It's not wealth envy. Why would I be envious? I have plenty of money. I was just stating a simple fact that contradicted your assertion.lowing wrote:
so what, stop with the wealth envy already. Is someones private wealth really supposed to be any of your business?..........Oh wait, what the fuck am I asking? Never mind already know your answer
...and yetCameronPoe wrote:
Government is supposed to do a better job, otherwise they don't get elected next time around. They are supposed to be elected on the basis of the fact that they present intelligent, reasoned, sensible ideas and implement them. As we all recognise however, politicians are human and the people who elect them care more about soundbites than substance. A government is not supposed to bend to the will of, as you note, the fickleness of the people, it is supposed to adhere to the manifesto it sought election on (evolving circumstances and new realities taken into account obviously), a manifesto that should have contained a medium to long term strategy that solves problems. The short term pain and backlash generated should be weathered by a politician or group of politicians that have faith in the ideas they intended to implement when in office.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I thought that last part was assumed. That was the point I was getting at.
Government is run by more short-sighted people and, despite being a republic, is still largely in the hands of the majority. Government doesn't do a better job, just a more clumsy one.
The point of the thread is support for Obama's healthcare package is under 50%. The population is fickle. Don't try and pull some crap like "Obama was for it, they elected Obama, it must be the best option".
Who the fuck are you talking about as wind farm tech being "the business to be in"? The Danish? It is one alternative, and quite frankly a very minor one. There are other much, much bigger energy-centric fields to be in, but wind is not one of them. It looks great in an advertisement for an oil company that is "doing more", but the reality is we have fields of them and it's not even cost-effective to run them all the time.CameronPoe wrote:
Keep on laughing, Denmark has a sum total of 5.5m people, the US has 300m, and Denmark is the world leader in wind farm technology - the business to be in. In a recent study it also came top out of 12 countries tested in terms of social mobility. The US came 9th. The UK incidentally came bottom in this report commissioned by ex-British ministed Alan Milburn.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I laughed out loud a little. Consider this list, then consider the list you could make for the U.S. It's not even comparable.
I am laughing at you, and your attempt to compare Denmark with America so directly. Apples to oranges, any conclusions drawn are a fuckin joke.CameronPoe wrote:
How surprising that I find myself in another international dick-measuring contest with a Team America pride complex merchant unable to look at other nations objectively.... like I said keep on laughing for all the good it'll do you. I suppose I started it but you are always going to run into comparisons in this kind of debate.
Each individual nation has UHC. Really weak trickery there.CameronPoe wrote:
Ever come to realise that your size and the level of states rights and remits might be the issue here.....? The EU has 450m people. That 1.5 times the population of the US. And we all have UHC!Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You fail to understand the differences of running a country with 5 million people and a country with 300 million people.
Because you are a self-proclaimed liberal that would probably shit his pants if each state were left to their own devices as far as healthcare, particularly when the conservative states don't adopt your type of system.CameronPoe wrote:
Why are you laughing?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Very nice commonplace, extremely conservative idea hahaha.
No, but after a google I gather this is strengthening/centralizing the EU? I'm rather tired so please just excuse me if that is incorrect. Please just correct me and skip the mockage.CameronPoe wrote:
Are you unaware of the Lisbon Treaty, halted by an Irish referendum but likely to be passed later this year...?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Are you not aware of the Federalist system?
It is a very important concept central to the writing of our Constitution. Fed 10 was written by James Madison, who I'm pretty sure you know is considered the Father of our Constitution. In writing the Constitution he intentionally devised a form of government where power was out of the direct control of the people.CameronPoe wrote:
Tyranny of the majority sounds like an emotive phrase to express discontent with universal suffrage. Perhaps a tyranny of the minority might be better, eh?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
particularly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10
CameronPoe wrote:
Yeah, nobody passes on their wealth to offspring that haven't proven their worth or their work ethic...lowing wrote:
No. GREATER wealth may accumulate at the top and why shouldn't it, they took the risks, and invested the money, but over all, ALL our lives improve, and we all have more for it.Turquoise wrote:
It can... but as you said, not necessarily.
