I have it, I have figured it out, and I now know the difference between a conservative and a liberal.
A conservative overestimates the intelligence and common sense of the average person and thus believes they are capable of 100% responsibility for their actions.
The liberal underestimates the intelligence and common sense of the average person and thus believes they are capable of no responsibility for their actions.
All is right with the world, now all we have to do is get the liberals and the conservatives to explain their theories to the average person, after the election of course. :-5:-5:-5
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
-
QUINNSCOMMENTARY
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:56 pm
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
Quinn, don't you feel the need to define your vocabulary at any time before you use words which have such different uses in different settings?
The last politician I can think of who called himself a liberal was JFK. Which current politician can you think of who self-identifies with the word?If by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal,' then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal'.
John F. Kennedy, September 14, 1960
The last politician I can think of who called himself a liberal was JFK. Which current politician can you think of who self-identifies with the word?If by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal,' then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal'.
John F. Kennedy, September 14, 1960
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
An american voter is one so brainwashed they don't even know what the word liberal means any more. It has the same language root as liberty-(latin) liber meaning free. When did the dream of liberty become such a swearword in the american lexicon and why do you accept it's bastardisation?
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
I've no problem in using the word "liberal" to mean anything at all in any given discussion. What I've found, though, is that if it's left undefined then arguments tend to list deficiencies according to one definition and then segue into applying the consequent criticism onto people who only qualify as liberals under other criteria.
There really are several disparate groups who describe themselves as liberal, and still others who are described by third parties as liberals, and the use of the word has varied considerably decade by decade and country by country. I don't object to using any definition at all, so long as it's explicit from the start and stays constant throughout.
I commend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal as a starting point.In late 20th century and early 21st century political discourse in the United States, "liberalism" has come to mean support for freedom of speech, separation of church and state, reproductive rights for women, civil liberties, equal rights for gay people, a welcoming attitude to immigrants, equal rights for the disabled, and multilateralism and international institutions. All of these aims are mostly shared by British and other European liberals. American liberals also believe in the relief of poverty by government intervention, affordable quality health care for all and a progressive income tax, positive role for organised labour, and the protection of the environment. In Europe these views are shared by Social Democrats, but not necessarily by liberals, especially in France and continental Europe. Britain's liberals would agree with most of these positions, but affirmative action would be described as an illiberal policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Ame ... eralism.22
Can we take that as a mutual working definition and then not stray from it? By all means don't, Quinn - all you need do is provide an alternative and we'll sign up to use that instead.
There really are several disparate groups who describe themselves as liberal, and still others who are described by third parties as liberals, and the use of the word has varied considerably decade by decade and country by country. I don't object to using any definition at all, so long as it's explicit from the start and stays constant throughout.
I commend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal as a starting point.In late 20th century and early 21st century political discourse in the United States, "liberalism" has come to mean support for freedom of speech, separation of church and state, reproductive rights for women, civil liberties, equal rights for gay people, a welcoming attitude to immigrants, equal rights for the disabled, and multilateralism and international institutions. All of these aims are mostly shared by British and other European liberals. American liberals also believe in the relief of poverty by government intervention, affordable quality health care for all and a progressive income tax, positive role for organised labour, and the protection of the environment. In Europe these views are shared by Social Democrats, but not necessarily by liberals, especially in France and continental Europe. Britain's liberals would agree with most of these positions, but affirmative action would be described as an illiberal policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Ame ... eralism.22
Can we take that as a mutual working definition and then not stray from it? By all means don't, Quinn - all you need do is provide an alternative and we'll sign up to use that instead.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
QUINNSCOMMENTARY
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:56 pm
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
spot;993139 wrote: Quinn, don't you feel the need to define your vocabulary at any time before you use words which have such different uses in different settings?
The last politician I can think of who called himself a liberal was JFK. Which current politician can you think of who self-identifies with the word?If by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal,' then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal'.
John F. Kennedy, September 14, 1960
It seems to me that JFKs definition is just fine for a conservative as well, the problem is not with the goals, but how you reach them. It's like the old fish or fishing story. You can care about someone and either give them food or give them the tools and ability to feed themselves. Simplistic I know, but I am sure you get the idea. Today's definition of a liberal, while perhaps technically inaccurate, has come to mean turning to government for solutions first and wealth transfer to do that. In other words hold down the bow of the boat to raise the stern. The other view would be to try and raise the entire boat.
