Funny. Its either the apocalypse or a utopia.
People did not agree on any such conception of government, especially not in America. This conception you have is a leftist one and a modern one. America's federalism, bill of rights and much of the legislative discussion surrounding this topic were not poised to create a state which guarantees welfare. The above is simply a lie. When medicare or the department of education were brought into existence there was no clamour for them and they're all proven to run at a loss or be bankrupt (see SS). The whole point of society, and particularly governments, are generally that people should be free to do what they want without harming their neighbour. Guaranteeing people's livelihoods and establishing arbitrary equalities were a modern conception...and they failed and continue failing. Unfortunately, the human condition seems to be that we are always seeking out a mother/father figure. They want the freedom without the responsibility.
The conception that does exist allows you to set up a fund - just as government does - and you can do so privately and pool the resources of those that wish to help. Any other conception, like that which is taxation against the will of people - especially at a federal level - is theft. The only reason it isn't, is because it is excused by the very law makers that commit the acts. Charity is a noble activity; but confiscating one person's property to arbitrarily use it for another is theft.
I'm a libertarian by and large; so no, that is the complete opposite of what I think. If you are going to debate ideological differences, at least get them right and stop making them up. Those on the right aren't anarchists for your point in the bolded to even begin to make sense.
The reasons a lot of programs don't work is because the economic realities which tend to keep prices down, and technology moving forward, are removed. Subsidisation has been shown repeatedly to increase costs in the long run.
Yourself and those that seem to share your persuasions seem to think that you exclusively understand morality or it is only your side that care for those that cannot look out for themselves. What is so difficult to understand that people just don't see government as the solution? Why can't I keep what I make and help those directly affected near me? Why should I have to subsidise the lives of people like the 5 assholes you prescribe in the above?
If you truly care for others, you can help people and do more in a voluntary capacity. You're probably going to be far more thrifty with your money than the government will anyway. What is ironic is that the beginnings of many eleemosynary activities in America started out during the kinds of periods I advocate. Without wanting to sound cocky I've probably read more/studied more on this topic than 99% of the people here. What I am saying is not simple-minded, although I'm open to the fact that I might not be communicating them well.
People did not agree on any such conception of government, especially not in America. This conception you have is a leftist one and a modern one. America's federalism, bill of rights and much of the legislative discussion surrounding this topic were not poised to create a state which guarantees welfare. The above is simply a lie. When medicare or the department of education were brought into existence there was no clamour for them and they're all proven to run at a loss or be bankrupt (see SS). The whole point of society, and particularly governments, are generally that people should be free to do what they want without harming their neighbour. Guaranteeing people's livelihoods and establishing arbitrary equalities were a modern conception...and they failed and continue failing. Unfortunately, the human condition seems to be that we are always seeking out a mother/father figure. They want the freedom without the responsibility.
The conception that does exist allows you to set up a fund - just as government does - and you can do so privately and pool the resources of those that wish to help. Any other conception, like that which is taxation against the will of people - especially at a federal level - is theft. The only reason it isn't, is because it is excused by the very law makers that commit the acts. Charity is a noble activity; but confiscating one person's property to arbitrarily use it for another is theft.
I'm a libertarian by and large; so no, that is the complete opposite of what I think. If you are going to debate ideological differences, at least get them right and stop making them up. Those on the right aren't anarchists for your point in the bolded to even begin to make sense.
The reasons a lot of programs don't work is because the economic realities which tend to keep prices down, and technology moving forward, are removed. Subsidisation has been shown repeatedly to increase costs in the long run.
Yourself and those that seem to share your persuasions seem to think that you exclusively understand morality or it is only your side that care for those that cannot look out for themselves. What is so difficult to understand that people just don't see government as the solution? Why can't I keep what I make and help those directly affected near me? Why should I have to subsidise the lives of people like the 5 assholes you prescribe in the above?
If you truly care for others, you can help people and do more in a voluntary capacity. You're probably going to be far more thrifty with your money than the government will anyway. What is ironic is that the beginnings of many eleemosynary activities in America started out during the kinds of periods I advocate. Without wanting to sound cocky I've probably read more/studied more on this topic than 99% of the people here. What I am saying is not simple-minded, although I'm open to the fact that I might not be communicating them well.
Last edited:
I think its more like 10 people abusing the welfare system for every 1 person in need. The unemployment has to do more with a flawed educational system and people's expectations. I put an ad in Craigs list a couple of months ago for an assistant and I got about 300 resumes. Over half of them have BS degrees and a few with MS degrees. Honestly I was surprised about the demand as the salary is $13 per hour and no benefits. I haven't even called any of them yet. I am waiting for early next year. The unemployment picture is worse than what most people think
Again your logic or argument is disorganized and lacks flow. So let's make it easy here:
1- Can the American people, if they wanted to, get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security? The answer is YES. Who cares what anyone thinks what the founders of America intended at the time, the fact of the matter is that majority of Americans voted for Obama and not for Ron Paul. They are the ones that define, through their votes, what they want - Are you for freedom or not?
2- Since when have we started to gauge the necessity of our social/political institutions by how much economic profit they yield? I'm asking because you mentioned social security shouldn't be there because it runs at a loss? Can you argue that America's defense department is a profitable entity? how about our police departments? fire departments?
It's amazing how when it comes to defense rightnuts don't want even the minimal cuts arguing that national security is at stake - not realizing that the most serious threat facing America is the health of its citizens and not necessarily some hairy dude in some cave in Pakistan. But this is besides the point...How is economic yield of an institution such as the Social Security even calculated without putting a dollar value on people's lives? Markets cannot put value on many things so making an economic argument about something that affects human life, dignity, hope, etc is futile.
3- People live in societies to enhance their quality of life. Freedom to choose is only a component in ensuring quality of life - other factors include security, equality, economic well being, etc. That's why I bet 99% of people on globe would prefer to live in communist China rather than in the democratic Congo.
4- My argument has never been about morality. I am an atheist and don't really believe in any moral code. I only believe that in the long-run for our society to work and continue to provide quality of life to its citizens certain things shouldn't be ignored.
