I See Social Discontent

[lulu]

Well, people certainly disagree about the results of FDR's policies.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

 

[Pandora II]

The normal course of events that means that they don't have jobs is because they are too idle to bother turning up to school and trying to learn something and are too proud to do the kind of jobs that are then available to those with no skills or qualifications. Britain no longer requires hewers of wood or drawers of water. Manufacturing here now requires small numbers of skilled workers. We are not a socialist country that intends to spend taxpayers money propping up unsustainable businesses.

...

They have burnt down people's homes and businesses and deserve everything they've got coming to them. I dread to think what is going to happen tonight. The rioters were 2 streets away from me last night, my young cousin has just been sent home from work by the police (she's a social worker) and says that the HQ of a charity for young homeless people has been looted and set on fire.

Pandora,

I read your entire posting, but it doesn't make social sense to me. Look at where you start: society in Great Britain is changing. Skilled labor is required. Only sustainable capitalist businesses will make it. Sustainable capitalist businesses will use the government of any country they can to maximize their profits and pay the workers the minimum amount possible. That is their duty to their shareholders. Great Britain you say, is not a socialist country and therefore has no obligation to prop up unsustainable businesses.

OK. Well, letting businesses fail would be OK if you could keep all the people who had worked for them employed by the government...but can Great Britain do that? If not, perhaps it has some obligation to prop up unsustainable businesses. I don't know what your definition of "socialist" is, but as I said above, FDR kept the United States functioning during the Great Depression by propping up everything with government support! And some people called the old, rich aristocrat a socialist for doing it, too! But, doggone it, we need him back!

And why are there homeless shelters in Britain to be set on fire? Why on earth isn't there housing for people? Is London some remote village in the Third World? Having homeless shelters there at all is shameful!
Deb/AGBF

Unlike America we are a small island. A large number of people wish to live in London. We don't have enough housing in London. My area alone has 15,000 people wanting social housing. With the amount of immigration plus the breakdown in families we have nowhere to put people except in temporary housing if they insist on wanting to remain in the Capital.

Where do you think we should magic more land from? I'm sure you have similar problems in large cities in the USA...

 

[pwendyp]

And why are there homeless shelters in Britain to be set on fire? Why on earth isn't there housing for people? Is London some remote village in the Third World? Having homeless shelters there at all is shameful!

Deb/AGBF

Yes it is shameful...perhaps it's the 'happy clappy hippy' brigade that simply won't build on 'green belt' land...whatever the reasons, we don't have enough houses. More importantly, not enough social housing.

I sort of got the impression from your comment of the shamefulness of our housing situation, that you have no homeless people/nor shelters in America. Then I got to remembering my mans' brother and his wife helping out regularly in parts of New York, at 'places' for the homeless and various 'soup kitchen' type places.

And then saw this on some investigating http://www.washprofile.org/en/node/2295

I guess homeless/vagrant/displaced/nomads...whatever name you want to give them, and the 'shelters/tents/centres etc' are shameful the world over.

If America didn't have homeless shelters, that WOULD be shameful.

 

[maplefemme]

Well, you can pay for that teen to be educated with job skills or you can pay for him to incarcerated, you pick.

You can pay for the mentally ill to be medicated or you can pay them a dollar for walking by when they're out raving on the street. You pick.

You can pay to help the hungry and desperate or you can pay for extra security around your house and car.

I love what you wrote above, iLander. It is very pithy and right to the point.

Deb/AGBF

I don't know where you are iLander.
Here, teens can get student loans and pay them back upon gainful employment at a reasonable interest rate. They learn the value of a dollar and accountability, not entitlement.
Many mentally ill street people "choose" not to take their meds, cost is not always the factor, especially not in our health care system.
The hungry and desperate are not the ones breaking into homes and stealing cars here, it's very well organized crime groups and they have incredible wealth, far from hungry, they aren't struggling, they are living the good life!
I see your point, it's just not a black and white issue, there are many variables, too many to generalize.

 

[AGBF]

I sort of got the impression from your comment of the shamefulness of our housing situation, that you have no homeless people/nor shelters in America. Then I got to remembering my mans' brother and his wife helping out regularly in parts of New York, at 'places' for the homeless and various 'soup kitchen' type places.