While the middle class keeps the factories, stories and offices humming and does all the "hard" work, they are not the ones who generate jobs, take risk, start new industries and create economic development. While it is easy to point fingers at the top 5% and their incomes, the fact is they still pay the overall majority of taxes and pull the economy along. The visible Wall Street types are only a very small segment of that 5%, most are small businessmen and women, professionals and entrepreneurs.
The point is that if you push the bow of the boat too low as it appears some politicians would like or at least make you think so, the whole boat sinks.
The last politician I can think of who called himself a liberal was JFK. Which current politician can you think of who self-identifies with the word?If by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal,' then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal'.
John F. Kennedy, September 14, 1960
It seems to me that JFKs definition is just fine for a conservative as well, the problem is not with the goals, but how you reach them. It's like the old fish or fishing story. You can care about someone and either give them food or give them the tools and ability to feed themselves. Simplistic I know, but I am sure you get the idea. Today's definition of a liberal, while perhaps technically inaccurate, has come to mean turning to government for solutions first and wealth transfer to do that. In other words hold down the bow of the boat to raise the stern. The other view would be to try and raise the entire boat.
While the middle class keeps the factories, stories and offices humming and does all the "hard" work, they are not the ones who generate jobs, take risk, start new industries and create economic development. While it is easy to point fingers at the top 5% and their incomes, the fact is they still pay the overall majority of taxes and pull the economy along. The visible Wall Street types are only a very small segment of that 5%, most are small businessmen and women, professionals and entrepreneurs.
The point is that if you push the bow of the boat too low as it appears some politicians would like or at least make you think so, the whole boat sinks.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
-
QUINNSCOMMENTARY
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:56 pm
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
gmc;993187 wrote: An american voter is one so brainwashed they don't even know what the word liberal means any more. It has the same language root as liberty-(latin) liber meaning free. When did the dream of liberty become such a swearword in the american lexicon and why do you accept it's bastardisation?
You are right, the use of liberal has come to mean something quite different than the correct definition. But it is really not the lable that is the issue, it is the approach to defining and solving human problems.
You are right, the use of liberal has come to mean something quite different than the correct definition. But it is really not the lable that is the issue, it is the approach to defining and solving human problems.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
-
QUINNSCOMMENTARY
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:56 pm
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
American liberals also believe in the relief of poverty by government intervention, affordable quality health care for all and a progressive income tax, positive role for organised labour, and the protection of the environment. Can we take that as a mutual working definition and then not stray from it? By all means don't, Quinn - all you need do is provide an alternative and we'll sign up to use that instead.
Allow me to modify based on today's environment:
American liberals also believe in the relief of poverty, quality health care for all, education, support for housing, retirement income, standards of living, and parenting by government intervention, and an expanded progressive income tax to the extent a growing portion of the population does not share in the burden, positive role for organized labor even at the expense of a competitive economy or the rights of a non-unionized workforce, and the protection of the environment.
As you no doubt have already surmised, I am not liberal by the above, but I certainly do believe in those lofty goals. It is the journey, not the destination that is in dispute. Interestingly, in the US we have tried both paths in the last century, about 50/50 in terms of years of each approach and yet, all the problems are still with us from poverty to health care coverage and all the rest. We have had the War On Poverty, the Great Society, the New Deal, etc.
I wonder what that tells us? Perhaps that some problems cannot be solved for us by any means and that each individual is the real key.
Allow me to modify based on today's environment:
American liberals also believe in the relief of poverty, quality health care for all, education, support for housing, retirement income, standards of living, and parenting by government intervention, and an expanded progressive income tax to the extent a growing portion of the population does not share in the burden, positive role for organized labor even at the expense of a competitive economy or the rights of a non-unionized workforce, and the protection of the environment.
As you no doubt have already surmised, I am not liberal by the above, but I certainly do believe in those lofty goals. It is the journey, not the destination that is in dispute. Interestingly, in the US we have tried both paths in the last century, about 50/50 in terms of years of each approach and yet, all the problems are still with us from poverty to health care coverage and all the rest. We have had the War On Poverty, the Great Society, the New Deal, etc.
I wonder what that tells us? Perhaps that some problems cannot be solved for us by any means and that each individual is the real key.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
gmc;993187 wrote: An american voter is one so brainwashed they don't even know what the word liberal means any more. It has the same language root as liberty-(latin) liber meaning free. When did the dream of liberty become such a swearword in the american lexicon and why do you accept it's bastardisation?
For the same reason that knickers, lift, boot etc. as used in the U.S. have entirely different meanings. You know that.
For the same reason that knickers, lift, boot etc. as used in the U.S. have entirely different meanings. You know that.
