Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: .::Tin Can::. on August 09, 2004, 06:15:38 pm
-
Ok, we dont know who will win, Bush or Kerry, so lets try and imagine that Kerry won the election and he has been in office for at least a week now, and has gotten his feet wet with the layout of the white house and such. Or something.
What do you think he would do if he was elected? What is going to happen? We know the whole Iraq incident isnt just going to "go away" like people want. If we pull out, then all the other nations will have it on their shoulders instead, and if they pull out then terrorists can just move back in and take it over, and we can start this mess all over again. Other then guessing that he will just get everyone out of Iraq, (since he hasnt given us any clue what he is going to do) he hasnt really said what he will do to help the economy either.
The point is it doesnt need to be helped. If he can make it better than it is, then great. That would make us even more prosperous. Unemployment is low, taxes are low, economy is good, what can you make better about that particular sitation? I remember hearing lines shot from a phrase or two where he might raise taxes. I dont know, I dont think he needs to. I dont think we need to change our economy at all.
So far, this is about all I know what he will do or what plans to be done. He hasnt really said anything that I can remember, nor has he re-said anything of what he plans to do. The only things he has touched on are "I won 3 purple hearts, I'm a war hero" when he was there for only 3 months, which isnt even half a tour of duty, and his first injury didnt even merit a purple heart. He has also only said "Bush is a dumbass, I am right." Right about what? You havent even given any arguments against him, andif you have, they were on rare occasions. I've listened to this guy and I seriously have no idea what he plans to do.
With Bush out of the chair, we would just have to see what Kerry did. If he did exactly the same thing as Bush, he would recieve no critisism. If he followed all of Bush's plans and actions, even down to choking on the pretzel, he would not be ridiculed or made fun of in the way Bush has. Bush has already been humiliated by our friendly liberal media to a point where its unrepairable. People make fun of him now, and half of them dont even know why they do it, they just do it because everyone else does it. *sigh*
So, what is Kerry going to do for the US? For the world? What does he plan to take part in?
-
The plan is already in motion... :drevil: In a couple of months the US will make Al Quaeda seem a like a group of boyscouts :drevil:
-
Something a little more serious Ghostavo. And remember, the topic isnt here to critisize what I think, that has happened on too many levels at the moment, but just to give ideas on what you think Kerry will do in the big mans chair...
-
Terrorists will move 'back' in?
-
True. Terrorist were never 'in' in the first place under Saddam. Something about Saddam being an heretic in their eyes for not following the Coran :p
-
Here's my prediction. I'll refer back to this thread a year from now, provided Kerry wins, which I think he will:
1) The US will stay in Iraq with full force at least until 2006, with possibly additional troops sent in. After that time, a force of about 50k troops will remains in Iraq, at the request of the government of course. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Afghanistan too.
2) Kerry will make a token gesture towards bringing peace about in Israel, but his terms will be unacceptable to the Palestinians and rejected outright by Sharon. He will continue the long tradition of vetoing UN resolutions critical of Israel.
3) He will continue, in earnest, the neo-liberal economic policies which are meeting with almost unanimous opposition around the world. This, I think, is actually Kerry's main characteristic.
4) He will continue to put pressure on Iran and North Korea to end their forays into WMD research, hypocritical though it may be. This applies to any other country seeking a nuclear deterant.
5) He will try, and to a limited degree succseed, in getting greater cooperation from Europe and the rest of the world in the "war on terrorism". All future US initiatives will be under the banner of "mutlinationalism" even if they are in essence US actions. If you liked the "coalition" in Iraq, 90% of which was made up of US troops America, and of which most nations didn't even have a single soldier in action, you're going to love Kerry. Watch for a greater emphasis on NATO.
6) He will continue the murderous and unjust US policies in South America, including the draconian measures against Cuba, the supplying of arms to Columbian right-wing death squads and the subversion of democracy via NGOs and government funds. If Chavez wins the referendum, which I think he will, he will be getting a lot of heat from "human rights" groups and NGOs, all taking orders from Washington.
7) He will continue Clinton's tradition of "humanitarian interventions" and "peace-kepping forces". Every time the US decides to invade a foreign nation, it will be under the banner of multilateralism and human rights.
8) He will continue the "reshaping" of the Middle-East, with Iran and Syria being the main pariahs.
9) He will mostly continue the illegal detentions in Guantanamo Bay, with a few people, who are obviously innocent and who are citizens of allied nations, being set free. The majority will remain in Gitmo, with maybe a few token measures towards hebeas corpus.
10) He will not turn back the PATRIOT act, but merely cut it down a bit and put it in nicer language.
Shazbot.
-
Hmmmm me thinks teh plan doesn't belong to Kerry....... :drevil:
-
[q]what can you make better about that particular sitation? [/q]
Social justice, public healthcare, better living conditions, less children living below the bread line, less gun crime, return of many civil liberties...
I won't go on, your head might explode.
As for the rest of you like me in other countries, if you live in the west you're pretty much in the same boat as the yanks only with less gun-crime and demanding better public health care rather than any.
-
The US, to be fair, needsto stay in Iraq at present. There is no security force there to ensure a fair and free election.
Proviced that adequate measures are taken, such as Un inspectors, there's no reason why free & fair elections can't take place under the security of the US/UK troops.
Same for Afghanistan. The US and UK have a moral duty to stay in those countries until they are no longer needed.
