lizards, that was awful. Don't ever leave us, federal government!"

That's what I meant when I posted earlier about how what the opposition party needs to do is find ways to convince the public - and then wait for the next election - rather than ramming stuff down the public's throat with procedural malpractice. This isn't just destructive, it isn't going to help.

I'm all for principled arguments: heck, I'm a utopian. I love it when principle and action line up. I just don't see anything principled about abandoning your obligations and screwing over your employees.


I agree on the first point, that's another reason why I think they've gotten too big, It may be very basic, but what happened to spending within means? Govt gets X in tax a year, but they spend X+Y creating Debt Z... why not you know, just spend X and break even, or god forbid spend A and make a surplus to fund your projects!

I don't want to get into the specific low level, as is mentioned and discussed, as I don't have the answers there. However I do think we should discuss the larger scale issues. which is where im coming from. It just feels to me on that scale, the government is more negative than positive. That's just kinda what im getting at.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Governments are machines for accruing and using debt.

This is literally true.

Why does it never seem to occur to people that one of the many ways in which a government budget is not like a household budget is that the Government not only provides and guarantees all the currency, it can in fact make more of it when it pleases? Usually, of course, by selling guarantees of its own continued existence.

Debt is the engine of the current world economy.

[Aenir]

Governments are machines for accruing and using debt.

This is literally true.

Why does it never seem to occur to people that one of the many ways in which a government budget is not like a household budget is that the Government not only provides and guarantees all the currency, it can in fact make more of it when it pleases? Usually, of course, by selling guarantees of its own continued existence.

Debt is the engine of the current world economy.

Why did this not happen before in governments of history?

Sure I realize that more people requires more money and numbers will go up, but this just seems above and beyond that curve.

I suppose I just think that debt being the engine of economy is stupid and wish it would go back to a cash and carry basis :)

[ElectricPaladin]

Why did this not happen before in governments of history?

It did. It happened to the governments of history over the course of them becoming the governments of today. The thing you've got to realize is that practically all modern governments operate this way. This is the way governments work.

[DWest]

I suppose I just think that debt being the engine of economy is stupid and wish it would go back to a cash and carry basis :)

The problem is, "cash and carry" isn't cash, it's the opposite. The point of money is not to buy things, but to be a store of value, like a battery. For example: I am a writer by trade. If we had no money, if we had to live by bartering, I would have to get up every morning, go find somebody who needs something written, write for them and then get my side of beef or gallon of oil or whatever. Instead, with money, I can write for a year at a time on one project, say a novel, and then sell it for currency which I can then use to buy a year's worth of meat, oil, whatever. Economies have always been driven by "debt", but again, going back to the battery analogy -- debt is the concept of being able to smooth out the mismatch between needs and production. Agriculture, the long-term cultivation and storage of food, was the first instrument of debt, and food was sometimes literally a currency; Japan's economy ran on bags of rice as the unit of payment into the 19th century, for example.

[Aenir]

well, I don't know what to keep saying without seeming like an idiot, so I think I will bow out of the conversation now :)

(not trying to whine or anything, I am just not as eloquent as the arguments seem in my head :) )

[Marshal2Crusaders]

Holy ****ing ****, Eldargal knows IPE. Very rare for anyone to crack open an economic text these days.


Its fun watching people stumble their way through IR on the internet like blind retards in a corn maze. Then you get Eldargal laying down some Hobeson and Krasner with a splash of Keohane and Nye, while daboarder and Denzark fight over stupid domestic **** like they actual have some kind of significance and can solve the problems.

She even mentioned Malthus.

*Slow clap*

Well done, ma'am. Well done indeed.

[daboarder]

because human rights and living conditions are stupid things to have an opinion on?

[Marshal2Crusaders]

because human rights and living conditions are stupid things to have an opinion on?

Most people literate in IR and IPE will tell you they exist but only for people who have the power to make them exist. For instance the US ambassador to Russia is big into human rights because it costs the US nothing to poke Putin in the eye over sex trafficking and bleeding hearts will look favorably on it, but no one would dream of sending a human rights crusader to China because of the erstwhile nature of the US Chinese partnership.


It's long game politics and globalization is moving faster than we can keep up with. Which means that while you and Denzark argue about whether or not Penny Poverty is making enough in her service sector job to have a normative western lower income life, China is dumping meat causing food prices to rise in the west, the US' lack of industrial policy is kicking us in the balls in trade deficits, Syrian chemical weapons are being moved, and the ECB is trying to juggle flaming swords the keep the Euro afloat.

Poor people < Global Economy

[daboarder]

its all part of the same problem you can't just single out one aspect and claim its a non issue because its only a part of the global economic situation. unemployment and our response to it is right up there with the stupidity that is syria.

[eldargal]

Of course military spending is wasteful. So is police spending, and fire departments, and the like. But really it's more complicated than that. There's a lot of waste that can be safely eliminated, but at the same time the military drives technology as much as any other single industry. So, yes and no.
Spending in this areas still tends to generate more of a return than military spending so it isn't particularly wasteful. Police, firemen and so on are required for a smoothly run economy, while a military is not. It's one reason why the Founding Fathers believes there should only be a very small standing army and the American people should be able to defend themselves, funny how that seems to have been forgotten yet it is no more archaic than most libertarian beliefs.

[The Sovereign]

Ugg. I remember how well these political games went in 1996 and this won't be any different.

When even the architect of the first shutdown Newt Gingrich is saying "don't do it" elected officials should pay attention.

Still, at least the New York rags are having fun with it.

5181

Okay, as I'm not an Obama fan, and would attest that every day the U.S. Government isn't working in unison to pass something that will inevitably screw over some segment of Americans is a good day, you're asserting that I'm "officially stupid".

Does this open the floodgates, Bigred? Am I free to tell you what I think of your level of intelligence now that I've deduced your political allegiance? God, believe me when I tell you I'm itching to go down this road.