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
QUINNSCOMMENTARY;993266 wrote: While the middle class keeps the factories, stories and offices humming and does all the "hard" work, they are not the ones who generate jobs, take risk, start new industries and create economic development. While it is easy to point fingers at the top 5% and their incomes, the fact is they still pay the overall majority of taxes and pull the economy along.You do have a tendency toward selective analysis, Quinn. You use the word "taxes" and actually mean, at a guess, Federal Income Tax. Three quarters of US taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. We did an analysis of US taxation on FG a while ago which included property tax, sales tax, state tax, we came to the conclusion that for most people the combined rate was around 45% for most employed people dropping to around 36% for incomes over $2 million a year.
The other problem I'd have is your implication that the only meaningful reward for success is money, that entrepreneurs wouldn't work without additional financial benefit. By all means generate jobs, take risk, start new industries and create economic development if that's what excites a person. It gives that person no more intrinsic right to additional personal resources than, for example, a carer in a hospital ward in a rational political environment. It just happens to in a Capitalist system.
The other problem I'd have is your implication that the only meaningful reward for success is money, that entrepreneurs wouldn't work without additional financial benefit. By all means generate jobs, take risk, start new industries and create economic development if that's what excites a person. It gives that person no more intrinsic right to additional personal resources than, for example, a carer in a hospital ward in a rational political environment. It just happens to in a Capitalist system.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
QUINNSCOMMENTARY
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:56 pm
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
spot;993320 wrote: You do have a tendency toward selective analysis, Quinn. You use the word "taxes" and actually mean, at a guess, Federal Income Tax. Three quarters of US taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. We did an analysis of US taxation on FG a while ago which included property tax, sales tax, state tax, we came to the conclusion that for most people the combined rate was around 45% for most employed people dropping to around 36% for incomes over $2 million a year.
The other problem I'd have is your implication that the only meaningful reward for success is money, that entrepreneurs wouldn't work without additional financial benefit. By all means generate jobs, take risk, start new industries and create economic development if that's what excites a person. It gives that person no more intrinsic right to additional personal resources than, for example, a carer in a hospital ward in a rational political environment. It just happens to in a Capitalist system.
In fact, I was referencing income taxes and you are correct there are many taxes unrelated to income level or limited in that way and I think that needs to be fixed, especially property taxes where they are (as far as I know) unrelated to income so people who stay in a home for many years cannot possibly keep up with the rising taxes (caused in part by the decisions of politicians to spend money in other ways). As far as things like Social Security go you have to look at the other side of the equation, for example, what percentage of pre-retirement income does the benefit make up and what portion of retirement income does the person need to self fund. While the person making $40,000 a year pays 6.20% of it in SS taxes, their benefit is a far greater percentage of their pre-retirement income.
I make no such implication about meaningful reward and money, but the reality is as it is. There are not many people who would risk their money, work 80 hours a week for no monetary gain, at least to a point and then many of those people start giving back. Ask the charities in New York what is happening to their fundraising now. The reality is that those fat cats and disposed corporations gave a lot of money to charity. The average American is not going to make that up (nor should they).
The other problem I'd have is your implication that the only meaningful reward for success is money, that entrepreneurs wouldn't work without additional financial benefit. By all means generate jobs, take risk, start new industries and create economic development if that's what excites a person. It gives that person no more intrinsic right to additional personal resources than, for example, a carer in a hospital ward in a rational political environment. It just happens to in a Capitalist system.
In fact, I was referencing income taxes and you are correct there are many taxes unrelated to income level or limited in that way and I think that needs to be fixed, especially property taxes where they are (as far as I know) unrelated to income so people who stay in a home for many years cannot possibly keep up with the rising taxes (caused in part by the decisions of politicians to spend money in other ways). As far as things like Social Security go you have to look at the other side of the equation, for example, what percentage of pre-retirement income does the benefit make up and what portion of retirement income does the person need to self fund. While the person making $40,000 a year pays 6.20% of it in SS taxes, their benefit is a far greater percentage of their pre-retirement income.
I make no such implication about meaningful reward and money, but the reality is as it is. There are not many people who would risk their money, work 80 hours a week for no monetary gain, at least to a point and then many of those people start giving back. Ask the charities in New York what is happening to their fundraising now. The reality is that those fat cats and disposed corporations gave a lot of money to charity. The average American is not going to make that up (nor should they).
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
That's "the reality is as it is" under Capitalism, or in the USA, whichever you prefer. It's not the only way to order society. It's far too unfair to that carer in the local hospital, for example. "There are not many people who would risk their money" again focuses on the US model in which "their money" is such a central issue.
