Marcus , dances,
tell me when lord of the dance. lol

well, thank you kindly (and you as well, Marcus). the left needs more sound-bites!

Dance, puppets! Dance!

Is this control, or passive submission, maybe peer pressure or just weakness?

ps, i missed my chance to edit my last post. please add this

.

more reality bites, but with no arguments, I am surely lame

Good afternoon, Dystopic. I don't agree with much of your post, but that is a beautifully stated argument. I enjoyed it.

I also want to say, before I begin ranting, that the vision you have in your mind of the ideal world is an admirable thing. Hold on to it. I won't agree with what you say, but I have a few more dents in my armor than you. I've had to make my share of compromises and sacrifice a few of my ideals, and frankly, I wish I hadn't had to. If you stay true to what you believe maybe you won't have to.

And now, for something completely different...



I think campaign reform is vital. We make sure that all candidates have equal time in the media. We should make sure that their dollars are equal. Then maybe we could actually have the best candidates, not just the best connected.



Again, I agree. The fact that Daimler / Chrysler is based in Germany as a tax shelter is a clear indicator that our tax code is screwed up. There is growing support for the fair tax movement, and this could be a solution.



I think that might be because, as a society, we keep score with money. Business leaders who have made lots of money are viewed as "successful", while others from lesser compensated backgrounds are not. It's a problem, I agree, but not a big one. A bigger one would be individuals being placed in political positions based on who, not what, they know.



Nope, nope, nope. I would like to never be at war, too. I would also like to be able to fly arounf the room every time I whistle "Stairway To Heaven", but that won't happen, either.

The world is an ugly place and is not filled with civil, peace-loving people. Do you lock your door when you go to sleep at night? I do. Why? To protect my stuff. Why do we have nukes and aircraft carriers and cruise missles? To protect our stuff.

I think you will probably say that an aircraft carrier won't protect us from a suicide bomber, and you're right. The issue is that if we don't have an aircraft carrier then someone else will build one and threaten us with it. See the pre-WW2 US military as a parallel. Or the post-Vietnam neglect of the military. To think that we will be able to exist through is also a bit naive, I think. The strict attention to treaties was the trigger for WW1. I don't want to repeat that.

I agree that it would be nice to spend the military budget on nice things. I suggest that if we don't spend the military budget there won't be any nice things because the rest of the world will take them from us.



Why? I know that other countries offer nationalized medical care, but they also restrict access to that care as a cost control. It is an admirable goal to provide everything to everyone, but where does the money come from? To offer the care I get through my employer to every citizen would bankrupt the nation. To restrict what care is provided would start a huge debate about descrimination. Tell me how much it will cost and where the money will come from and we'll talk.



Why is it unrealistic? I'm a product of the public schools and a state college. Everyone has the same opportunity I had.





Reconcile these two statements. If welfare doesn't eliminate the problem then why are we using public funds?

I'm not saying that we should not support the lower levels of our society. We need to. There needs to be a safety net. But allowing people to spend their entire lives on public aid is unacceptable. I would support mandatory public service for public aid recipients as a form of job training. I would also support drug testing. If they want my money, I can say how it gets spent.



I don't think it is a zero sum game. Capitalism creates wealth and raises everyone's standard of living eventually. Our poor live better than most of the world's middle class. But the wealth is not created or distributed evenly. That's a drawback that we haven't figured out, but raising taxes to fund aid programs isn't the solution. I make more money, so I have to give more of it away? Then where's the motivation?



A reform of the tax code could bring us onto common ground. This will turn into a debate about detail, I think, so I'll let it go. I don't think are views are too far apart, here.



How can that be done? A noble goal, to be sure, but how? Who will pay for the enormous investment that would be required to make this happen?

So far you are suggesting that we provide universal healthcare, support the poor, and modernize the world. We are already in deficit spending. Where will this money come from?



And now money for art? And really, most publicly funded art over the last twenty years has been crap. "Art" is a highly personal vision and can't be created on demand.



It doesn't have to be that way. I live in the fastest growing county outside of the Sun Belt in the US. How we plan and design for the future is a huge topic for all the local communities, and we are doing a fairly good job. If you don't like how your neighborhood looks, get involved. Go to zoning meetings. Speak out. Here is an area you can make change, all by yourself.



If I don't need to work for survival, if all my needs are met, then why work?