[eldargal]

So, not being an Obama fan makes the party you support ****ting all over democracy ok? Because that is what the Republicans are doing. You have a policy that has been subjected to full and proper democratic process and the Republicans LOST the vote, instead of accepting the will of the people as manifested through their elected representatives they are trying to blackmail a President into ditching the policy. That is nothing short of contemptible, regardless of what you may think of the policy. You don't like a policy, you campaign against it and repeal it when you can. You don't shut down the government.

[ElectricPaladin]

So, not being an Obama fan makes the party you support ****ting all over democracy ok? Because that is what the Republicans are doing. You have a policy that has been subjected to full and proper democratic process and the Republicans LOST the vote, instead of accepting the will of the people as manifested through their elected representatives they are trying to blackmail a President into ditching the policy. That is nothing short of contemptible, regardless of what you may think of the policy. You don't like a policy, you campaign against it and repeal it when you can. You don't shut down the government.

Eldargal has hit the nail on the head.

I have already outlined my view of the role of the opposition party, but I'm not afraid to do it again. You help **** get done. You attempt to force compromises to mitigate the damage you see them doing. You attempt to get control of minor or local projects in order to create showpieces of your ideas and thereby convince the people of your rightness.

You do not - by any means - attempt to hold the entire country hostage in order to overturn legally enacted legislation.

It's not hard. You need to accept the will of the people with grace and humility. If the people voted for a guy, he gets to be president. If the duly elected representatives of the people's will pass a law, it's the freaking law. Get over it. You can talk until you're blue in the face about polls and socialism and whatever, but that's not how the system works. If it's such a terrible law, then the people will see it, fire the guys in charge, and hire you instead.

That's how the system works.

This? This is how the system breaks down.

[daboarder]

I find it interesting that the american system doesnt allow for double dissolution as a means of forcing the public to choose

[Psychosplodge]

There was an article last night/early this morning on the bbc that had a poll in it suggesting 70% of Americans did not support the shutdown.
But I can't find the damn thing this morning.

Edit

Found it (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24342526), last couple of paragraphs.

[Denzark]

Ahh Badrukk, You always seem to be able to say what I want too so much more elegantly.

Hang on DAB old cobber, I agree 100% with what Badrukk says here - how did I become greedy and self indulgent as per your last rant in my general direction?


Holy ****ing ****, Eldargal knows IPE. Very rare for anyone to crack open an economic text these days.


Its fun watching people stumble their way through IR on the internet like blind retards in a corn maze. Then you get Eldargal laying down some Hobeson and Krasner with a splash of Keohane and Nye, while daboarder and Denzark fight over stupid domestic **** like they actual have some kind of significance and can solve the problems.

She even mentioned Malthus.

*Slow clap*

Well done, ma'am. Well done indeed.

Good effort Marshal. I have already stated earlier I am not trying to define any of the 'problems' far less solve them. I have merely suggested regarding a subject off-topic but linked in - minimum wage - that people should not consume/spend beyond their means. This is a mitigation and if this happened as a matter of course would probably not resort in the western world being a worse place.

In the meantime, you quote all these economic texts like you are some sort of guru - you sound like you think Eldargal has just pooped a 1/2 pound gold bar just for being aware of some of them. The fact is with all this standard economic thinking out there, it hasn't stopped the geniuses repsonsible for implementing this, all of whom given their jobs and wages are probably regarded as a slightly better lodestone of knowledge than an internet hero like you, dropping the ball mahoosively.



So, not being an Obama fan makes the party you support ****ting all over democracy ok? Because that is what the Republicans are doing. You have a policy that has been subjected to full and proper democratic process and the Republicans LOST the vote, instead of accepting the will of the people as manifested through their elected representatives they are trying to blackmail a President into ditching the policy. That is nothing short of contemptible, regardless of what you may think of the policy. You don't like a policy, you campaign against it and repeal it when you can. You don't shut down the government.

Ah, not to be pedantic but are the Republicans not using (abusing if you like) said proper and deomcratic process to block this legislation? If what they were doing wasn't permitted in accordance with US political full and proper process, it wouldn't be happening?

[eldargal]

Well, that brings up a problem I have with republican systems in general, they are open to abuse like this. Just because they can do something doesn't mean they should and even if this mechanism has legitimate uses using it to try and block a policy you lost a vote on is antithetical to a democratic system.

Marshal, funnily enough everything I've picked up about economics I've picked up through studying history rather than economics. I suppose the history of economics is both history and economics. I certainly wouldn't claim to be an expert or have any particular insight into how the systems work in detail.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

History's honestly one of the best ways to get into economic matters. Provides real-world data and social contexts, which helps keep one grounded from the tendency of economics to go off into the cloud-cuckoo la la land of pure theory.

Marshal makes a good and necessary point, though. We live in a world system, a global economy. It's full of these superannuated holdovers from the age of Empires (nation-states) which are being rendered ever less relevant by the institutions and realities of a truly global system. Nations don't have friends, they have interests. Capital only wants to keep whizzing around the world reproducing itself. The systemic issues are huge. Moral crusadery about some people not working is really missing the point to an enormous degree.

[Denzark]

Moral crusadery about some people not working is really missing the point to an enormous degree.

Thinking that any of this thread is about 'moral crusadery' is really missing the point to an enormous degree.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

The second part of my post there is pretty incoherent; I blame iPad tapping away. So sorry for that. But you realise you just wrote the equivalent of "I know what you are, but what am I," right?

[Denzark]

Yeah, pretty much!

I never meant this to go into a thread hijack with x-pages of debate about the right to have children. I am trying to boil down my point here to a single understandable position - and I guess to sum it up would be to state that living within your means is a good thing, living outside it is bad.

I am not repeat not trying to link the global economic meltdown and/or the ability or otherwise of Uncle Sam to pay health insurance, to a group of people (what is the correct vernacular for the poor/working class that won't upset the lefties) who sprog too much.

