Let's wait and see if it is true - false flag operations, terrorist attacks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo

You seem to have the principle that everything should be "user pays", whereas I see an underlying facet of a well functioning society is the principle of "shared burden", that the delivery of a basic level of service across essential services (excuse the double use of "services", I'm tired and busy) to everyone in the community is the responsibility of all of us - via taxes - even if it means that those of us in better off, built up areas where more opportunities are available are contributing towards those in less well off, more sparsely populated areas with less opportunities. I see that as a basic underlying principle of a well functioning, democratic society.

And hence why perhaps we'll never agree. ;)

---

Shared Burden ... sounds like socialism to me. Last I looked, America was a capitalist society.

The beauty of the world is that since you have dozens upon dozens of "shared burden" societies, you don't have to change the U.S. into the same society. You can go to Sweden, the UK, France, parts of Canada etc.

America and a few other nations on the other hand, are more about allowing the individual to achieve. The idea is that if the individual can achieve without limits, the society in general will be stronger.

If you want socialism, there are plenty of countries that have it. We don't really need to change America into a pseduo-socialist nation. I've always wondered where the urge to do that came from? Americans donate billions each year (in 2006, it was $296 billion) to charities and yet we have 30 million at or below the poverty line ... where is the money going? We could cut a check for each of those people and still have tons left over. That my only problem with the capitalist system in America.

Question: Do you think the pseduo-socialists nations could maintain their standard of living WITHOUT the heavy-lifting nations that don't have pseudo-socialism (ie. United States, Japan) or had them and have opened up more capitalist opportunities (ie. China, India)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo

Private enterprise is in it to make a profit. IF that comes from providing a certain level of service to a wider range of people, great. However IF greater profit comes from providing better service to a smaller number of people, meaning less effort/expenditure on their part, then that is what they will do.

---

Private enterprise is in it to make a profit where ever it can make a profit. It it can have a profit margin of 20% off drugs for the wealthy and a profit margin of 2% of the lazy poor people it will do both. What private enterprise will not do is lose money. Interestingly enough if you look at pharma they generally will charge the wealthy a lot for new drugs.. and then after a few years drop the price to a very low profit margin... so in a way the wealthy are sharing the burden.

Another thing to consider is that private enterprises are made up of human beings.. who are usually very generous people (there are of course exceptions). I can not think of a major pharma corporation that does not have programs for the lazy poor.



the big difference between governments and private enterprise is that private enterprise is much more competetive.. so they need to have the best or another company will. It is alot easier for me to dump verizon for cingular than for me to overthrow the government or move to canada... not to mention the fact that if i choose to no longer patronize a private company they will not kill me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar

the big difference between governments and private enterprise is that private enterprise is much more competetive.. so they need to have the best or another company will. It is alot easier for me to dump verizon for cingular than for me to overthrow the government or move to canada... not to mention the fact that if i choose to no longer patronize a private company they will not kill me.

---

Interesting point. However, I don't see it being all that hard to move into Canada. We have no borders in North America, remember? :)

But what's with the "lazy poor" thing? Are you just stating that as a particular group of the poor (which there is a significant portion of American poor who are, let's face it, just lazy and spend more effort in expressing how they're victimized than actually doing anything ... or should I say achieve, "do" has been a bad word for me in this thread).

I hope it's not labeling the poor in general as being lazy. There are people who are mentally and physically challenged who simply cannot do anything for themselves. With our $300 billion in charity, I think we can do more for them ... that's where I think government health care and assistance should be greatly improved and the compensation should be higher. If you're incapable because of natural mental issues (keyword: natural, not a drug addiction) or physical inabilities, there should be a wealth of assistance for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villain2

Interesting point. However, I don't see it being all that hard to move into Canada. We have no borders in North America, remember? :)

---

Getting into canada is easy... staying in canada requires immense intestinal fortitude.

Moving anywhere once you have a family and a house full of stuff is a little daunting

Quote:

---

But what's with the "lazy poor" thing?

---

Just trying to irritate davo

Quote:

---

Are you just stating that as a particular group of the poor (which there is a significant portion of American poor who are, let's face it, just lazy and spend more effort in expressing how they're victimized than actually doing anything ... or should I say achieve, "do" has been a bad word for me in this thread).