-
So you think that just because there are a hundred and fifty thousand foreign troops parked in your country, and entrenching themselves, that shouldn't have the least effect on the elections?
"Oh don't mind us guys, just go about your business, we promise that whatever you decide is best, we'll go along with. Influence the elections? Perish the thought"
Their mere presence, armed to the hilt and operating outside Iraqi control, is going to have a profound affect on the elections, not to mention that they wrote the rules under which the elections will be held.
But its not the elections I'm worried about, its what happens after. If US troops just left after the elections, which should be early next year, I'de be fine with that. But they won't, I don't think anyone is disputing that.
-
Originally posted by vyper
[q]what can you make better about that particular sitation? [/q]
Social justice, public healthcare, better living conditions, less children living below the bread line, less gun crime, return of many civil liberties...
I won't go on, your head might explode.
As for the rest of you like me in other countries, if you live in the west you're pretty much in the same boat as the yanks only with less gun-crime and demanding better public health care rather than any.
Alright, let me point something out. Healthcare is well and good for people with low income, or people who are retired but cannot afford medical drugs AND the basic necessities at the same time. The biggest problem with healthcare / wellfare / medicare is that too many people who DONT need it are leeching off of it. If we didnt have so many people getting everything free off healthcare, and the companies did some background information and checks that you really ARE poor and cannot afford it, then we would have better service and ways to give it to people because we wouldnt have to pay so much for moochers.
Better living conditions? Are you kidding me? Living conditions are fine the way they are. All you need is an understanding at math, a job at burger king, and you can afford to live in a decent apartment with food coming in at the same time. I know, my sister has done it. From nothing to being able to have a choice on where to move from apartment to apartnment to possible house location. Shes going to college and is going to graduate soon. The point is, if you dont dodge the legal system and get a legitimate job and work at it, you can become whatever you want. Sure, if you work from absolute 0, it may take a while. But if you compare lower class with some other third world countries and compare those to the lower class of America, you have a pretty big difference.
We give dirt poor people free healthcare and free handouts.
-
So you think because you've seen a success story, everyone has that opportunity? Let me clue you in on something: There are a lot of people in this country working multiple jobs and they still have to choose whether they're going to eat or take the medicine that they need to live. The government is supposed to be a safety net for poeple to whom circumstances are unkind, because the fact of the matter is, you simply can't control everything that happens to you, and very often life is going to leave people without a pot to piss in-- without the help of tax money, THERE IS NOTHING THEY CAN DO ABOUT IT.
-
then piss in the woods, my dad's left, my family is bankrupt, I am haveing to work 9 hour days in a meat packing plant to a) pay for my school b) help my family.
I don't ask for hand outs.
Handouts make you weak.
and as much as I disagree with Rictor's political position, his annalasis of what the facts of the situation will be seems right on to me, though I think we'll be there till 2008, and Kerry will probly let go more gitmo people than he think
I think a better question would be what would the differences between a Bush or Kerry win, excludeing the domestic agenda, wich neither would make any headway on.
-
Handouts make you weak? This is civilization, not Call of the Wild. This is not a matter of people mooching, this is a matter of giving people what they need to hold their lives together.
-
dude, I'm one of the prime "needs there lives held together" people, everytime I or someone I know gets something for free and doesn't have to work for it they get soft in whatever respect that handout is, they get weak. experience.
-
*sigh* Same thing Bush is doing now, only he'll hand over US sovereignty to the UN.
-
A) You're in school. That's more than a lot of people can even manage.
B) Apparently your job is making a difference. Try working three jobs that don't even pay enough for you to support a family.
(Of course, a lot of people in this plight are immigrants, so I can guess what the answer for them is.)
-
I think the phrase we're all dancing around, due to its rather negative perception, is wealth redistribution. Might as well get it out in the open. Now, keep in mind, every administration for a long time has been firmly opposed to this, including the present Bush administration and the possible Kerry one.
So, why do I feel justified in taxing the rich to pay for social programs?
a) They derive their wealth almost entirely from the work of the poor and middle classes. Now, I understand that in a capitalist society, this is all good and acceptable and hailed as "business sense", for which the rich are justified to give back to their workers only a fraction of what they produce. But the fact remains, the rich are, for the most part, rich because of the work of the poor(er).
b) The rich can simply afford it. If we accept that everyone on a society should be provided with the minimum bare essentials, then you must naturally take excess wealth from those who can afford it, and give it to those who need it. A millionare can easily afford a $20,000 per year tax, while a worker, who makes $40,000 a year could not. Call it forced charity, but before we even begin to talk about profit, there are more fundamental things to take care of, such as ensuring survival for everyone. This applies internationally as well.
c) The myth, and it is a myth, that the majority of the poor are so becuase they are lazy, if pure bull****. **** happens, life happens. Most of the poor are working their asses of just to make ends meet, and there is no reason why their hard work should not be rewarded. This is not a handout, it is merely rewarding hard work as well as initiative and business sense, instead of only initiative and business sense.
This results in whats called a welfare state, which is not what the US currently is. There are various definitions of the welfare state, but the one I find most straight-forward is that it is a society in which the primary job of the state is to ensure the welfare of the people. Keep in mind, this does not entail communism or socialism, but rather social spending within a capitalist society to ensure that everyone is above the poverty line.
-
I'll try to pre-empt the "lazy people abusing the system" arguement.
Criminals abuse the system of society. A "moocher" who isn't working in some form or another and trying to get money from a system that ensures no one is below the poverty line is effectively no different.
