did anyone watch the yank elections?
#21
Quote:He already had 4 years to sort out jobs and it got worse, not better. Also has little to no bearing on SS. Unemployment payments, yes - which are also taken by force, only paid out of approved, and only worth 35% of what the worker was forced to put in over a 5 year period, not cumulative for the entire time they were in the workforce. How fair is it to have the gov't forcibly take a persons wages (for SS, for income taxes, for medicare, for unemployment 'insurance') and then do as much as possible not to pay it back to that person?
He could have introduced a real works project to spend the stimulus on (like the interstate highway system did in 1956 and might have had some real job creation success.
now it's moving from obamacare to who should be in power. the argument then goes to who fault the problem was and who could sort it out better than the democrats, which is an argument no one can win depending on ones politics.

while i agree with todd, what is suggested is impractical if the usa as a country wants to survive in the economic market place.
Quote:and emptying prisons of non-violent criminals
this means burglars, all kinds of thieves, fraudsters, car thieves, and pyramid schemers to name but a few tens of million. you think you have economic problems now, don't put these people in prison and within five years you have anarchy and a bankrupt country on your hands.

weed has been made legal in some states, as has same sex marriage. if more states make weed legal less people will be in prison. in todds world no home would be safe, no article, unless protected at the cost of another's life. most everything else i too agree with. healthcare for all being of paramount importance.
Reply
#22
What part is impractical for you Billy?

As far as your thieves and burglars I'm not saying no consequence just why should I pay to incarcerate them. Ankle Bracelet and probation based community work.
The secret of poetry is cruelty.--Jon Anderson
Reply
#23
most burglars thieves etc go through the gamut of easy sentencing before getting their first prison terms. most shoplifters have been caught and released as much as twenty or more time, i know this from experience. if you think occupational thieves should walk the streets then that's okay, i think after a few chances stronger measures be used. ankle bracelets, community based work and curfews do not work. lets look at drug related crimes. most people are not in prison because they use drugs, they're locked up because they commit crimes to pay for habits they can afford. while i think weed should be legalised, i'm not of the same mind as far as heroine or dirty drugs go.

I have no desire to dictate the private lives of citizens. are you saying no to all laws? or do you just mean in the bedroom? do you mean people can drive at 60 mph past school yard gates? or drink twenty bottles of beer or two bottles of scotch? do you means police traffic, have courts for personal disputes. why have a gov at all.

Quote:I also want a societal safety net and have no desire to step over starving children in the street. Whether that should be handled by government or private charity
how can you have a social safety net, even one built on charity, without dictating the private lives of citizens. to start with no one would give to any charity as so many would be seen to be ripping people off, (no prison for those kind of people remember) you have no gov as such, not only will you stepping over starving kids, you'd be waist high in starving kids, and adults you'll probably have no job, airlines would be a thing of the past, no transport system, no or an almost zero medical capability. it's impractical almost everywhere for me todd. to start with, you lose any state controlled armed force; police, army, navy etc. no national guard. (no one works for nothing.) the rest of the world might give you some aid but it would never be enough. what doesn't work for me is utopia todd. what works for you. anklets for repeat offenders, anarchy? how will you keep the violent criminals locked up in such a society?
Quote: I mostly want people working, a vibrant economy, and safe borders and property rights
property rights? they gone all of them including intellectual ones. stolen by people wearing anklets. you're poetry claimed by a dozen of so envious people. artists having to work and write for nothing because theres no punishment strong enough to make it that serious. your house, it now belongs to me, i lock you out of it and change the locks, i remove from you all that you own, including your kids. let's face it, they have nowhere to live.

i too want the vibrant econ, i too crave safe borders and property right. i too would give a year of my life if it meant a continuing strong jobs market. but none of that is possible without what you already have to work with. it doesn't work at present, i see that. make it work. throw away all the keys that are there to unlock what you want and anklet bracelets will be the last thing you think of as someone strips you of everything you own and you're one of those waves in a sea of of impoverishments lapping at someone elses ankles.

(11-11-2012, 08:16 AM)Todd Wrote:  What part is impractical for you Billy?

As far as your thieves and burglars I'm not saying no consequence just why should I pay to incarcerate them. Ankle Bracelet and probation based community work.
what if they refuse community service, or reoffend afterwards? what if they reoffend while they're on probabition, what if they commit crime while wearing the bracelets, when is enough enough.

the courts throughout the west are full of these repeat offenders. shall we give them two bracelets each? three, ten,
Reply
#24
Okay, I may address all this an Internet post is not a complete political platform. What we mostly mean by private lives over here is who consenting adults fuck and what substances they put in their body in their own homes, to take it further all the nanny state victimless crimes. If a plan doesn't work in some area you adapt it. Taking recreational drug users that don't steal for their habit out of prisons would eliminate a lot of expense.