Regardless of societal structure, wealth tends to accumulate at the top. I don't see any reason why this trend would reverse itself. The logical expectation of globalization is the development of a globally evened out standard of living for the majority of the world's population while a small but extremely wealthy aristocracy develops. This means the average First World citizen will see a considerable drop in the quality of life, while the average Third World citizen will experience a rise. This process has already begun for many countries.
No. I don't think that. I'm not the one making stupid assertions about other places (see highlighted section). Compared to the rest of the industrialised world the US has probably the greatest level of wealth disparity. Your argument that the rich deserve to be rich, really doesn't hold up, due to the dynastic nature of the world (a majority of rich people have done nothing to make themselves rich except be born rich) and the comparative lack of supportive social programs explains in part the high level of wealth disparity.lowing wrote:
Yeah, I am serious, are YOU serious is the real question, I offer up govt. loans and grants as proof by all means do some googling you will find them. Now, if I am wrong, and these do not exist or you can not find them, let me know.Bertster7 wrote:
Are you serious?lowing wrote:
We are not a nation of royalty, whereas you are born unto an elite bloodline and hence you are rich and will remain rich regardless as to your actions, while a peasant is a peasant and nothing will change that, or be allowed to change that. So your comparison is not accurate. We have free will, some use it some do not.
If so, that's fucking hilarious....
Do you really think people have no choice in America, that they are assigned?
Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-07-24 02:13:55)
1. Well perhaps you need to tighten up on your grammar - you should have said 'was' rather than 'has been'.lowing wrote:
You did note that I said "old world Europe", right?
Yup still irrelevant since his presidency is finite
sorry, the govt. did not build shit, the govt. hired private companies to build EVERYTHING
I work in the electricity sector and attend seminars in America and Europe that concern energy, electricity and electricity infrastructure. Wind farms ARE cost effective. You pulled that statement out of your uninformed arse. Any time the wind blows you are cutting into the amount of fossil fuel you are using, period. The return on investment is colossal. That's kind of the reason there is a long waiting list with manufacturers for turbines. The problem with wind farms are that they have poor fault-ride-through capabilities and reactive power characteristics, play havoc with the frequency of islanded or poorly interconnected systems and obviously produce nothing when no wind is blowing. There will be engineering solutions for all of these issues, the latter probably entailing the roll-out of pumped storage units.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Who the fuck are you talking about as wind farm tech being "the business to be in"? The Danish? It is one alternative, and quite frankly a very minor one. There are other much, much bigger energy-centric fields to be in, but wind is not one of them. It looks great in an advertisement for an oil company that is "doing more", but the reality is we have fields of them and it's not even cost-effective to run them all the time.
Still going to ignore the fact the US is made up of 50 smallish states that could manage themselves more efficiently than a federal government can? Fair enough.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I am laughing at you, and your attempt to compare Denmark with America so directly. Apples to oranges, any conclusions drawn are a fuckin joke.
If you want infrastructure, stability, international peace etc. then Denmark is great. Probably an excellent place to raise a family. It's still vanilla to rocky road.
I'm sure those fifty stars on your flag refer to something...... Like the stars on the EU flag.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Each individual nation has UHC. Really weak trickery there.
You don't know shit about me. I'm liberal by American standards or the standards of the right wing on this forum - in reality I'm a pragmatist. I believe power should not be centralised too much.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because you are a self-proclaimed liberal that would probably shit his pants if each state were left to their own devices as far as healthcare, particularly when the conservative states don't adopt your type of system.
Correct.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
No, but after a google I gather this is strengthening/centralizing the EU? I'm rather tired so please just excuse me if that is incorrect. Please just correct me and skip the mockage.
The Dems have a supermajority in the senate, which goes to show that if things go too awry the tryanny of the majority, as you put it, can and do come to power if things get fucked up too badly. I never suggested that direct democracy is a reality anywhere and nor do I think it is sensible (I think Plato figured that one out several thousand years ago).Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It is a very important concept central to the writing of our Constitution. Fed 10 was written by James Madison, who I'm pretty sure you know is considered the Father of our Constitution. In writing the Constitution he intentionally devised a form of government where power was out of the direct control of the people.
It is not as well known, but is as equally important to our politics as phrases such as "seperation of power" and "checks and balances". It is just not talked about as much because people would like to believe they live in a direct democracy. Not just an "emotive phrase".