Of course, in an ironic sense even a moocher is a useful part of the society due to it being consumer based. The person still has to purchase products for their survival.
Just like prisoners need a support structure, which ensures employment for law-abiding citizens.
Of course, for a system like that to work controls on inflation are needed. Look at what happens when minimum wage is raised, often inflation rises after minimum wage is raised due to inflation causing a higher cost of living. (vicious cycle)
-
I don't want a welfare state, the purpose of a government should be simply to make sure that [other citizens, other governments, natural disasters, or damn dirty comunists] don't harm you. I'll make an exeption for schools, an education should be available for everyone, but if you don't take advantage of it you shouldn't be able to hold that open forever (ie minimum educational requierments for continued government support), and you shouldn't be forced to pay for schooling that you don't use (ie vouchers).
controle of corperations should be limeted to ensureing that no one company controles more than 50% of a market, all that does is insure capitalism does not degrade into facism. (laws should be passed barring investment in corperations during a term in political office)
if any action has no harm on someone outside of a ten foot radius then it's legal
and the biggest thing; taxation on spending, not income,
food == no tax, clothes == minimal tax, first house/car(per owner, houses are joint between two people generaly, cars are individual) == moderate tax, second+ house/car ubber tax. everything else gets a moderate tax. and people should be given direct bugetary power over there taxes, I'd say you should be able to determine were at least 75% of your tax money goes.
I don't think getting into a war with "The Evil Rich [tm] " is going to solve anything
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I think the phrase we're all dancing around, due to its rather negative perception, is wealth redistribution. Might as well get it out in the open. Now, keep in mind, every administration for a long time has been firmly opposed to this, including the present Bush administration and the possible Kerry one.
So, why do I feel justified in taxing the rich to pay for social programs?
a) They derive their wealth almost entirely from the work of the poor and middle classes. Now, I understand that in a capitalist society, this is all good and acceptable and hailed as "business sense", for which the rich are justified to give back to their workers only a fraction of what they produce. But the fact remains, the rich are, for the most part, rich because of the work of the poor(er).
b) The rich can simply afford it. If we accept that everyone on a society should be provided with the minimum bare essentials, then you must naturally take excess wealth from those who can afford it, and give it to those who need it. A millionare can easily afford a $20,000 per year tax, while a worker, who makes $40,000 a year could not. Call it forced charity, but before we even begin to talk about profit, there are more fundamental things to take care of, such as ensuring survival for everyone. This applies internationally as well.
c) The myth, and it is a myth, that the majority of the poor are so becuase they are lazy, if pure bull****. **** happens, life happens. Most of the poor are working their asses of just to make ends meet, and there is no reason why their hard work should not be rewarded. This is not a handout, it is merely rewarding hard work as well as initiative and business sense, instead of only initiative and business sense.
This results in whats called a welfare state, which is not what the US currently is. There are various definitions of the welfare state, but the one I find most straight-forward is that it is a society in which the primary job of the state is to ensure the welfare of the people. Keep in mind, this does not entail communism or socialism, but rather social spending within a capitalist society to ensure that everyone is above the poverty line.
Why punish the rich for being succesfull?
-
Thats not the question, the question is, why punish the poor for not being succesful (in a business sense) ? Surely, there are characteristics more valuable in a human than the ability to aquire wealth, yet that is the one that is rewarded above all others. A man can be smart, kind, hard-working, generous and help little old ladies across the street, and still live in virtual poverty because he lacks a knack for business. And on the other hand, you can (and do) have exploitative, opportunistic, manipulative, greedy bastards, and they're living the high life because they know how to exploit people. And you know what the message is, inherent in such a system? Nothing matters but greed and profits, all other values or characteristics are secondary and more or less useless.
There are, and I think you will agree here, certain things, lets call them ethics, that should take precedent over profits. If ethics and profits come into conflict, ethics wins. This is because the best and surest way to make money in a capitalist system is to throw ethics to the wind, and act ethically only as much as you are forced to. So, laws need to make unethical business practices either illegal, or too costly to be of any use. This is not my whim, this is what has been proven over and over again.
You know Bob, this may be a bit off-track, but if the US cut down its military to 1/10th of its current size (this entails pulling back overseas troops and dismantling the vast network of bases which cost so much), everyone could get free health-care, education and a ****ing Rolls-Royce while still having more than enough troops to guard American borders against any potential foe.
-
Rictor, listen up.
Any poor person, lets say an imigrant with just enough to get into the country, came to the states to work and eventually settle in. Rictor, by what YOU are saying, we should give every poor person free money, and then we can go ahead and add the free medicare and free drugs (even if you are an illegal). Lets also add free food and free shelter you can obtain if you REALLY that far into the gutter.
Now, lets figure in some costs if you were to, say, get a home. Lets also add you can get a government funded home too, if you are poor, but lets just say you rent one for... oh, $120 a month. The one job I think of where all you need is a brain and be over 16 to work is a McDonnalds or Burger King. Wages there range from $5.00 to $6.75 and hour.
Since the man's one goal is to work enough to survive, he works for about, oh, 10 hours of that day every day of the week. Now the man has turned up at least $350 to $472.50 a week. Lets calculate about 4 weeks and 3 days in an average month, if I remember correctly.