I'm all in favour of property rights in a society which recognises limiting restraints on the poverty of the underclass. If I want to know how rich a country is I judge by the state and extent of its poor.
I'm all in favour of property rights in a society which recognises limiting restraints on the poverty of the underclass. If I want to know how rich a country is I judge by the state and extent of its poor.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
spot;993345 wrote: That's "the reality is as it is" under Capitalism, or in the USA, whichever you prefer. It's not the only way to order society. It's far too unfair to that carer in the local hospital, for example. "There are not many people who would risk their money" again focuses on the US model in which "their money" is such a central issue.
I'm all in favour of property rights in a society which recognises limiting restraints on the poverty of the underclass. If I want to know how rich a country is I judge by the state and extent of its poor.
Our poor have cable tv and air conditioning.
I'm all in favour of property rights in a society which recognises limiting restraints on the poverty of the underclass. If I want to know how rich a country is I judge by the state and extent of its poor.
Our poor have cable tv and air conditioning.
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
Accountable;993347 wrote: Our poor have cable tv and air conditioning.
Of the order of a million of your fellow citizens haven't even got a roof over their head.
Of the order of a million of your fellow citizens haven't even got a roof over their head.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
along-for-the-ride
- Posts: 11732
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:28 pm
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
In my opinion, there is a problem when a person uses just one word to summarize a persons beliefs or political affiliation. We do this when we want to categorize a person to attempt to understand him/her.
Life is a Highway. Let's share the Commute.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
spot;993349 wrote: Of the order of a million of your fellow citizens haven't even got a roof over their head.
We've had this conversation before. Our definitions are too disparate to even communicate here.
We've had this conversation before. Our definitions are too disparate to even communicate here.
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
Accountable;993365 wrote: We've had this conversation before. Our definitions are too disparate to even communicate here.
On an average night of the year, across the whole of the USA, by reason of poverty, of the order of a million people sleep rough, outdoors, and a couple of million more are in charitable hostels or temporary shelter. You just don't want to think about it. It's a hell of a distance from "our poor have cable tv and air conditioning", you simply refuse to look at the dark side of free enterprise and the consequence of skating an entire country over the ice on the cheap with no safety wire.
On an average night of the year, across the whole of the USA, by reason of poverty, of the order of a million people sleep rough, outdoors, and a couple of million more are in charitable hostels or temporary shelter. You just don't want to think about it. It's a hell of a distance from "our poor have cable tv and air conditioning", you simply refuse to look at the dark side of free enterprise and the consequence of skating an entire country over the ice on the cheap with no safety wire.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
QUINNSCOMMENTARY
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:56 pm
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
spot;993401 wrote: On an average night of the year, across the whole of the USA, by reason of poverty, of the order of a million people sleep rough, outdoors, and a couple of million more are in charitable hostels or temporary shelter. You just don't want to think about it. It's a hell of a distance from "our poor have cable tv and air conditioning", you simply refuse to look at the dark side of free enterprise and the consequence of skating an entire country over the ice on the cheap with no safety wire.
Not sure of your point here and I don't know if your numbers are right or not, but if they are that is about 1/3 of 1% of the population at any given point and many of the so called homeless are in a temporary state. And as has ben said the vast majority of our "poor" by definition have their own home, one or more TVs, cars and a lot of other stuff one would not normally attribute to a poor person.
It would be wonderful if there were no poverty or homelessness and it is a worthy goal, but it will never, ever happen in the US or any other country for that matter and certainly the way to cure such faults in society cannot be simply for society to pick people up and carry them forever.
Others in the world may be content to focus on equalization of theitr societies, but I think Americans would go nuts if they did not have the opportunity for personal achievement and success however you want to define it and all the competition that goes with it.
It is not that our system could not fix the problem of the homeless or poor, it is that people simply do not care enough to fix it or it is not perceived as a real problem.
Regardless of the political or social system in place, human behavior prevails. And, I dare say all those people in the world who live in a society where they know no different given a taste of the total picture in America whould welcome giving our system a chance. There certainly are enough people who try each year and no, I am not talking about Mexicans.
Not sure of your point here and I don't know if your numbers are right or not, but if they are that is about 1/3 of 1% of the population at any given point and many of the so called homeless are in a temporary state. And as has ben said the vast majority of our "poor" by definition have their own home, one or more TVs, cars and a lot of other stuff one would not normally attribute to a poor person.
