The "Non-Political" Political Thread

[iPwn]

So you prefer socialism?

I don't understand why so many people put a 'dangerous' stigma on this word or ideal. Socialism works in many applications, such as Canada's healthcare system. It probably isn't applicable everywhere, but please stop dealing in absolutes. That's the biggest, the absolute biggest and most retarded @$$ problem with this country. You are either A, or you are B, so pick a side and lets fight!

The vast complexity of this world and everything contained within cannot be lumped into 1 of 2 options.

 

[Hameister]

I don't understand why so many people put a 'dangerous' stigma on this word or ideal. Socialism works in many applications, such as Canada's healthcare system. It probably isn't applicable everywhere, but please stop dealing in absolutes. That's the biggest, the absolute biggest and most retarded @$$ problem with this country. You are either A, or you are B, so pick a side and lets fight!

The vast complexity of this world and everything contained within cannot be lumped into 1 of 2 options.

Sure it can...I'll take option A, because option B sucks, just look at Greece, Spain, and any number of other countries that have been handing out entitlements to it's people for years, and are now broke.

Margaret Thacher, was very correct when she said...."The problem with Socialism, is the fact that it's only a matter of time before the people with money, no longer have any, to support those that don't.

Besides, I thought this was supposed to be a "Non-Political" thread.

 

[muz]

Sure it can...I'll take option A, because option B sucks, just look at Greece, Spain, and any number of other countries that have been handing out entitlements to it's people for years, and are now broke.

Margaret Thacher, was very correct when she said...."The problem with Socialism, is the fact that it's only a matter of time before the people with money, no longer have any, to support those that don't.

Besides, I thought this was supposed to be a "Non-Political" thread.

You dont want a system that is based completely and absolutely of capitalism though , because what are you going to do when those who have nothing turn to crime and revolution to get what they want ? and you with your wealth and assets are the direct target of that ?

I have long believed that you cannot have a system that is based absolutely of socialism or capitalism ,unfortunately due to the way society is constructed in the 21st century You have to have capitalism in order to make the bulk of the wealth that the rest of the state then relies on ,in order to fund innovation and development and in order to make a successful rich and powerful ruling class.

However you need to tax this wealth generating public sector in order to provide education , essential services and socialist measures such as the welfare state to provide for those who cant provide for themselves the most vulnerable people in society . Sure some people take advantage of the welfare state provisions but there are lots of people out there who cant work not because they dont want to or because there isnt a job but because they are disabled for example , The state has to provide for those people ,the state also has to provide for people at times when the private sector cannot provide them with jobs otherwise as I previously mentioned they turn to crime because they have no alternative .

If you let the free market reign supreme you would have much much deeper class divisions than you currently have amongst other things , it might even be reasonable to suggest a completely unregulated free market would result in slavery of some form is that something that you would want to see ?

I do believe you are taking Margaret Thatcher slightly out of context with that quote, and lets face it she wasn't the most popular prime minister this country has ever had . During her reign she did not completely abolish welfare state provisions and in fact spending on things such as the NHS increased in real terms during her time in office ,some say perhaps that was for limitations imposed on her by the constitutional structure of the UK but who knows , one thing is for sure her policies where influenced by monetarist thinking , and her response to the recession in the early 80's was informed by her economic beliefs , how surprising that a few years later unemployment peaked at 12.5% of the workforce , Now despite having inflation "under control" you have a massive number of unemployed who you have to provide for at considerable cost

I think one of the most shocking things for me that i am seeing as a result of this recession is the masses of unemployed young people who could possibly end up being a generation on the scrapheap unable to get anywhere in their lives because they have started of in their adult life without a job , how are they to have any aspirations of job experience both of which are required to progress and climb the career ladder

Answer this , what do you propose is done to provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves in your completely capitalist view of how things should be ?

 

[Hameister]

You dont want a system that is based completely and absolutely of capitalism though , because what are you going to do when those who have nothing turn to crime and revolution to get what they want ? and you with your wealth and assets are the direct target of that ? I have no idea where you are located. Here in the U.S., it is extremely unlikely that a "revolution", such as you describe would ever take place. Why? Because revolutions are created by those who have nothing, and therefore, have nothing to lose.

The people here are collecting too much from the federal government already to risk losing it. However, I will answer your question honestly....if it ever came to an armed conflict, then either they will die, or I will die, but rest assured, I will never live under a Socialist/Communist regime.