1550 to 2092.5 a month. That is MORE than enough to pay for food, medicine, the rent, and if they did charge you, the electric and water bill to boot. For my family, we buy groceries that will last us for a week, and at the end of the week we go shopping for more. Since we buy for the 4 kids we babysit, and ourselves, the average cost of groceries is around 200 dollars. Its good food to, enough to cook dinner lunch and breakfast every day.
If this guy only had to buy for himself, it sures hell wouldnt cost much. Now this guy went from Absolute $0 to having a $18,200 to $24,570 job income for the year. Like I said, this more than pays for the basic necessities, and he will even have enough to spend on the side if he wanted too. Want to find cheap houses? Come to Texas. Right here we are selling very nice 1 story houses for a lower price then you would find in the north. I know, I've compared prices. People have told us they were suprised what a difference it would make.
But no, you dont just GIVE things to the poor in order to boost them ahead in life. It wont work because you cannot single out every poor person and immediately be middle class. Dividing money is one sure way to make things turn into a mess again. If you ran into a homeless shelter full of bums and shouted "I will give each of you 500,000 dollars to get a job and a house and go to school!"
Do you think that ALL people are poor because they cant afford anything? No. Actually a majority are poor because of either:
A) Bad credit decisions
B) Because they are too lazy to work
I know that a lot of people live off the system like it was their lifeline. Helping the people whodont have anything is all well and good, but if you just give it away, they will start to get lax on what they do, meaning they will work less and less. Rich people dont just get rich because they do nothing. At some point, they were hard working men or women who worked from scratch and started a company (which costs a lot of money I might add to do, so if they failed they would be in the hole at least a few thousand). Just because eventually the company flourished, and became rich, doesnt mean that now that they are sucessful we now have to take their money away and give it to someone else. Sure, there are heir's to wealth out there who dont work at all it seems like, but at some point someone else earned that money. Its the same scenario as having a kid with a dollar and nice clothes with a kid with rags walking next to him.
You go up to the child with the dollar. This child has earned his money by working at a lemonade stand around the corner, and you snatch his dollar away from him and give it to the poor child, lectuing "He needs this more than you."
Basically you are saying you have no desire to let the rich keep what they earned, instead you would rather just give it to the poor in order to "help them along." Its a nice thing to do to some people, but not every deserves free handouts. Government funded programs like medicare are NOT free, because it costs taxpayers, which are mostly comprised of middle class people who have gotten on their feet, have a stable job and own a home and usually a family. Do you realise how high taxes with skyrocket in America because a lot of people LIVE off the system? When I finally have a job and a home it is going to cost me twice as much in taxes to pay for these programs that people use. If half of the people who didnt need it got off, and the people who DID need it stayed or got on, then we would really have no trouble with this.
Then again, as I said, dont argue that America doesnt care about its poor when you look at other countries poor people. You judge the countries who have it worse off then we are. We still hand out free drugs and medicare to illegal immigrants.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Thats not the question, the question is, why punish the poor for not being succesful (in a business sense) ? Surely, there are characteristics more valuable in a human than the ability to aquire wealth, yet that is the one that is rewarded above all others. A man can be smart, kind, hard-working, generous and help little old ladies across the street, and still live in virtual poverty because he lacks a knack for business. And on the other hand, you can (and do) have exploitative, opportunistic, manipulative, greedy bastards, and they're living the high life because they know how to exploit people. And you know what the message is, inherent in such a system? Nothing matters but greed and profits, all other values or characteristics are secondary and more or less useless.
There are, and I think you will agree here, certain things, lets call them ethics, that should take precedent over profits. If ethics and profits come into conflict, ethics wins. This is because the best and surest way to make money in a capitalist system is to throw ethics to the wind, and act ethically only as much as you are forced to. So, laws need to make unethical business practices either illegal, or too costly to be of any use. This is not my whim, this is what has been proven over and over again.
You know Bob, this may be a bit off-track, but if the US cut down its military to 1/10th of its current size (this entails pulling back overseas troops and dismantling the vast network of bases which cost so much), everyone could get free health-care, education and a ****ing Rolls-Royce while still having more than enough troops to guard American borders against any potential foe.
There's a difference between realistic and proportional taxation to shafting people because they've been good or luck enough to suceed in business.
What you're suggesting, it seems to me, is trying to reduce everyone to a lower, but common denominator through charity. Now, I'm not against state support by any means.... but is it not more important to apply it to companies than singling out individuals?
If you target the rich as a cash-pool for taxation, then they'll simply leave. And when they do, you lose some of the best entreupenuers and employers there are. Not to mention the venture capitalists to help others build business.
That given, there does need to be a level of taxation on high income and especially on the large corporations. But you need to balance it on individuals to keep the system fair.... the Uk uses a banded system for income tax, i.e. under 21,000 is 20%, all income over that is taxed at 40% (etc).
Oh, and tin Can - how can you get a job if you have no home or money to start with? Why do you think people end up homeless - through choice? Whatever happened to "give me your tired, your poor , your huddled masses yearning to be free"?
-
Giving Healthcare and Education accessible to everyone is not charity...
And there are many effective ways to keep abuses in check...
I'll take as example a working system, the Italian one.
Now, most of you knows who is in charge in Italy, so save the you evil commie crap for somewhere else...
With the established system, we have an effective income redistribution, with people under €10000 per year being not taxed, and tax rates from 18% to 45% (might be lower) for higher incomes.
Italy has also an excellent public healthcare system (only behind france, also public) and good level public education.
Now, how is it prevented that the system is not leeched?
Let's take public health, the most controversial point.