If the country doesn't want a societal safety net they don't have to have one. It is democracy. I think most probably do that's all.

I'm not opposed to harsher measures if they can't or won't adapt to work release I'd have to give it some thought. That said, let me ammend I mostly see prisons as a place for violent criminals I could include crimes with victims and I realize with that admission we'd have to sift through the bs in the courts. The reality billy is I did say I wanted protected property rights so yeah theives would have to be handled.

I guess my main point is look at an Internet post as a broad brushstroke and less of a detailed plan.
The secret of poetry is cruelty.--Jon Anderson
Reply
#25
(11-11-2012, 09:42 AM)Todd Wrote:  Okay, I may address all this an Internet post is not a complete political platform. What we mostly mean by private lives over here is who consenting adults fuck and what substances they put in their body in their own homes, to take it further all the nanny state victimless crimes.
which is what? smoking weed, i agrred that weed should be legalised. same sex marrage, i agree with that, sexual orientation of choice, i agree with that, what else?

Quote:If a plan doesn't work in some area you adapt it. Taking recreational drug users that don't steal for their habit out of prisons would eliminate a lot of expense.
i don't ague with that, i said smoking weed should be legalised, i said you have a good framework that should be worked to the peoples advantage.

Quote:If the country doesn't want a societal safety net they don't have to have one. It is democracy. I think most probably do that's all.
i totally agree with that

Quote:I'm not opposed to harsher measures if they can't or won't adapt to work release I'd have to give it some thought. That said, let me amend I mostly see prisons as a place for violent criminals I could include crimes with victims and I realize with that admission we'd have to sift through the bs in the courts. The reality billy is I did say I wanted protected property rights so yeah thieves would have to be handled.
we agree again. i'll go further and state that you don't have to hit someone to violate them. being burgled is as a much a physical feeling of fear and hate and all the other stuff that comes with being mugged attacked etc, though you don't have any bruising to show.

Quote:I guess my main point is look at an Internet post as a broad brushstroke and less of a detailed plan.
i agree but theres broad and theres fucking really broad Hysterical so as of yet i agree with you. though i still maintain that from your first post, i'd say the broadstrokes were impractical.

i'm not sure how many people who smoke weed are locked up, i suspect it's not as many as we think, mostly the weed smokers are locked up for theft in order to buy the stuff, as with any other drug including booze. i really wish with all my heart that world wide, weed would be legalised and where ever possible used as a form of revenue. market price would dictate that it wasn't too expensive less import of illegal weed increase.


on the tagging and probation side of things. kids in general go through these and probation numerous times before being incarcerate. i'm not saying it's perfect but there has to come a point when we say, three terms of probation is too much. maybe the opposite would work, three strikes and your dead within the week of being sentenced. (as an adult) empty the prisons via the back door.

i agree with you also that there should be no starving child in the world. but that's a dream, it shouldn't be but it is.

obama may fail in the next 4 years (in general terms) or he may not. but what else is there? someone said leave it as is. or intimated let the republicans have a go. as an outsider i see obama paying the price for bushes mismanagement but that's not the point. the point is, the usa and the rest of the world went kaput because of really fucking bad management. mister trup certainly doesn't want obama where he is, and of course he'd willing pay 5 million if obama did this or that to belittle himself. but why, why would someone give away 5 million? he'll do it because if obama does what he say's he'll do, trump could be paying hundreds of millions in taxes, not five less any tax relief he'd get to charity. trump is scared for his own wealth.

i hope at the end of this next term you have employment down to 5% or less and a strong job and housing market, like everyone else i doub;t it but i think i see hope with the guy you now have as opposed to fear should romney have won.
Reply
#26
I guess the only point I'd differ with you on is I see the same lack of hope from either of those guys. I'm not really one that says hey he had his shot turn over the reigns. The truth is every president inherits crap from the last guy. The thing is a lot of the crap bush did even beyond the economy Obama did not erase (patriot act issues, no due process to political criminals, other crap that turning it off would have eliminated the land grab bush did reducing the power of the executive branch, etc). No one should be surprised by that 4 years ago A LOT of people said wow this guy's going to change things. The sentiment now is: Just another lying politician who wants to keep his power. Romney is the same just less likable.