I guess homeless/vagrant/displaced/nomads...whatever name you want to give them, and the 'shelters/tents/centres etc' are shameful the world over.

If America didn't have homeless shelters, that WOULD be shameful.

If you got that impression, it wasn't because I gave it. I was extremely clear. I said, "Why on earth isn't there housing for people? "

I asked that because Pandora told me that there was not a problem for the working class in Great Britain. That everyone had jobs. That unemployment was only 7%, not 20% as it is in some parts of the United States. That the rioters in London were rioting only because they were, and I quote, "scumbags", not because they were disaffected (my word).

I know the United States is covered in shame. I have posted it again and again here on Pricescope. I have posted that when I was in college studying the Progressive Era we were assigned the book How The Other Half Lives by Jacob Riis which has photographs of the late nineteenth century immigrants in New York City, some of whom lived close to being on the streets. But when I was in college we had no homelessness in this country! What I saw in How The Other Half Lives was shocking to me! We saw no one lying in our streets. We had no homeless shelters! Can you imagine that? People lived in houses and apartments! Only a few winos needed to sleep in Salvation Army shelters.

Now we have all become inured to stepping over the bodies of the poor as we go about our daily business; to seeing beggars everywhere; to seeing people with signs at Thruway off ramps saying, "I'm Homeless"; and to thinking that homeless shelters are normal. Well not in my day they weren't!!! Not after the refugee camps of World War II had been emptied! Not in western, civilized countries!

Deb/AGBF

 

[partgypsy]

Well, people certainly disagree about the results of FDR's policies.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

I don't think it's fair to lump all of FDR's policies as uniformly "good" or "bad". In contrast to the Hoover-isk response of shrugging shoulders, his policies prevented people from starving on the street and was the better choice from both a moral and morale-perspective. It is open to debate whether the degree of governmental control he asserted during that crisis was needed or even beneficial. But to say the least, certainly can't blame the latest recession on for example, artificially high workers' wages. The trend is in the oppposite direction.

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="AGBF|1312888508|2987085
People learned all the wrong lessons as usual. Big government is spending big money on many things, but never on the poor in the United States. The elderly are not getting whopping big cost of living increases on their social security checks every months. The soldiers who come home from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not getting great treatment at the VA hospitals. Their mental health needs-more soldiers are suicidal than ever have been before and less treatment is available to them-are being woefully neglected when they come home. Unemployment is soaring, but money has not been put into creating jobs. So why do we have a huge debt? Do you really believe it is because the Democrats spent too much on children's school books?

FDR knew what to do. He brought in big government. I say bring me an FDR. George Bush was the worst, far worse than Herbert Hoover, but Obama is no FDR. Obama was never my choice and he can't cut it. We need someone who can stand up to the Republican bankers and Obama can't do it. We need another FDR.

Deb/AGBF
[/quote]
Deb
easy answer to your Q...our country spent more money than we take home each month.

i'am all for supporting our elderly and educating our kids. i'm not in support of the able to work and don't wanna work welfare recipients.

we need another Ronald Reagen...

LUNCH TIME

 

[pwendyp]

If you got that impression, it wasn't because I gave it. I was extremely clear. I said, "Why on earth isn't there housing for people? "

I think perhaps I was a little hasty in assuming to take the word 'shameful' to heart. I apologies AGBF.

Yes, we have problems each side of the pond, and I too can remember here when the housing crisis we now face was nowhere near the epic proportions it is now.

I think with this latest stuff going on upon our streets, we are feeling (as a nation) ashamed of the pictures and words that the riots on our streets are showing to the world. Who would have thought it - that it could happen in 2011 on this scale. Ashamed of what is happening, what our youth has become...and tetchy on reading anything aimed (my perception) at more shame...

These youths who have done this awful damage these past days really are the underclass though, and they are thankfully (I pray I'm right) the minority. They truly are nothing better than mindless thugs, bent on greed and destruction, for nothing more than something to do, a 'free lunch' - and perhaps acting out their frustrations akin to the form of the mindless video games that have occupied them for the last decade or so. Smash and grab. Smash and grab.