I have long believed that you cannot have a system that is based absolutely of socialism or capitalism ,unfortunately due to the way society is constructed in the 21st century You have to have capitalism in order to make the bulk of the wealth that the rest of the state then relies on ,in order to fund innovation and development and in order to make a successful rich and powerful ruling class. In the U.S. we do not live under a pure Capitalist system. We already have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance, Social Welfare programs, Food Stamps, thousands of government regulations, government sponsored social grants, hundreds of government issued "loans", that are never paid back. Under our current President, we have corporate bail outs, banking bail outs, government sponsored programs that will give you money to buy a new car, if you buy the one the government approves of. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point. As far as I'm concerned, we're already too far to the left.

However you need to tax this wealth generating public sector in order to provide education , essential services and socialist measures such as the welfare state to provide for those who cant provide for themselves the most vulnerable people in society. Perhaps you're not aware of the fact that the wealthy already pay a totally disproportionate amount of taxes. They are already paying a "penalty", for their success. Approximately 51% of the people in this country pay no taxes at all....none! Our President is constantly promoting class warfare with the phrase, "the rich should pay their fair share, to pay down the debt". Give me a freakin' break. Do you know that if every single wealthy person, ($250,000 a yr. income and up, according to Obama), were to be taxed at 100%, it wouldn't even make a dent in the 16 trillion dollar debt these people have run up. Think about that! A 100% tax that would literally take away all the wealth, of all of this country's wealthiest people, wouldn't pay down more than 5% of our debt. OurSure some people take advantage of the welfare state provisions but there are lots of people out there who cant work not because they dont want to or because there isnt a job but because they are disabled for example , The state has to provide for those people ,the state also has to provide for people at times when the private sector cannot provide them with jobs otherwise as I previously mentioned they turn to crime because they have no alternative . I have no issue with helping those in need, and I never have. My issue is the fact that there are not "some" people taking advantage of the welfare system as you say. There is an incredibly large percentage taking advantage. Government assassistance, is supposed to be just that, "assistance". We have many thousands of people that are now 3rd generation welfare recipients. Did you know that? Think about yourself on welfare, your children going on welfare, then their children on welfare. Hundreds of billions in fraud every year, and still the Liberals are always calling for more social welfare programs. I praised Bill Clinton, and voted for him because he made a tremendous contribution to welfare reform. Most of which Obama, has already undone.

If you let the free market reign supreme you would have much much deeper class divisions than you currently have amongst other things , it might even be reasonable to suggest a completely unregulated free market would result in slavery of some form is that something that you would want to see ?

I do believe you are taking Margaret Thatcher slightly out of context with that quote, No I'm not, here's her actual quote..." The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money – Margaret Thatcher,
Prime Minister of Great Britian it was accurate then, and it's just as accurate now. and lets face it she wasn't the most popular prime minister this country has ever had . It would be more accurate to say that she wasn't very popular with that segment of British society that wanted handouts. During her reign she did not completely abolish welfare state provisions and in fact spending on things such as the NHS increased in real terms during her time in office ,some say perhaps that was for limitations imposed on her by the constitutional structure of the UK but who knows , one thing is for sure her policies where influenced by monetarist thinking , and her response to the recession in the early 80's was informed by her economic beliefs , how surprising that a few years later unemployment peaked at 12.5% of the workforce , Now despite having inflation "under control" you have a massive number of unemployed who you have to provide for at considerable cost

I think one of the most shocking things for me that i am seeing as a result of this recession is the masses of unemployed young people who could possibly end up being a generation on the scrapheap unable to get anywhere in their lives because they have started of in their adult life without a job , how are they to have any aspirations of job experience both of which are required to progress and climb the career ladder

Answer this , what do you propose is done to provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves in your completely capitalist view of how things should be ? I don't have a "completely Capitalist view". I believe in Social Security, I believe in a form of collective government assistance to those who are truly in need. I believe in a better path to American citizenship than our present system now provides. You'd probably be amazed at just how much government social support in which I do believe.

However, we need a strict enforcment of our current laws to put an end to Medicare fraud, Welfare fraud, Food Stamp fraud, thousands of government entitlement programs. Our thinking needs to be restructured so that people once again take responsibility for their own actions. You buy a house that's worth $150,000, and you pay $325,000, with a 2% interest only mortgage with an escalation clause to 15%, you own it! Don't expect the government to step in and pay for your stupidity.

What do people like me get for living within their means? What do folks like me get for taking a 30 year fixed conventional mortgage, and making every payment on time for 30 years? What do people get who make well thought out, reasonable decisions in their lives? How are people compensated by the government for playing by the rules all their lives?

I'll tell you what they get...they get nothing, nada, not a thing....oh yes, wait, they do get something, they get to pay for every one else who didn't.

There's really no point in continuing this. A Liberal is a Liberal, and a Conservative is a Conservative, and neither will change the other's mind. But, it's been a nice civil chat.