I hope it's not labeling the poor in general as being lazy. There are people who are mentally and physically challenged who simply cannot do anything for themselves. With our $300 billion in charity, I think we can do more for them ... that's where I think government health care and assistance should be greatly improved and the compensation should be higher.

---

In the percentages of the poor.. how many are serverly physically and mentally challenged? The vast majority of poor people are poor for 1 or more of 3 reasons.
1. Single mom got pregnate way to early.
2. Didn't finish high school
3. lazy. (which i think number 2 actually fits in to).

4. Location

There are some very poor areas, especially in the South. There's a few counties where I could buy an acre of land for under 800.00 per acre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gerbick

4. Location

There are some very poor areas, especially in the South. There's a few counties where I could buy an acre of land for under 800.00 per acre.

---

That is something I initially considered.. my wife is from martinsville va.. the poorest area of the state. I'm aware there are areas even worse. But what stops a person from moving to the city?

1. Single mom with kids or couple that had kids way to early.
2. No highschool degree so there is no reason to go to the city to look for a job.

I don't want to seem totally heartless.. i understand that it takes quite a struggle to climb out of the behavioral cycles that develop in those areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villain2

Question: Do you think the pseduo-socialists nations could maintain their standard of living WITHOUT the heavy-lifting nations that don't have pseudo-socialism (ie. United States, Japan) or had them and have opened up more capitalist opportunities (ie. China, India)?

---

In a word - yes.

And you should check your nations when talking about who doesn't provide social services:

"Japanese health care system, healthcare services, including free screening examinations for particular diseases, prenatal care, and infectious disease control, are provided by national and local governments. Payment for personal medical services is offered through a universal health care insurance system that provides relative equality of access, with fees set by a government committee. People without insurance through employers can participate in a national health insurance program administered by local governments. Since 1973, all elderly persons have been covered by government-sponsored insurance. Patients are free to select physicians or facilities of their choice."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Japan

Quote:

---

America and a few other nations on the other hand, are more about allowing the individual to achieve. The idea is that if the individual can achieve without limits, the society in general will be stronger.

---

Funny thing, as far as I know, in countries like Australia, UK, Sweden ...etc, last time I looked, the individual can still advance and achieve as much as anyone in the US.

And are you now going to get into a "who's penis is bigger than who's" about which country has the most successful individuals?

Some nations it is far easier to achieve and move up the social economic scale than others

http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...dex/topten.cfm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villain2

If you're incapable because of natural mental issues (keyword: natural, not a drug addiction) or physical inabilities, there should be a wealth of assistance for you.

---

And how about lack of intelligence? Or relative anyway, not "dumb and dumber" type lack. While more menial jobs move to locations/countries where wages and cost of living are cheaper, that leaves some people who perhaps - try as they might - are not capable of learning enough to be employed in skilled labour.

A "safety net" can still be regulated against abuse. For example, in Australia, I'm all for some of the more recent initiatives that have been introduced with regards to those receiving unemployment, that they must show evidence of applying for a certain number of jobs per week, that they must be available for the "work for the dole" scheme that combines community service with learning new skills. The belief that "most" on unemployment benefits are lazy is hogwash.

When they're young, it can often be down to psychological issues such as being too shy or not having belief in yourself. I know, I was there, 2 years unemployed after dropping out of University. If they had had the "work for the dole" and minimum job application thing back then I'm sure it would have been less than 6 months.

And when you're older, even if you have the skills, experience and a University degree it can often be down to just no jobs available, or - stupidly - being "over qualified". Again, I've been there. Was made redundant a few years back from a Marketing Manager position. Was fairly happy, nice payout which paid of my debts, wasn't too happy there so thought it was great, couple of weeks off and then back into it. Boy, was I wrong! It was 8 months before I landed another "proper" job. In the meantime, after the first month, I was applying for EVERYTHING, just to get something to cover the bills so I wouldn't have to claim unemployment benefits. And I mean EVERYTHING. I shudder when I think of some of the jobs I applied for. I still have all the folders on my computer for each job, each of them containing an application letter and a tailored resume for that role. But that was nothing to the shame I felt when I had to walk into the unemployment office to claim for assistance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar

Some nations it is far easier to achieve and move up the social economic scale than others

http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...dex/topten.cfm

---

And funny enough, how many of that top 10 have some kind of social services system for things such as basic health benefits, unemployment ...etc? ;)





I'll give you a hint: most of them.

[QUOTE=TheOriginalFlashDavo]In a word - yes.