It would be wonderful if there were no poverty or homelessness and it is a worthy goal, but it will never, ever happen in the US or any other country for that matter and certainly the way to cure such faults in society cannot be simply for society to pick people up and carry them forever.
Others in the world may be content to focus on equalization of theitr societies, but I think Americans would go nuts if they did not have the opportunity for personal achievement and success however you want to define it and all the competition that goes with it.
It is not that our system could not fix the problem of the homeless or poor, it is that people simply do not care enough to fix it or it is not perceived as a real problem.
Regardless of the political or social system in place, human behavior prevails. And, I dare say all those people in the world who live in a society where they know no different given a taste of the total picture in America whould welcome giving our system a chance. There certainly are enough people who try each year and no, I am not talking about Mexicans.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
QUINNSCOMMENTARY;993875 wrote: Not sure of your point here and I don't know if your numbers are right or not1 - I was responding to the outrageous "Our poor have cable tv and air conditioning" comment.
2 - Nobody would be more delighted than I were you to find an authoritative count. Your government seems to believe that uncounted means unreal, rather like excess deaths in Iraq.
2 - Nobody would be more delighted than I were you to find an authoritative count. Your government seems to believe that uncounted means unreal, rather like excess deaths in Iraq.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
Lon;993317 wrote: For the same reason that knickers, lift, boot etc. as used in the U.S. have entirely different meanings. You know that.
Yes I know that. It's ironic that in a country supposedly founded on liberal principles the very word and the ideals it represents has been corrupted, not by those who support such principles but by the opponents of it. Right from the first foundation of a government of the people for the people you've been arguing about who the people are that are entitled to have a say and exactly what they are entitled to expect. Seems to me that those who would rule have succeeded in convincing the electorate that they should be allowed to rule without hindrance from any elected body to check their behaviour. In europe and the rest of the world Socialism is part of a mass movement from the ground roots of society for a greater say in how society is run, communism is actually a rather small part of that and a dead end but is a bogey man used in the states to stifle any real dialogue about what is fair in society.
OK I'm an outsider and I have an odd viewpoint-you're right it is a bit of a hobby horse- and I don't know enough about american politics to actually be able to hold my own in a discussion so i won't mention it again.
Found this though
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presi ... ashs01.htm
george washington
By convincing those who are entrusted with the publick administration, that every valuable end of government is best answered by the enlightened confidence of the people: And by teaching the people themselves to know, and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority; between burthens proceeding from a disregard to their convenience, and those resulting from the inevitable exigencies of society; to discriminate the spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness, cherishing the first, avoiding the last, and uniting a speedy, but temperate vigilance against encroachments, with an inviolable respect to the laws.
Whether this desirable object will be best promoted by affording aids to seminaries of learning already established, by the institution of a national university, or by any other expedients, will be well worthy of a place in the deliberations of the Legislature.
Gentlemen of the Senate, and House of Representatives,
I have directed the proper officers to lay before you respectively such papers and estimates as regards the affairs particularly recommended to your consideration, and necessary to convey to you that information of the state of the union, which it is my duty to afford.
The welfare of our country is the great object to which our cares and efforts ought to be directed.-- And I shall derive great satisfaction from a cooperation with you, in the pleasing though arduous task of ensuring to our fellow citizens the blessings which they have a right to expect, from a free and equal government.
What is happening in america is not socialism in any shape or form. It is the political elite bailing out their friends in the financial sector who they let have free rein and who couldn't tell the difference between free markets and a free for all.
They've had a bean feast and now everybody else is expected to pick up the tab while they walk away with no responsibility for the mess. Now they're shitting themselves in fear in case congress says no.
Yes I know that. It's ironic that in a country supposedly founded on liberal principles the very word and the ideals it represents has been corrupted, not by those who support such principles but by the opponents of it. Right from the first foundation of a government of the people for the people you've been arguing about who the people are that are entitled to have a say and exactly what they are entitled to expect. Seems to me that those who would rule have succeeded in convincing the electorate that they should be allowed to rule without hindrance from any elected body to check their behaviour. In europe and the rest of the world Socialism is part of a mass movement from the ground roots of society for a greater say in how society is run, communism is actually a rather small part of that and a dead end but is a bogey man used in the states to stifle any real dialogue about what is fair in society.
OK I'm an outsider and I have an odd viewpoint-you're right it is a bit of a hobby horse- and I don't know enough about american politics to actually be able to hold my own in a discussion so i won't mention it again.