Medical Drugs are classified on 3 levels: A, B, C.
Class A drugs are essential ones, for the most serious illnesses such as hearth problems, and they are free. You won't get them unless a medic prescribes them, and he can do it only if you had analisys proofing that you have that illness.
Class B are paid in part by the consumer, from 10 to 50%. They are for lesser illnesses than class A, but still most of them requires prescriptions.
Class C, the most common, are fully paid by the consumer.
This way you cannot leech on drugs, as you get them for free only for the really serious illnesses and pay for the rest.
2nd point: hospitalization is free, and urgencies too.
This does not mean that you can go there and stay indefinitely... If you aren't ill you won't stay more than a couple of days for sure...
If you require non urgent medical analisys you will pay them at least in part...
Bottom line: Is it possible to leech on this system? Yes, you can...
Is it easy? Not really, with at least 40 years of refinement healthcare welfare came to an acceptable balance, giving top quality treatment and in the same time having a well defined cost for the taxpayers...
Education: Everything up to high school is free (you still pay the books unless you're REALLY poor), while public universities have a fee based on personal income. Poors can take purses but they must pass the required exams or give the money back...
Finally, there are both private schools and hospitals, but they are far more costly (though private universities are far cheaper than in the US, and without state help)...
Sure, in private clinics you get a nicer, hotel like environment, with stuff like swimming pools, but you pay for it...
There are other supported things, but i've already said more than enough for a mature discussion...
-
Originally posted by Rictor
1) The US will stay in Iraq with full force at least until 2006, with possibly additional troops sent in. After that time, a force of about 50k troops will remains in Iraq, at the request of the government of course. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Afghanistan too.
The US will stay there until the Job is done, kerry will probably get the job done a little fast by doing it significantly smarter
2) Kerry will make a token gesture towards bringing peace about in Israel, but his terms will be unacceptable to the Palestinians and rejected outright by Sharon. He will continue the long tradition of vetoing UN resolutions critical of Israel.
Yeah those "token gestures" you talk about were significant steps during the clinton years -- and I think kerry is smart enough to borrow from Clinton's playbook here
3) He will continue, in earnest, the neo-liberal economic policies which are meeting with almost unanimous opposition around the world. This, I think, is actually Kerry's main characteristic.
YOU disapproving of something based off ignorance and naivete does not make it "almost unanimous opposition around the world" -- furthermore 'neo-liberal' :rolleyes: NST
4) He will continue to put pressure on Iran and North Korea to end their forays into WMD research, hypocritical though it may be. This applies to any other country seeking a nuclear deterant..
I agree with this statement - thought he's much more likely to make gestures of reduced armament on our side.
5) He will try, and to a limited degree succseed, in getting greater cooperation from Europe and the rest of the world in the "war on terrorism". All future US initiatives will be under the banner of "mutlinationalism" even if they are in essence US actions. If you liked the "coalition" in Iraq, 90% of which was made up of US troops America, and of which most nations didn't even have a single soldier in action, you're going to love Kerry. Watch for a greater emphasis on NATO.
He will try to get cooperation, and will most likely get more than you expect
6) He will continue the murderous and unjust US policies in South America, including the draconian measures against Cuba, the supplying of arms to Columbian right-wing death squads and the subversion of democracy via NGOs and government funds. If Chavez wins the referendum, which I think he will, he will be getting a lot of heat from "human rights" groups and NGOs, all taking orders from Washington..
"murderous and unjust US policies" oh raiding drug lords? Careful now, while i agree that supplying the Columbian right-wing is crap, can you _prove_ that he would do this, or are you just attempting character assasination as a means to political aims -- hell you're not even american, you're an ultrasocialist ultra-left winger and naive at that -- you give the rest of us liberals a bad name -- STAY OUT OF US POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS -- YOU'RE NOT INVITED
7) He will continue Clinton's tradition of "humanitarian interventions" and "peace-kepping forces". Every time the US decides to invade a foreign nation, it will be under the banner of multilateralism and human rights.
Yeah, because stopping genocide is SOO wrong, if you even try to argue about the Balkans I have a brother who served there who will tell you you're full of ****. Oh I guess this statements makes it so you liek that we didn't intercede in the massive genocide in rawanda and that the entire US is ignoring the genocide in progress in Sudan
8) He will continue the "reshaping" of the Middle-East, with Iran and Syria being the main pariahs.
Iran and Syria DESERVE their pariah status
9) He will mostly continue the illegal detentions in Guantanamo Bay, with a few people, who are obviously innocent and who are citizens of allied nations, being set free. The majority will remain in Gitmo, with maybe a few token measures towards hebeas corpus.
You royally have your head up your ass about Kerry -- he will almost certainly _END_ those
10) He will not turn back the PATRIOT act, but merely cut it down a bit and put it in nicer language.
You REALLY DO have your head up your ass -- he would kill PATRIOT ACT by making sure to let it expire and veto'ing and attempts to extend it
Shazbot.
So does this mean you're full of Shaz? (sh1t)
-
he's gunna authorize war crimes.
-
Oh, and tin Can - how can you get a job if you have no home or money to start with? Why do you think people end up homeless - through choice? Whatever happened to "give me your tired, your poor , your huddled masses yearning to be free"?
Did you read my post at all? What did I say about getting a home?
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
he's gunna authorize war crimes.
bull****
but nevermind that bush already COMMITTED them
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Did you read my post at all? What did I say about getting a home?
How can you get a home with no money?