- 10 characters -

 

[muz]

- 10 characters -

Margarat thatcher was not just unpopular with people that wanted handouts ,your analysis of British political history is shockingly inaccurate . perhaps if you actually paid any attention to British history you would recall that some of those that formed her strongest opposition where in fact unionised members of the working class that didn't want their livelihood taken away from them , I would not describe those people as you did "It would be more accurate to say that she wasn't very popular with that segment of British society that wanted handouts" and to do so would be completely disrespectful as well as historically inaccurate . My parents and my Grandparents and my great grandparents when they where alive where still in the 21st century opponents of Thatcherism and yet never took a single hand out . Reading about it now I am an opponent of Thatcherism and right now straight out of university I have 2 jobs just so that I can pay of the debt that I accumulated at uni . I have no intention of ever taking a handout from the state in my life .I dont think it is fair or respectful to label everyone who was or is an opponent of Margaret Thatcher a scrounger .

The exact problem you have described which is increasing numbers of people fraudulenty taking state welfare is a problem I agree exists and agree completely that the law should be applied to these people , this however is not a problem that socialism has caused or has anything to do with socialist beliefs , if anything it is capitalism which perpetuates this kind of greedy consumerist society that we have became where every person is out for themselves , but laying that to the side for one minute , I dont see what you disagree with then ,if you dont disagree with welfare provisions as you have said , And I agree that people who fraudulantly take welfare hand outs are indeed incorrect and the law should be applied consistantly and strongly to prevent that we are in agreement

The rich paying "a disproportionate" amount of tax is just progressive taxation , sucks if you dont agree with it or like it because I dont think progressive taxation will be going anywhere in our lifetime .

The only thing I can see you disagree with is the currently high number of unemployed people who have to take assistance from the state because there are no jobs for them . Surely your capitalist free market should be providing the work for people ? or didthe last 5 years not happen to you ,remember the bit where your conservative rich capitalist friends in the city brought the economy crashing down on the rest of the good hard working people in your country leaving many without a home or work for years to come .

BTW I wouldn't classify myself as a liberal , I am liberal on some issues however when it comes to crime and punishment for example I can become a lot more conservative ,again international affairs I am more clasically conservative in my beliefs , anyone who makes their mind up about every issue subscribing to just one philosophical school is probably an idiot in my mind . but hey that's what you get if you listen to politicians without really analyzing what they are saying .

 

[Hameister]

@muz.... here is what I believe you are just not comprehending.

It isn't what you are saying. It is the tone in which you say it.

"what are you going to do when those who have nothing turn to crime and revolution"

"what do you propose is done to provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves in your completely capitalist view of how things should be?"

"it might even be reasonable to suggest a completely unregulated free market would result in slavery of some form is that something that you would want to see?"

"it is capitalism which perpetuates this kind of greedy consumerist society that we have became where every person is out for themselves"

"anyone who makes their mind up about every issue subscribing to just one philosophical school is probably an idiot in my mind"

You did get one thing correct. There is actually not a great deal that separates our political philosophies. However, the buzz words you use to make your argument, are assumptive, as well as very telling. After seeing words like "revolution", "free markets unregulated resulting in slavery", "your completely capitalistic view", etc.

I read those comments, and I thought to myself, this is probably a very young man/woman, about college age. And then,....I remembered someone who said...."If you attain the age of 25, and are not a Liberal, you have no heart. If you reach 40, and are not conservative, you have no brain." I cannot remember who said that but the concept is most understandable.

You assumed that I had an inflexible Capitalistic view of society. A person unwilling to help his fellow man. You put me in a box, and then saw my response, and the box was the wrong size.

Hey, I did the same thing when I was your age. I didn't believe it then, as you won't believe it now. I'll leave you with this..... I'd very much like the opportunity to have this conversation with you when you are about 50 or 60 years of age.

After a lifetime of working hard for everything you have, and others just working the system to get by who demand what you have because as human beings, they are somehow entitled to a piece of your pie, I'll bet you'll see things just a little differently.

Until then, I will say it's been a pleasure. It's rare on forums such as these that one can have a civil debate, without the thread being closed, because one person, or both got completely out of hand.

 

[OS-Wiz]

Well, this is a pleasant surprise. A civil discussion about politics. Bravo to muz and Hameister. And muz, it is truly enjoyable to encounter a recent college graduate with a discerning mind that examines the issue from both sides.