These are the ones that 'slipped the net' - the ones who's parents don't care, the ones who never quite got the 3r's in school - and the ones who spent endless hours watching murder and mayhem in films and video games, and now think it's part of their daily diet. These are the ones who wished they had mum and dad both at home at night - to talk to...

But, they make a choice. And they chose destruction.

I feel terribly terribly sad tonight. Truly.

 

[mrscushion]

OK. Well, letting businesses fail would be OK if you could keep all the people who had worked for them employed by the government...but can Great Britain do that? If not, perhaps it has some obligation to prop up unsustainable businesses.Deb/AGBF

Why? Why is it government's responsibility to give people jobs? Why do people have a *right* to a job? I have never understood that. I don't have a right to my job. I earned it. And if I lose it because my company downsizes, I ought to find another one. And if there isn't one, I ought to come up with some idea that people are still willing to pay for. And if I really can't do that, no matter how hard I try, and I've paid taxes for all my career, then yes, there should be a social net to catch me. But I have never understood this logic that is coming through here, that people have right to work, period, or that they have a right to work because they're citizens of a certain state.

 

[maplefemme]

PANDORA, your comment:

"A large number of people wish to live in London. We don't have enough housing in London. My area alone has 15,000 people wanting social housing. With the amount of immigration plus the breakdown in families we have nowhere to put people except in temporary housing if they insist on wanting to remain in the Capital."

Why do you HAVE to put them anywhere? Just say NO, f-off we are full! 15,000 people "wanting" social housing because they CAN'T AFFORD to live in London. You mention that the amount of immigration is a negative factor in all this, yet in a previous post you say you are an advocate of it, how this working?
People "insist" on remaining in London, so instead of saying no, there is no room, it isn't possible, better work on plan B, the powers that be provide temporary housing.
Nice one, genius, what an epic failure

 

[vsc]

easy answer to your Q...our country spent more money than we take home each month.

Waging wars doesn't come cheap. Check out the budget breakdown... much more than what is spent on education, healthcare, or welfare.

edit: Pwendyp, what are the 3Rs in school? I'm not familiar with the concept. I think another PP mentioned it as well.

 

[mrscushion]

that just it.. the government should get out of the way and let the private sector do its hiring w/o so many restrictions.

I don't think the government can totally get out of the economy ....
When I worked with an overseas acquisition group in my company, it was interesting to see the criteria they had for investing in a developing country.
...
Countries with totally laissez-faire governments were considered way too risky for our company's acquisition group to put our stockholders' hard earned money into.

Stating the obvious here...but there is a huge spread between a government doing its job by providing a foundation of infrastructure and social services only it is large and well-financed enough to provide (e.g. basic education for each child, a basic social safety net, well-functioning and up-to-date infrastructure, security) and massive expansionary fiscal policy, for example.

Interestingly (and painfully to watch), the UK government is definitely NOT doing its job at the moment by not intervening quickly and forcefully to stop violence, looting and damage to its citizens and their property.

 

[ksinger]

that just it.. the government should get out of the way and let the private sector do its hiring w/o so many restrictions.

I don't think the government can totally get out of the economy ....
When I worked with an overseas acquisition group in my company, it was interesting to see the criteria they had for investing in a developing country.
...
Countries with totally laissez-faire governments were considered way too risky for our company's acquisition group to put our stockholders' hard earned money into.

Stating the obvious here...but there is a huge spread between a government doing its job by providing a foundation of infrastructure and social services only it is large and well-financed enough to provide (e.g. basic education for each child, a basic social safety net, well-functioning and up-to-date infrastructure, security) and massive expansionary fiscal policy, for example.

Interestingly (and painfully to watch), the UK government is definitely NOT doing its job at the moment by not intervening quickly and forcefully to stop violence, looting and damage to its citizens and their property.

And that same government is responsible for setting the fiscal and trade policies that make it attractive and consequence-free for large corporations (and smaller ones too), to take capital amassed by virture of doing business in that country and invest it in ways that are antithetical to the overall and eventual good of the country - like shipping jobs offshore or removing/hiding assets so that they avoid legal taxes.