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-07-24 02:17:13)
your point that their are people who are born into rich families is irrelevant to the discussion and my point as a whole. but I am not saying something you do not already damn well know.CameronPoe wrote:
It's not wealth envy. Why would I be envious? I have plenty of money. I was just stating a simple fact that contradicted your assertion.lowing wrote:
so what, stop with the wealth envy already. Is someones private wealth really supposed to be any of your business?..........Oh wait, what the fuck am I asking? Never mind already know your answer
Your original point was about people who earned their money.lowing wrote:
your point that their are people who are born into rich families is irrelevant to the discussion and my point as a whole. but I am not saying something you do not already damn well know.
My post was a direct challenge to Cam who compared us in the US to kings and aristocracy, whereas a peasant, has no chance to become anything greater than a peasant because he was born unto peasant parents.Bertster7 wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
Yeah, nobody passes on their wealth to offspring that haven't proven their worth or their work ethic...lowing wrote:
No. GREATER wealth may accumulate at the top and why shouldn't it, they took the risks, and invested the money, but over all, ALL our lives improve, and we all have more for it.Turquoise wrote:
It can... but as you said, not necessarily.
Regardless of societal structure, wealth tends to accumulate at the top. I don't see any reason why this trend would reverse itself. The logical expectation of globalization is the development of a globally evened out standard of living for the majority of the world's population while a small but extremely wealthy aristocracy develops. This means the average First World citizen will see a considerable drop in the quality of life, while the average Third World citizen will experience a rise. This process has already begun for many countries.No. I don't think that. I'm not the one making stupid assertions about other places (see highlighted section). Compared to the rest of the industrialised world the US has probably the greatest level of wealth disparity. Your argument that the rich deserve to be rich, really doesn't hold up, due to the dynastic nature of the world (a majority of rich people have done nothing to make themselves rich except be born rich) and the comparative lack of supportive social programs explains in part the high level of wealth disparity.lowing wrote:
Yeah, I am serious, are YOU serious is the real question, I offer up govt. loans and grants as proof by all means do some googling you will find them. Now, if I am wrong, and these do not exist or you can not find them, let me know.Bertster7 wrote:
Are you serious?
If so, that's fucking hilarious....
Do you really think people have no choice in America, that they are assigned?
lol. I thought we'd cleared your misconception up?lowing wrote:
My post was a direct challenge to Cam who compared us in the US to kings and aristocracy, whereas a peasant, has no chance to become anything greater than a peasant because he was born unto peasant parents.
you are derailing from the point made, by trying to split hairs. How about you address what was said, in the spirit intended?CameronPoe wrote:
Your original point was about people who earned their money.lowing wrote:
your point that their are people who are born into rich families is irrelevant to the discussion and my point as a whole. but I am not saying something you do not already damn well know.
I don't have a misconception as to what you said, you compared the failure of our society to that of those that were run by greedy kings and aristocracy. The same society where peoples lives were governed not by their choices but by their predisposed status in that society. I simply called you on it.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. I thought we'd cleared your misconception up?lowing wrote:
My post was a direct challenge to Cam who compared us in the US to kings and aristocracy, whereas a peasant, has no chance to become anything greater than a peasant because he was born unto peasant parents.
I gave examples of elites and political leaders running the show and dictating the opportunities, living standards and social mobility of others. If, for instance, you don't think fiscal and financial regulatory policy in the US and Europe has hampered people's ability to escape the cycle of poverty and to climb social strata then I'm afraid you have your head firmly in the sand.lowing wrote:
I don't have a misconception as to what you said, you compared the failure of our society to that of those that were run by greedy kings and aristocracy. The same society where peoples lives were governed not by their choices but by their predisposed status in that society. I simply called you on it.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. I thought we'd cleared your misconception up?lowing wrote:
My post was a direct challenge to Cam who compared us in the US to kings and aristocracy, whereas a peasant, has no chance to become anything greater than a peasant because he was born unto peasant parents.
