[Stryke 9]

Ah, you're one of those "the poor are poor because they're lazy" types.


No offense, but all you've really said here is that you can't see past the silver spoon in your mouth. You've quite plainly never been poor, never had to worry about getting a source of income not because you want some shiny new car but because you need money to eat for the next ****ing week, and moreover never will engage in any form of real hardship or privation.

To which I say, piss off. People who don't have the vaguest clue what need is have no business telling others about how it doesn't exist, and you damn brats have never earned a God-damned thing; it's the likes of you who've ****ed things up beyond where the greed and ignorance of the wealthy would ever have.

[01010]

My parents used to go without food to pay for ours when we were younger and had no money, we had a fireplace that was only allowed to be switched on for half hour in the morning and half an hour at night, my Dad was working all the **** jobs he could at the longest hours he could to bring in a total income of about £88 a week (which, even in 1989, was a pittance) and they literally scraped a living, it used to get so cold in my old house that the entire toilet (cistern and pan) and bathtub would freeze up. They got no benefits to help them (the reason my dad said he would punch Margaret Thatcher in the face if he ever met her ) and they had to raise five of us little bastards.

Liberator, how can you not understand that there are people that WANT to work to feed their families, to live rather than scraping an existence and they don't have the opportunity for education and don't have the opportunity to earn money to live because their is a system in place to keep honest working people down, to prevent them from doing anything more than scratching the most basic of existence.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Liberator
It wasn't, but the main problem with humanity has always been that we are very short-sighted.

Answer this question for me though:  Are you better off than your parents were at your age?  Probably.  Will you be better off than you're parents when you're their age?  Probably.

Actually, as a matter of fact, no, I'm not better off. I pay more for services than my parents did--even after inflation is factored in. My health care costs more than it did then, with inflation figured. I pay more taxes now than my parents did back then. I see fewer government services than my parents did. Fiscally, the only good thing Reagan EVER did was to give the US Military a 100% payraise.

The problem are the louts who would just as soon take a check from my tax money as opposed to getting a real job.  

Funny, right now I AM one of those louts and you know what? Its not because I'm not trying to get a job (I spend 40 to 50 hrs a week job hunting). Its not because I lack skills (i've got skills on almost every major OS and hardware platform on the market). Its not that I lack experience (I've got 14yrs of experience). Its that, among other things, tech jobs are being shipped overseas to India by the boatload by companies who DON'T PAY TAXES because of Reagan era policies that let them setup tax shelters in places like Vanuatu. And you know what? I'm not the only 'lout' in this boat and living off your tax dollar--and more importantly OUR BLOODY TAX DOLLAR since we paid our taxes too--because when I head down to the unemployment office, I'm surrounded not by a bunch of lazy pukes. I'm surrounded by a bunch of programmers and sysadmins and tech support people who got laid off by corporations that don't give a flying **** about anything but the bottom line. Maybe we should all go and become day laborers and migrant farmers--oh wait, they make even less than we're getting on unemployment.

Oh, as a side note: my parents were able to get by on one man's income when they were my age, with two kids. To afford medical insurance, a smaller apartment than my parents lived in, vehicles, etc, both my wife and I have to have full time jobs.  Yeah. We're so much better off. If twenty years of economic degeneration for the middle class isn't 'Long term' enough for you, I don't know what is.

The problem is nobody takes responsibility for their actions anymore, the "It's not my fault..." syndrome is sweeping the industrialized world and leaving nothing but ruin in it's wake.  

The problem is that certain parties and persons in this world believe that everyone should be "equal", the problem is they want the over acheivers to meet the rest of us down at the bottom instead of encouraging everyone else to meet the over-acheivers on top.
[/b]

You know, I don't believe for a moment that everyon should be 'equal'. I do believe, however, that in a democratic society, in a system that is built from the ground up to take care of the people, the rich SHOULD have to pay more taxes. Why? Because they CAN and they won't ever notice the difference, whereas someone down here on the bottom, where I'm at, will be struggling this year to pay income tax. Hell, I dont' really beleive that they should have to pay that much more. I'm all for a flat rate tax. Make everyone pay 10% of income (ALL INCOME) and I'll call that fair.