There's two arguments I want to make here.

1) Your Parent's Argument: Well, then don't. Live under a tree for all I care. Just don't come crying to me.

2) The Zen Argument: Ah, but you already are...

You don't want to be part of the "rat race", I take it. But something drives you, some area of your life motivates you. It doesn't have to be money - and that's your choice to make. We should all be free to make that choice, and to be accepted for it. As I said earlier, money is how we keep score, and sometimes that's a shame.



I don't agree, but value your quest.

OK. I'll take the side of the horribly un-PC here.

Not all candidates deserve to have equal air time.

Frankly, some candidates are so harebrained that nobody should be forced to listen to them. They are free to speak, but I don't want them wasting my bandwidth unless they pass the basic test of at least sounding sane. The problem is the person I think is nuts might just be your guy.

Does the candidate who can only interest 2% of the population deserve the same airtime as the guy who can draw 50%? Or does the guy who can draw 25 times the vote, deserve 25 times the airtime? What's to stop me from registering for a presidential candidacy and forcing you to listen to me (trust me, you don't want this!)?

I know I don't want to pay for equal airtime for the two percenter....And make no mistake about it, you will pay for it.

This is only the first and one of the simpest of many issues...

For instance, I like candidate X. Am I banned from speaking out in his favor because it constitutes a material contribution to his candidacy? What if I have a blog? My own website? A radio show? A newspaper? A TV network?

There are only two things I am sure of:

1) We will not all agree on how to distribute a "fair" amount of airtime.
2) The establish politicals will never lose another election, because they will be writing these laws and the enforcement mechanisms.

In fact, it might look a lot like USSR communism.

since when was anyone forced to listen to a political debate?



federal funding comes when a party can get 5% of the popular vote. no third party's been able to do that yet, which i think is a shame simply because it limits the scope of debate.

when i envision campaign reform, i don't see a repeat of the california recall election when Gray Davis was shut out in place of Ahhnold. from what i understand, a lot of the country followed that debate out of sheer amusement with the list of candiates.

no, we don't need that. i'm talking about parties, here. a few independants have enough money to finance their own campaigns, and you're 'forced' to listen to them. i'm not trying to pave the way for each party to put every candidate on stage, and just getting 5% of the popular vote is a much more difficult thing than it would seem.

and now on to Oz... i wonder if i'll have time to get to much before i leave today.

Oz,

i don't have time to highlight everything you said. i knew money would be the biggest counter-argument, and that's fine. i never said i'd balance the books, after all.

that said, there were two issues i wanted to respond to. one was to "reconcile the two" (with regard to welfare not fixing the problem of poverty). welfare doesn't fix the problem now because it doesn't receive enough money to do so. but with enough money it works fabulously. most people on welfare stay on for less than 3 months, though lapses back into poverty are common enough. it doesn't work now in the sense that it can't be relied on by everyone who should qualify. red tape, insufficient money, etc.

now, with the military. i wasn't saying we take the whole thing down. but nukes? yes. i didn't say all of them either, but at our current number of warcheads we could nuke every square inch of land on this planet -- twice. is that really necessary as a deterrant? i don't think so.

the rest of my "plan" had more to do with maximizing the money we do spend on the military.

as for all that other stuff, no i'm not starry-eyed with naivete. they are priorities i'd have. i'm not surprised you disagreed, but i was going on a tangent of "if i could do whatever i wanted," so you can't totally fault me. well, you can if you want. i thought it might inject some new vitality into this thread.

i'm pleased that you agree with me on the financial issues, though. i think those are two of the more important ones. and fianlly...



i can imagine a similar statement being made in soviet russia ("from each according to his capacities, to each according to his needs"):
"you've not capacity to work? i guess you don't need to eat."

yes, on an absolutist stance, i'm not forced to play the game or work. but i still think it's a bit farther from totally free choice, and a bit closer to a gun to my head.

i can't remember what book it was in, but at some point Michel Foucault described the difference in government style between the middle ages and today as the difference between "let live and make die" (for the middle ages) and "let die and make live" (in the modern era). there's something to chew on. i probably won't be around til monday, so i'll have some catching up to do.

cheers,
nik

You guys always post some fascinating reads and I love it! Since the general 'gist' of page seven seems to be focusing on some sort of 'utopian' society/idea I will throw in some random nonsense on this fine Saturday morning.  