My education in economics tells me that ~60-70% of the economic growth in this country depends on consumer spending and the fact that the middle class keeps getting squeezed cannot be good for the long-run economic well being of this country.
My study of the history tells me that wherever you have a large part of society feel disenfranchised,excluded and impoverished, sooner or later you will have serious threats toward the long-run health of the society.
Statistics also tell me that there is a chance that at some point during my life I might really need to depend on social safety nets to survive - wouldn't it be hypocritical to oppose them now when I don't need them and ask for them when I do?
5- As to the fact that you're better read than 99% of the people here - I'm sure you think very highly of yourself. But I honestly feel you're trying to regurgitate concepts that you have read here and there without fully digesting what they mean. I remember giving up on an economic argument I was having with you in a different thread, because I felt you were trying to regurgitate economic concepts from Milton Friedman, etc without understanding what they truly mean. You proved my point again here by making an economic argument for the benefits of social security without understanding that markets don't always set prices accurately. This might come as a news flash to you but many of the prices you pay around you, even with the absence of subsidies, aren't set correctly. As an example, the markets don't yet have a way to put a correct price on the gas you get at the pump because it doesn't account for many of the costs associated that aren't counted (costs of having to clean up much of the pollution that are caused by producing and consuming gas).
Anyways I don't have the time or the energy to sit here and argue with someone who thinks he knows everything - I think I pretty much explained why I opened this thread in point 4.
Last edited:
Last time I checked, "during the recent elections" a black president got reelected under conditions that all other presidents before him had lost. Not bad for a racist country.
This systematic discrimination that you're speaking of hasn't existed for decades. If there is any 'systematic' treatment toward blacks in this country, it's in the form of quotas and affirmative action that are designed to push them ahead. When black candidates can get into the best schools and graduate programs with literally half the qualifications of White and Asian applicants, your rhetoric is extremely outdated.
There's no doubt that some of the self-defeating mentality has its roots in the bygone Jim Crow era. But it's also true that there's no concerted effort either on the part of black intelligentsia nor on the part of the bleeding heart liberals to address the problems other than to just keep pointing to the past.
Ok, let's blame not even most but ALL of it on past injustices. How does that solve the problem NOW? How does constantly pointing to past victimization and having liberals telling them the system is rigged help them overcome the sense of helplessness or make them realize that random violence is bad or that abandoning your children is wrong? If the people who are supposedly your supporters constantly tell you that you live under a system determined to keep you down, that all of your problems exist because of what others did to you, what's the point in even trying or feeling responsible for improvement? Nothing is ever your fault and the system is corrupt anyway so might as well just sit home and collect the government paycheck.
Whatever cause you want to attribute it to, the fact is that blacks do worse today in many respects like deadbeat fatherhood and violent crime than they did even at the height of segregation. What is keeping the poor minorities down in this country is not 'the system', 'republicans' or 'capitalism'. The problem is a culture that tells them being a baby-daddy is cooler than being a husband and a parent; that glorifies senseless violence; that tells their youth that going to school is for suckers and that they're even selling out their race if they do. Any community that is gripped with this cultural cancer will implode from within.
You want to help the poor? Start by acknowledging these problems and not just blaming white people. That's like telling a guy who won't get his smashed car fixed even when help is offered that he's doing the right thing because the accident wasn't his fault and it will probably get banged up again anyway.
This systematic discrimination that you're speaking of hasn't existed for decades. If there is any 'systematic' treatment toward blacks in this country, it's in the form of quotas and affirmative action that are designed to push them ahead. When black candidates can get into the best schools and graduate programs with literally half the qualifications of White and Asian applicants, your rhetoric is extremely outdated.
There's no doubt that some of the self-defeating mentality has its roots in the bygone Jim Crow era. But it's also true that there's no concerted effort either on the part of black intelligentsia nor on the part of the bleeding heart liberals to address the problems other than to just keep pointing to the past.
Ok, let's blame not even most but ALL of it on past injustices. How does that solve the problem NOW? How does constantly pointing to past victimization and having liberals telling them the system is rigged help them overcome the sense of helplessness or make them realize that random violence is bad or that abandoning your children is wrong? If the people who are supposedly your supporters constantly tell you that you live under a system determined to keep you down, that all of your problems exist because of what others did to you, what's the point in even trying or feeling responsible for improvement? Nothing is ever your fault and the system is corrupt anyway so might as well just sit home and collect the government paycheck.
Whatever cause you want to attribute it to, the fact is that blacks do worse today in many respects like deadbeat fatherhood and violent crime than they did even at the height of segregation. What is keeping the poor minorities down in this country is not 'the system', 'republicans' or 'capitalism'. The problem is a culture that tells them being a baby-daddy is cooler than being a husband and a parent; that glorifies senseless violence; that tells their youth that going to school is for suckers and that they're even selling out their race if they do. Any community that is gripped with this cultural cancer will implode from within.
You want to help the poor? Start by acknowledging these problems and not just blaming white people. That's like telling a guy who won't get his smashed car fixed even when help is offered that he's doing the right thing because the accident wasn't his fault and it will probably get banged up again anyway.
Last edited:
Of course you would think it's all bullshit
Of course a know-nothing halfwit would think perspective is useless and culture is irrelevant. Never mind that as usual you go on to argue against yourself:
So according to your typically moronic reasoning, the Indian or Vietnamese poor people don't commit as much violent crime and actually do stick around to raise their kids not because of their culture but because they have better "attitudes" That's your point, right badbakht? If you even have a point at all?....
Genius, what do you think shapes people's general attitudes? Is it not the norms and values they are surrounded with while growing up? Doesn't a large part of that come from their subculture? Even the type of households they grow up in are a function of that: That's why the Asian poor live in predominantly two-parent households while the American poor are the exact opposite.
People who grow up in cultures where being a father is admired and leaving your kids is looked down upon are less likely to walk out on their children. People who grow up in cultures where education is valued and encouraged tend to stick with school. People who grow up in cultures where violence is viewed as barbaric and not as a sign of 'manhood' are less likely to engage in senseless aggression. And cultures that instill the above values are more likely to produce educated productive adults who won't need to rely on welfare and other government programs.
Now if you can't get this on your own, you're stupid. If you can't get this even after it's been explained to you, you're practically retarded Get lost for now.