So happy to focus on the healthcare which is intersting, the economics can be taken elsewhere.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

It's cool. And your position isn't even remotely an unsupportable one. I think in this thread there's been a fair amount of arguing at cross-purposes.

"People" is really the best word. ;)

[The Sovereign]

So, not being an Obama fan makes the party you support ****ting all over democracy ok? Because that is what the Republicans are doing. You have a policy that has been subjected to full and proper democratic process and the Republicans LOST the vote, instead of accepting the will of the people as manifested through their elected representatives they are trying to blackmail a President into ditching the policy. That is nothing short of contemptible, regardless of what you may think of the policy. You don't like a policy, you campaign against it and repeal it when you can. You don't shut down the government.

But this isn't new. Congress has always been the purse strings of the federal government, it's this way by design. It's our oft quoted checks and balances in action. If we're recognizing the executive's role in signing something into law, it follows that we must also recognize the legislature's role in funding/defunding programs, especially in representation of constituencies. Most people who oppose the ACA, and there are a lot, understand that once something is implemented by the government, it never, ever, ever goes away. Our government is not capable of slimming down, cutting costs, or getting rid of programs, no matter how reviled.

Anyway, whether you agree or disagree, there's a different point I'm making: don't call me stupid on your forum. A difficult request, I know. But if you want to insist on name-calling, I'll insist we just get down to brass tacks and have a fist fight (not literally YOU, Eldargal, just whomever feels like casting blatant insults in a combative manner).

[Psychosplodge]

Foodhammer fringe: Internet arguments settled in the ring

[eldargal]

But this isn't a check or balance situation (the chap who led the last guvmint shutdown on the matter of spending was even telling them not to go ahead) this is the Tea Party hijacking their party and using the shut down to black mail a president into dropping a policy they are ideologically opposed to after apparently 40 previous attempts to stop it. If your government can't repeal legislation effectively then that is something that needs to be reformed, a government shutdown does nothing except damage your nation.

You've said nothing to indicate you are stupid, even if I think perhaps you are wrong on this particular issue and I don't think Bigred was saying you were stupid or people like you are stupid, just that a system which allows such an incredibly dangerous situation to occur is stupid. Which it is, frankly. Not that I can speak for Bigred or anything that's just the way I interpreted his post.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

As a random derailment;
http://vimeo.com/75163830
Seemed at least 12% related due to being about America and rich ****s doing whatever they want to get their way.

[Wolfshade]

It is almost like there is a need for an unelected house, so they don't care whether or not they are re-elected and they could vote for what is best for the country, removed from the grandstanding of politics...

Kaptain, bad. Rule #1 never talk about derailment.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Kaptain, bad. Rule #1 never talk about derailment.

It was double-bluff derailment. I was actually bringing us back to the topic of the conversation as defined by the title.

[Psychosplodge]

It is almost like there is a need for an unelected house, so they don't care whether or not they are re-elected and they could vote for what is best for the country, removed from the grandstanding of politics...


Sounds sensible. Didn't a country used to have a set-up like that. Almost as if it had a class that was bred for it that felt a sense of responsibility and duty towards it?

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Sounds sensible. Didn't a country used to have a set-up like that. Almost as if it had a class that was bred for it that felt a sense of responsibility and duty towards it?

Yeah I remember hearing about them, something about rampant abuses of power and then an uprising leading to modern France. :eek:

[Psychosplodge]

I was thinking something much more modern, but it was replaced with an unelected house of political cronies iirc

[Kaptain Badrukk]

I was thinking something much more modern, but it was replaced with an unelected house of political cronies iirc

Indeed it was. But the since our FPTP electoral system actually doesn't even vaguely represent a democratically elected govt I can't complain too hard.

[Denzark]

Thank the very Gods that the Lib Dem favourite Proportional Representation didn't pass muster with the voters...

[Psychosplodge]

Thank the very Gods that the Lib Dem favourite Proportional Representation didn't pass muster with the voters...

^this

[daboarder]

Hang on DAB old cobber, I agree 100% with what Badrukk says here - how did I become greedy and self indulgent as per your last rant in my general direction?


?????


The other problem is a refusal by people to live within their means. I read through the piece posted about the MacDonald's budget. I then followed a link to an employee commenting on how she manages to live on a MacDonalds minimum wage. She makes $200-$600 per month. Her rent is $650. But she has 4 children.

Who the hell keeps popping sprogs into this nasty world when they can't actually afford them?


'Can't feed don't breed' is clearly as I repeatedly say, common sense pre-coitus.


That 1% already pay more than their fair share. When they buy a 120k Bentley the taxes (VAT) fund the equivalent of an NHS nurse. When they get a 300k wage, they pay 45% top rate. So not only more full stop goes to the treasury, but more pennies per pound proportionately. So I can listen to an Islington Champagne socialist who has just had a dinner party with his bezzer Tony and Cherie with their 10m property portfolio, tell me the 1% need to do more. Then when I increase his taxes, he uses his economic mobility ot go and live in the Caymans and we lose the whole buck, just because we were trying to milk the stone more.


How do these views not contradict this


You know what, I'd agree with you 100%
I'd agree if the ****s didn't buy the bently as a company car and claim back their VAT.
I'd agree if they didn't donate to a vanity project charity and fiddle his income into bonuses and expenses to pull his rate of tax down to parity with a middle class employee
I'd agree if they then didn't get their accountant to ensure that they get paid offshore into offshore accounts to get it down to a rebate.
I'd agree if they then didn't have the temerity to claim that his tax money actually helps the poor.
I'd agree if they didn't live a life of luxury while telling people that they couldn't possibly afford to give any of it up, and they'd rather leave the country than let their workers off 0 hour contracts that forbid other employment and an hourly wage that ensures that they live on the cusp of debt.
Then I'd agree with you.