The Barter System: I would love to see us go back to this 'old world' way of living, if not totally, at least to some degree. It's the old 'neighbor helping neighbor' philosophy which I agree with as it brings forth many positives within people. Mainly, it allows us to build levels of compassion towards eachother because let's face it, if we were constantly in 'intimate' (no french maid stuff here   ) contact with eachother, or at least with those 'on the street where we live', maybe we would care more about each other. Plus, a side benefit would be the teaching of valuable skills, skills that could be deemed 'necessary for survival'... skills that quite frankly I don't see evident in the younger generations anymore.  Let's face it, if the poop were to ever 'hit the fan' how many of us have the skills to rebuild society in any degree without the aid of technology?
Universal Health Care: Sorry Oz, but I am passionate on healthcare 'for all' the people, not just by country. Billions of dollars are spent on/in healthcare every year. Surely there are better ways to direct these funds. An example would be Viagra. I love sex as much as the next guy but you know what? In the grander scheme of things there are far more important health issues than a 'boner'... sorry to any of you who have 'issues' with the ole one eyed sea serpent but   . I earn a meager 22K a year. My health benefits, which are actually quite good, are deducted 'pre-tax' so my actual earnings on the year were a little over 14K... almost eight grand into the healthcare system, not to mention my employers contribution, and I/the wife maybe used it three times... two doctor visits (with our $20 copay of course) and one ER visit (again, minus a $50 copay) that had a price tag of roughly $950 or so. So where did all my money go? I don't care what you tell me, when I see that doctor drive away in his $80K car to his $1.2 million dollar home as I start up my Neon and head towards my little brick ranch, well, I can't see justification in this system (and no, I didn't forget about all of those in the Health Insurance field who reap the benefits as well). Healthcare should be a service, not a business!  
Fuel Allowances: I don't care what gas costs (3.20 a gallon in my neck of the woods) there should be some sort of fuel allowance for us when used to travel to/from work, period. If you want to charge me $10.00 a gallon to drive to Yellowstone on vacation, that works for me since this would be for purely entertainment reasons, therefore I should 'pay to play'. But driving the forty five mile round trip to work five days a week shouldn't 'penalize' me as it does. There are ways they could go about this... much more than I am willing or able to get into right now but you know it could be done.
Political Campaign/Lobby Reform: Way too much in this loaded topic to put here right now but Dystopic basically has the right ideas in what he says. The lobbyist's need to be stopped, period. The only lobby should be the 'lobby of the people'... there should be NO transfer of funds to achieve this. A candidate is supposed to be there for us not the other way around. If you wish to represent me then that is your choice. I should not have to finance you... do you finance me in my endeavors?
This is my very basic, very short laundry list. There is enough in these four topics alone that these concepts, if implemented properly, could go miles as far as improving our society, and our 'species' as a whole. Utopia... I don't think that is achievable, but we can bring ourselves closer to the idea if we are willing to put forth the effort required. I guess it just depends on how bad we really want it.

Another good statement.

Essentially all the 'communist' nations are actually socialist dictatorships, none of them are communist for the simple reason that they did not follow his 'timeline of civilization'.



Wow, awesome, someone who undestads

Hehehe... here comes a Stephen Colbert quote.

"I think that a government that governs least is the government that governs best and in this we have succeeded in Iraq."

Good morning gentlemen. Hope you are all well, today! Happy Monday!

And we're off...



I didn't know that. Is that true? If you can back that up I might be forced to change my stance on this. I always look at generational welfare families as the horrible example of why this doesn't work. Maybe that's the exception, not the rule.



Well, how many does it take? Just like the WMD argument, we'll only know when it doesn't work anymore. Boom.

I think it was Lewis Black that said "Sealth bombers? Planes you can't see? Yeah, we have 'em - hundreds of 'em! All over the place... and they only cost us $10 to build..."

An imaginary deterent doesn't work, either.



Actually that's how it works here.
"Are there no poorhouses? Are there no workhouses?"
- Scrooge, "A Christmas Carol"

Yes, it's a hard thing to say, but I do think it's true. I've though about this a lot over the weekend and my life experiences may have warped me some here. I've been paying a mortgage since I was 25. I've spent 20 years keeping the wolves away from my door and sometimes it was real hard. If I can do it, anyone can.