 

[muz]

It has been good having semi informed debate for a change without getting flamed for what is essentially a political preference which one could not possibly change via the internet,especially seeing as we life in 2 completely different countries with different values and political systems .
however fyi your knowledge of British political history is still shocking I would suggest in future if you purport to know anything about Thatcher et al you do some further reading .
I did assume that you where completely inflexible in your capitalist view perhaps my view was informed by your response seen in post 12 where you where essentially saying that you can pick A and fight it out with B that suggested to me that instead of accepting ideas from both philosophies one can accept just one and fight it out with the other , you have since indicated that this is not in fact your belief thus contradicting yourself a little bit perhaps ?


and you too are being assumptive in suggesting what I would say and believe at 50 or 60 years of age ,


The way I see things is perfectly put in this quote "Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life"
Perhaps if i succeed this way I will be less bitter about my years of "work"

Either way clearly not everyone grows up after years of work to be bitter about socialist and liberal ideals and turns into a conservative like your little anecdotal quote would suggest otherwise you wouldn't have such closely contested elections particularly in the UK because we have an aging population which would clearly translate into a conservative landslide at the polls but it doesn't and hasn't . what you in fact find is that certain parties are affiliated with certain socio-economic groups

I can see and am seduced by some of the conservative economic arguments , I however am well educated and can read two arguments and make an informed decision about which one I favor , Perhaps as you hypothesize years working and seeing money taken from me labelled as tax in order to support lazy people will make me bitter and conservative or perhaps even after years of having tax money taken from me I will still be of the informed view that there are and always will be people who need the support of the state and as one of the more fortunate who has had a chance to get some of the best education my county has offered I need to contribute financially to the lives of those who haven't had the opportunity I have had in my life . perhaps even in years I will still believe that inequality is wrong in the face of those of the traditional conservative schools who purport that inequality is just natural . However I dont think your hypothesis has any factual basis apart form an anecdotal example from your life and so It is to be taken with a pinch of salt perhaps . If you are of the older generation which your posts would suggest yo

 

[muz]

Well, this is a pleasant surprise. A civil discussion about politics. Bravo to muz and Hameister. And muz, it is truly enjoyable to encounter a recent college graduate with a discerning mind that examines the issue from both sides.

It is rare to get civill political discussion in settings like this however .Informed civil debate is not that hard after spending 3 years at university you get every opportunity to have civil debate with other strong advocates and so you have to be on your toes . You just have to read both sides decide which one sits more comfortably with you , some arguments are more convincing for some people than others usually based on life experience as I have just been demonstrating however sometimes one can play devils advocate and for instance I did this in exams , I would argue a point I didnt particularly agree with because there was more argument or easier to state argument to support that side , Maybe I have just done that here who knows .

Mpving this thread on , In case anyone already hasnt realised im not in america so wont get a vote however I do have views on most of the main issues separating the candidates
One issues which for me is kind of suprising its even an issue that needs to be discussed considering we are in the 21st century is , Over in the Uk it is not as big an issue Gay people can be "married" , it has been suggested to me and I have gathered through my reading that religious morality still influences politics in America, you probably already know the whole supreme court and religious morality thing raised in Roe v Wade as an example , Over here in the UK the role of religion in politics is wholly symbolic in my viewy . And indeed the opposition to Gay marriage is founded on religious morals . So what does everyone things of it should Gay people be allowed to be married and should Gay couples have all the same rights as heterosexual couples .

In my view there is no valid reason gay marriage should not be allowed , I wouldn't go as far as to force every church to carry out gay marriages I would leave that decision up to individual congregations etc however I would say that Gay people can be married and should have all the same rights afforded to straight couples such as the right to adopt and married tax breaks etc etc

Whats everyone elses view on gay rights ?

 

[Hameister]

Wow, how was I able to predict your response? Amazing! I must be psychic....no, just lived a lot longer, that's all.

I said in my final comments...."Hey, I did the same thing when I was your age. I didn't believe it then, as you won't believe it now."

Your final words, still ringing with the idealism of youth, still combative, only serve to suggest my thoughts are accurate.

That's ok, I've been there, and I've done that. You have yet to experience what I have experienced.

However, you have a better start than I did. When I was your age, I was what is called a "Progressive" today. I was very idealistic, believed that everyone was equal, everyone should own everything, with no individual owning anything.

Capitalism was a very bad thing, and Socialism was a very good thing. In college I believed that Socialism was the key to ending poverty, world hunger, and wars.

You young muz, are already making statements such as..."I have 2 jobs just so that I can pay off the debt that I accumulated at uni . I have no intention of ever taking a handout from the state in my life".

See, you are already showing core signs of self reliance, and responsibility. I didn't come to accept that until I was in my early 30s. See what a jump you already have on me?

Yessir! You'll end up a first class Conservative in about 25 years, and you won't even know how you got there.....but I will.

Have a good evening.