The only fair thing life can do is let you wake up every morning, beyond that it's up to you.  You make your life what it will be, nobody else.  Not me, not your boss, not the guy in the car behind and certainly not some bloody, vote-whore politician in Washington D.C.  Only you.

Try telling that to the employees of the textile mills in this state that got shut down, not because the company was in financial trouble, but because they could move the factory to India where they could pay the employees less. I'm sure that was the employees' choice. Their decisions are what made them unemployed.

Try telling that to the unemployed tech workers whose jobs got shipped off to India. I'm SURE they chose to become unemployed and to have their lives thrown into turmoil. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

What you fail to understand is that while indeed, life is not fair, there isn't any requirement for anyone to make it even less fair than it all ready is. Reagan and Bush's economic policies did not just help the rich, they punished the poor. By giving huge tax breaks to the rich, they created voids in the federal budget. Those voids had to be filled. Who do you think paid for that? THe poor and middle class. Programs for the poor were cut under Reagan and Bush. The middle class saw its taxes increase while the rich saw their taxes decrease.  My parents could survive on ONE income and they had two kids. My wife and I don't even meet their standard of living with two incomes and no kids. In raw numbers, my wife and I together make (made, when I was employed) roughly double what my parents did twenty years ago--and we're not even on PAR.

Don't tell me about the long run. Don't tell me about fair. The simple fact is that Reagan and Bush handed this country to the corporations. They raped the poor and middle class because, lets face it, neither of them were poor or middle class and didn't really have to give a damn about the people, or the country after their 12yrs of combined bad management were up.

[SadisticSid]

Originally posted by mikhael

Actually, as a matter of fact, no, I'm not better off. I pay more for services than my parents did--even after inflation is factored in. My health care costs more than it did then, with inflation figured. I pay more taxes now than my parents did back then. I see fewer government services than my parents did. Fiscally, the only good thing Reagan EVER did was to give the US Military a 100% payraise.


Funny, right now I AM one of those louts and you know what? Its not because I'm not trying to get a job (I spend 40 to 50 hrs a week job hunting). Its not because I lack skills (i've got skills on almost every major OS and hardware platform on the market). Its not that I lack experience (I've got 14yrs of experience). Its that, among other things, tech jobs are being shipped overseas to India by the boatload by companies who DON'T PAY TAXES because of Reagan era policies that let them setup tax shelters in places like Vanuatu. And you know what? I'm not the only 'lout' in this boat and living off your tax dollar--and more importantly OUR BLOODY TAX DOLLAR since we paid our taxes too--because when I head down to the unemployment office, I'm surrounded not by a bunch of lazy pukes. I'm surrounded by a bunch of programmers and sysadmins and tech support people who got laid off by corporations that don't give a flying **** about anything but the bottom line. Maybe we should all go and become day laborers and migrant farmers--oh wait, they make even less than we're getting on unemployment.

Oh, as a side note: my parents were able to get by on one man's income when they were my age, with two kids. To afford medical insurance, a smaller apartment than my parents lived in, vehicles, etc, both my wife and I have to have full time jobs.  Yeah. We're so much better off. If twenty years of economic degeneration for the middle class isn't 'Long term' enough for you, I don't know what is.


You know, I don't believe for a moment that everyon should be 'equal'. I do believe, however, that in a democratic society, in a system that is built from the ground up to take care of the people, the rich SHOULD have to pay more taxes. Why? Because they CAN and they won't ever notice the difference, whereas someone down here on the bottom, where I'm at, will be struggling this year to pay income tax. Hell, I dont' really beleive that they should have to pay that much more. I'm all for a flat rate tax. Make everyone pay 10% of income (ALL INCOME) and I'll call that fair.