Actually, Dystopic, I'm jealous of you. You can spend your money. I have a wife and two teenagers with their hands in my wallet and it makes me crabby...



I'm still chewing on that. Good quote, and it is making me consider my values.



Yes, but do want someone else telling you if you can see a doctor ot have a procedure? For all the good it would do to have universal healthcare, look at the horror stories.

And be careful.


You and I are funding the system, you're right. The population is aging and will require a higher level of care, while there are less workers to pay in. It's the same problem Social Security is facing. Where will the money come from? I would like somebody, andybody to answer that, not just tell me its the "right thing to do". I think the right thing to do would be to have Mumble bring me beer and pizza in his maid suit every Friday, but that won't happen either!   

It surely would be cheaper to just shovel the dead into skips/dumpsters and cart them off to the city tip, that way the wealthy wont have to smell the rotting corpses as they drive to their opera.

Bring out your dead,, ding ding, Shove em on the cart,

You are truly a humanitarian.

No, just a Republican. Nice "Holy Grail" reference. Neeeeeh!

Should we provide care to everyone? Sure. Can we? Well, that's the argument.

Here, I'll give you an example. Our lobotomized (well, he's a Democrat - he can't help it!  ) governor in Illinois wants be provide universal healthcare to everyone under 18. The state already can't operate on a balanced budget. To come up with the billions that this will cost, he want to start a new tax on businesses. The businesses will then, of course, either raise their prices to the consumers or move out of state. So, to pay for a political move for re-election we destroy jobs and raise prices. This can't be the best way.

Can we do this? I don't know - but I haven't heard anybody say how we can yet.

I just love when someone uses a Monty Python reference to get a point across!

"Help, help! I'm being opressed!"

You better watch yourself there Oz... you might lose your 'Young Republicans' membership if they hear you talking like that.

Can we do this, is different from saying, Fk them, spend the money on malls.
But i digress



The image just stuck in my mind. and i did hope it would stick in yours too.



I think you might be underselling yourself. lol.

Good morning again Oz,

another day, another diatribe?



check this out: 5 Myths About Welfare
it doesn't speak to my claim that most welfare recipients remain on welfare for about 3 months, though often return to public support sporatically. i'm still working on that (i don't have any of my reference materials handy).



your reply focuses too much on the individual. i do believe that "anyone can do it," in the sense that any individual has the capacities to make it in the market. however, not everyone can do it in the sense that a capitalism, by its very nature, doesn't provide enough work to provide for all members in the society. if there are 100 people and 95 jobs, not everyone can make it. in this sense, capitalism must produce poverty (it's a marxian law of economics which is still taught to economists: the accumulation of wealth).

see: wikipedia. here's the quote i'd draw attention to:
"But when the 'economic cake' shrinks, then capital accumulation can only occur by taking income or assets from other people, other social classes, or other nations. The point is that to exist, capital must always grow, and to ensure that it will grow, people are prepared to do almost anything."

more than just unemployment, capitalism creates poverty more broadly. one of my prof's had a funny way of explaining it. he'd don a texas-style accent and start with something like, "now, I don't believe in UFOs or nothin, but lately I'm feelin like there are too many aliens around, if you know what i mean." he'd go on to explain a scenario in which poor workers are hired to build a wall around a house. they're paid a given wage, certainly not enough to buy their own house, let alone build a wall around it (are any workers paid enough to buy their own factories?). still, it would seem their lot is improving: they're making money after all. however, a funny thing happens. the wall around the one house raises the average home value in that neighborhood, which subsequently raises the cost of living. now imagine an entrepeneur is employing them to build walls, and paying them a set salary. while they work, the cost of living keeps going up, and they paradoxically end up working to make themselves poorer.

yes, we have a minimum wage policy to try and prevent this (which it doesn't fully do), but it's still a constant pressure in a capitalism. i think rather than saying, "that's just the way things are," and passing it off as a fact of life, we should try and keep ourselves sensitized to the ways our form of society must create inequalities, that our wealth comes from others' poverty.



well, we've been a debtor nation since Regan...

Am i correct, does America want to cut it's poor loose and use them as bonded labour ie "slaves" it seems like this
The America you talk about is horrid, a land of haters that despises everyone lower that you.