Oh well, we'll see how it goes.
The secret of poetry is cruelty.--Jon Anderson
Reply
#27
that all politicians are lying bastards is a truism. obama had the power to enact lots of reform in his first year as i think he held both houses but for some reason he didn't oblige. they all have their 'big' faults. i'm a cynical optimist. i doubt things will get better but i hope i'm wrong .
Reply
#28
as long as politics are tied in with big biz,and it always will,nothing will be done properly
  • the partially blind semi bald eagle
Bastard Elect
Reply
#29
Yep. Here in Australia, even our most right wing pollies would never touch that socialist net we have. (Although despite comparisons by some of the far leftists, even our most right wing pollies are barely as right wing as America's left)
It could be worse
Reply
#30
I've never owned anything in my life. I don't care for houses or cars or anything I'd have to sign for. In America, you barely exist if you don't own or at least rent something. And then, you get caught up in the business of taking sides and defending your rights by voting for one of two parties that do little more than take turns trying out their ideas. There's always going to be some way to screw up even the best ideas, and always somebody that'll find that way of screwing them up. Groups are powerfully influential, and there are too many groups to make any sensible decisions as a nation. So they have these childish smear campaigns: "So and so's a liar..." "So and so has all that money from offshore investments..." or whatever. People still talk about how great a leader Kennedy was, and how Bobby Kennedy read Camus, so he really would have made a change. I usually have more important things to roar about... Like poetry.
Reply
#31
(11-16-2012, 11:53 PM)Luna C. Moon Wrote:  Given that I understand that most modern politics is a stinky sham.

Can any of our American friends explain to me why y'all get so upset by the mere mention of the word Socialism. Many American chaps and chapesses seem to feel that there is a link to the failed ideology of communism. There is not.

Speaking as one who grew nurturing and nurtured by the bomsom of lovely socialist post-war Britain and who misses the free-education and weeps at the demise of our beautiful NHS - what's up folks? Socialism is a beautiful thing.

::: dons protective head-gear and prepares to run for the hills :::
no ideology can survive on it's own. capitalism needs socialism and vice versa. communism needs elitism. the best most ideology makes looking after those who can't look after themselves a priority. if you don't you end up with the 1912 overture up your ass Smile
Reply
#32
Changes happen subtly in this system, small things that add up. And then they're announced dramatically. Unless you can get a first-hand position, you have to settle for the theatrical tv appearances. The most complicated thing to understand about politics is how simply decisions are made concerning complex, unthinkable details. A person decides to vote for another person that is a member of a party that popularly take certain stands on certain popular issues that somehow go hand in hand. Obviously a candidate can't get on stage and explain things in depth. The third party candidates make a showing of this, but barely, and it's of little consequence for the majority of voters. A candidate simply has to endorse himself, and his cookie-cutter platform. Because ultimately, those simple things are all that matter in relation to his power and office. It's individual people that have to look at where their money's going, where their energy and work is going, where their attention is going. I believe that many people are frustrated and confused, and many of those people work hard, and get tired. But relative to the work that has to be done to start making real differences, they're lazy. People would have to work out in the street, with other people, to clean things up, to show that they know how things are and they're willing to put present manpower behind making things better everyday. But that's crazy talk. Standing in any house in America, you can spend all day counting all the material shit that nobody would waste their money and energy on if they really seriously considered how little they do to change the problems they bitch about. It's fashionable to be a citizen discontented with the government. But it's fanatical to expect them to put forth one finger to actually do anything about it. There are experts in place that do great jobs. So as long as things are relatively safe for most people on a day to day basis, the necessary conditions for radical solutions simply are up in the air. That's what I believe. You'd have to be crazy to actively take me seriously.
Reply
#33
(11-16-2012, 11:53 PM)Luna C. Moon Wrote:  Given that I understand that most modern politics is a stinky sham.

Can any of our American friends explain to me why y'all get so upset by the mere mention of the word Socialism. Many American chaps and chapesses seem to feel that there is a link to the failed ideology of communism. There is not.

Speaking as one who grew nurturing and nurtured by the bomsom of lovely socialist post-war Britain and who misses the free-education and weeps at the demise of our beautiful NHS - what's up folks? Socialism is a beautiful thing.

::: dons protective head-gear and prepares to run for the hills :::
Hi Luna,

I'll try to give this a thoughtful response. The US is hardly monolithic, and I don't imagine I speak for the majority. The answer is it varies.

Some probably do view socialism as communism. I don't think that's the main issue. I think it's that our government spends too damn much and seems wasteful, corrupt, and too incompetent to run massive programs either. There is also an independent spirit rags to riches narrative that is bred into a lot of us. There is a view that you may end up working hard only to have it taken away to give to people that don't want to work.