And you should check your nations when talking about who doesn't provide social services:

"Japanese health care system, healthcare services, including free screening examinations for particular diseases, prenatal care, and infectious disease control, are provided by national and local governments. Payment for personal medical services is offered through a universal health care insurance system that provides relative equality of access, with fees set by a government committee. People without insurance through employers can participate in a national health insurance program administered by local governments. Since 1973, all elderly persons have been covered by government-sponsored insurance. Patients are free to select physicians or facilities of their choice."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Japan

I didn't say Japan didn't have health care services, I was asking whether or not countries that were more socialist in nature could survive without countries that were more capitalist economically or had allowed for a more capitalist approach to economics recently. All industrialized countries have some variety of socialized health care, even the United States.

Quote:

---

Funny thing, as far as I know, in countries like Australia, UK, Sweden ...etc, last time I looked, the individual can still advance and achieve as much as anyone in the US.

And are you now going to get into a "who's penis is bigger than who's" about which country has the most successful individuals?

---

A majority of Forbes' top 100 aren't Americans, that (again) is not what I'm talking about.

I don't have to look further than Flashkit itself to find a company from one of the countries you mentioned that had to court major American corporations to become successful worldwide. Need I get into Simon Cowell talking about porting Pop Idol? Then there are those millions of people who hike across the border into the U.S. for work.

However, the U.S. exports a lot of it's labor overseas. So it's another case of "there you are".

I mean, I could pick out 50 things that capitalism does better than socialism and someone could pick out 50 things that socialism does better than capitalism ... but can they exists without each other?

I think you need heavy capitalist nations to keep the world economy chugging along because productivity is just better. However, social ills are much better handled through the socialist methods than the coldness of capitalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo

And how about lack of intelligence? Or relative anyway, not "dumb and dumber" type lack. While more menial jobs move to locations/countries where wages and cost of living are cheaper, that leaves some people who perhaps - try as they might - are not capable of learning enough to be employed in skilled labour.

---

Lack of intelligence, such as someone is legally retarded, is a natural mental condition. If you're talking about intellectual laziness, that's different. Someone who just doesn't attempt to become educated is not a natural thing.

Quote:

---

A "safety net" can still be regulated against abuse. For example, in Australia, I'm all for some of the more recent initiatives that have been introduced with regards to those receiving unemployment, that they must show evidence of applying for a certain number of jobs per week, that they must be available for the "work for the dole" scheme that combines community service with learning new skills. The belief that "most" on unemployment benefits are lazy is hogwash.

---

Yeah, safety net is one thing. Just handing out entitlements is another. I guess it's different in the U.S. because I have seen more times than I care to count a number of people I know who could work, but choose not to. That takes money out of the system for people who can't work. And without validating someone's status, they don't have to ... if you have no money in the U.S., you can get the government to give you a little bit, and do it easy.

Quote:

---

When they're young, it can often be down to psychological issues such as being too shy or not having belief in yourself. I know, I was there, 2 years unemployed after dropping out of University. If they had had the "work for the dole" and minimum job application thing back then I'm sure it would have been less than 6 months.

---

Everyone has moments when they feel shy and do not have belief in themselves. Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Mark Cuban, even Tom from Myspace. Every negative feeling a human being has is not a psychological issue that hinders them from achieving anything.

Quote:

---

And when you're older, even if you have the skills, experience and a University degree it can often be down to just no jobs available, or - stupidly - being "over qualified". Again, I've been there. Was made redundant a few years back from a Marketing Manager position. Was fairly happy, nice payout which paid of my debts, wasn't too happy there so thought it was great, couple of weeks off and then back into it. Boy, was I wrong! It was 8 months before I landed another "proper" job. In the meantime, after the first month, I was applying for EVERYTHING, just to get something to cover the bills so I wouldn't have to claim unemployment benefits. And I mean EVERYTHING. I shudder when I think of some of the jobs I applied for. I still have all the folders on my computer for each job, each of them containing an application letter and a tailored resume for that role. But that was nothing to the shame I felt when I had to walk into the unemployment office to claim for assistance.

---

Again, I think I'm not making my point clear. I'm talking about people who spend their life on assistance. I'm not talking about temp stuff or unemployment ... I'm talking about the fact that you have a great number of people on the system who don't need to be, and people who can't do anything for themselves who can't get on the system. That needs to be fixed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villain2

However, social ills are much better handled through the socialist methods than the coldness of capitalism.