I applaud your bootstrap mentality, but let's not downplay just how much business has chased easy money over investing in the country of its origin. And how much government is almost completely the puppet of those business interests, which in spite of a bunch of propaganda, are not usually parallel to the interests of either the country or the individuals in it.

 

[Pandora II]

PANDORA, your comment:

"A large number of people wish to live in London. We don't have enough housing in London. My area alone has 15,000 people wanting social housing. With the amount of immigration plus the breakdown in families we have nowhere to put people except in temporary housing if they insist on wanting to remain in the Capital."

Why do you HAVE to put them anywhere? Just say NO, f-off we are full! 15,000 people "wanting" social housing because they CAN'T AFFORD to live in London. You mention that the amount of immigration is a negative factor in all this, yet in a previous post you say you are an advocate of it, how this working?
People "insist" on remaining in London, so instead of saying no, there is no room, it isn't possible, better work on plan B, the powers that be provide temporary housing.
Nice one, genius, what an epic failure

Apparently they have 'human rights' and under that they have to be housed.

One of the big issues is that once you are given your council house it's yours for life - and rents are below market level, sometimes massively under market level. So if you become a millionaire you can still stay there indefinitely, if you have a 4 bedroom house and you're now on your own since your kids have all grown up then you can continue to rattle around in it while families are stuck in overcrowding etc etc. The government are trying to change this and the outcry is something else.

The majority of immigrants don't have a right to social housing, however they are still people who are taking up property - they're paying mortgages and market rents so no issue with that at all, it is a reason why the number of people in the country is growing and hence becoming more overcrowded. This is why I said I'd happily swap some of our indigenous wastrels for them!

Having sat on planning committees in inner London for many years, there are big issues with building social housing. You can't stick social tennants in tower blocks as they wreck the places and turn them into crime ridden horror stories, so it's even harder to find the space to build enough properties. Developers also want to see a return on their investment, building a high-rise for private ownership means they can build more units to higher spec and know that they will be looked after.

People also want to live near their families and see this as something the government should provide for (er, we can't afford to live near our families...), plus London has fantastic services and facilities compared with more rural areas (another reason why I have no sympathy with any of them - the range of FREE things on offer in London is incredible).

Just in case anyone thinks I'm looking at this from some gilded tower somewhere, until very recently I lived on what in the UK are called council estates and in the USA, I think, 'welfare projects' in a not very salubrious area. The flat downstairs was a crack den, the girl next door was regularly raided by the police at 5am, I can't remember how many times I called the police because of trails of blood on the stairs, ransacked bags left in the stairwells, drug dealers, feral kids running riot etc. The vast majority of people on the estate were very decent, hard-working people who hated these delinquents with a vengeance. Every now and then we would succeed in getting one or other of them evicted - and cross our fingers that the replacement was no worse!

Solutions... throw out the Human Right's Charter and draw up our own, deport any non UK-citizen as soon as they are released from prison, bring back PROPER discipline in schools, seriously reduce benefits for those who refuse to look for work or who turn down a reasonable job offer (or who get themselves deliberately fired), scrap child benefit and bring in early-years education from age 1 across the country instead, proper punishment for criminals that gets them off the streets, some form of National Service (not miltary but perhaps benefiting the environment - restoring derelict areas, dredging canals etc - that gets NEETS out of bed and doing something where they might learn what they failed to learn in school).

London is looking reasonably calm tonight but Manchester, Leicester, Nottingham, Salford and Birmingham are catching it. The Sikh community in Enfield and Southall have organised themselves to protect their communities - good on them!

 

[maplefemme]

PANDORA (I can't insert your quote, cell won't let me)

I like your solution, may the force be with you on it.
Thanks for sharing your experiences, truly, I'm ashamed of what my homeland has become and I wish courage for those with the power to make meaningful, progressive, changes.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Deb for President!

i hope we elect a lady President in 2012.

 

[Dancing Fire]

What if they are offered a free education and don't turn up? What if they are offered jobs and turn them down because they think they are 'too good' for them and the state hand-outs are preferable?

Sometimes I think getting rid of the welfare state might be the best thing possible for some of these people - then they would have to start taking some responsibility for themselves.