@daboarder - I know that the whole cigarettes and gin argument seems archaic, but I don't see why the state should fund any of it.
I don't have a view of the poor (or benefit claimants) as scallies and skivers, i'm from a working class family and my mum & dad raised me (and two siblings) while working part time and claiming benefits.
You know what they didn't do?
They didn't have TV
They didn't smoke
They didn't drink
(apart from some fairly foul homebrew my dad made from picking fruit and elder flowers he'd grown himself).
It worked.
I genuinely believe in the welfare state.
I don't believe in handouts.
I believe that welfare should encourage and enable, not promote dependency and de-skill.
As a product of people who used the welfare state to get a better life for themselves and their kids (all three working in decent jobs (one while still at uni)) I have this to say, if there had been room in my parent's budget for a bottle of wine and 2 packets of cigarettes a week our lives wouldn't have been any better. If they'd chosen to spend that (over her 18 years of life) then they'd not have been able to pay my little sister's way into uni.
That is all.

You have suggested that the 1% is doing more than his fair share for society, Bardukk pointed out why this is wrong.

You have suggested that people on welfare only be allowed to obtain basic necessities, even only having access to food stamps, therefore badrukk's sister would never have had the chance to go to university.....

And you have repeatedly stated that people should not have kids if they can't afford them (ignoring the question that you explain how that situation relates to those who HAD affordable jobs and lost them) Therefore if you had your way badrukk's sister should not have even been born.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

You have suggested that people on welfare only be allowed to obtain basic necessities, even only having access to food stamps, therefore badrukk's sister would never have had the chance to go to university.....
.
You'll note that both my parents had part-time work to save up for that, and so it could have been achieved on "food stamps" or with some other kind of spending controlled system. Which I actually approve of.
The transition to the new benefits system and the fact that we now have a record number of claimants behind on their rent now that it does not go directly to their landlords (ignoring the whole money grabbing landlord over pricing *******s arguement, which I could rant about for hours), sadly demonstrates that sensible money management is not high on the average (not all, but lots) claimant's skills/priorities list.

[Denzark]

Yeah, sorry, to be clear, seeing as you seem to be in a rational moment, rather than name calling, I 100% mean his comments about believing in the welfare state not handouts - and also I quote:

'I know that the whole cigarettes and gin argument seems archaic, but I don't see why the state should fund any of it.'


The 1% issue is something else.

[Denzark]

You'll note that both my parents had part-time work to save up for that, and so it could have been achieved on "food stamps" or with some other kind of spending controlled system. Which I actually approve of.
The transition to the new benefits system and the fact that we now have a record number of claimants behind on their rent now that it does not go directly to their landlords (ignoring the whole money grabbing landlord over pricing *******s arguement, which I could rant about for hours), sadly demonstrates that sensible money management is not high on the average (not all, but lots) claimant's skills/priorities list.

Again, I laud your parents and I agree with this money managmeent comment.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Again, I laud your parents and I agree with this money managmeent comment.

Don't laud them too hard, they dropped out of full time jobs and onto benefits when they worked out they could get as much money and spend more time with us.........
They used the system to it's absolute, my dad even micromanaged his working hours to ensure that her never earned too much to swap over the cusp where working became less financially viable than not-working.
My point was simply that the welfare state allowed them to look after their kids well AND hold down jobs by sacrificing luxuries.
They made an active choice between luxuries and not working and I fully believe that (apart from those who do not have that choice available to them for whatever reason) benefits should never cover a luxury item.

/*EDIT - Oh btw, your sig is wrong. There's even been a model of one, long ago.*/

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Select the incumbents of political offices through sortition, IMO. Random draws. Everyone (limit it as you wish - probably not prisoners serving a sentence, y'know?) is eligible. There's no campaigns, there's no campaign money, there's no way to bribe or rig the system. You can't serve the same post more than once.

You couldn't do worse than the system we have. And it'd subvert a lot of the issues of single-class representation, money and corrupt power networks infecting things.

[daboarder]

Yeah, sorry, to be clear, seeing as you seem to be in a rational moment, rather than name calling, I 100% mean his comments about believing in the welfare state not handouts - and also I quote:

'I know that the whole cigarettes and gin argument seems archaic, but I don't see why the state should fund any of it.'


The 1% issue is something else.

I find it hilarious that your calling the person that actually linked articles from the declaration of humans rights on irrationality.....especially as your the person willing to discuss children and family units using some rather derogatory terminology that is intended only to demean those people....you are acting like a piece of filth, and this is rational me.

edit: actually re-reading your statements I'm forming the opinion that you only think an argument is rational when it agrees with your particular viewpoint.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Select the incumbents of political offices through sortition, IMO. Random draws. Everyone (limit it as you wish - probably not prisoners serving a sentence, y'know?) is eligible. There's no campaigns, there's no campaign money, there's no way to bribe or rig the system. You can't serve the same post more than once.

You couldn't do worse than the system we have. And it'd subvert a lot of the issues of single-class representation, money and corrupt power networks infecting things.
Actually agree. Provided of course political lobbying is illegal and their lives are recorded as a matter of public record (possibly withheld for national security until any operation is complete and not a moment later) 100% of the time, and the selections are also semi-meritocratic. So for example the education minister would be selected from everyone who teaches, the arts minister from artists/gallery owners/curators and so on.....

[daboarder]

Bit like the jury duty? I like it, but how would you stop people getting what they can in bribes and back room deals while they had money, you'd need stronger oversight than the current system.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

I find it hilarious that your calling the person that actually linked articles from the declaration of humans rights on irrationality.....especially as your the person willing to discuss children and family units using some rather derogatory terminology that is intended only to demean those people....you are acting like a piece of filth, and this is rational me.

edit: actually re-reading your statements I'm forming the opinion that you only think an argument is rational when it agrees with your particular viewpoint.

This is all getting very fraught. And I'm not sure I enjoy being in the middle of it, or cited as an example for it. Calm down the both of you or there will be a "spontaneous" pony posting invasion.......

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Bit like the jury duty? I like it, but how would you stop people getting what they can in bribes and back room deals while they had money, you'd need stronger oversight than the current system.