---

I don't really know why you would like to draw this hard line between "capitalism" and certain types of community social support. But in the end, in a way, all I'm saying is what you say right there.

I think what you're getting at though is that there really aren't any 100% exclusive capitalist countries because all have some form of a social safety net that everyone who works pays into. But capitalism and socialism are fundamentally different.

Capitalism is generally the notion of the individual being in a free fire zone with the ability to make however much (or however little) capital they can based on their skills and work ethic. Private business and ownership is encouraged while government control and dispersment of property is frowned on.

Socialism is generally a notion of a shared community where everyone contributes to the same pot and things are dolled out equally. Actual individual ownership is frowned on in favor of a community sharing.

The U.S. has some socialist programs, but not enough for some and too many for others. That's the great national debate ... be more like old school America or be more like new school Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villain2

Lack of intelligence, such as someone is legally retarded, is a natural mental condition. If you're talking about intellectual laziness, that's different. Someone who just doesn't attempt to become educated is not a natural thing.

---

Did I say anything about them? Nope.

Quote:

---

Yeah, safety net is one thing. Just handing out entitlements is another.

---

Did I say anything about "handing out" entitlements without checks and balances, without having to follow certain guidelines with regards to applying for work and attending compulsory work and training sessions?

Nope.

Quote:

---

I guess it's different in the U.S. because I have seen more times than I care to count a number of people I know who could work, but choose not to.

---

And you're speaking from your own experience only. Is there any actual evidence that "most" people are "choosing" not to work?

Quote:

---

Everyone has moments when they feel shy and do not have belief in themselves. Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Mark Cuban, even Tom from Myspace. Every negative feeling a human being has is not a psychological issue that hinders them from achieving anything.

---

No, but there is not uncommon situations where due to upbringing young folk need a little assistance to get moving in the workforce. If that doesn't come from parents, which happens, then it can come from certain requirements for claiming unemployment benefits.

It's not hard, and their labour can be used for the community. Are you going to tell me that most small towns where there is an unemployment problem couldn't use some community workers for cleaning up, weeding parks ...etc? The thing is, this also provides basic level experience of getting to "work" on time, following a routine ...etc. Yes, most young people get this from family, school ...etc. But there are a not insignificant number that just need a little kick start to their adult life.

I was lucky. I happened to hook up with a girl who's father owned a factory. I got a ****ty job there which I hated with a passion - but it was a job, and I then got the push I needed to go look for other work because I hated it so much, and then was on my way in my "adult" life. It's just not so simple as saying "these lazy buggers" need to get off their arse. That's a small percentage, but not the majority from any kind of research I've seen.

Quote:

---

Again, I think I'm not making my point clear. I'm talking about people who spend their life on assistance. I'm not talking about temp stuff or unemployment ... I'm talking about the fact that you have a great number of people on the system who don't need to be, and people who can't do anything for themselves who can't get on the system. That needs to be fixed.

---

See above for a way to "fix" it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villain2

I think what you're getting at though is that there really aren't any 100% exclusive capitalist countries because all have some form of a social safety net that everyone who works pays into. But capitalism and socialism are fundamentally different.

---

I never said they're the same. But I do think there's a very blurred line on either edge.

Quote:

---

The U.S. has some socialist programs, but not enough for some and too many for others. That's the great national debate ... be more like old school America or be more like new school Europe.

---

Debate is healthy. But there are some on either extreme who would want too much of either. There are some on this board who would seem to advocate for no national health system, and no kind of support for unemployed. To me, that's an extreme that would work about as well as the other extreme of a pure socialist society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo

Did I say anything about "handing out" entitlements without checks and balances, without having to follow certain guidelines with regards to applying for work and attending compulsory work and training sessions?

Nope.

---

no, but did you speak of social programs.. that often entail handing out entitlements.

Quote:

---

And you're speaking from your own experience only. Is there any actual evidence that "most" people are "choosing" not to work?

---

in the u.s... yes.. live here for a year or so and you will see that it is undeniable.

Quote:

---

No, but there is not uncommon situations where due to upbringing young folk need a little assistance to get moving in the workforce. If that doesn't come from parents, which happens, then it can come from certain requirements for claiming unemployment benefits.

---

there are so many jobs available in the u.s. it is ridiculous. You can have a pretty bad drug problem and still hold down a construction job. The problem is.. you can still get assistance in the u.s. for doing nothing.