Of course a know-nothing halfwit would think perspective is useless and culture is irrelevant. Never mind that as usual you go on to argue against yourself:So according to your typically moronic reasoning, the Indian or Vietnamese poor people don't commit as much violent crime and actually do stick around to raise their kids not because of their culture but because they have better "attitudes"
That's your point, right badbakht? If you even have a point at all?....Genius, what do you think shapes people's general attitudes? Is it not the norms and values they are surrounded with while growing up? Doesn't a large part of that come from their subculture? Even the type of households they grow up in are a function of that: That's why the Asian poor live in predominantly two-parent households while the American poor are the exact opposite.
People who grow up in cultures where being a father is admired and leaving your kids is looked down upon are less likely to walk out on their children. People who grow up in cultures where education is valued and encouraged tend to stick with school. People who grow up in cultures where violence is viewed as barbaric and not as a sign of 'manhood' are less likely to engage in senseless aggression. And cultures that instill the above values are more likely to produce educated productive adults who won't need to rely on welfare and other government programs.
Now if you can't get this on your own, you're stupid. If you can't get this even after it's been explained to you, you're practically retarded
Get lost for now.
Last edited:
See, you are one of those evil people who keep the unemployment rate up..
aehm..ok..anyway, nice to see you emotionally railed up and losing it. I really appreciate it that an internet forum can make you lose it that easily and turn to your emotional Iranian self. However, nothing you said is of any value or makes any sense. Everything you have said is either urban legend or has been proven wrong scientifically and except for people far on the right, who don't believe in that kind of stuff, no one else actually believes in all of that. But let's go step by step...
your culture argument doesn't exist and is rubbish. Indians also abandon or cripple their kids in India(ever been to Mumbai? No? at least watch slumdog millionaire) and make them go begging. As far as Vietnamese and Asians in general is concerned, please, there are enough cases for Asian gang violence, them involved in drugs and what not that you could just do a simple google search to get informed. It gets back to the point of people who generalize being idiots, and you seem to like to generalize a lot. You are a product of your environment, upbringing, society you live in, education you get and what 100 other factors that have nothing to do with your race or what your parents or greatparents did. You can take a black kid growing up with only one parent, put him to a half decent school in his neighborhood, teach him chess instead of hustling, and it's pretty damn sure a bet that he will succeed in life. In fact, they are already.
The one Indian that makes a trip around the world to raise his kid in America can not be compared to the Indian who goes begging in the streets of Bombay and has his kid crippled, just as the black family father who drives 1.5 hours to work and has 2 jobs to feed his family can not be compared to the street corner hustler with 4 kids from 3 women. However, they both usually grow up in the same neighborhood. What in Fucks name attitude has to do with culture, is really something exclusive to you and some other wingnuts, but I guess it really hit you hard.
And the British poor usually don't live in two-parent households either, neither the German poor, nor the Dutch poor, nor most poor people around the world. That's because in the western society it's considered a rather normal thing. It's however a different task for an Asian immigrant woman in a foreign country to get a divorce, no matter how abusive her husband is. Just as, as an example, black families who are Jehova's witnesses usually live together and don't get divorced. So again, whatever point you try to prove with two-parent households, aehm..good for you. It's pretty much rubbish.
But to get back to your rants and "arguments", they would make some sense if, and only if, blacks in the US were the people on earth, who were deadbeat fathers, would abandon their kids and what not. But that's not the case. It's a global phenomena among all different cultures around the (western) world. The significant difference between blacks in the US and their peers in Europe however is related to access to guns and drugs. However, there are ways to break that cycle, one of them being education at school level, which is proven to work very well. The second would be tighter control on guns. Third would be better means of transport in inner cities as transport is key for having a job. Fourth would be jail sentences that make actually sense, and not putting 16 year old kids to jail for years for first drug offenses. Here we go back to a key factor in deadbeat fathers, drugs and violence and what not. You see, when the sentencing disparity between crack, the drug of choice in poor neighborhoods in the 80ies, and cocaine, the drug of choice in rich neighborhoods in the 80ies, was and still is 100 to 1(though Obama changed it to 10 to 1 if I'm not wrong), you have a whole generation of young adults getting in and out of jail and getting involved in the jail system. Now obviously, drug dealing should not be considered a good activity and you may blame them for dealing drugs in the first place, but for whatever reason, in some parts of the United States it's still a business and you get easily into it, sometimes for not knowing better. So there's a good chance a different way of drug enforcement would be helpful and again, there's evidence that there is and scientific research actually points to that too (I suggest that you google Levitt or just google war on drugs, crack epidemic, african americans effects or something along the lines of).
Further, to get to your point about liberals and what not being at fault for not telling the truth...ok, will you accept the truth that the drug laws and the bullshit war on drugs in the 80ies is responsible for the problems too? will you accept that underfunding public schools, specially in inner city areas, is responsible for the problems too? will you accept that Iran-Contra and the flodding of the United States with cocaine from Nicaragua, going in hand in hand with lax border control due to no funds for border patrol in the 80ies, are responsible for the problems? If you are willing to accept that, and put the blame on the people responsible for the problems, mainly white conservatives, we can talk about the responsibility of blacks and liberals. Those laws and policies however did more of their share than anything else and the correction put in place by Clinton and also policies by Bloomberg in New York have proven to be successful to a degree.
Great.....so aehm, let's get back to the UK. Pakistanis from middle class families usually tend to do ok, working class Pakistani's however terrible. Young Bangladeshis however outperform Pakistanis by far, especially among girls, while Bangladeshis in general have the highest rate of unemployment in the UK. All come from two-parent households and all come from a culture that glorifies manhood and violence. Why are there differences in achievements? Is it the culture or the society they grow up in? Nevermind that, how do you explain the Hooligan violence in the 80ies?
Same thing applies for blacks, whites, asians, turks in Germany, indians and what not...once you understand that culture is more defined by where and how you grow up, the institutions surrounding you, who the people you look up to are, what kind of education you get and what not, and not your race or whatever culture of your ancestors, you have made a huge step to becoming an actual human being. Until then, you are the guy on ISP subscribed to Adam Carolla on iTunes.