As I said, from the moment they are announced as representatives they are observed 24/7, and every moment is a matter of public record.

[daboarder]

Don't worry bout it badrukk, I'm being on my good behaviour this time, I haven't even called anyone a **** or a ****ing idiot yet.

(and I won't be, too much effort)

[Psychosplodge]

Actually agree. Provided of course political lobbying is illegal and their lives are recorded as a matter of public record (possibly withheld for national security until any operation is complete and not a moment later) 100% of the time, and the selections are also semi-meritocratic. So for example the education minister would be selected from everyone who teaches, the arts minister from artists/gallery owners/curators and so on.....

I disagree.
They wouldn't need to ahve come from a field, they can have advisers for that. Limiting arts minister to the elitist group that are already "in" would be a way to kill arts.
You don't need to be a teacher to have an opinion on how things should be done.
The same way you don't need to be a teacher to realise that both free schools and academies are a waste of funds

[daboarder]

Yeah most politicians serve as ministers for areas in which they have no background and can be moved out of on political whim (Westminster system) It's the advisors that really to the gritty work in policy.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

I disagree.
They wouldn't need to ahve come from a field, they can have advisers for that. Limiting arts minister to the elitist group that are already "in" would be a way to kill arts.
You don't need to be a teacher to have an opinion on how things should be done.
The same way you don't need to be a teacher to realise that both free schools and academies are a waste of funds

Whilst in principle I agree once you have "advisory bodies" you open yourself up to a situation which leads into the territory of having figureheads controlled by a now entirely un-elected ruling class.
There is a strong argument to having field experts in field roles, just see how well a country rule by lawyers and businessmen is doing at running a health service or school system for details.

[Denzark]

I find it hilarious that your calling the person that actually linked articles from the declaration of humans rights on irrationality.....especially as your the person willing to discuss children and family units using some rather derogatory terminology that is intended only to demean those people....you are acting like a piece of filth, and this is rational me.

edit: actually re-reading your statements I'm forming the opinion that you only think an argument is rational when it agrees with your particular viewpoint.

I have highlighted my point is that living within your means is good, not doing so is bad. Your intelligent retort is I am greedy, self indulgent, and a piece of filth. I love it when lefties take the moral high ground DAB - you are a classy guy.

This weekend, I will go back to the house I own, and when my son, who goes to a private prep school, goes to bed, I will have a glass of the 1983 Port currently in my crystal decanter. I will light a cuban cigar bought with some of the wages that I, a Royal Air Force Officer, and my wife, a secondary school head of department, bring in by working b*stard hard. I will then ponder if I should give more to society, decreasing the living standards of my family, to increase the living standards of people who won't do it for themselves - not who can't mind, but won't. I will ask myself if I am doing enough.

There is a chance I will lose sleep over the words of an internet hardman like yourself but I doubt it. You lack manners and manners maketh man.

[Psychosplodge]

Whilst in principle I agree once you have "advisory bodies" you open yourself up to a situation which leads into the territory of having figureheads controlled by a now entirely un-elected ruling class.
There is a strong argument to having field experts in field roles, just see how well a country rule by lawyers and businessmen is doing at running a health service or school system for details.

Could be worse - could be accountants.
I think the pure lottery would work better.

[daboarder]

I have highlighted my point is that living within your means is good, not doing so is bad. Your intelligent retort is I am greedy, self indulgent, and a piece of filth. I love it when lefties take the moral high ground DAB - you are a classy guy.

This weekend, I will go back to the house I own, and when my son, who goes to a private prep school, goes to bed, I will have a glass of the 1983 Port currently in my crystal decanter. I will light a cuban cigar bought with some of the wages that I, a Royal Air Force Officer, and my wife, a secondary school head of department, bring in by working b*stard hard. I will then ponder if I should give more to society, decreasing the living standards of my family, to increase the living standards of people who won't do it for themselves - not who can't mind, but won't. I will ask myself if I am doing enough.

There is a chance I will lose sleep over the words of an internet hardman like yourself but I doubt it. You lack manners and manners maketh man.

Good for you mate, this weekend I am sacrificing my fourth weekend in a row to work in a research laboratory, work for which I do not get payed because I am writing a thesis...... Shall we continue with the metaphorical dick waving?

[Wolfshade]

A slight aside that I wanted to find a couple of pages back which I couldn't find :(


Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

The bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

[Wolfshade]

Oh can I join in. This weekend I am going to ring a quarter peal on a set of bells that need £70k worth of repairs. PM if you want to make a donation :p only 8k for a bell ...

[Denzark]

Yawn.

[daboarder]

Oh can I join in. This weekend I am going to ring a quarter peal on a set of bells that need £70k worth of repairs. PM if you want to make a donation :p only 8k for a bell ...

Whats quarter pealing?

edit: nevermind I jsut had to re-read that whole sentence.

[Mr Mystery]

I'm going to pick my Dark Elf goodies, trade in that new phone I'm picking up tonight, put £100 of the proceeds into my bank account, and then go out for all you can eat Chinese with my friend Claire (just friends), then go out on the pull up Sankeys.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

A slight aside that I wanted to find a couple of pages back which I couldn't find :(

That made me laugh. The reality of the situation of course is that the 9th and 10th man have paid about $2 each (using analogous amounts) to the 11th man, who explains to the middle three that for "very complex" reasons they shouldn't have to pay for the beer either.

/*EDIT*/ And if it's america at least 2 of guys 1-4 are busy working double shifts to earn a living wage and can't go out drinking in the first place. /*EDIT*/

[Denzark]

PS Wolfy - I'm not yawning at the bell ringing, I'm yawning at the bell end.

[Psychosplodge]

This weekend I'm returning the GF to the walk in centre, so that's four hours anyway...

[Mr Mystery]

This weekend I'm returning the GF to the walk in centre, so that's four hours anyway...

Wanting a trade in huh?