You can't get a mortgage, because you don't have a job to earn money.
You might not be able to access your bank account, because you have no place of residence - and thus may not be able to get Id. Assuming you have an account in the first place, and that it is with a bank which operates in the (for example) US.
You can't get a job, because you have no place of residence.
So someone turns up, fleeing opression and torture, with only a suitcase and the clothes on their bag- and you want to leave them to fend for themselves?
You don't have a job or a home - how the hell could you possibly know what is like for these people, what obstacles they need to overcome?
-
Tin Can: your "analysis" (i use the term extremely lightly) of why most of the poor are poor is ENTIRELY false - it's true about a minority of them though
What is it with your right-wingers and taking the minority statistic an asserting it's the majority statistic? did you all fail statistics 101?
---------------------------------
Oh.. Rictor your assertion that Kerry practices "neoliberal economic policies" is also a bare assertion.
A) Illegal aliens have no federal rights -- they have human rights, but not federal -- oh having your medical expenses paid for, or being on welfare is a federal privalege, not to be accorded to people who cannot abide by laws -- an Illegal Immigrant is a criminal, plain and simple
B) Bobboau: NO school vouchers -- they enable people to funnel public funds to sectarian institutions.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
The US will stay there until the Job is done, kerry will probably get the job done a little fast by doing it significantly smarter
Alright, lets play it your way, lets assume that the US is there to do a job. The job is done when elections happen. Thats early 2005. Anything beyond that is just occupation.
Yeah those "token gestures" you talk about were significant steps during the clinton years -- and I think kerry is smart enough to borrow from Clinton's playbook here
During the Clinton years you had Barak and Peres as PMs, not a Likudnik war criminal.
YOU disapproving of something based off ignorance and naivete does not make it "almost unanimous opposition around the world" -- furthermore 'neo-liberal' :rolleyes: NST
Kazan, please, do me a favour, read a book. Its the dominant economic model for the past 30 years. If you don't know whats being talked about, there's no shame in asking. But what is stupid is to deny the existance of every concept that you're not personally aquianted with.
As for the opposition, I mean, even the business leaders aren't disputing that. After a decade of neo-liberal policies in Russia, free trade is almost a dirty word. Also, read up on the East Asian Tiger economies and the recent asian economic crises. Latin America is united in opposition, ever heard of a little event called the World Social Forum? Lula in Brazil, Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia.
Even in Europe and North America, the places least hit by these policies, its widely regarded as the greatest menace to world peace.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3613217.stm
I agree with this statement - thought he's much more likely to make gestures of reduced armament on our side.
Maybe, we'll see.
He will try to get cooperation, and will most likely get more than you expect
Oh, I have no doubt that he will get support, thats his whole platform. But the size of the mob does not legitimizen the conflict.
"murderous and unjust US policies" oh raiding drug lords? Careful now, while i agree that supplying the Columbian right-wing is crap, can you _prove_ that he would do this, or are you just attempting character assasination as a means to political aims -- hell you're not even american, you're an ultrasocialist ultra-left winger and naive at that -- you give the rest of us liberals a bad name -- STAY OUT OF US POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS -- YOU'RE NOT INVITED
You know I love you darling, but global politcs is not your forte. Stick to American politics and you'll be fine, but outside of that, I advise you to steer clear. You world view is rather nationalist and inflexible.
Yeah, because stopping genocide is SOO wrong, if you even try to argue about the Balkans I have a brother who served there who will tell you you're full of ****. Oh I guess this statements makes it so you liek that we didn't intercede in the massive genocide in rawanda and that the entire US is ignoring the genocide in progress in Sudan
You have a brother who served as a soldier in the Balkans. Now, tell me, since when is a soldier objective? Thats like those people who say "I have a friend in Iraq, he told me this and this". Isn't it rather obvious that the military is among the most heavily indoctrinated set of people you can find? Have you talked to someone who *gasp* actually lives there?
And don't even talk about Sudan until you learn some history.
Iran and Syria DESERVE their pariah status
Yeah, its obvious, they're on the Axis of Evil. Ergo, they're evil.
Whoever America says is evil, is evil..
You royally have your head up your ass about Kerry -- he will almost certainly _END_ those
As I said, we'll see. He's made no moves to challenge them yet, so why should he do so in the future.
You REALLY DO have your head up your ass -- he would kill PATRIOT ACT by making sure to let it expire and veto'ing and attempts to extend it
We'll see.
So does this mean you're full of Shaz? (sh1t)
-
WE ARE NOT ****ING ANIMALS PEOPLE, WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO EACH OTHER TO MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE.
Now stop this "handouts" bull**** that sounds like Maggie Thatcher's been shoved up your arsehole and start thinking about the real world. People live in ****, even in your wonderful country my dear Tinny. Market forces are not enough to protect the people stuck at the bottom of the proverbial economic food chain.
Jesus for people who supposedly believe in such a "free" country and ideology, you really don't give a **** about the quality of life of other people... either that or you just too ****ing stupid to notice.
//Pardon the agression, I'm having a bad day and I'm not in the mood for procrastinating idiots who believe in this "only the lazy need help from the state" crap.
-
BTW for those of you who are christians and don't believe in higher taxes.
Mark 10:25
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Surely that means that taxing the super-rich is actually helping their salvation by making them poorer? Wouldn't that make it as good a cause to unite behind as prayer in schools etc?