Maplefemme - I'm in favour of immigration, the vast majority of immigrants are not a drain on the taxpayer, they work hard and contribute to society in many ways. I'd just like to swap some of our feckless indigenous...

Pandora,agree with you 101%...

my grandfather immigrated to the U.S. in the 20's and he survived w/o any hand out from the government b/c he work hard and saved every cent he earned,then eventually he saved enough money to open his own business after the war.

my point is....some people can and do survive w/o social programs.

 

[Pandora II]

What if they are offered a free education and don't turn up? What if they are offered jobs and turn them down because they think they are 'too good' for them and the state hand-outs are preferable?

Sometimes I think getting rid of the welfare state might be the best thing possible for some of these people - then they would have to start taking some responsibility for themselves.

Maplefemme - I'm in favour of immigration, the vast majority of immigrants are not a drain on the taxpayer, they work hard and contribute to society in many ways. I'd just like to swap some of our feckless indigenous...

Pandora,agree with you 101%...

my grandfather immigrated to the U.S. in the 20's and he survived w/o any hand out from the government b/c he work hard and saved every cent he earned,then eventually he saved enough money to open his own business after the war.

my point is....some people can and do survive w/o social programs.

'The Welfare State We're In' is an interesting read for any Brits who are interested in these kind of topics.

DF - as far as I am concerned, the Welfare State is there as a safety net not as the lifestyle choice it has become.

 

[AGBF]

i'am all for supporting our elderly and educating our kids. i'm not in support of the able to work and don't wanna work welfare recipients.

we need another Ronald Reagen...

Dancing Fire-

How can you be arguing that people should be supported by the the state as long as they want to work while another poster with your point of view argues that people have no inherent right to work?

You two have to make up your minds.

If people who want to work for a living should be able to, then they need JOBS.

PLEASE READ KSINGER'S POSTINGS!!!

Deb/AGBF

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="Pandora|
I had a constituent come to see me to complain that the council wouldn't give him a flat-screen TV, when I enquired as to why he thought this would be a good use of local tax-payers money his response was that rich people have them so he wanted one too. I asked if he had a job and when he said no I suggested that he might like to apply to the local branch of MacDonald's that I knew was hiring. He looked at me like I'd hit him and said 'no way, you think someone like me is desperate enough to work in a place like that, my friends would laugh at me' - okay, so you have no qualifications, never done a day's work and are expecting me to pay 40% in tax to keep you because you are 'too good' to work in MacDonalds.

[/quote]
i want taxpayers to buy me a Rolls Royce..

yep, why go work for Micky Ds when i can stay home and do nothing and still get paid every month..

i'll tell you a story...
this was before the welfare credit card system...a postman friend mine who delivers mail in the getto area of town.on the first day of each month (welfare check day) he is fearful for his life delivering mail into those apartment complex. the welfare recipients would surround him, saying....you better have our checks or else you wouldn't be walking out alive. i mean this is B.S., the taxpayers don''t owe them any money.they just sit at home waiting to get paid for doing nothing.

another guy said ....i hate to be delivering mails in this 105* heat,it sure feels good with this cold beer in my hand.

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="Pandora|
'The Welfare State We're In' is an interesting read for any Brits who are interested in these kind of topics.

DF - as far as I am concerned, the Welfare State is there as a safety net not as the lifestyle choice it has become.[/quote]
again,we agree...we do need welfare program for people to use as a safety net,not as long term lifestyle of choice.

 

[Dancing Fire]

i'am all for supporting our elderly and educating our kids. i'm not in support of the able to work and don't wanna work welfare recipients.

we need another Ronald Reagen...

Dancing Fire-

How can you be arguing that people should be supported by the the state as long as they want to work while another poster with your point of view argues that people have no inherent right to work?

You two have to make up your minds.

If people who want to work for a living should be able to, then they need JOBS.

PLEASE READ KSINGER'S POSTINGS!!!

Deb/AGBF

IMO...welfare recipients should work for their pay checks like cleaning up the streets and city parks.

 

[iheartscience]

i'am all for supporting our elderly and educating our kids. i'm not in support of the able to work and don't wanna work welfare recipients.

we need another Ronald Reagen...