Try telling that to the employees of the textile mills in this state that got shut down, not because the company was in financial trouble, but because they could move the factory to India where they could pay the employees less. I'm sure that was the employees' choice. Their decisions are what made them unemployed.

Try telling that to the unemployed tech workers whose jobs got shipped off to India. I'm SURE they chose to become unemployed and to have their lives thrown into turmoil. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

What you fail to understand is that while indeed, life is not fair, there isn't any requirement for anyone to make it even less fair than it all ready is. Reagan and Bush's economic policies did not just help the rich, they punished the poor. By giving huge tax breaks to the rich, they created voids in the federal budget. Those voids had to be filled. Who do you think paid for that? THe poor and middle class. Programs for the poor were cut under Reagan and Bush. The middle class saw its taxes increase while the rich saw their taxes decrease.  My parents could survive on ONE income and they had two kids. My wife and I don't even meet their standard of living with two incomes and no kids. In raw numbers, my wife and I together make (made, when I was employed) roughly double what my parents did twenty years ago--and we're not even on PAR.

Don't tell me about the long run. Don't tell me about fair. The simple fact is that Reagan and Bush handed this country to the corporations. They raped the poor and middle class because, lets face it, neither of them were poor or middle class and didn't really have to give a damn about the people, or the country after their 12yrs of combined bad management were up.

First off you DON'T factor in the generally increasing quality of healthcare. More diseases curable, more treatments available, more chance of a healthy life.

And while you have my sympathy for being unemployed ATM, it's worth mentioning the alternative scenario where the government forbids 'the corporations' (those faceless, evil organizations who are always seen as a taker of rights, a terrible exploiter of its poor workers, rather than a provider of jobs, an asset to the economy, and a developer of ever-more efficient products) from making good business decisions - for example, you mention the call centres in India. If things like this were prevented by law you'd have declining revenue, a lack of enterprise and an ever-dwindling economy. Why are you unemployed? Probably because the market for your skills is oversaturated, perhaps because there are better candidates for the positions you're seeking to fill.

And plenty of businessmen suffer the same thing as you every day. The same businessmen that could form large, successful corporations. Some make good decisions, some make (in hindsight) bad ones. Should those whose endeavours go wrong whine about how unfair the market is, how there should be a place for their ineffectual skills? Some things go wrong in life. Maybe your choice of career was one of them, unfortunate as that is.

And if the Thatcher/Reagan years consisted solely of 'raping the lower and middle classes', then why did they return these leaders back to power (in Thatcher's case, twice)?

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by SadisticSid
And if the Thatcher/Reagan years consisted solely of 'raping the lower and middle classes', then why did they return these leaders back to power (in Thatcher's case, twice)?

The reason I can think of is that they were/are stupid?

[Stryke 9]

Actually, megacorporations don't contribute **** to the economy compared to the smaller companies they're so efficient at exterminating. They duck taxes infinitely more effectively, require far fewer skilled employees to operate and pay their unskilled laborers a good deal less (the latter in my experience, I could be wrong on a global scale), and tend to take off for greener pastures at the slightest hint someone might plug up the tax loopholes they shove billions through. Never mind that chains and conglomerates are death for smaller companies and have turned basically the entire East Coast into one homogenous, hideous sprawl, a crime against aesthetics of a scale unheard of since people started ****ting on pictures of Jesus and calling it art.

The fact that we have more advanced technology now than generations ago has really absolutely nothing to do with Reagan. He couldn't have stopped it had he actively tried, and while he certainly didn't do anything to encourage innovation or better healthcare he didn't damage anything much from a research point of view. Besides which, your statement is totally nebulous- "things are better because, uh, something improved between then and now". Really. Find a specific, concrete, appreciable improvement in healthcare, and we might even get to the point where we figure out how that's relevant in the slightest.


I like how everything's justified from a business perspective these days, rather than a human one. It's very, um, slimy and disgusting. It's okay that massive numbers of people don't have jobs today and due to the crappy social services we offer that's a really really bad thing, they aren't needed by the companies anyway! There's someone better to take their position, so what if they starve? Job moved to India? That's okay, the corporation's happy, they've got cheaper labor now!