You mean your bullshit argument above based on no evidence, scientific research and what not, but based on what your rectum tells you? Yeah aehm, I try to keep the perspective.
Of course you would think it's all bullshit Of course a know-nothing halfwit would think perspective is useless and culture is irrelevant. Never mind that as usual you go on to argue against yourself:
Of course a know-nothing halfwit would think perspective is useless and culture is irrelevant. Never mind that as usual you go on to argue against yourself:
So according to your typically moronic reasoning, the Indian or Vietnamese poor people don't commit as much violent crime and actually do stick around to raise their kids not because of their culture but because they have better "attitudes" That's your point, right badbakht? If you even have a point at all?....
That's your point, right badbakht? If you even have a point at all?....
your culture argument doesn't exist and is rubbish. Indians also abandon or cripple their kids in India(ever been to Mumbai? No? at least watch slumdog millionaire) and make them go begging. As far as Vietnamese and Asians in general is concerned, please, there are enough cases for Asian gang violence, them involved in drugs and what not that you could just do a simple google search to get informed. It gets back to the point of people who generalize being idiots, and you seem to like to generalize a lot. You are a product of your environment, upbringing, society you live in, education you get and what 100 other factors that have nothing to do with your race or what your parents or greatparents did. You can take a black kid growing up with only one parent, put him to a half decent school in his neighborhood, teach him chess instead of hustling, and it's pretty damn sure a bet that he will succeed in life. In fact, they are already.
The one Indian that makes a trip around the world to raise his kid in America can not be compared to the Indian who goes begging in the streets of Bombay and has his kid crippled, just as the black family father who drives 1.5 hours to work and has 2 jobs to feed his family can not be compared to the street corner hustler with 4 kids from 3 women. However, they both usually grow up in the same neighborhood. What in Fucks name attitude has to do with culture, is really something exclusive to you and some other wingnuts, but I guess it really hit you hard.
And the British poor usually don't live in two-parent households either, neither the German poor, nor the Dutch poor, nor most poor people around the world. That's because in the western society it's considered a rather normal thing. It's however a different task for an Asian immigrant woman in a foreign country to get a divorce, no matter how abusive her husband is. Just as, as an example, black families who are Jehova's witnesses usually live together and don't get divorced. So again, whatever point you try to prove with two-parent households, aehm..good for you. It's pretty much rubbish.
But to get back to your rants and "arguments", they would make some sense if, and only if, blacks in the US were the people on earth, who were deadbeat fathers, would abandon their kids and what not. But that's not the case. It's a global phenomena among all different cultures around the (western) world. The significant difference between blacks in the US and their peers in Europe however is related to access to guns and drugs. However, there are ways to break that cycle, one of them being education at school level, which is proven to work very well. The second would be tighter control on guns. Third would be better means of transport in inner cities as transport is key for having a job. Fourth would be jail sentences that make actually sense, and not putting 16 year old kids to jail for years for first drug offenses. Here we go back to a key factor in deadbeat fathers, drugs and violence and what not. You see, when the sentencing disparity between crack, the drug of choice in poor neighborhoods in the 80ies, and cocaine, the drug of choice in rich neighborhoods in the 80ies, was and still is 100 to 1(though Obama changed it to 10 to 1 if I'm not wrong), you have a whole generation of young adults getting in and out of jail and getting involved in the jail system. Now obviously, drug dealing should not be considered a good activity and you may blame them for dealing drugs in the first place, but for whatever reason, in some parts of the United States it's still a business and you get easily into it, sometimes for not knowing better. So there's a good chance a different way of drug enforcement would be helpful and again, there's evidence that there is and scientific research actually points to that too (I suggest that you google Levitt or just google war on drugs, crack epidemic, african americans effects or something along the lines of).
Further, to get to your point about liberals and what not being at fault for not telling the truth...ok, will you accept the truth that the drug laws and the bullshit war on drugs in the 80ies is responsible for the problems too? will you accept that underfunding public schools, specially in inner city areas, is responsible for the problems too? will you accept that Iran-Contra and the flodding of the United States with cocaine from Nicaragua, going in hand in hand with lax border control due to no funds for border patrol in the 80ies, are responsible for the problems? If you are willing to accept that, and put the blame on the people responsible for the problems, mainly white conservatives, we can talk about the responsibility of blacks and liberals. Those laws and policies however did more of their share than anything else and the correction put in place by Clinton and also policies by Bloomberg in New York have proven to be successful to a degree.
Great.....so aehm, let's get back to the UK. Pakistanis from middle class families usually tend to do ok, working class Pakistani's however terrible. Young Bangladeshis however outperform Pakistanis by far, especially among girls, while Bangladeshis in general have the highest rate of unemployment in the UK. All come from two-parent households and all come from a culture that glorifies manhood and violence. Why are there differences in achievements? Is it the culture or the society they grow up in? Nevermind that, how do you explain the Hooligan violence in the 80ies?
Same thing applies for blacks, whites, asians, turks in Germany, indians and what not...once you understand that culture is more defined by where and how you grow up, the institutions surrounding you, who the people you look up to are, what kind of education you get and what not, and not your race or whatever culture of your ancestors, you have made a huge step to becoming an actual human being. Until then, you are the guy on ISP subscribed to Adam Carolla on iTunes.
Now if you can't get this on your own, you're stupid. If you can't get this even after it's been explained to you, you're practically retarded Get lost for now.
Get lost for now.
Last edited:
The American people can abolish/rewrite the constitution and become an Islamic Republic; what is your point? I am referring to the fact that the general reason why America was created, and was successful, was that it catered to the tastes of all and didn't discriminate/trample on the rights of others. This is why all those programs are contentious to this day. The real question to ask is; why are you for a system where you are forcing others to abide by your conception of what is good; wherein there is an opposing system which allows both of you to do what you like?
The debate isn't about what the American people desire - I don't care that they desire it; I am saying they're misguided for desiring it and forgetting why the country they live in got so powerful and wealthy to begin with.
Because any country that cares about the economics or wealth of its inhabitants is obliged to look at their social/political institutions. And, they all do, regardless of whether they are democratic or republican. The viability of bureaucracies are always under question because the American people can't live in debt and the country can't be in deficit perpetually. That's governance 101.