Quote:

---

But there are a not insignificant number that just need a little kick start to their adult life.

---

if being hungry isn't a kick start I don't know what is. You can sleep on the streets and eat garbage or you can show up for work on time and flip burgers or swing a hammer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villain2

Yeah, i should have said Clinton didn't ACCOMPLISH anything instead of DO since we're hung up on the definition of the word "do" (kind of like the word "is").

---

No - you really shouldn't have come in here trying to "correct" another member about his "left leaning" truth by spouting out non-sense.

Quote:

---

And to be fair, it is your job to not spin stuff and go "I have a piece of information that says x" and then I take it and go "oh, he's right, there's something that says x", only to go on later to find out it's actually "z" which is something I already knew about.

---

First off, when did I become a reporter? It's my job not to spin?

And I never said anything about Clinton's actions being "more effective" or "z" or whatever else you're trying to make me say - all I said was saying that Clinton did nothing was wrong, and replied to a sarcastic, me-so-hot-you-not post pointing out an incident that you seem to have a) forgotten about and b) confused with a completely different country. The effect of the strike isn't the point - the point is you (and many others I've run into) countinue to spout drivel about how weak Clinton was on terror, how weak the Ds are (and how they blame everything on the us citizens) etc. without knowing some of the basic history of what was actually done/proposed.

Quote:

---

I don't know why this is a personal thing between you and I Japan-guy, but you don't have to put to me that Bush is worse than Clinton ... I think I said before that Clinton was a way better president. Because I'm critical of him not accomplishing (replacing the word "do") anything against Bin Laden doesn't mean I think Bush or the Republicans have done a great job either.

---

It's not hard to get my name right - Japan and Greg. The fact that you refer to me by that slip-shod phrase (as if you had to search for the correct name while replying to a post that contains it) explains exactly why this is a 'personal' thing. If you're going to have a debate with someone, at least make the effort to get their name right.

Criticsm of Clinton I understand - I was livid when the missle strikes took place (pre-kit days, so there's no record of it, but I was an international student at the time, and the different perspectives on it shook me quite a bit). But don't sit there and try to make it seem like the Clinton admin. didn't do anything for 8 years. It's just not true.

There's too much to respond to, but one thing we haven't brought up is the societal factor. In the U.S., there's too much of a fast food culture mentality going on. Everyone wants to live (especially in my racial community) like they're on MTV Cribs.

That is a contributing factor to this as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar

in the u.s... yes.. live here for a year or so and you will see that it is undeniable.

there are so many jobs available in the u.s. it is ridiculous. You can have a pretty bad drug problem and still hold down a construction job. The problem is.. you can still get assistance in the u.s. for doing nothing.

---

So do you have anything more than personal opinion to back that view?

It's also said by most that there are "plenty" of jobs in Australia. And yet I, as a University educated professional with - at that time - 7 years experience in the communications arena, 4 of those at management level, found myself unable to gain employment for nearly 8 months. And this despite applying for everything from door to door salesperson to factory labourer, along with positions actually in me realm of experience.

Also, I recall a theory that someone put forward once, that one of the factors that contributed to a growing economy was a certain percentage of unemployed. Without this, then there was less pressure on an employee to "perform" as there was less risk to his job being taken by somebody else.
--> And there you go, Wikipedia is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemplo...f_unemployment

Quote:

---

if being hungry isn't a kick start I don't know what is.

---

Well, I wasn't hungry, I was still living at home and being fed by my parents, but I certainly would have benefited probably by a year and a half if I'd have some sort of kick start back then. I'm sure there's a significant number of 18-25 year old unemployed in a similar situation.

So do you do nothing for them, just throw out the old "ah, they're just a bunch of lazy so-and-so's that deserve no time from anyone", or do you accept that as a modern and developed society there are means at our disposal of, 1) providing some financial assistance to maintain a basic level of existence, and 2) procedures that have to be followed that ensure jobs are being applied for by the individual, and that they are being given experience in the basic idea of "working" by, say, having to do compulsory community service work to qualify for their entitlements and help to ensure we're doing as much to help them find employment as we can?

You know, in societies across the world, young people drop out of the education system and then just... disappear from any assistance. It's like one day they're kids, being helped and guided on the path to their future, and then... "see ya later mate, you're on your own!" Surely one would hope from our modern societies that doesn't happen??