We see the riots in France and Greece, and think that's where socialism leads. Some truth there. That said, I don't believe that truth is the whole truth. I do believe that there is a mixture of capitalism and socialism that most people in the US want even if they don't like socialism philosophically they practically like some aspects of it. People aren't always consistent.

Another issue is that with the size of the country and 314 million people it's hard to pull off. If you restricted these programs to the discretion of the fifty individual states you might be able to pull it off. Though people would begin moving and skew the systems of some of these states probably overwhelming the system.

Nothing is ever easy.
The secret of poetry is cruelty.--Jon Anderson
Reply
#34
(11-17-2012, 01:11 PM)Todd Wrote:  
(11-16-2012, 11:53 PM)Luna C. Moon Wrote:  

Hi Luna,

I'll try to give this a thoughtful response. The US is hardly monolithic, and I don't imagine I speak for the majority. The answer is it varies.

Some probably do view socialism as communism. I don't think that's the main issue. I think it's that our government spends too damn much and seems wasteful, corrupt, and too incompetent to run massive programs either. There is also an independent spirit rags to riches narrative that is bred into a lot of us. There is a view that you may end up working hard only to have it taken away to give to people that don't want to work.

We see the riots in France and Greece, and think that's where socialism leads. Some truth there. That said, I don't believe that truth is the whole truth. I do believe that there is a mixture of capitalism and socialism that most people in the US want even if they don't like socialism philosophically they practically like some aspects of it. People aren't always consistent.

Another issue is that with the size of the country and 314 million people it's hard to pull off. If you restricted these programs to the discretion of the fifty individual states you might be able to pull it off. Though people would begin moving and skew the systems of some of these states probably overwhelming the system.

Nothing is ever easy.

Yet it seems to work fine in Canada...Canada has the best health care system I have ever had the fortune to be treated under.

Considering that all other countries in the West, I think, would be considered socialist or maybe even communist, by American standards, how is it that you attribute the riots in just France and Greece to their socialism? What about the Occupy Wall Street movement in the US (and the fascist crackdown on that by the police)? How can you single out France and Greece for protests and attribute them to the fact that they are socialist countries when the US has its own riots and you can count on one hand the number of socialist countries that are dealing with riots?
Reply
#35
Rose, a couple points: Canada is great. I was in Canada during the election actually on business. I spoke about this over dinner with my customers. Here's the thing with Canada it has less population than California. I believe that simplifies the rollout of socialised medicine significantly. Please read what I said again about France and Greece. The point I was making was when we see those riots we say see there's no money to support these programs socialism doesn't work. It's used as a justification. I said there's some truth in that point, but that's not the whole truth. There's more to the issues than that. The occupy movement isn't that simple either and it isn't monolithic. It's dealing with people angry over unemployment and corporate greed. Flipping the mirror around, people say see capitalism doesn't work. To which I say there's some truth to that, but it's not the whole truth it's more complicated than that. People make decisions often based on their fears and they use their logic to justify the decisions that fear leads them to.

I was trying to answer the question Luna posed not really spell out my full view on the topic. The US has a hard time accepting what it thinks is Socialism because it skews what the word means and it strikes directly at its people's core identity. That said, No system anywhere is all roses and puppies, and no country exercises its implementation of a system the same way as any other country...it has to morph to the peculiarity of its own citizens. The US for that reason will always have tension and mixture in what it does, and that seems to be the way everyone likes it.
The secret of poetry is cruelty.--Jon Anderson
Reply
#36
i think i got some of that too. in our house everyone was waiting for his next screw up. people mocked Biden but mitt had Biden beat hands down in the foot in mouth stakes.
Reply
#37
(11-08-2012, 12:14 PM)billy Wrote:  i can see why you and others feel as they do Sad
at least the iraq war is over and you're pulling out of Afghanistan.
it all depends on whether or not you can get a good job policy going, with that will come more housing, less social securities etc. i think though, he'll have to make any job scheme an executive order. baines and co won't cross the isle.

I must have missed this the first time around. The US is out of Afghanistan...awesome. I must have missed that.

A year has passed and I feel no more optimistic about our politicians.
The secret of poetry is cruelty.--Jon Anderson
Reply
#38
Believe most looked down on the Morman religion and didn't take the time to investigate the person. I was raised around the religion and didn't have a problem with that. I looked at the person, what they stand for and what they have done.

Romney worked for the Winter Olympics in Utah, never took a paycheck until they got it turn a profit, and then donated all of the pay to charity. Yes, he ran Bane Capital and when in business your in that to make a profit. He did that, sometimes decisions have to be made that not everyone will agree with.