No one dictates your climb in quality of life in the US except the individual. Period. There is no conspricy to keep poor people poor. Plenty of examples where self made fortunes have been made without any govt. interference.CameronPoe wrote:
I gave examples of elites and political leaders running the show and dictating the opportunities, living standards and social mobility of others. If, for instance, you don't think fiscal and financial regulatory policy in the US and Europe has hampered people's ability to escape the cycle of poverty and to climb social strata then I'm afraid you have your head firmly in the sand.lowing wrote:
I don't have a misconception as to what you said, you compared the failure of our society to that of those that were run by greedy kings and aristocracy. The same society where peoples lives were governed not by their choices but by their predisposed status in that society. I simply called you on it.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. I thought we'd cleared your misconception up?
They don't dictate - they can affect and affect massively however, that is the issue. And you're right there is no conspiracy - it happens as a consequence of other countries having cheaper labour making it more attractive to export jobs from a purely financial perspective.lowing wrote:
No one dictates your climb in quality of life in the US except the individual. Period. There is no conspricy to keep poor people poor. Plenty of examples where self made fortunes have been made without any govt. interference.
Nope I do not think that, since for that to happen it would happen to ALL of us. well as you keep pointing out, you are doing well. I assume you also were not born rich. So if the govt. is keeping us all down, what the fuck are you doing way up there, if not by your personsal choices and decisions that put you there.
No he didn't - or I've totally missed it. Perhaps you could point out where he did so? The closest he came was a remark to FM about greed historically being the downfall of the "haves". An example being the French Revolution, where there was widespread poverty contrasted by the excesses of the rich. An example of a great deal of wealth disparity - an area where the US is the leader of the Western world.lowing wrote:
My post was a direct challenge to Cam who compared us in the US to kings and aristocracy, whereas a peasant, has no chance to become anything greater than a peasant because he was born unto peasant parents.Bertster7 wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
Yeah, nobody passes on their wealth to offspring that haven't proven their worth or their work ethic...lowing wrote:
No. GREATER wealth may accumulate at the top and why shouldn't it, they took the risks, and invested the money, but over all, ALL our lives improve, and we all have more for it.Turquoise wrote:
It can... but as you said, not necessarily.
Regardless of societal structure, wealth tends to accumulate at the top. I don't see any reason why this trend would reverse itself. The logical expectation of globalization is the development of a globally evened out standard of living for the majority of the world's population while a small but extremely wealthy aristocracy develops. This means the average First World citizen will see a considerable drop in the quality of life, while the average Third World citizen will experience a rise. This process has already begun for many countries.No. I don't think that. I'm not the one making stupid assertions about other places (see highlighted section). Compared to the rest of the industrialised world the US has probably the greatest level of wealth disparity. Your argument that the rich deserve to be rich, really doesn't hold up, due to the dynastic nature of the world (a majority of rich people have done nothing to make themselves rich except be born rich) and the comparative lack of supportive social programs explains in part the high level of wealth disparity.lowing wrote:
Yeah, I am serious, are YOU serious is the real question, I offer up govt. loans and grants as proof by all means do some googling you will find them. Now, if I am wrong, and these do not exist or you can not find them, let me know.
Do you really think people have no choice in America, that they are assigned?
Some people are very rich and some people are very poor. Relative poverty levels in the US are really very high with around 17% of people living in poverty (on less than 50% of the national average income). (on a healthcare related sidenote, you also have the worst percentage chance of dying before you hit 60 in the US @ 11.8%)lowing wrote:
ya think so, well funny how, STILL, Iphones, and Xboxes are flying off of the shelves, not bad for starving masses living under bridges and in card board boxes eating cake.
That's quite subjective. The facts are that you have fewer social programs to address these issues and have bigger problems with them than other places. You may claim that's down to the people, but I think you'll find that there are people with no ambition everywhere and the proportion of people with a desire to succeed is more or less the same transnationally.lowing wrote:
So let me ask you, if you do not think the rich, and their private fortunes, deserves it, who does?
We do not have a lack of social programs, we have a lack of people with enough ambition to take advantage of them.