Dancing Fire-

How can you be arguing that people should be supported by the the state as long as they want to work while another poster with your point of view argues that people have no inherent right to work?

You two have to make up your minds.

If people who want to work for a living should be able to, then they need JOBS.

PLEASE READ KSINGER'S POSTINGS!!!

Deb/AGBF

IMO...welfare recipients should work for their pay checks like cleaning up the streets and city parks.

That sounds a lot like a government job...I thought you Republicans hated those?

 

[Dancing Fire]

Thing2
you, Deb and Karen had brainwashed me. i love socialism ..

 

[ksinger]

i'am all for supporting our elderly and educating our kids. i'm not in support of the able to work and don't wanna work welfare recipients.

we need another Ronald Reagen...

Dancing Fire-

How can you be arguing that people should be supported by the the state as long as they want to work while another poster with your point of view argues that people have no inherent right to work?

You two have to make up your minds.

If people who want to work for a living should be able to, then they need JOBS.

PLEASE READ KSINGER'S POSTINGS!!!

Deb/AGBF

IMO...welfare recipients should work for their pay checks like cleaning up the streets and city parks.

That sounds a lot like a government job...I thought you Republicans hated those?

Yep. Sorry DF. Can't have it both ways - government can't be both completely incompetent and unable to genuinely help AND create "inherently non-governmental" jobs (which MUST go to private industry BTW), or really, any jobs at all, since almost all but management is now farmed out to private industry which takes their (rather large) chunk of the pie as the middle-man between the gov and the people who actually do the work. Of course right now, the Great Benevolent HAND of THE MARKET is working just like it should. Why should IT create jobs for people to clean streets or repair infrastructure when it can sit on a pile of cash and invest overseas with impunity? Or churn money by creating junk mortgage-backed securities it then gets certed by S&P and sells to every "investor" on the planet? MUCH more lucrative than creating menial positions. Can't make a good return on THAT. Who cares whether we NEED the streets cleaned or our roads maintained. If a contractor can't make oodles off it, it isn't happening.

 

[AmeliaG]

that just it.. the government should get out of the way and let the private sector do its hiring w/o so many restrictions.

I don't think the government can totally get out of the economy ....
When I worked with an overseas acquisition group in my company, it was interesting to see the criteria they had for investing in a developing country.
...
Countries with totally laissez-faire governments were considered way too risky for our company's acquisition group to put our stockholders' hard earned money into.

Stating the obvious here...but there is a huge spread between a government doing its job by providing a foundation of infrastructure and social services only it is large and well-financed enough to provide (e.g. basic education for each child, a basic social safety net, well-functioning and up-to-date infrastructure, security) and massive expansionary fiscal policy, for example.

Interestingly (and painfully to watch), the UK government is definitely NOT doing its job at the moment by not intervening quickly and forcefully to stop violence, looting and damage to its citizens and their property.

The United States has a more highly developed and complex economy and in some cases (though not all) a much larger and more affluent population than many developing countries so it stands to reason that the US government and most large businesses here will have much larger budgets than you'll find in many developing countries. Its just like the expenditures of Donald Trump are a lot different than mine. He has more money at his disposal and a much more complex empire to run (I don't even have an empire)

So, the governments in developing countries are the ones who could most reasonably assert they can't invest any money in basic social programs, but to do so means they'll put themselves at a disadvantage when competing with other developing countries for investment dollars so the more forward thinking governments will invest in these programs even though they have much less money at their disposal than the United States government does. To get international investors they also need some basic police protection although what they can afford is not nearly what the United States can.

My point is its too easy to see these different government expeditures as competing with each other. When it comes time to set the federal budget with limited dollars, they do compete with each other but they're both needed to some degree.The degree depends on the state of the economy, state of society, and a lot of other environmental factors. For a complex, developed economy like the United States, there are no easy answers and its almost impossible for the government in one Congressional session to totally get everything right.

My concern is that people and politicians get entrenched into ideologies that label one form of spending as good and others as bad and politicians will consistently vote for or against spending as it relates to their ideologies (whether liberal or conservative) regardless of what the current situation is. There is an inflexibility in thinking which can really sink us no matter what party is in power. Our society and our economy are both moving at the speed of light. What works today will not necessarily work two years from now and what works in two years will probably not work in five years.