I believe we need someone that understands that a government can't spend more then it takes in. Clinton had a balanced budget and a surplus at the end of his presidency, but still the debt wasn't tackled. No politician wants to talk about cutting benefits, or entitlements, or anything that would led to a productive conversation on how to deal with this economic mess.

There is a reason we can print so much money without it really having much of a effect on the economy, its because the dollar is the standard for now, other countries have to purchase the dollar to purchase oil. That will soon change as it did with Brittan and the Sterling. Countries are changing how they deal with the dollar, Japan, Russia, and many others are moving away from it. When the dollar is no longer the standard, we will only be able to print as much money as our GDP, which as most know isn't as good as it should be.


The United States shows a debt of 17 trillion dollars. Is that really what our debt is? No, there is about another 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Look at the other countries that have had to deal with type of situation. Cypress is a good example of what happens, banks close and funds are frozen, government then takes a nice portion of everyones savings to stabilize the country. The IMF will require this to loan them funds to get the country back on their feet, the government will never reimburse the people that lost money in this transaction.

Remember when Russia was up in arms about this one day, and then silent the next. There was a very good reason for this, they realized they could get their funds from a bank outside of Cypress. I am sure there were some that lost a good amount of money because of this, but the big boys got theirs.

Some people in the United States are preparing for this event. The government is watching to see who are getting prepared because this will be some of the people that they target to confiscate their food to give to the ones without it. Just like they wish to know where all the weapons are at so they can take those also to prevent people for standing up for what is theirs.

The United States was founded on certain principles that have slowly faded to past history. We were never to have to pay taxes on the land we purchased, there was never a federal income tax (1862) as there is today, government couldn't take your land as it pleases. All these things happen today. Emanate Domain was suppose to be for the betterment of the community, now its used to help big business. Most taxes were enacted to support mans primary goal, the war machine.

Then you hear, our Founding Fathers would turn over in their graves. This might or might not be true. They were involved in government to reap the benefits from it. One of the people I most admire is Thomas Jefferson, and look how he was treated compared to other presidents before him when he died.

Now on to one true fact that remains. The person that will be brave enough to tackle these problems will only be president for one term, they will have to sacrifice their name to make things right, because all will ridiculed him or her to no end for making the hard decisions that will have to be made.

I believe we need to limit their terms and have the ability to replace them when they don't do the job they were elected for, but this also has a down side to it. We have spent our children's and grandchildren's for our enjoyment today.

My other problem with the governments involvement in health care is, show me one program they have run properly. 38 states in this country would not allow you to purchase you policy outside of the state. There would always be one main provider that controlled 70-95 percent of the policies in that state with the rest of the companies fighting for what was left of the pie. It is a very noble thing to do, but will it work like we have been told is the underlying question. 85 percent of the people had healthcare, so that means only 15 percent didn't. Instead of trying to get the 15 percent healthcare, they opted for affecting everyone.

I am not sure about others but I have a very nice policy, 100.00 out of pocket before they started paying 80% of the bills, 1500.00 out of pocket before they paid 100 percent of the bill. Every year since the passing of the AHA I have had premium increases, and this year was the worst, but I doubt as bad as others have gotten. Corporations will probably start dropping health care for employees, they just don't want to be the first, but once that first one happens get ready for all to join in. It is after all a great business move. We are always going to have poor people that don't want to try to aspire to be more, just a fact of life. When this first started I said that we would see nice premium increases along with a lot of major changes to policies. They will either get you on the front end, or the back end. I always remember these words, You must pass it before you know whats in it. What great words to live by.

People used to rely on each other, now they rely on the government. I like the old saying, give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

Okay, I am off my soapbox.
Reply
#39
wasn't those winter Olympics one of the biggest cluster fucks ever, i'm sure i read somewhere that it's still being paid forHuh

from i saw on the news, the weeds shops are charging more than the dealers? how will that work?
Reply
#40
Actually, if you look at the different articles about it they say he turned it around, gave up 1.4 million in salary and also donated another million, and secured funding through private donations and government. Ended up with 100 million surplus. Boston Globe has a good article about it, as well as others. The Olympic Committee also made statements about the turnaround. The truth usually ends up in the middle while sometimes the ones that didn't tell truth are on the front page.

(01-06-2014, 02:53 PM)billy Wrote:  wasn't those winter Olympics one of the biggest cluster fucks ever, i'm sure i read somewhere that it's still being paid forHuh

from i saw on the news, the weeds shops are charging more than the dealers? how will that work?

Great for the dealers?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!