As I said; I am not for anarchy which means no government. A libertarian conception; or the kind of conception which America has generally been held to for most its history sees a place for defence. There is an inherent problem to privatise defence. There is a huge opportunity for abuse; that's why defence is one of the very basic, but few, legitimate reasons for government power. To paraphrase Mark Twain; at least recognise the values of your opponents correctly, then go on to distort them.
Wrong comparison. The real comparison should be: would a democratic Congo be more desirable or a communist Congo? Would a democratic America be more desirable or a communist America?
People go to countries for many things. But government can only provide a certain set of things well and this has been exemplified by historical record. Its role is not to take care of you from cradle to grave. As is often said: you have the right to pursue happiness; but you do not have the right to be guaranteed it.
Morality encompasses a much broader meaning than cultural or religious values. Your morals here deem it right to take from some, by force, to give to others, through some arbitrary lens of fairness or desirability.
Your study on economics is wrong. Anybody can consome. Slaves can consome. Everybody does consume. If consumption was the problem; the government could have just given everybody a hand-out to consume. The real concern is creating an economy which can create wealth - and consequently jobs. What is necessary for an economy is people who know how to provide for the consumption of others and increase the general wealth.
History shows you: big governments always fail; fiat currencies end up in the shit; and subsidisation leads to more problems than it solves. Unhappy citizens are unavoidable; the issue is how should they be placated. The fork in the road is that you think it is the government's role to fix things - of which I am saying history shows they have an incredibly shit record in doing so and that instead of appealing to government, they should instead promote the conditions where it is conducive to free movement and there are few barriers for people to become entrepreneurs.
If I come across snooty I apologise. But don't mistake that for not knowing or understanding what I'm writing. Law, governance and economics are main areas of study for mine. If you have a problem with a concept I'll be free to explain it. But if you are going to point fingers - as you did in opening this thread - then I expect you to at least know what the opposition is saying.
Economics will always come into governance because everything has a cost. The world is not a utopia. There is a limit on things. The whole study of economics is to then have a system which allocates resources best and not wastefully. We are not talking about things like the freedom of speech; but things like subsidising health care - these, like any other tangible thing, has a cost. If you do not understand this then you don't understand the issue. Everyone, if it was possible, would love everything to be provided for everyone...that's not in dispute. But it can't, and hence the debate.
As for your example on costs: there is no such thing as an "accurate cost" in reality. I don't think markets are perfect; but I would much rather a market determine cost than a government. For in that market, every player is working to their own benefits and have to come to their own compromises and they have to regard all their contextual factors. Even if a government wanted to; they do not have the necessary brain power to determine the right way a transaction should be conducted. Water in a desert is far more valuable than water in a rainforest - to be bleedingly, glaringly, obvious - and all buyers and sellers know their interests better than anybody else.
The debate isn't about what the American people desire - I don't care that they desire it; I am saying they're misguided for desiring it and forgetting why the country they live in got so powerful and wealthy to begin with.
Because any country that cares about the economics or wealth of its inhabitants is obliged to look at their social/political institutions. And, they all do, regardless of whether they are democratic or republican. The viability of bureaucracies are always under question because the American people can't live in debt and the country can't be in deficit perpetually. That's governance 101.
As I said; I am not for anarchy which means no government. A libertarian conception; or the kind of conception which America has generally been held to for most its history sees a place for defence. There is an inherent problem to privatise defence. There is a huge opportunity for abuse; that's why defence is one of the very basic, but few, legitimate reasons for government power. To paraphrase Mark Twain; at least recognise the values of your opponents correctly, then go on to distort them.
Wrong comparison. The real comparison should be: would a democratic Congo be more desirable or a communist Congo? Would a democratic America be more desirable or a communist America?
People go to countries for many things. But government can only provide a certain set of things well and this has been exemplified by historical record. Its role is not to take care of you from cradle to grave. As is often said: you have the right to pursue happiness; but you do not have the right to be guaranteed it.
Morality encompasses a much broader meaning than cultural or religious values. Your morals here deem it right to take from some, by force, to give to others, through some arbitrary lens of fairness or desirability.
Your study on economics is wrong. Anybody can consome. Slaves can consome. Everybody does consume. If consumption was the problem; the government could have just given everybody a hand-out to consume. The real concern is creating an economy which can create wealth - and consequently jobs. What is necessary for an economy is people who know how to provide for the consumption of others and increase the general wealth.
History shows you: big governments always fail; fiat currencies end up in the shit; and subsidisation leads to more problems than it solves. Unhappy citizens are unavoidable; the issue is how should they be placated. The fork in the road is that you think it is the government's role to fix things - of which I am saying history shows they have an incredibly shit record in doing so and that instead of appealing to government, they should instead promote the conditions where it is conducive to free movement and there are few barriers for people to become entrepreneurs.
If I come across snooty I apologise. But don't mistake that for not knowing or understanding what I'm writing. Law, governance and economics are main areas of study for mine. If you have a problem with a concept I'll be free to explain it. But if you are going to point fingers - as you did in opening this thread - then I expect you to at least know what the opposition is saying.
Economics will always come into governance because everything has a cost. The world is not a utopia. There is a limit on things. The whole study of economics is to then have a system which allocates resources best and not wastefully. We are not talking about things like the freedom of speech; but things like subsidising health care - these, like any other tangible thing, has a cost. If you do not understand this then you don't understand the issue. Everyone, if it was possible, would love everything to be provided for everyone...that's not in dispute. But it can't, and hence the debate.
As for your example on costs: there is no such thing as an "accurate cost" in reality. I don't think markets are perfect; but I would much rather a market determine cost than a government. For in that market, every player is working to their own benefits and have to come to their own compromises and they have to regard all their contextual factors. Even if a government wanted to; they do not have the necessary brain power to determine the right way a transaction should be conducted. Water in a desert is far more valuable than water in a rainforest - to be bleedingly, glaringly, obvious - and all buyers and sellers know their interests better than anybody else.