Found this though
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presi ... ashs01.htm
george washington
By convincing those who are entrusted with the publick administration, that every valuable end of government is best answered by the enlightened confidence of the people: And by teaching the people themselves to know, and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority; between burthens proceeding from a disregard to their convenience, and those resulting from the inevitable exigencies of society; to discriminate the spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness, cherishing the first, avoiding the last, and uniting a speedy, but temperate vigilance against encroachments, with an inviolable respect to the laws.
Whether this desirable object will be best promoted by affording aids to seminaries of learning already established, by the institution of a national university, or by any other expedients, will be well worthy of a place in the deliberations of the Legislature.
Gentlemen of the Senate, and House of Representatives,
I have directed the proper officers to lay before you respectively such papers and estimates as regards the affairs particularly recommended to your consideration, and necessary to convey to you that information of the state of the union, which it is my duty to afford.
The welfare of our country is the great object to which our cares and efforts ought to be directed.-- And I shall derive great satisfaction from a cooperation with you, in the pleasing though arduous task of ensuring to our fellow citizens the blessings which they have a right to expect, from a free and equal government.
What is happening in america is not socialism in any shape or form. It is the political elite bailing out their friends in the financial sector who they let have free rein and who couldn't tell the difference between free markets and a free for all.
They've had a bean feast and now everybody else is expected to pick up the tab while they walk away with no responsibility for the mess. Now they're shitting themselves in fear in case congress says no.
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
gmc;994126 wrote: Yes I know that. It's ironic that in a country supposedly founded on liberal principles the very word and the ideals it represents has been corrupted, not by those who support such principles but by the opponents of it. Right from the first foundation of a government of the people for the people you've been arguing about who the people are that are entitled to have a say and exactly what they are entitled to expect. Seems to me that those who would rule have succeeded in convincing the electorate that they should be allowed to rule without hindrance from any elected body to check their behaviour. In europe and the rest of the world Socialism is part of a mass movement from the ground roots of society for a greater say in how society is run, communism is actually a rather small part of that and a dead end but is a bogey man used in the states to stifle any real dialogue about what is fair in society.
OK I'm an outsider and I have an odd viewpoint-you're right it is a bit of a hobby horse- and I don't know enough about american politics to actually be able to hold my own in a discussion so i won't mention it again.
Found this though
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presi ... ashs01.htm
george washington
What is happening in america is not socialism in any shape or form. It is the political elite bailing out their friends in the financial sector who they let have free rein and who couldn't tell the difference between free markets and a free for all.
They've had a bean feast and now everybody else is expected to pick up the tab while they walk away with no responsibility for the mess. Now they're shitting themselves in fear in case congress says no.
The average American has no clue as to the different kinds of socialism and tends to equate it with communism. I have spent a good part of the past 20 years in Australia and New Zealand and had my previous fears and misunderstandings of socialism dispelled.
As for the English language, I'm afraid that with increased texting, and what's seems to be youth's inability to make themselves understood to anyone other than their peer group, the English language as I knew it as a youth will go the way of the Do Do Bird.
OK I'm an outsider and I have an odd viewpoint-you're right it is a bit of a hobby horse- and I don't know enough about american politics to actually be able to hold my own in a discussion so i won't mention it again.
Found this though
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presi ... ashs01.htm
george washington
What is happening in america is not socialism in any shape or form. It is the political elite bailing out their friends in the financial sector who they let have free rein and who couldn't tell the difference between free markets and a free for all.
They've had a bean feast and now everybody else is expected to pick up the tab while they walk away with no responsibility for the mess. Now they're shitting themselves in fear in case congress says no.
The average American has no clue as to the different kinds of socialism and tends to equate it with communism. I have spent a good part of the past 20 years in Australia and New Zealand and had my previous fears and misunderstandings of socialism dispelled.
As for the English language, I'm afraid that with increased texting, and what's seems to be youth's inability to make themselves understood to anyone other than their peer group, the English language as I knew it as a youth will go the way of the Do Do Bird.
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
Lon;994322 wrote: The average American has no clue as to the different kinds of socialism and tends to equate it with communism. I have spent a good part of the past 20 years in Australia and New Zealand and had my previous fears and misunderstandings of socialism dispelled.
As for the English language, I'm afraid that with increased texting, and what's seems to be youth's inability to make themselves understood to anyone other than their peer group, the English language as I knew it as a youth will go the way of the Do Do Bird.
Language is alive and changes all the time no point lamenting imo.. One of the reasons english has become so prevalent is because it is so eclectic and is a word for a concept doesn't exist one is just made up. television and telephone are just two examples of it-way of the dodo is another come to that I know what you mean somebody in 1776 would not. . text language is another-it's a technical language for a specific purpose just like other other technical languages used in all industries. We do need a common nucleus though.