It's more that you're not lighting the path enough. The good opportunities aren't there. There is an excess of shit jobs that pay very badly, which is why the long term unemployment rate is so low (combined with the pro-employer market conditions which allow for greatly flexibility (rapid hiring/firing) compared to the pro-employee system in Europe which is more suitable for a benefit driven social system).lowing wrote:
I suppose lighting the path isn't enough for you. I guess you think we should take away time and money from own lives to slow down and push and shove them down it .
great so we are in agreement, it is choice and level of desire that keeps one up or down, and so much the govt. glad we could agree.CameronPoe wrote:
They don't dictate - they can affect and affect massively however, that is the issue. And you're right there is no conspiracy - it happens as a consequence of other countries having cheaper labour making it more attractive to export jobs from a purely financial perspective.lowing wrote:
No one dictates your climb in quality of life in the US except the individual. Period. There is no conspricy to keep poor people poor. Plenty of examples where self made fortunes have been made without any govt. interference.
Nope I do not think that, since for that to happen it would happen to ALL of us. well as you keep pointing out, you are doing well. I assume you also were not born rich. So if the govt. is keeping us all down, what the fuck are you doing way up there, if not by your personsal choices and decisions that put you there.
My parents would not have afforded to send me to university. State-sponsored third level education for all and subsistence grants owing to the means level of my family coupled with my own endeavours and my parents hard work made that possible.
A mixture of personal endeavour and societal conditions, the latter being a function of our elected representatives/government and ourselves.lowing wrote:
great so we are in agreement, it is choice and level of desire that keeps one up or down, and so much the govt. glad we could agree.
then you missed it, Cam directly compared our society with that of royalty, and insinuated that the greed of the aristocracy is compared to our greed. I correctly showed where the 2 are not comparable, for one simple reason, WE HAVE A CHOICE.Bertster7 wrote:
No he didn't - or I've totally missed it. Perhaps you could point out where he did so? The closest he came was a remark to FM about greed historically being the downfall of the "haves". An example being the French Revolution, where there was widespread poverty contrasted by the excesses of the rich. An example of a great deal of wealth disparity - an area where the US is the leader of the Western world.lowing wrote:
My post was a direct challenge to Cam who compared us in the US to kings and aristocracy, whereas a peasant, has no chance to become anything greater than a peasant because he was born unto peasant parents.Bertster7 wrote:
No. I don't think that. I'm not the one making stupid assertions about other places (see highlighted section). Compared to the rest of the industrialised world the US has probably the greatest level of wealth disparity. Your argument that the rich deserve to be rich, really doesn't hold up, due to the dynastic nature of the world (a majority of rich people have done nothing to make themselves rich except be born rich) and the comparative lack of supportive social programs explains in part the high level of wealth disparity.Some people are very rich and some people are very poor. Relative poverty levels in the US are really very high with around 17% of people living in poverty (on less than 50% of the national average income). (on a healthcare related sidenote, you also have the worst percentage chance of dying before you hit 60 in the US @ 11.8%)lowing wrote:
ya think so, well funny how, STILL, Iphones, and Xboxes are flying off of the shelves, not bad for starving masses living under bridges and in card board boxes eating cake.That's quite subjective. The facts are that you have fewer social programs to address these issues and have bigger problems with them than other places. You may claim that's down to the people, but I think you'll find that there are people with no ambition everywhere and the proportion of people with a desire to succeed is more or less the same transnationally.lowing wrote:
So let me ask you, if you do not think the rich, and their private fortunes, deserves it, who does?
We do not have a lack of social programs, we have a lack of people with enough ambition to take advantage of them.It's more that you're not lighting the path enough. The good opportunities aren't there. There is an excess of shit jobs that pay very badly, which is why the long term unemployment rate is so low (combined with the pro-employer market conditions which allow for greatly flexibility (rapid hiring/firing) compared to the pro-employee system in Europe which is more suitable for a benefit driven social system).lowing wrote:
I suppose lighting the path isn't enough for you. I guess you think we should take away time and money from own lives to slow down and push and shove them down it .
The US model was once superb. The problem is that it hasn't moved with the times. It was suitable in the past but is becoming ever more wasteful. Massive reform is needed across the board, not just with healthcare - that's only one aspect. Either way it shifted could have potential benefits, but currently the US taxpayer is paying more for the services they get from government than anyone else. You are getting ripped off and you should do something about it. This goes beyond just healthcare. You don't need to pay more in taxes, just to spend the money more efficiently and not have a load of execs getting rich from being middle men in government funded projects. Cut out the middle men. Reduce government wastage. Then you can afford to start paying off excessive national debt and improving social services without increasing taxes.