Last edited:
What an amazingly ignorant statement! This country is governed by its Constitution, not by one election cycle. I clearly sense the desire on your part to remake this country if you could. You give the left the opportunity to rewrite the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and see if it has any resemblance to what we have today. They'll put that 99 weeks right in the Bill! This is exactly what Obama said before he was elected when he complained about the "negative liberties" written into the Bill of Rights. He lamented the fact the it is all about what the government CANNOT do!
Once again, stop trying to parrot my words back to me, especially on 'acting emotional' where you don’t have a leg to stand on. No one who’s read your posts from the time you were an “Islamist” up to now that you’re a hypersecular “progressive” would buy this type of crap coming from you.
Calling you stupid doesn’t mean I’m not calm. It simply means I’m no longer pretending to respect an idiot. Now by all means, let's go step by step:
Is it, joojoo? Is it really? Let's just see for ourselves here...
Did you just tell me to watch Slumdog Millionaire? Yes. Yes you did. I'll still humor you on this one. Do a search on the rate of fathers walking out on their families among the Indian poor and contrast it with the corresponding rate in America. And since you're a fan of that movie, contrast the conditions of the poor depicted in that film with that of the poor in America, then tell me who is worse off, who has less access to education and opportunities, and who has more reasons to turn to crime.
(And in case you didn't get it... wait, who am I kidding? Of course you didn't get it: The point in my original post was not that deadbeat fathers and violent crime don't exist in countries like India or Vietnam, it is that the rate of such problems and the cultural attitudes toward them are drastically different.)
Physician, heal thyself....and while you're doing that, take another look at the part in parenthesis above.
No, actually it gets back to the point of a halfwit who insists on jumping koon-berehne into every discussion when he can't even read or comprehend simple sentences. Case in point? look below:
In other words, change the values and mentality they grow up with. Other than the single-parent part which you're obsessed with defending, this is the fucking point I was making.
Khengollah, if it all came down to individual attitudes then the problems would be random and spread evenly through the communities. Why do lower class white males have a much higher rate of child-abandonment than college educated whites or other poor people in third world countries? They just happen to have 'different attitudes' in much higher numbers? Is it anything other than the fact that 'white trash' subculture has a different outlook toward parenthood than some other subcultures including that of the educated whites?
Second of all, exceptions exist to every truth, but they never nullify the truth. Cultures are a prime example of this. The Southern states in America had a very racist culture for ages. But during those times, even at the height of slavery or segregation, there were many whites who grew up in that same culture who did not share the same views and fought against racial inequality. Does that mean the culture itself was not racist? Do those exceptions disprove what we know to be a blatant truth?
No, genius. Not only are you stuck on this whole "two-parent" thing and ignoring the other issues I mentioned, but also as usual you're arguing against yourself.
On a side note, child abandonment is not just about divorce, it's about knocking women up and moving on, a practice heavily frowned upon in Asian countries but perfectly accepted among the American poor. Also, the effects of missing fathers on the psychological development of children and their future odds of success in various stages of life are too well-documented for me to waste time even arguing about it. This is something anyone can google and search for themselves. You just want to defend this garbage at all costs because you see that team you root for defending this stuff and you think as a good fanboy you have to do so as well. Otherwise evidence is against you.
Yes, I do. The war on drugs has been a failure and caused more problems than it solved.
No, I do not. Kids who grow up in a subculture that tells them 'education is for chumps' are not going to want to pick up books or apply to college just because their schools are now 'better funded'. Obama himself criticized this anti-intellectual mentality and was lambasted by Shaprton and Jesse Jackson because of it. The average school in the third world, in countries with much lower crime rates than America, are like toilets compared to the worst schools in the ghettos, and they are too far and few for the kids to get to them even if they wanted to.
The rest of the stuff about 'Iran-Contra' is so far down the list compared to the real issues it's not even worth addressing. You're just grasping at straws trying to shift as much of the blame to conservatives as you can and get the libs off the hook.
My god you're fucking thick Go back and read my post, then come back and read what you wrote here. Better yet, get someone who can read English to help you along... Raise your hand if you're done....now use your other hand to smack yourself in the head.
The only way that paragraph would make an ounce of goddamn sense is if I had argued that the poor in America belong to races that have the same culture regardless of country. The only reason Asian immigrants have similar traditions to their former countrymen is because they're recent arrivals; otherwise I don't expect a black American to have the same culture as a Cameroonian no more than a White American would have the same mentality as a Russian. Even a newborn goat would have understood that nowhere in my post was something other than that implied. But of course your silly ass would make that interpretation and write a 2 page essay based on it! Don't you ever feel embarrassed by your stupidity?
Whether it’s against me or someone else, this is a vintage, typical post you write when you’re trying to impersonate a thinking adult: It’s a whole paragraph that repeats much of what the other person already said and then argues against a different, even opposite point than the one he was making! Reasoning is the least of your problems, you can’t even understand written words. boro bache beza baad biad.
Calling you stupid doesn’t mean I’m not calm. It simply means I’m no longer pretending to respect an idiot. Now by all means, let's go step by step:
Is it, joojoo? Is it really?
Let's just see for ourselves here...Did you just tell me to watch Slumdog Millionaire? Yes. Yes you did. I'll still humor you on this one. Do a search on the rate of fathers walking out on their families among the Indian poor and contrast it with the corresponding rate in America. And since you're a fan of that movie, contrast the conditions of the poor depicted in that film with that of the poor in America, then tell me who is worse off, who has less access to education and opportunities, and who has more reasons to turn to crime.
(And in case you didn't get it... wait, who am I kidding? Of course you didn't get it: The point in my original post was not that deadbeat fathers and violent crime don't exist in countries like India or Vietnam, it is that the rate of such problems and the cultural attitudes toward them are drastically different.)
Physician, heal thyself....and while you're doing that, take another look at the part in parenthesis above.
No, actually it gets back to the point of a halfwit who insists on jumping koon-berehne into every discussion when he can't even read or comprehend simple sentences. Case in point? look below:
In other words, change the values and mentality they grow up with. Other than the single-parent part which you're obsessed with defending, this is the fucking point I was making.