I think what's going to be required is a willingness for people to rethink their assumptions not just once but pretty regularly and I don't see that happening. People are getting more entrenched, more polarized.

 

[ksinger]

Thing2
you, Deb and Karen had brainwashed me. i love socialism ..

DF, I'm not a socialist. I doubt, the way you fling it about, that you even know a true definition of the word. I live in arguably the most conservative state in the union, and I am (I have slowly discovered, partly by posting here where there are many viewpoints that don't often occur in my state) about as center of the road as it gets, on issues both economic and social. I'm not a true liberal, although you will no doubt continue to label me as such. Some of my prescriptions for some of society's ills might strike you as even more tough-minded and draconian than YOU would propose, but I don't discuss them here. They won't ever happen so why bother? One thing though, that I am never willing to do, is to adhere so strongly to an ideology that I walk callously over genuine human suffering, and this country is declining fast into what I believe will be (is) severe suffering.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Thing2
you, Deb and Karen had brainwashed me. i love socialism ..

DF, I'm not a socialist. I doubt, the way you fling it about, that you even know a true definition of the word. I live in arguably the most conservative state in the union, and I am (I have slowly discovered, partly by posting here where there are many viewpoints that don't often occur in my state) about as center of the road as it gets, on issues both economic and social. I'm not a true liberal, although you will no doubt continue to label me as such. Some of my prescriptions for some of society's ills might strike you as even more tough-minded and draconian than YOU would propose, but I don't discuss them here. They won't ever happen so why bother? One thing though, that I am never willing to do, is to adhere so strongly to an ideology that I walk callously over genuine human suffering, and this country is declining fast into what I believe will be (is) severe suffering.

we immigrated to the U.S. in 1966 and soon as we step off the plane my grandfather made this statement..."this is the U.S.A. the greatest country on earth,if you got two hands and are willing to work you will never suffer or starve to death". i will NEVER forget that statement made by my grandfather which IMO still hold truth today,but nowadays with all these "entitlement" programs people just expect a 60" plasma TV to fly into their living room for free.

 

[MissStepcut]

I see social discontent as well.

It's so easy to blame people for wanting things they can't afford, but one of the problems is, we promise youth that if they just work hard enough, get enough education, and really really want it, they can have the world. It turns out that's not true. You can have all the hard work and willingness in the world and end up with nothing but a pile of student loans and rejection letters from employers. I get really sick of people trying to paint everyone unemployed, discontented and yearning for more as lazy. The economy is broken. Hell, the whole system may be broken and on the verge of collapse. We aren't making anything. Even now, with all our manufacturing outsourced, the market is pretty saturated. The market for basic needs is mature and saturated. The market for most wants is too. So when I see people rioting (or, in my native Chicago, flash-mobbing) I see people who are without hope, who have nothing to lose or to risk, reacting to the incentives in front of them.

I also think that's one of the biggest mistakes Americans make: when someone does something socially unacceptable, we blame their character and don't concern ourselves too much with the question of how they ended up there. I believe we are all products of our environment and our incentive structure.

 

[AGBF]

I see social discontent as well.

It's so easy to blame people for wanting things they can't afford, but one of the problems is, we promise youth that if they just work hard enough, get enough education, and really really want it, they can have the world. It turns out that's not true. You can have all the hard work and willingness in the world and end up with nothing but a pile of student loans and rejection letters from employers. I get really sick of people trying to paint everyone unemployed, discontented and yearning for more as lazy. The economy is broken. Hell, the whole system may be broken and on the verge of collapse. We aren't making anything. Even now, with all our manufacturing outsourced, the market is pretty saturated. The market for basic needs is mature and saturated. The market for most wants is too. So when I see people rioting (or, in my native Chicago, flash-mobbing) I see people who are without hope, who have nothing to lose or to risk, reacting to the incentives in front of them.

I also think that's one of the biggest mistakes Americans make: when someone does something socially unacceptable, we blame their character and don't concern ourselves too much with the question of how they ended up there. I believe we are all products of our environment and our incentive structure.

You write beautifully. That was a very thoughtful piece. I think I agree with you on all points.

Deb