Is this true, are you so shallow, do you have no conscience or humanity. are we stupid to support you as a nation, or are there a minor, ignorant bunch of people that don't understand the capitalism they support. I think this might be your opinion, Especially when you keep quoting people rather than thinking for yourselves.

Look, my opinion is this, anyone who hates the poor is a low life scumbag that doesn't deserve any wealth, I hope that is not your opinion about your wealth if if is then I pity you. all of you, whoever you are.

Marcus, to whom was that last post directed?

i think your sense of "the" american view of poverty isn't totally innaccurate. many people i meet view poverty as something an individual does to him/her self. i think part of it comes from the ideology of individualism so common here in the U.S., but i think it runs more deeply than that (and possibily as a result).

people here get a finally get a job they can tolerate (or, god forbid, might even enjoy sometimes) that pays well enough and provides the benefits needed, and they feel accomplished and proud of themselves. suggesting that others' economic failure has less to do with those others and more to do with the society itself carries a latent suggestion: you didn't get that job because you deserve it, you got it because you're lucky. while not entirely the case (you got it because you're qualified, and the other people didn't get it because our society doesn't have enough satisfactory jobs).

we severely lack a vocabulary of public life: most of our narratives here are interior and psychological, calling attention to the strengths and virtues, or weaknesses and vices, of the protagonist. we have so little in our culture that will help us see the ways we're just actors on the stage of culture playing out scripts that were written before we had a say in it -- certainly no positive examples.

in response to what you said about quotes, i quote others for several reasons. partly it's what i'm used to, working in the academic sphere. but i have no illusions about that fact that my thoughts were shaped strongly by others, and they've usually said what i want to say with more elloquence and thoroughness than i'm prepared to muster for a chat room discussion.

The pitfalls are in terms of efficiency and being able to build infrastructure more effectively. Talking about poor people, well the answer to that is better education and opportunity but I'm glad to hear capitalism works well for you,, is your name Jack by the way? first name - Imallright?

I think care should be provided to those in need. However, it is a very biased situation. The field of medicine has so much government protection it is amazing that its not state owned yet. And every time the prices go up no one can do anything about it cause the researchers and doctors keep using the "We save lifes" arguement.



Actually it is the ccmmon example, however some people do stay on it for years without end sometimes making up lies and trying to get more support from the government.

However welfare also helps out a lot of families truely in need.



Yes, but its labor market is the most flexible out of all the economic systems.



Actually, it only applies to those who arent paid under the table, many of the so called 'alliens' are paid wages that are less than a dollar an hour.



Actually there is only one era in the entire history of the US when we were dept free and that was during the Jacksonian era.



Hm... it is sort of like that, companies have been doing this in South East Asia for quite a while.

And as far as I know debt and poverty is a stimulant for the economy, we cant have a perfect world. And statistics show that since the 50s when capatalism really became big the world average GPA has been going up and up, especially in poor countries.



Where are the questions marks

You know I am no champion of capatalism, but it is probably the best economic system for our globalizing economy. Socialism is great on a national basis, not so much a world one.

And we all use quotes that leave an impression on us, it doesnt mean we dont think for ourselves, rather that those quotes stimulated or formed new things to think about in our minds.



"The whole world's a stage, and all the men are merely players".



Dont mix economy with education. Its not really the economy that controls education. Public education is offered to everyone no matter how poor you are, even the matterials you have to use in school have to be provided by the education system.

Socialism works a little better, but it only works in countries that are a) smaller and less divesified.

that claim is overly simplistic. it's true, to a degree. some of the early statisticians to look at this failed to account for inflation when they come up with figures that support this claim, so of course it looks like everyone's making more money. yes, some people are making more, but here, check this out:



notice that the 50th, 20th, and 10th percentiles show almost no economic growth? HALF the country isn't sharing on this abundance of pie, they're just struggling (harder and harder every year) to stay in place. do you really think that's lack of skills and willingness to train?

yes, in a capitalism you're not necessarily born into your lot in life. the poor can work hard and become rich, and the rich-ish can become poor (the very wealthy won't, though). most often it's the middle class folks sinking into working class status (and trying to deny it). there's a lot more downward movement than upward.

Don't mix economy with education?? (mystikmind is stunned). Obviously how effectively education follows the demands of the economy, the more opportunities can be created for those that recieved the education.