I'd ask when in Zoroaster's name the benefit of utterly nonhuman constructs like corporations became more important than the improvement of general human life, but I don't think I want to know any more about it. It's vile and I hope everyone who espouses such idiotic notions gets downsized for the benefit of the company they work for. Apparently, you lot'll be happier that way, so long as the company's making more money without you. Or, wait, do those fine ideas about profit being the highest good dissapear when it's your job on the line?


And, you know, people don't have a very good record at all of making intelligent choices when it comes to leaders. Any passable demagogue will always win over a brilliant leader who can't propogandize properly, and considering how a massive proportion of the dictators and tyrants in the world came into power on a wave of popular support, saying someone managed to get reelected ain't saying much.

[Zarax]

You know Sid, a few years before 1929 there was the same policy about corporations as today, with benefits shifting to the richer classes.
You know what saved your so proud full capitalist economy?
It was a guy whose last name was Keynes.
Now, if you take a look into his theories there was a principle based on state investment and more than else economical redistribution.
Now, you will surely tell me that Keynes, his followers and those who are skeptical on the Reagan era and today's economical policies are communists.
The sole damned reson these neo liberist governments keeps back to cripple the social system is because the big corporation owners put pressure on the workers by telling them to vote that parties, and all those television headed fools that believes they can pay less taxes without having to renounce on something.
Fortunately i live in Europe, where there are the two world's best healtcare systems (france and Italy), and they are PUBLIC.
So is most of the school system and a lot of other services, and their quality is way better than most private initiatives.
Oh, there are private endeavours on that these services, but only the richest people can waste their money on that.

Oh, and before you talk again about economy, try to check the economical figures, and you will discover that the best growth rates were under democratic party like governments, and not on those liberist.

[01010]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
The reason I can think of is that they were/are stupid?

You haven't got a ****ing clue mate. The fact is, the voting system over here is completely ****ed to the point where the losing party can have a huge amount more votes than the winning party but it doesn't mean ****. Exactly what happened with the Tory party from Thatcher to the end of Major, proportional representation is the way forward.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by 01010


You haven't got a ****ing clue mate. The fact is, the voting system over here is completely ****ed to the point where the losing party can have a huge amount more votes than the winning party but it doesn't mean ****. Exactly what happened with the Tory party from Thatcher to the end of Major, proportional representation is the way forward.

Except that the problem with PR systems is that they let **** like the BNP take seats.

The problem is that as snoj says the electorate is stupid. That's why John Major won even though the Tory party was almost universally hated. The electorate concentrated on the fact that Labour would put up income tax so much that they failed to see that under the Tories they ended up paying far more in VAT etc. As soon as Labour started playing the same tricks they won a landslide victory even though everyone would be better off if they had kept their old policies.

[01010]

Originally posted by karajorma


Except that the problem with PR systems is that they let **** like the BNP take seats.

The problem is that as snoj says the electorate is stupid. That's why John Major won even though the Tory party was almost universally hated. The electorate concentrated on the fact that Labour would put up income tax so much that they failed to see that under the Tories they ended up paying far more in VAT etc. As soon as Labour started playing the same tricks they won a landslide victory even though everyone would be better off if they had kept their old policies.

Yeah but in all fairness, other than the people that vote for them, who really listens to what the Naz...BNP have to say anyway?

I wouldn't say it's stupidity any more than it's greed though, people see a tax cut and they think, ooh more money for me, they don't see the rise in VAT because in all fairness, who actually keeps track of VAT rates? It's not a tax on your direct wage which is what annoys people, though not me, it's not like you even see the money pre-tax then have it taken away, it's just not there, you don't really miss it. Or, I don't at least.

I will say one thing, I don't think I could ever vote Tory, and especially not with that dick Kenneth Clarke in charge, really shot themselves in the foot putting him up there as far as I'm concerned.