[Psychosplodge]

Wanting a trade in huh?

I can't warranties void, seal is broken.

[Mr Mystery]

http://www.espritlibre.ws/celebrities/photos/989196/charleshawtrey.jpg

Because sometimes Kenneth Williams just isn't enough.

[Psychosplodge]

Left (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24394644)without comment.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Yeah. I'd say something but that article really speaks for itself.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

It's worth saying, but not all of Texas is hardline Tea Party Republican. Austin and its environs are some of the most liberal (US sense) areas in the whole country.

[Mr Mystery]

Dear Texas.

Stop being all mouth and no trousers, you massive political wuss.

You keep going on about able to secede from the union.

Well, go on then. Chop chop. You'll be happier, and the USA will be happier to boot.

Love and hugs,

Mr Mystery.

[Wolfshade]

Surely this stand off is just democracy in action.
Yes the republicans didn't pass the bill, but isn't it equally fair to say the democrats passed the senate a bill it knew wouldn't be accepted.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Surely this stand off is just democracy in action.
Yes the republicans didn't pass the bill, but isn't it equally fair to say the democrats passed the senate a bill it knew wouldn't be accepted.

I'm not 100% up with the political minutia of the american process, but essentially as I understand it the issue is thus;
Group A) "The bill passed and using a block on the budget to try and overturn a vote you have already lost is tantamount to holding the country to ransom because you didn't get your way."
Group B) "We're using a legitimate avenue of political expression to continue our fight against something we fundamentally oppose."
Group C) "RAghl flargh argh BURN THE COMMUNISTS, POOR PEOPLE GETTING HEALTHCARE IS THE SOURCE OF ALL EVIL!!!"
Group D) "I oppose Obamacare, but I'm ok with the Affordable Healthcare Act"
Group E) "RAghl flargh argh BURN THE RICH, CAPTIALISM IS THE SOURCE OF ALL EVIL!!!"
Group F) "Can we go back to work yet?"

[Psychosplodge]

It jumped through how many stages?
Sounds more like a screaming child throwing a tantrum in a supermarket for not getting it's own way...
But like I think I said on the tribute thread, it' nice of all these rich people to argue, while the poor (government employed) people suffer for it...

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Tut tut, Badrukk. It's "eat the rich". :)

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Tut tut, Badrukk. It's "eat the rich". :)

Tsk Tsk, Cap'n. It's "Eat the Meek" (anyone not up with 90s punk I highly suggest Googling this and enjoying, anyone who is "hooray, reference humor" "it's just like family guy")

[Psychosplodge]

another one (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24357415)

[Kaptain Badrukk]

"Meat Rush" If that's not the title of a gay porno I'll eat my squig.

[Psychosplodge]

If it isn't yet, it probably will be at some point, though it could be for a gang-bang porno instead...

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Maybe on of those "1 girl / guy x number of partners in one film" dealies.

[Wolfshade]

Or an expose of the use of horse meat in iceland lasagnas

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Or a story of one traveler's heroic survival in a tree during the world's longest stampede!

[Wolfshade]

Can the lead be called Zack played by Tom Cruise

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Can the lead be called Zack played by Tom Cruise

Wait, which film are we talking about now? We've all heard the rumors........

[Wolfshade]

Wait, which film are we talking about now? We've all heard the rumors........

Well I was going for a not so subtle reference to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacchaeus

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Ah, nice.
I obviously need to read more bible.

[Nabterayl]

Surely this stand off is just democracy in action.
Yes the republicans didn't pass the bill, but isn't it equally fair to say the democrats passed the senate a bill it knew wouldn't be accepted.
Yes, it is. In fact, this is one of the chief weapons that the House is given to combat an action by another branch of government, or the other chamber of Congress, that they believe to be unconstitutional or otherwise don't like. I personally disagree with House Republicans on this (I'd rather have the ACA than not, and I do think it's constitutional), but the system is working as intended.

[Wolfshade]

Are there no ways and means to force things through?

I know with our two house system parliament can force things through the lords if it has been sent back enough times.

[eldargal]

Yes, it is. In fact, this is one of the chief weapons that the House is given to combat an action by another branch of government, or the other chamber of Congress, that they believe to be unconstitutional or otherwise don't like. I personally disagree with House Republicans on this (I'd rather have the ACA than not, and I do think it's constitutional), but the system is working as intended.
It's a broken system. If you think something is unconstitutional there should be an avenue to challenge it legally as unconstitutional, and have it determined whether it is or not. Having the potential for a bunch of ideologues to shut down government to try and stop a policy they don't like that has been submitted to all the appropriate democratic processes is just ****ed up.

Bit like building a starship with a self destruct device that can be activated if someone doesn't like the plotted destination.

[ElectricPaladin]

Yes, it is. In fact, this is one of the chief weapons that the House is given to combat an action by another branch of government, or the other chamber of Congress, that they believe to be unconstitutional or otherwise don't like. I personally disagree with House Republicans on this (I'd rather have the ACA than not, and I do think it's constitutional), but the system is working as intended.

I disagree. The House is not supposed to be able to suspend the operation of the entire government over a legally enacted piece of legislation. There is a way to get rid of legally enacted legislation: it's called pass another law getting rid of it, or challenge it in the court. I can't imagine that the founding fathers pictured "half the legislature shoots the economy in the foot and holds up federal business for as long as they please" as one of the checks and balances.

[Nabterayl]

It's a broken system. If you think something is unconstitutional there should be an avenue to challenge it legally as unconstitutional, and have it determined whether it is or not. Having the potential for a bunch of ideologues to shut down government to try and stop a policy they don't like that has been submitted to all the appropriate democratic processes is just ****ed up.

Bit like building a starship with a self destruct device that can be activated if someone doesn't like the plotted destination.
Yeah, it's an artifact of the Framers' obsession with branches of government being co-equal. No branch of the United States government is empowered to determine, on behalf of all the others, whether a law is constitutional or not. Each of the executive branch, the federal judiciary, and each chamber of the legislature is given its own ways to fight back when any of the other three does something it believes to be unconstitutional. That is so many brakes that from time to time one must expect the car to stop entirely.