Last edited by lowing (2009-07-24 04:19:11)
Where is it then? I've checked thoroughly now, and the only post vaguely like that by him is the one I just refered to. I think you've completely misunderstood.lowing wrote:
then you missed it, Cam directly compared our society with that of royalty, and insinuated that the greed of the aristocracy is compared to our greed. I correctly showed where the 2 are not comparable, for one simple reason, WE HAVE A CHOICE.Bertster7 wrote:
No he didn't - or I've totally missed it. Perhaps you could point out where he did so? The closest he came was a remark to FM about greed historically being the downfall of the "haves". An example being the French Revolution, where there was widespread poverty contrasted by the excesses of the rich. An example of a great deal of wealth disparity - an area where the US is the leader of the Western world.lowing wrote:
My post was a direct challenge to Cam who compared us in the US to kings and aristocracy, whereas a peasant, has no chance to become anything greater than a peasant because he was born unto peasant parents.Some people are very rich and some people are very poor. Relative poverty levels in the US are really very high with around 17% of people living in poverty (on less than 50% of the national average income). (on a healthcare related sidenote, you also have the worst percentage chance of dying before you hit 60 in the US @ 11.8%)lowing wrote:
ya think so, well funny how, STILL, Iphones, and Xboxes are flying off of the shelves, not bad for starving masses living under bridges and in card board boxes eating cake.That's quite subjective. The facts are that you have fewer social programs to address these issues and have bigger problems with them than other places. You may claim that's down to the people, but I think you'll find that there are people with no ambition everywhere and the proportion of people with a desire to succeed is more or less the same transnationally.lowing wrote:
So let me ask you, if you do not think the rich, and their private fortunes, deserves it, who does?
We do not have a lack of social programs, we have a lack of people with enough ambition to take advantage of them.It's more that you're not lighting the path enough. The good opportunities aren't there. There is an excess of shit jobs that pay very badly, which is why the long term unemployment rate is so low (combined with the pro-employer market conditions which allow for greatly flexibility (rapid hiring/firing) compared to the pro-employee system in Europe which is more suitable for a benefit driven social system).lowing wrote:
I suppose lighting the path isn't enough for you. I guess you think we should take away time and money from own lives to slow down and push and shove them down it .
The US model was once superb. The problem is that it hasn't moved with the times. It was suitable in the past but is becoming ever more wasteful. Massive reform is needed across the board, not just with healthcare - that's only one aspect. Either way it shifted could have potential benefits, but currently the US taxpayer is paying more for the services they get from government than anyone else. You are getting ripped off and you should do something about it. This goes beyond just healthcare. You don't need to pay more in taxes, just to spend the money more efficiently and not have a load of execs getting rich from being middle men in government funded projects. Cut out the middle men. Reduce government wastage. Then you can afford to start paying off excessive national debt and improving social services without increasing taxes.
No, you don't. The US is far less liberally minded than most of the Western world who don't have such big problems with the issues being discussed here.lowing wrote:
I think you need to evaluate as to what poverty means in America, I doubt it is as tough as you think.
No, what we have are more illegals, and more liberals willing to cater to them for votes, thus draining the programs in place.
It's pretty naive to think that the problems in your country stem from having more lazy people than other comparable countries. Since you make it such a keystone of your argument, demonstrate that it is the case.lowing wrote:
No, the times have not changed, the rules are still the same. What has changed are the peoples attitude toward work, morality, and entitlement.