Khengollah, if it all came down to individual attitudes then the problems would be random and spread evenly through the communities. Why do lower class white males have a much higher rate of child-abandonment than college educated whites or other poor people in third world countries? They just happen to have 'different attitudes' in much higher numbers? Is it anything other than the fact that 'white trash' subculture has a different outlook toward parenthood than some other subcultures including that of the educated whites?
Second of all, exceptions exist to every truth, but they never nullify the truth. Cultures are a prime example of this. The Southern states in America had a very racist culture for ages. But during those times, even at the height of slavery or segregation, there were many whites who grew up in that same culture who did not share the same views and fought against racial inequality. Does that mean the culture itself was not racist? Do those exceptions disprove what we know to be a blatant truth?
No, genius. Not only are you stuck on this whole "two-parent" thing and ignoring the other issues I mentioned, but also as usual you're arguing against yourself.
On a side note, child abandonment is not just about divorce, it's about knocking women up and moving on, a practice heavily frowned upon in Asian countries but perfectly accepted among the American poor. Also, the effects of missing fathers on the psychological development of children and their future odds of success in various stages of life are too well-documented for me to waste time even arguing about it. This is something anyone can google and search for themselves. You just want to defend this garbage at all costs because you see that team you root for defending this stuff and you think as a good fanboy you have to do so as well. Otherwise evidence is against you.
Yes, I do. The war on drugs has been a failure and caused more problems than it solved.
No, I do not. Kids who grow up in a subculture that tells them 'education is for chumps' are not going to want to pick up books or apply to college just because their schools are now 'better funded'. Obama himself criticized this anti-intellectual mentality and was lambasted by Shaprton and Jesse Jackson because of it. The average school in the third world, in countries with much lower crime rates than America, are like toilets compared to the worst schools in the ghettos, and they are too far and few for the kids to get to them even if they wanted to.
The rest of the stuff about 'Iran-Contra' is so far down the list compared to the real issues it's not even worth addressing. You're just grasping at straws trying to shift as much of the blame to conservatives as you can and get the libs off the hook.
My god you're fucking thick
Go back and read my post, then come back and read what you wrote here. Better yet, get someone who can read English to help you along... Raise your hand if you're done....now use your other hand to smack yourself in the head.The only way that paragraph would make an ounce of goddamn sense is if I had argued that the poor in America belong to races that have the same culture regardless of country. The only reason Asian immigrants have similar traditions to their former countrymen is because they're recent arrivals; otherwise I don't expect a black American to have the same culture as a Cameroonian no more than a White American would have the same mentality as a Russian. Even a newborn goat would have understood that nowhere in my post was something other than that implied. But of course your silly ass would make that interpretation and write a 2 page essay based on it! Don't you ever feel embarrassed by your stupidity?
Whether it’s against me or someone else, this is a vintage, typical post you write when you’re trying to impersonate a thinking adult: It’s a whole paragraph that repeats much of what the other person already said and then argues against a different, even opposite point than the one he was making! Reasoning is the least of your problems, you can’t even understand written words. boro bache beza baad biad.
WOW...speaking of having no life and all, you have memorized old posts of mine too? Should I say I'm flattered? I bookmarked one because I knew it was stupid, but you come up with posts of mine from way back? Should I pity you or feel honored? LOL!
OMG YOU'RE SO TOUGH
Well, what do you want me to do? I recommend you to read scholarly articles and you don't. hence maybe Slumdog Millionaire is more your thing. Further, let's just say that there seem to be more streetkids in Mumbai, Hyderabad and Delhi than in corresponding US cities. So aehm, whatever you want.
Great...now we might get to the point where you actually have once in your lifetime a suggestion based on something based in real life that might even work..or maybe not.
See, then you should maybe be precise about your point and definition of subculture and be a bit more precise about it. So far, for you, the one mother, many fathers philosophy was a black phenomenon, at least based on your previous arguments from say 3 months back.
You are applying very loosely the definition of culture. Maybe you should try to read a bit first what and how "culture" is defined and what it's based on. What you describe for the south was not based on "culture" but rather on education, enlightment, stuff like that. It was not in the culture of the south to hate blacks. Just as it's not in the culture of blacks to leave kids in wedlock. You might be better off by using the right terms and explaining yourself a bit more straightforward.
Well, you keep bringing up and mentioning the two-parent thing all the time. If it's irrelevant, don't mention it.
This is not an argument to argue against because it's a fact. I really don't know how and when anyone brought that into the discussion, but if it makes you happy, then you can argue with yourself about the importance fathers have in the development of children, same was aggressive, alcoholic and what not fathers are terrible for a child's development. But why you drag this into the discussion and make it an argument is beyond me.
what evidence?
great...see...one can talk sense with you
Well, you're not up-to-date, I'm sorry about that. There are school projects in new york, where kids get incentives for good grades, something like top ups on their mobile, itunes vouchers and stuff like that, and oh surprise, these kids, with the right incentives, tend to do well at school. You should google Roland G Fryer or just visit this website.
http://www.edlabs.harvard.edu/
You need to make kids understand why they are actually learning. That one project is just the start. Teachers who actually care and like to teach is the second step. If you don't believe it, then don't. Not that I care.
I'm not grasping at straws. The fact that drugs flooded the United States more than ever in the 80ies and the crack epidemic hit it at the same time, is pretty much described in most books, documentaries and what not. The fact about a lack of border control can be read in "Sleepwalking through history". Just in case..
I'm sorry...English is just my 3rd language. Do you even speak 3 languages? I guess not.
but you were bringing up Asian immigrants as an example to blacks and how blacks are mainly at fault themselves. Just as an examople..
well, obviously, you didn't get the point. a white working class man in the UK has more in common with a white southern redneck in the US, than with a Lord from Lancashire or whatever, same as a hipster from Brooklyn has more in common with one from Shoreditch, which was the point all along.
Likewise...my pleasure as always. Next time we will just run up and say how much we have missed your words of wisdom and be happy about your comeback. Have a good day good sir.
OMG YOU'RE SO TOUGH
Well, what do you want me to do? I recommend you to read scholarly articles and you don't. hence maybe Slumdog Millionaire is more your thing. Further, let's just say that there seem to be more streetkids in Mumbai, Hyderabad and Delhi than in corresponding US cities. So aehm, whatever you want.