On the other hand, as I understand it, the only branch of the British government empowered to determine whether a law is constitutional or not is the House of Lords, which to my colonial eyes looks pretty darn close to no brakes at all.


I disagree. The House is not supposed to be able to suspend the operation of the entire government over a legally enacted piece of legislation. There is a way to get rid of legally enacted legislation: it's called pass another law getting rid of it, or challenge it in the court. I can't imagine that the founding fathers pictured "half the legislature shoots the economy in the foot and holds up federal business for as long as they please" as one of the checks and balances.
For serious discourse I think it's always silly to say that "The Framers intended." There were a lot of them, and as political developments subsequent to the Framing demonstrated, they didn't all have the same views on what the constitution did or was supposed to do. However, "shutting down the government" is the inevitable result of the House exercising its power of the purse. And Madison, at least, envisioned it being used against legally enacted legislation. As he says in Federalist No. 58:


These considerations seem to afford ample security on this subject, and ought alone to satisfy all the doubts and fears which have been indulged with regard to it. Admitting, however, that they should all be insufficient to subdue the unjust policy of the smaller States, or their predominant influence in the councils of the Senate, a constitutional and infallible resource still remains with the larger States by which they will be able at all times to accomplish their just purposes. The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse—that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure. (emphasis mine)

[Rissan4ever]

The House needs to be careful. Use of the "power of the purse" in this manner can easily backfire against them. The approximately 1 million federal workers and goodness knows how many federal contractors who aren't getting paid, poor women with babies that aren't getting their WIC checks, parents of kids who can't go to Head Start, people who just want to go to national parks, etc., are not going to forget this.

If the House Republicans feels the ACA is unconstitutional, they are free to challenge it in court without totally disrupting the entire government of the United States. This is ridiculous. The House Republicans are letting 30 or 40 Tea Party members control the entire party. The tail is wagging the dog, and it's got to stop.

[Nabterayl]

The House needs to be careful. Use of the "power of the purse" in this manner can easily backfire against them. The approximately 1 million federal workers and goodness knows how many federal contractors who aren't getting paid, poor women with babies that aren't getting their WIC checks, parents of kids who can't go to Head Start, people who just want to go to national parks, etc., are not going to forget this.
Well, yes, using the power of the purse to force an issue, as at least Madison intended, is the nuclear option. When you essentially put other people's livelihoods on the line, odds are good that the electorate is going to clobber one or both sides. In a civics sense, that's a good thing - the electorate is telling the government in unusually clear terms which side of the debate it agrees with, and telling the other side to back down or go home. And personally I hope the House Republicans are told in no uncertain terms that however sincere their convictions, the rest of us don't agree, and they should back down or go home.


If the House Republicans feels the ACA is unconstitutional, they are free to challenge it in court without totally disrupting the entire government of the United States.
Well, they did. But the thing is, the federal judiciary doesn't have final say over whether a law is constitutional or not. John Marshall really wanted it to, and made a naked power grab to that effect in 1803, and I think most Americans now have some vague notion that the constitution says (somewhere) that the Supreme Court decides whether a law is constitutional or not. But it doesn't.

Each branch of government is given its own ways of dealing with a law that it believes is unconstitutional. If A believes that law X is unconstitutional, and A is ...

The executive branch, it can refuse to execute the law.
The Senate, it can refuse to confirm executive appointments, treaties, and approve pet executive legislation.
The House, it can refuse to approve pet executive legislation or refuse to fund the law.
The judiciary, it can refuse to find in favor of any litigants whose claim is premised on X being constitutional.
The responses are very uneven, - 1 and 3 are almost guaranteed to bring about a major political crisis, while 2 and 4 are comparatively weak - but in this way, nobody is left without options simply because the other parts of the government think a law is constitutional. The ultimate arbiter, though, is not supposed to the government. The crisis precipitated by any of these options being exercised is supposed to get the electorate to weigh in, and tell one side or the other to sit down and shut the f*ck up. Whether this is good policy is a matter of opinion, but you go to war with the constitution you have.


This is ridiculous. The House Republicans are letting 30 or 40 Tea Party members control the entire party. The tail is wagging the dog, and it's got to stop.
Totally.

[Nabterayl]

But the thing is, the federal judiciary doesn't have final say over whether a law is constitutional or not. John Marshall really wanted it to, and made a naked power grab to that effect in 1803, and I think most Americans now have some vague notion that the constitution says (somewhere) that the Supreme Court decides whether a law is constitutional or not. But it doesn't.
In response to the aforesaid naked power grab, Thomas Jefferson wrote this:


You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves

It's true that the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the ACA. And I happen to agree that it is constitutional. But the idea that the other branches of government must simply bow their heads and accept the Supreme Court's judgment ... well, that, I agree with Jefferson, is a very dangerous doctrine.

[DarkLink]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/q71/1016585_10151714183201840_1539037692_n.jpg

[Cap'nSmurfs]

I fear that may be the single most awful artefact our debased so-called culture has ever produced. I look at that image and call out for swift death to claim me.

[White Tiger88]

It is rather breathtaking.

Oh don't worry this level of fail can only be topped by there next move....

[Wolfshade]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/open_letter.png

The thing that annoys me are the front pages on websites being replaced like the nasa one, who on earth pays for webhosting on a daily rate?

[Psychosplodge]

Apparently the US government.
Seems an expensive way to do it...

[Psychosplodge]

deleted

[Psychosplodge]

Also this

http://i44.tinypic.com/2zsw4xz.jpg

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Now that one's funny. :)

[daboarder]

I'm amazed at this, its just bizarre that your government never thought of this possibility and figured out a way to prevent it. I'm with eldargal on this it just seems insanely undemocratic (and hypocritical given foreign policy) to allow a political party to hold the country to ransom based upon an entirely unrelated political issue....