we simply do not want to work for a fucking living. PERIOD. As it is the liberal ideology of, let the man carry your burden, and it is not your fault you are a failure, is fueling that attitude
Already pointed it out, in fact I highlighted it.Bertster7 wrote:
Where is it then? I've checked thoroughly now, and the only post vaguely like that by him is the one I just refered to. I think you've completely misunderstood.lowing wrote:
then you missed it, Cam directly compared our society with that of royalty, and insinuated that the greed of the aristocracy is compared to our greed. I correctly showed where the 2 are not comparable, for one simple reason, WE HAVE A CHOICE.Bertster7 wrote:
No he didn't - or I've totally missed it. Perhaps you could point out where he did so? The closest he came was a remark to FM about greed historically being the downfall of the "haves". An example being the French Revolution, where there was widespread poverty contrasted by the excesses of the rich. An example of a great deal of wealth disparity - an area where the US is the leader of the Western world.lowing wrote:
My post was a direct challenge to Cam who compared us in the US to kings and aristocracy, whereas a peasant, has no chance to become anything greater than a peasant because he was born unto peasant parents.Some people are very rich and some people are very poor. Relative poverty levels in the US are really very high with around 17% of people living in poverty (on less than 50% of the national average income). (on a healthcare related sidenote, you also have the worst percentage chance of dying before you hit 60 in the US @ 11.8%)lowing wrote:
ya think so, well funny how, STILL, Iphones, and Xboxes are flying off of the shelves, not bad for starving masses living under bridges and in card board boxes eating cake.
That's quite subjective. The facts are that you have fewer social programs to address these issues and have bigger problems with them than other places. You may claim that's down to the people, but I think you'll find that there are people with no ambition everywhere and the proportion of people with a desire to succeed is more or less the same transnationally.
It's more that you're not lighting the path enough. The good opportunities aren't there. There is an excess of shit jobs that pay very badly, which is why the long term unemployment rate is so low (combined with the pro-employer market conditions which allow for greatly flexibility (rapid hiring/firing) compared to the pro-employee system in Europe which is more suitable for a benefit driven social system).
The US model was once superb. The problem is that it hasn't moved with the times. It was suitable in the past but is becoming ever more wasteful. Massive reform is needed across the board, not just with healthcare - that's only one aspect. Either way it shifted could have potential benefits, but currently the US taxpayer is paying more for the services they get from government than anyone else. You are getting ripped off and you should do something about it. This goes beyond just healthcare. You don't need to pay more in taxes, just to spend the money more efficiently and not have a load of execs getting rich from being middle men in government funded projects. Cut out the middle men. Reduce government wastage. Then you can afford to start paying off excessive national debt and improving social services without increasing taxes.No, you don't. The US is far less liberally minded than most of the Western world who don't have such big problems with the issues being discussed here.lowing wrote:
I think you need to evaluate as to what poverty means in America, I doubt it is as tough as you think.
No, what we have are more illegals, and more liberals willing to cater to them for votes, thus draining the programs in place.It's pretty naive to think that the problems in your country stem from having more lazy people than other comparable countries. Since you make it such a keystone of your argument, demonstrate that it is the case.lowing wrote:
No, the times have not changed, the rules are still the same. What has changed are the peoples attitude toward work, morality, and entitlement.
we simply do not want to work for a fucking living. PERIOD. As it is the liberal ideology of, let the man carry your burden, and it is not your fault you are a failure, is fueling that attitude
Last edited by lowing (2009-07-24 04:51:07)
In that case, I haven't missed it at all, it is exactly the point I addressed earlier.lowing wrote:
Already pointed it out, in fact I highlighted it.
The closest he came was a remark to FM about greed historically being the downfall of the "haves". An example being the French Revolution, where there was widespread poverty contrasted by the excesses of the rich. An example of a great deal of wealth disparity - an area where the US is the leader of the Western world.
I don't see a direct comparison to aristocracy there at all. I see a reference to greed bringing down governments and massive wealth disparity within a society leading to the collapse of that society. That's plain and straightforward historical precedent. It also suits the US down to a tee, since the US has the largest levels of wealth disparity anywhere in the Western world.Your haves-have nots is not borne out in the reality experienced by Danish, Canadian, Irish, Swedish, Swiss, Norwegian, German people, etc. Your take is a socially irresponsible one, with some kind of blind faith in the responsibility of individuals when you know damn well that we all live in a society together, we all affect each other (and the irresponsibility of others does affect everyone - see banking/housing crisis) and when inequality reaches a certain point people change the way they vote to rein that in or simply revolt (that is the ultimate extreme example however). Our health is our wealth not my health is my wealth. We can't always only think of ourselves - greed has long brought kings, bourgouisies and governments to their knees. You need to stike a balance whereby the imbalance between haves and have nots is of an acceptable level - otherwise that society will fail.