Newspeak is another new word that entered the vocabulary post ww2. You can see it in action all around bit I think in the states more than most. If you restrict the language of political debate you also restrict the choices you can make. I don't see how anyone can study history without being aware of the demand for social change of which socialism is but one strand. The roots go back a very long way and curiously enough the american revolution was a key factor in it's spread with all the french soldiers coming back from america filled with the liberal ideas they were hearing for the first time. Yet if you point out american revolutionaries have anything remotely in common with socialism americans spit out the dummy.
Course I like provoking debate as opposed to the usual diatribe you tend to get.
As for the English language, I'm afraid that with increased texting, and what's seems to be youth's inability to make themselves understood to anyone other than their peer group, the English language as I knew it as a youth will go the way of the Do Do Bird.
Language is alive and changes all the time no point lamenting imo.. One of the reasons english has become so prevalent is because it is so eclectic and is a word for a concept doesn't exist one is just made up. television and telephone are just two examples of it-way of the dodo is another come to that I know what you mean somebody in 1776 would not. . text language is another-it's a technical language for a specific purpose just like other other technical languages used in all industries. We do need a common nucleus though.
Newspeak is another new word that entered the vocabulary post ww2. You can see it in action all around bit I think in the states more than most. If you restrict the language of political debate you also restrict the choices you can make. I don't see how anyone can study history without being aware of the demand for social change of which socialism is but one strand. The roots go back a very long way and curiously enough the american revolution was a key factor in it's spread with all the french soldiers coming back from america filled with the liberal ideas they were hearing for the first time. Yet if you point out american revolutionaries have anything remotely in common with socialism americans spit out the dummy.
Course I like provoking debate as opposed to the usual diatribe you tend to get.
-
QUINNSCOMMENTARY
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:56 pm
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
spot;993877 wrote: 1 - I was responding to the outrageous "Our poor have cable tv and air conditioning" comment.
2 - Nobody would be more delighted than I were you to find an authoritative count. Your government seems to believe that uncounted means unreal, rather like excess deaths in Iraq.
Actually, that comment is not so outrageous, it's true and in addition about 70% of those people classified as "poor" by government standards have their own home as well. They for thge most part also own a car. So poor in America is generally (although clearly with exceptions) is not same poor as one sees on TV around the world.
As far as the number goes 800,000 to 1,000,000 seems to be close as best I can find, but that is not at any one time, but over the course of a year and not all the same people. So, if there were 90,000 people homeless each month that's how one gets to the million number.
2 - Nobody would be more delighted than I were you to find an authoritative count. Your government seems to believe that uncounted means unreal, rather like excess deaths in Iraq.
Actually, that comment is not so outrageous, it's true and in addition about 70% of those people classified as "poor" by government standards have their own home as well. They for thge most part also own a car. So poor in America is generally (although clearly with exceptions) is not same poor as one sees on TV around the world.
As far as the number goes 800,000 to 1,000,000 seems to be close as best I can find, but that is not at any one time, but over the course of a year and not all the same people. So, if there were 90,000 people homeless each month that's how one gets to the million number.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
Quinn, you're implying that nobody in the US is homeless for longer than four weeks and then it's over. If you're looking for a figure of unintentionally homeless for a period, summed up across a year, you get to between three and four million - go check the charities counts. As I say, the US government really doesn't want to and really won't do it.
As for the American government definition of the American poor as opposed to the one I'm using, yes the definition exists, it's a smokescreen. Throw it away because what it refers to isn't the American poor. What I'm referring to is a part of the American poor, not the people you accurately describe as having cable tv and air conditioning and their own home as well which the American government calls poor. It's all a matter of vocabulary and the Orwellian notion that if there are no words to refer to something then it doesn't exist.
Socialist governments count these things in their own countries very closely and publish the results.
As for the American government definition of the American poor as opposed to the one I'm using, yes the definition exists, it's a smokescreen. Throw it away because what it refers to isn't the American poor. What I'm referring to is a part of the American poor, not the people you accurately describe as having cable tv and air conditioning and their own home as well which the American government calls poor. It's all a matter of vocabulary and the Orwellian notion that if there are no words to refer to something then it doesn't exist.
Socialist governments count these things in their own countries very closely and publish the results.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
It's not an issue for our federal gov't. If you have to demonize an American institution, demonize the individual states.