[karajorma]

Well allowing the BNP to gain seats gives them a sort of legitamacy that I'd hate to see the bastards get.  Plus when an decsion comes down to 5 votes like the recent university vote would you like having them with the casting vote?

As for the electorate a better word to use is short-sighted. No electorate will ever vote for a policy that will cause short term hardship followed by a longer term without problems.
 Worse the electorate is also very uneducated about the policies of the main parties. That's one major reason why they couldn't see they'd be better off under old style labour than another 4 years of the tories.

BTW it's Michael Howard in charge of the torys unless they've had yet another leadership vote while I was asleep

[magatsu1]

At least Thatcher took some pride in being British and stood up for the countrie's rights/interests.

Tony Blair seems too interseted in bowing to the whims of Germany and France.

[Setekh]

We have John Howard.

*sniff*

[01010]

Originally posted by karajorma
Well allowing the BNP to gain seats gives them a sort of legitamacy that I'd hate to see the bastards get.  Plus when an decsion comes down to 5 votes like the recent university vote would you like having them with the casting vote?

As for the electorate a better word to use is short-sighted. No electorate will ever vote for a policy that will cause short term hardship followed by a longer term without problems.
 Worse the electorate is also very uneducated about the policies of the main parties. That's one major reason why they couldn't see they'd be better off under old style labour than another 4 years of the tories.

BTW it's Michael Howard in charge of the torys unless they've had yet another leadership vote while I was asleep

Michael Howard, that's the one, took a blow to the head last night and I'm really disorientated this morning. Plus I can barely muster the interest in the party I support half the time, let alone a bunch of ****s like the Tories

Still, New Labour is a step up from the Tories, things in my local area are happening that would never have happened under them. Good things, like local parks being renovated, alleyways being given proper lighting, people that need benefits getting what they need.

Originally posted by magatsu1
At least Thatcher took some pride in being British and stood up for the countrie's rights/interests.

Tony Blair seems too interseted in bowing to the whims of Germany and France.

You mean like how we went to war with Iraq to pander to them?

[mikhael]

Originally posted by SadisticSid

First off you DON'T factor in the generally increasing quality of healthcare. More diseases curable, more treatments available, more chance of a healthy life.

So that's why more and more of our population takes drugs every single day of their lives to manage new and different 'syndromes' that somehow we survived before the advent of this 'generally increasing quality of healthcare'. No, I hate to break it to you, we AREN'T healthier. We're getting less healthy every year. Our health care system is in a  shambles. If you don't think so, let me take you on a tour of the hospitals in all the states I've lived in (I wager its a larger number than most people here) AND all the countries I've lived in (I guarantee I beat out everone on that count, except my fellow servicemen). Our health care system is degrading, not improving. Our health care TECHNOLOGY is getting better, but that's not the same thing at all.

And while you have my sympathy for being unemployed ATM, it's worth mentioning the alternative scenario where the government forbids 'the corporations' (those faceless, evil organizations who are always seen as a taker of rights, a terrible exploiter of its poor workers, rather than a provider of jobs, an asset to the economy, and a developer of ever-more efficient products)

So, there's only two possible situations, right? No corporations, or corporations run the country? I don't think so. First of all, corporations are entitled to the same legal rights as private citizens here in the US. They are NOT, however, bound by the same responsiblities of private citizens. These are two conventions currently enshrined in law. They are capable of changing and buying laws (witness things like the DMCA, which was bought by Disney, for example) but they are exempt from taxes ('our company operates out of Vanuatu!')
I don't have anything against corporations. I like them. They serve to drive business and that's a good thing. On the other hand, like all good things, too much is a bad thing. There are limits in all things. Don't remove them, fix the system that allows them to screw over their customers and employers without repurcussion. In short, corporations should be held to the same standard as the rest of the citizenry (especially since they defend their identity as 'citizens' tooth and nail).