Great...now we might get to the point where you actually have once in your lifetime a suggestion based on something based in real life that might even work..or maybe not.
See, then you should maybe be precise about your point and definition of subculture and be a bit more precise about it. So far, for you, the one mother, many fathers philosophy was a black phenomenon, at least based on your previous arguments from say 3 months back.
You are applying very loosely the definition of culture. Maybe you should try to read a bit first what and how "culture" is defined and what it's based on. What you describe for the south was not based on "culture" but rather on education, enlightment, stuff like that. It was not in the culture of the south to hate blacks. Just as it's not in the culture of blacks to leave kids in wedlock. You might be better off by using the right terms and explaining yourself a bit more straightforward.
Well, you keep bringing up and mentioning the two-parent thing all the time. If it's irrelevant, don't mention it.
This is not an argument to argue against because it's a fact. I really don't know how and when anyone brought that into the discussion, but if it makes you happy, then you can argue with yourself about the importance fathers have in the development of children, same was aggressive, alcoholic and what not fathers are terrible for a child's development. But why you drag this into the discussion and make it an argument is beyond me.
what evidence?
great...see...one can talk sense with you
Well, you're not up-to-date, I'm sorry about that. There are school projects in new york, where kids get incentives for good grades, something like top ups on their mobile, itunes vouchers and stuff like that, and oh surprise, these kids, with the right incentives, tend to do well at school. You should google Roland G Fryer or just visit this website.
http://www.edlabs.harvard.edu/
You need to make kids understand why they are actually learning. That one project is just the start. Teachers who actually care and like to teach is the second step. If you don't believe it, then don't. Not that I care.
I'm not grasping at straws. The fact that drugs flooded the United States more than ever in the 80ies and the crack epidemic hit it at the same time, is pretty much described in most books, documentaries and what not. The fact about a lack of border control can be read in "Sleepwalking through history". Just in case..
My god you're fucking thick Go back and read my post, then come back and read what you wrote here. Better yet, get someone who can read English to help you along... Raise your hand if you're done....now use your other hand to smack yourself in the head.
Go back and read my post, then come back and read what you wrote here. Better yet, get someone who can read English to help you along... Raise your hand if you're done....now use your other hand to smack yourself in the head.
but you were bringing up Asian immigrants as an example to blacks and how blacks are mainly at fault themselves. Just as an examople..
well, obviously, you didn't get the point. a white working class man in the UK has more in common with a white southern redneck in the US, than with a Lord from Lancashire or whatever, same as a hipster from Brooklyn has more in common with one from Shoreditch, which was the point all along.
Likewise...my pleasure as always. Next time we will just run up and say how much we have missed your words of wisdom and be happy about your comeback. Have a good day good sir.
Great arguments on both sides guys, although I don't understand why you're going at it like that in the relaxation forum!
At the end of the day, I think that everyone here agrees that US & Canada provide great opportunities for those who are willing to look for them and take advantage of. Unfortunately, they both also provide opportunities to people who are looking for ways to drain or rip off the system. The system in either country is not perfect, but it is GREAT and both countries are still among the top 10 nations in the world in that regard. That's not to say that we shouldn't be working on improving the system.
Both systems are unfortunately suffering (the US a lot more) from a shrinking middle class and on this aspect, I do agree with IPride completely, that over time this is a very dangerous trend that will undoubtedly affect all our lives as citizens living in these countries. In the extreme case, history has shown that it leads to the breakdown of the social fabric and revolutions. We are obviously nowhere near that tipping point now - not in Canada or the US - but looking at history and what's happening in Europe, it's not a path we should continue on or the type of eventuality we could simply dismiss as never happening here. Both systems are also suffering from inefficient governance (which granted is still better than most countries).
But what concerns me the most, is the empowerment of larger corporations in the last decade or so. They have gained so much power that they are directly affecting the political process (through lobbying), gaining an unfair advantage on small businesses thru taxation loop holes that are difficult or impossible to incorporate for small businesses and gaining an upper hand in the justice system over consumers and citizens by having near unlimited funds to defend their actions. The main reason the middle class is shrinking IMHO is not the lack of jobs or opportunities, rather the lack of equality in the taxation system that provides loopholes to corporations and the ultra-rich to pay much lower tax (as a percentage of their income) than the majority of the middle class, even though they are theoretically in much higher tax brackets.
At the end of the day, I think that everyone here agrees that US & Canada provide great opportunities for those who are willing to look for them and take advantage of. Unfortunately, they both also provide opportunities to people who are looking for ways to drain or rip off the system. The system in either country is not perfect, but it is GREAT and both countries are still among the top 10 nations in the world in that regard. That's not to say that we shouldn't be working on improving the system.
Both systems are unfortunately suffering (the US a lot more) from a shrinking middle class and on this aspect, I do agree with IPride completely, that over time this is a very dangerous trend that will undoubtedly affect all our lives as citizens living in these countries. In the extreme case, history has shown that it leads to the breakdown of the social fabric and revolutions. We are obviously nowhere near that tipping point now - not in Canada or the US - but looking at history and what's happening in Europe, it's not a path we should continue on or the type of eventuality we could simply dismiss as never happening here. Both systems are also suffering from inefficient governance (which granted is still better than most countries).
But what concerns me the most, is the empowerment of larger corporations in the last decade or so. They have gained so much power that they are directly affecting the political process (through lobbying), gaining an unfair advantage on small businesses thru taxation loop holes that are difficult or impossible to incorporate for small businesses and gaining an upper hand in the justice system over consumers and citizens by having near unlimited funds to defend their actions. The main reason the middle class is shrinking IMHO is not the lack of jobs or opportunities, rather the lack of equality in the taxation system that provides loopholes to corporations and the ultra-rich to pay much lower tax (as a percentage of their income) than the majority of the middle class, even though they are theoretically in much higher tax brackets.
Craigslist has changed a lot. I too have sold a lot but you get a lot of creepy characters. 5 minutes after I posted something, I get an email asking me where I live so he could come and pick it up right then and there. It was 11pm. Or somebody says I pay you $50 more if you can deliver it tonight, 150 miles away. I don't even respond to 3/4 of the emails.