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
Accountable;997895 wrote: It's not an issue for our federal gov't. If you have to demonize an American institution, demonize the individual states.
The only reason it's not an issue for your federal government is because you collectively choose to allow your government at all levels to avoid entering into a social contract with the people. You collectively get the style of government which you collectively select and the current US model has no meaningful social contract. It's of no concern whatever to anyone who doesn't live there, it's an internal affair of the people of the USA. I'm merely pointing out what I'd change if I were so unfortunate as to be subject to those circumstances.
The only reason it's not an issue for your federal government is because you collectively choose to allow your government at all levels to avoid entering into a social contract with the people. You collectively get the style of government which you collectively select and the current US model has no meaningful social contract. It's of no concern whatever to anyone who doesn't live there, it's an internal affair of the people of the USA. I'm merely pointing out what I'd change if I were so unfortunate as to be subject to those circumstances.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
spot;998095 wrote: The only reason it's not an issue for your federal government is because you collectively choose to allow your government at all levels to avoid entering into a social contract with the people. You collectively get the style of government which you collectively select and the current US model has no meaningful social contract. It's of no concern whatever to anyone who doesn't live there, it's an internal affair of the people of the USA. I'm merely pointing out what I'd change if I were so unfortunate as to be subject to those circumstances.
'kay
'kay
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
Article
In America, we consider a family of four "poor" if its annual income falls below $21,203. And we actually undercount income -- ignoring assets accumulated in prior years and disregarding non-cash welfare, such as taxpayer-funded education, lunch programs, health care, food stamps and subsidies for public housing. Only 6 percent of poor households, according to The Heritage Foundation, are overcrowded -- meaning more than one person per room. More than two-thirds of "poor" Americans live in housing with more than two rooms per person. And 43 percent of America's poor households own their own homes -- and the average poor person's home has three bedrooms, one-and-a-half bathrooms, a garage and a porch or a patio.
"Overall," writes Heritage, "the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians."
"Nearly three-quarters of poor U.S. households own a car," says the study, "31 percent own two or more cars. Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher."
In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population -- rich and poor -- lived with air conditioning, while today 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. The average poor American has more living space than the average citizen -- of all income levels -- living in many cities throughout Europe, including Paris, London, Vienna and Athens.
In America, we consider a family of four "poor" if its annual income falls below $21,203. And we actually undercount income -- ignoring assets accumulated in prior years and disregarding non-cash welfare, such as taxpayer-funded education, lunch programs, health care, food stamps and subsidies for public housing. Only 6 percent of poor households, according to The Heritage Foundation, are overcrowded -- meaning more than one person per room. More than two-thirds of "poor" Americans live in housing with more than two rooms per person. And 43 percent of America's poor households own their own homes -- and the average poor person's home has three bedrooms, one-and-a-half bathrooms, a garage and a porch or a patio.
"Overall," writes Heritage, "the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians."
"Nearly three-quarters of poor U.S. households own a car," says the study, "31 percent own two or more cars. Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher."
In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population -- rich and poor -- lived with air conditioning, while today 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. The average poor American has more living space than the average citizen -- of all income levels -- living in many cities throughout Europe, including Paris, London, Vienna and Athens.
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
The US relies on propaganda to sustain its existence as much as the Soviets used to and for the same reason, it's driven by a political ideology - Capitalism in the case of the US, Communism in the case of the Soviet Union. Of course you can find propagandist statements of the sort you've just added to the thread. My analysis of the wide division between the majority poor and the minority rich in the US stands, for all that. It's based on a reasonable interpretation of Inland Revenue summary information. By all means attack my mathematics if you want to show where I'm mistaken, but failing that accept what I've said is based on hard fact.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
spot;1077587 wrote: The US relies on propaganda to sustain its existence as much as the Soviets used to and for the same
That's right. *pats spot's widdle head* Anything not matching your preconceived notions can't possibly be factual, therefore must be propaganda. Now you've said your piece, you can go back to mumbling vague curses to America. Off you go.
That's right. *pats spot's widdle head* Anything not matching your preconceived notions can't possibly be factual, therefore must be propaganda. Now you've said your piece, you can go back to mumbling vague curses to America. Off you go.
I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally
Accountable;1079206 wrote: That's right. *pats spot's widdle head* Anything not matching your preconceived notions can't possibly be factual, therefore must be propaganda. Now you've said your piece, you can go back to mumbling vague curses to America. Off you go.
And my statement on income disparity's based on factual figures too? You missed mentioning that bit.
And my statement on income disparity's based on factual figures too? You missed mentioning that bit.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.