Same reason they're flocking here. Better standard of life than where they immigrated from (in general - many affluent people also immigrate for completely different reasons). You always seem to neglect the fact that Europe has massive immigration issues too.lowing wrote:
Yeah, you guys have no problems, then why was everyone flocking here?
Which happens everywhere in the Western world. To assume problems are due to you having a higher rate of lazy people than other Western countries is extremely naive, as I said earlier. Exactly the same is true of the UK, but it's Polish builders here not Mexicans.lowing wrote:
Easy, we complain we have no jobs, and they are being shipped over seas, yet a Mexican who does not speak English can cross the river and begin roofing houses in 15 minutes.
Yes then why are you denying his comparison that does not fit, the peasants of France had no CHOICE, they were peasants and would ALWAYS remain so regardless as to their effort. Thati s not the case in the states.Bertster7 wrote:
In that case, I haven't missed it at all, it is exactly the point I addressed earlier.lowing wrote:
Already pointed it out, in fact I highlighted it.The closest he came was a remark to FM about greed historically being the downfall of the "haves". An example being the French Revolution, where there was widespread poverty contrasted by the excesses of the rich. An example of a great deal of wealth disparity - an area where the US is the leader of the Western world.I don't see a direct comparison to aristocracy there at all. I see a reference to greed bringing down governments and massive wealth disparity within a society leading to the collapse of that society. That's plain and straightforward historical precedent. It also suits the US down to a tee, since the US has the largest levels of wealth disparity anywhere in the Western world.Your haves-have nots is not borne out in the reality experienced by Danish, Canadian, Irish, Swedish, Swiss, Norwegian, German people, etc. Your take is a socially irresponsible one, with some kind of blind faith in the responsibility of individuals when you know damn well that we all live in a society together, we all affect each other (and the irresponsibility of others does affect everyone - see banking/housing crisis) and when inequality reaches a certain point people change the way they vote to rein that in or simply revolt (that is the ultimate extreme example however). Our health is our wealth not my health is my wealth. We can't always only think of ourselves - greed has long brought kings, bourgouisies and governments to their knees. You need to stike a balance whereby the imbalance between haves and have nots is of an acceptable level - otherwise that society will fail.Same reason they're flocking here. Better standard of life than where they immigrated from (in general - many affluent people also immigrate for completely different reasons). You always seem to neglect the fact that Europe has massive immigration issues too.lowing wrote:
Yeah, you guys have no problems, then why was everyone flocking here?Which happens everywhere in the Western world. To assume problems are due to you having a higher rate of lazy people than other Western countries is extremely naive, as I said earlier. Exactly the same is true of the UK, but it's Polish builders here not Mexicans.lowing wrote:
Easy, we complain we have no jobs, and they are being shipped over seas, yet a Mexican who does not speak English can cross the river and begin roofing houses in 15 minutes.
As I've already explained time and time again, none of those factors are exclusive to the US. Using factors that are almost universal in your argument is stupid. You can't use things that are constants across countries being compared as excuses, you need things that are different in each country. Your reasons are applicable to pretty much any affluent Western nation.
Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2009-07-24 06:02:08)
What comparison? There was an example of there being historical precedents for greed leading to governmental collapse - which is perfectly true. There is also the implication that the US system is selfish and greedy. There is no comparison between the US and aristocracy, it just isn't there.lowing wrote:
Yes then why are you denying his comparison that does not fit, the peasants of France had no CHOICE, they were peasants and would ALWAYS remain so regardless as to their effort. Thati s not the case in the states.
What are you on about?lowing wrote:
Then who was it that sailed passed the statue of liberty, the Japanese?
As is the rest of the Western world. These things are constants across all the countries being looked at here. There is no tangible evidence that supports your statement. In fact all the figures point to the opposite being the case, since the average number of hours worked in the US is way higher than in Europe. If anything that points towards Europeans being even lazier.lowing wrote:
Do you live here? I am telling you we are a fat and lazy society. The liberal entitlement attitude has taken over. We want and expect and demand EVERYTHING, yet refuse to work for ANYTHING, we think we should just take it form the rich, hence the election of Obama.