Wouldn't that mean that by lowering taxes for the rich Bush is making it harder for them to get in? Maybe he's a good christian and that's his plan. Poor people get poorer so more of them get in. Rich people get richer so the bastards don't get into heaven :D
-
rictor you've got to be the most ignorant and naive... railing against globalization -- GLOBALIZATION IS A ****ING INEVITABILITY
furthermore "we say they're evil therefore they're evil" -- no the deserve their pariah status for the human rights violations they've commited (just like Bush and his cabinet deserve pariah status)
You have a brother who served as a soldier in the Balkans. Now, tell me, since when is a soldier objective?
Not all are, not all are not -- making sweeping generalizations like that is one of the things you do most often - in the case of my brother you can be assured that he is impartial
Thats like those people who say "I have a friend in Iraq, he told me this and this". Isn't it rather obvious that the military is among the most heavily indoctrinated set of people you can find?
the _AVERAGE_ military person, then the _AVERAGE_ military person isn't a person of large intellect who is only there to pay for their college education getting a PhD in mathematics
Have you talked to someone who *gasp* actually lives there?
*Gasp* SEVERAL, a bunch who fled the genocide came to my high school (my city attracted lots of internationals because of the quality of living)
oh and your "size of the mob comment" -- how MORONIC -- you knore what you are Rictor You're a HATER you hate everything about america and you just find every opportunity to twist it's motivivations, etc -- loose your rabid hate before talking -- you're just like those rabid haters who hate homosexuals, or blacks, or asians, etc
Rictor _YOUR_ grasp of international politics shows gross naivete
-
vyper: It's part of the minimalist government philosophy; that as long as the government leaves people alone, everyone can do alright. Well, we need look no further than the world of nature to see that this is untrue. When left to their own devices, members of a population will step on each other's faces to makes it as far up as possible, and the unlucky ones are, well... out of luck. Now, if you truly believe that society should model the Darwinism of nature, then I guess there's no point in arguing, but don't try to assert that everyone can succeed without redistribution of wealth.
Where the hell does this idea come from that we're punishing the rich by making them pay taxes that are actually proportional to their income? The working classes in this nation are getting raped without lubrication, and people FROM THESE SOCIOECONOMIC CLASSES can actually defend the fact that they're being forced to pay what the wealthy aren't. Let me say right now that I do NOT, in any way, shape, or form, fault anyone for being wealthy. If you've been successful, I'm very happy for you, but the rich simply are not paying what they could easily afford to pay, and neither are the large corporations. For Christ's sake, they wouldn't even feel it if we evened the tax burden.
Kazan: You're taking this to an irrational conclusion.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
vyper: It's part of the minimalist government philosophy; that as long as the government leaves people alone, everyone can do alright. Well, we need look no further than the world of nature to see that this is untrue. When left to their own devices, members of a population will step on each other's faces to makes it as far up as possible, and the unlucky ones are, well... out of luck. Now, if you truly believe that society should model the Darwinism of nature, then I guess there's no point in arguing, but don't try to assert that everyone can succeed without redistribution of wealth.
Where the hell does this idea come from that we're punishing the rich by making them pay taxes that are actually proportional to their income? The working classes in this nation are getting raped without lubrication, and people FROM THESE SOCIOECONOMIC CLASSES can actually defend the fact that they're being forced to pay what the wealthy aren't. Let me say right now that I do NOT, in any way, shape, or form, fault anyone for being wealthy. If you've been successful, I'm very happy for you, but the rich simply are not paying what they could easily afford to pay, and neither are the large corporations. For Christ's sake, they wouldn't even feel it if we evened the tax burden.
I have nothing against proportional taxation. But if you look to solve your problems solely by taxing the most succesfull group of your society, and more specifically disproportionally so, it'll just drive that group to leave.
I always feel that there's a tendency to blame those who have been succesful, for the faults of society as whole - i.e. to make the rich poor rather than the poor rich.
It's worth noting that income tax increases disproportionally to income.
-
Don't get me wrong, I don't support a taxation system that punishes the successful (hell I'm starting two small businesses!), only that a fair tax is applied relative to your ability to pay.
Unlike council tax...
-
Originally posted by Kazan
rictor you've got to be the most ignorant and naive... railing against globalization -- GLOBALIZATION IS A ****ING INEVITABILITY
Kazan, most anti-globalists aren't against globalisation, on the contrary. Most are against the way globalisation is done today, which is essentially the big corporations screwing everyone (in the west, the east and the south) over for their own gain.
Hence the term "anti-globalist" is terribly wrong in most cases and a term like "different-globalist" would be better.
Claiming that all anti-globalists are idiots or somesuch is exactly what the big corps want you to think so that they can make sure that only their view of globalisation is realised.
edit:
this one is for no one in particular: the "Invisible Hand of the Market" that makes sure everyone does well is as much fiction as invisible dragons, pixies and that other guy we regularly talk about.
-
Economic Globalization started with the Empire.
Political Globalization and the increasing of multi-state power started much later.
-
But no one is talking about taxing them disproportionately, just fairly. Many of the largest and richest corporations are simply paying no taxes at all. With tax-heavens and creative accountants, and with "your man" in office, is it really so hard to see why the rich, and large corporations in particular are not paying their fair share?
Though the same principle applies to small and medium businesses, the Mom 'n Pop store down the street if you will, and large multinational corporations, there are several (hundred?) orders of magnitutde that seperate them. Its the difference between allowed to carry a gun, and being allowed to raise a 10,000 man armed militia. Techinically, they're the same principle, but its absurd to treat them as equals.