Get a double disillusion going, send everyone back to the poles and make up your bloody mind as a country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_dissolution

Works really well, we have even test run it for you. Most prominently in 1975.

[Wolfshade]

They did know that it would happen, but in a game of chicken worth billions of US$ both parties expect the otherside to blink.

It is akin to MAD, the consequencies of it happening is so terrible that neither side would wish it to happen so would talk and behave on balance.

I think a double dissolution might be a way forwards, but who would have the authority to call for such a thing if it doesn't exist in US law?

[daboarder]

Yeah it is a form of political MAD theory, its just insane to build that into the system in the first place. (I love that acronym, its ironic, self effacing and completely accurate all at the same time.)

As to the authority to dismiss the president of the united states, there are ways to do it, have it tied to a request by the house of reps (as seen in the dismissal they DO ask for it when appropriate). In Australia for example the GG does officiate the act of dismissal, but its can't be done without the government asking for it. Heck it can be built directly into the system as a sort of "automated" response.

Basically, the reps decide they can't resolve the impasse in the senate and have the president himself trigger the dissolution. Hell call it an abdication if you will.


edit: your up the creek for now but it would be a way of preventing it form happening again.

[ElectricPaladin]

The trouble with things like double dissolution is the trouble with tradition. Once you've survived for so long without doing something, it can feel like a terrible tragedy, a dangerous exception to the rule, to try it out. I don't know for sure because I'm not a politician or a political scientist, but personally, I fear that most Americans' buy-in to the concept of "America" is low enough that I'm not sure what the consequences of such a thing would be. I can tell you that, personally, my patriotism is at an all-time low.

[daboarder]

The trouble with things like double dissolution is the trouble with tradition. Once you've survived for so long without doing something, it can feel like a terrible tragedy, a dangerous exception to the rule, to try it out. I don't know for sure because I'm not a politician or a political scientist, but personally, I fear that most Americans' buy-in to the concept of "America" is low enough that I'm not sure what the consequences of such a thing would be. I can tell you that, personally, my patriotism is at an all-time low.

Yeah I also don't see any political party voting much for legislation that could limit their power in such a way. And I guess with non-compulsory voting (that is so weird) that apathy in the voting population would be a hard to counter as well.

[ElectricPaladin]

Yeah I also don't see any political party voting much for legislation that could limit their power in such a way. And I guess with non-compulsory voting (that is so weird) that apathy in the voting population would be a hard to counter as well.

Yeah... I don't get why voting isn't compulsory in this country.

Frankly, Washington warned us against political parties. I think they're a terrible idea. I didn't vote for these mother****ers. What gives them the right to maneuver behind the scenes and manipulate how the people I did vote for act? What gives them the right to decide who I even get to decide between?

Shifty-*** mother****ers...

[DarkLink]

Political parties are just a natural result of how human psychology works. Opinions tend to cluster together, even amongst very well educated and supposedly independent minded individuals. Human beings aren't actually very good at making rational decisions based on facts. Our brains are designed to make impulsive judgement calls very efficiently. Which is great for survival, but not for social planning.

What is a major problem that can be avoided is really a series of smaller problems. Properly designed run-off elections can bump the number of parties in a political system up from two to four or five while retaining the ability to elect a candidate that has the approval of 50% of the nation. Eliminating gerrymandering creates a massively more open political process. There are lots of things like that which would create notable improvements, and wouldn't require overly complex regulations.

[ElectricPaladin]

Political parties are just a natural result of how human psychology works. Opinions tend to cluster together, even amongst very well educated and supposedly independent minded individuals. Human beings aren't actually very good at making rational decisions based on facts. Our brains are designed to make impulsive judgement calls very efficiently. Which is great for survival, but not for social planning.

What is a major problem that can be avoided is really a series of smaller problems. Properly designed run-off elections can bump the number of parties in a political system up from two to four or five while retaining the ability to elect a candidate that has the approval of 50% of the nation. Eliminating gerrymandering creates a massively more open political process. There are lots of things like that which would create notable improvements, and wouldn't require overly complex regulations.

I agree with you in theory, but I reserve the right to be creeped out by political parties.

[Marshal2Crusaders]

This is a danger power play to pull the rug out from the Democrats in 2014. If the budget is not passed, then the Administration won't have to ability to provide 'bread and games' to their voter base and donors, which MAY work in the Republicans favor because the American public has the collective intelligence of a doorstop.


The problems arise because no one in Congress understands a default on debt will crash the dollar.

[Rissan4ever]

The problems arise because no one in Congress understands a default on debt will crash the dollar.
I'm pretty sure they're aware of that. They're just hoping the other side flinches first, and the default doesn't happen.

[DarkLink]

I agree with you in theory, but I reserve the right to be creeped out by political parties.

I actually just found an article about this, summarizing a couple of psychology books on decision making. Putting psychology to work in the public sector.

[Rissan4ever]

Could you give us a link to that article? It sounds interesting.

[Psychosplodge]

http://i40.tinypic.com/59rh3.jpg

[Aenir]

http://i40.tinypic.com/59rh3.jpg

*thumbsup*

[Psychosplodge]

Do you think your republican party intended to launch an entire branch of internet humour?

[ElectricPaladin]

Do you think your republican party intended to launch an entire branch of internet humour?

Oh, my pony friend, they did that a long time ago.

[Psychosplodge]

Oh, my pony friend, they did that a long time ago.



Yeah, but they never really took it international before...

[DarkLink]

Could you give us a link to that article? It sounds interesting.

The last sentance was the title. I don't have a direct link, but you should be able to google it.

[Rissan4ever]

The last sentance was the title. I don't have a direct link, but you should be able to google it.
Is this the correct article? (http://www.governing.com/columns/gov-putting-psychology-to-work-in-public-sector.html)

[DarkLink]

Yep, that's the one.