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by 01010


You haven't got a ****ing clue mate. The fact is, the voting system over here is completely ****ed to the point where the losing party can have a huge amount more votes than the winning party but it doesn't mean ****. Exactly what happened with the Tory party from Thatcher to the end of Major, proportional representation is the way forward.

MY VIRGIN EARS!!! j/k

I suppose I was not making it clear that I was joking. I was refering to the people who voted for The Gipper and conservatives in the first place.  I was pointing out from your point of view that those people must be stupid since they voted for The Gipper a second time.

Don't dis the Electoral College, it keeps the system balanced. If we didn't have it only the big cities on the coasts would be deciding who was gonna be the next President. That means that the midwest and the "inner" states would not be represented at all (because they are usally conservative in nature).

[Grey Wolf]

Of course, the Electoral College was designed so that the people in power could basically ignore the people if they really felt like it. You knew that, right? The people in the Electoral College are not bound at all by the votes of the actual population. For example, you could have an entire state vote 100% Democrat or Republican, but their representatives in the Electoral College could vote for whatever they really felt like. There lies the flaw in the Electoral College: It doesn't really have any laws binding it.

Also, why should small states with virtually no population get a more of a say for the same number of people than a state like NY or California?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by mikhael

So that's why more and more of our population takes drugs every single day of their lives to manage new and different 'syndromes' that somehow we survived before the advent of this 'generally increasing quality of healthcare'. No, I hate to break it to you, we AREN'T healthier. We're getting less healthy every year. Our health care system is in a  shambles. If you don't think so, let me take you on a tour of the hospitals in all the states I've lived in (I wager its a larger number than most people here) AND all the countries I've lived in (I guarantee I beat out everone on that count, except my fellow servicemen). Our health care system is degrading, not improving. Our health care TECHNOLOGY is getting better, but that's not the same thing at all.

I remember a World Health Organisation report into the world's health care came out a few years back. France came number 1. Britain came number 18. America came 38th just above Croatia who at 43rd were still rebuilding from the war (which means that they are probably ahead of America by now)

[Flipside]

These 'syndromes' are getting on my nerves anyway, when I was young and a pain, I got a clout round the ear and sent to my room, nowadays, not only would I be on something for 'attention deficit syndrome' I would also probably have got my parents arrested for hitting me.
The best one I heard was 'Phantom Syndrome Syndrome' this is where some get a syndrome about the possibility they have a syndrome.

Since I work with teenagers on a daily basis, I can assure you that there are a good few that would greatly benefit from a good slap about the head and being told to get a life and stop feeling sorry for themselves.

I am 30 years old now, and I don't consider my quality of life to be better than my parents when they were 30, and I was there. Yes, money was thin on the ground, there were 5 of us, only Dad working, Mum filled envelpoes to pay for a fence around the back garden, but at least they weren't deliberately kept in a state of constant fear by the government; terrorists, plagues, paedophiles etc etc, and I don't honestly think we have found that many cures for diseases that we didn't invent in the first place in the last 30 years.

Edit : The frightening thing as I read this post is that I DO sound like an old git!

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Of course, the Electoral College was designed so that the people in power could basically ignore the people if they really felt like it. You knew that, right? The people in the Electoral College are not bound at all by the votes of the actual population. For example, you could have an entire state vote 100% Democrat or Republican, but their representatives in the Electoral College could vote for whatever they really felt like. There lies the flaw in the Electoral College: It doesn't really have any laws binding it.

Well the guys who go to the Electoral are elected there by the political parties, so it's highly doubtable that the Democrats guys would vote Republican and vice versa. The amount of votes a state gets is based on the number of Senetors and Representative's the state has. So if a state has 3 votes all major parties elect 3 guys each. If their candidate wins the state then that parties vote guys go to the Electoral College.

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Also, why should small states with virtually no population get a more of a say for the same number of people than a state like NY or California?

IF we didn't have the College, the Presidential candidates wouldn't even give a second thought to the midwest people since they would not need our votes. Which would mean we would not have the "representation" you think a PV (popular vote) would give.