I think Ford makes an excellent point, that the "hands off" appraoch to government doesn't work unless we embrace a very cynical "surival of the fittest" model, which I think most people are not read to do. I'de add more, but he just about summed it up.
Kaz: as always, its a pleasure talking to you, you add some much needed entertainment to these politcal threads. I especially like the the angry red text, constant CAPITALIZATION, and vague insults, it shows a level of sophistication and restraint that I had previously thought impossible.. You know, if you put Tin Can, ionia, Beowulf and yourself in a room, and you all agreed to only talk about foreign policy, you'de all be the best of friends.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Economic Globalization started with the Empire.
economic globalisation started with Europe going/sailing beyond its borders and discovering/claiming the rest of the world.
Empire was just the completion of phase 1. ;)
the political phase started in earnest post WW2 (with a failed start with the LoN).
The UN is part of it, but it's main result for now is the EU. Whatever people may say: there is nothing in the world quite like the EU: no other political body has so many nations working together this closely through the means of shared souvereignity. It's unique in the world today.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
But no one is talking about taxing them disproportionately, just fairly. Many of the largest and richest corporations are simply paying no taxes at all. With tax-heavens and creative accountants, and with "your man" in office, is it really so hard to see why the rich, and large corporations in particular are not paying their fair share?
Though the same principle applies to small and medium businesses, the Mom 'n Pop store down the street if you will, and large multinational corporations, there are several (hundred?) orders of magnitutde that seperate them. Its the difference between allowed to carry a gun, and being allowed to raise a 10,000 man armed militia. Techinically, they're the same principle, but its absurd to treat them as equals.
I think Ford makes an excellent point, that the "hands off" appraoch to government doesn't work unless we embrace a very cynical "surival of the fittest" model, which I think most people are not read to do. I'de add more, but he just about summed it up.
Well, the point I was raising is that fair taxation is hard to define...as such, I hear alamr bellls when people talk about forcing the rich to pay up. Plus you never even mentioned taxing corporations, just people.
-
ivan: I ****ing love you man, thats exactly it. But somehow I think it'll have greater credibility to Kaz coming from someone who is not me.
modern globalization started with Pinochet and Mitlon Friedman (and his Chicago Boys.)
aldo: sorry if I didn't get my point across..I actually think that corporations are cheating the system the most, more than individuals. They bear the brunt of my scorn.
-
rictor: i have no respect for you and hence I don't try rational arguments with you since you wouldn't understand them
Crazy_Ivan80: no, there are people who are _actually_ antiglobalization, rictor appears to be one of them. I am in total agreement with the fact that capitalism needs rules.
vyper: saying that progressive taxation "punishes the succesful" is purely crap -- progressive taxation is fair due to 'dimishing returns' -- the marginal utility of a single dollar is less the more dollars you have
so 10% of $10,000 is 'more expensive' than 10% of $100,000 due to the second person having less margional utility per dollar
-
Kazan, if Rictor is totally anti-globalization, then why did he just express his undying love for Crazy_Ivan?
And I also agree with that assessment of globalization: It's not that it shouldn't happen, just that it's happening the wrong way.
-
[q]vyper: saying that progressive taxation "punishes the succesful" is purely crap -- progressive taxation is fair due to 'dimishing returns' -- the marginal utility of a single dollar is less the more dollars you have[/q]
I didn't say that you argumentative bastard. I was saying that I support a system that taxes in relation to the ability of the payer - progressive taxation doesn't like that way in practise.
-
Kazan, why are you scared of a social system that has been carefully developed for over a century?
They started with charity, and then mutualism.
It was a simple form of insurance, in case bad luck happens... Something ultra liberists tends to forget...
I also suggest you to get a modern economics book, i've got one written by Katz and Rosen, it's american and they are surely not commies...
Ironically it's the US that "invented" the welfare state...
Keynes showed that only social spending can effectively balance the market...
Does it means a free for all environment? Surely not.
It only means that everyone gets equity, somewhat lessening the differences between people starting to develop their life.
This is not to be misjudged as equalitarism, which is a nonsense, but it's a form of social security.
Also, many of the so called no globals calls themselves new globals...
You're right, you cannot stop globalization, but do we have to get it done by the corponations (no typo)?
Also, progressive taxation does not harm the upper classes if done reasonabily... Even liberals recognize it's a way to rebalance the market, and it's justified in economy by the principle that over a certain threshold any extra dollar has an increasingly lower marginal utility.
Finally, i've also heard some compsumption taxes stuff...
Please, please read a good history book...
States moved away from having it as main income mean because it did not offer a reliable source, fluctuates way too much and it's a joke to cheat on them...
If you want to talk about extremes, both pure market and supply economy theories says they works fully only on a simplified environment, as the "human factor" is capable of screwing them both...
Humans can cheat, theories cannot...
-
ummmm.......while everyone is in here arguing, i think i'll work on Freespace.
-
Good call ShadowWolf.
Well it seems aparent no one respects anyone for their political views whatsoever, and only for things other than that. I respect Kazan for his Ferrium Project, which I think shows a brighter tomorrow, today. As for everyone else, I respect them for... um... er...
Its coming to me...
Uh...
Well I respect you! *does drunken Stewy impersonation*
However, no one has any reason to respect me, because I am only the whiney insulting n00b which every board needs to make it whole. :nod: