Japan-Guy, I'm busting your chops dude. Let it go :)
You were right about the Clinton doing something.
I am right that he didn't accomplish much of anything against Bin Laden.
(and don't anyone do the "but Bush ..." because we've already determined that Bush is a f*(k up in this "War On Terror").
That was my premise and I've already ceded my wrongness in saying he didn't "do" anything. I should have said he didn't "accomplish" anything against Bin Laden in eight years.
Give it a rest.
So do you have anything more than personal opinion to back that view?Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
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
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.Quote:
if being hungry isn't a kick start I don't know what is.
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??
Living at home with my parents (or mom in my case) at 25 was cause enough for me to get my shiznit together.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
I like your points on 2 but I have a question about #1. What defines "basic level of existence"? Is that enough to have a (leaky) roof over your head with food (bread and water) or is it enough to maintain a comfortable lifestyle? Right now, in my state, you can get about $800/month between foodstamps and plain cash. That's bare minimum, but a lot of people say it's not enough. So, should they get $1400/month? If they do, what about the fast food employee making $8/hour? Why would they even work that job? Should the employers pay more? What if small businesses can't afford to pay more than that? The government should step in and run it then? And on and on and on.
And you can't factor out "I'm not workin' in no damn field!" or "I ain't picking up no glass bottles in no park!" ... what do you do with those people?
It's hard to strike a balance between giving enough for people to get buy and allow the already squeezed small businesses to operate and make sure no one is starving UNLESS someone actually incorporates REAL job training for the unemployed and financial training for those who "just don't get economics".
Well, "enough" is obviously something that would have to be gauged from living costs ...etc. In Australia there's different amounts for those living at home and those not, for ages, for those recently unemployed ...etc. But it should be enough to eat and have a roof over your head. With some allowance made for transport costs to jobs, but should be tracked so as not to be abused. That's done in Australia.
As to not "wanting" to do "work for the dole" or whatever it's called? That's where you don't give them a choice. So long as it's not something that would endanger them, then guess what? Their benefits are stopped. I see no issues with that.
Funny enough, some areas of unemployment services have been privatised in Australia, in the area to do with assisting with job training and the like. I don't have much knowledge on its success or otherwise, but my brief acquaintance with it during 8 months of unemployment, they seemed to offer some decent services.
Though I'm wrong to say "privatised". They were funded by the government, but out sourced (that's the term!) to those who could offer a better service I guess. The place I went to was run by Mission Australia, an Australia charity. I'm guessing they had a lot of experience with social issues so could set up something like that.
I am suspicious of the many businesses set up just to take advantage of government grants to get the unemployed employed or educated.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
The only people who really seem to eventually benefit by full time employment at reasonable pay scales are the new employees of such companies.
david
And what's been done so far via Bush's method pertaining Bin Laden and Al Queda? Just curious.Quote:
Originally Posted by villain2
I think it would take some performance assessment to answer that question. But the people I was dealing with - admittedly for a relatively short time - seemed to be doing okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
Money. That's what.Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
Single mother's aren't the bane of society. If they are, then let's start with the men that make the children and don't do **** for the children they helped create. Vicious cycle like that starts with the male sperm. Neutralize that, and you've got just a bunch of poor people humping.Quote:
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.
New form of energy perhaps?
And I don't want to sound like a true bastard; however you have a very limited idea of problems that the society outside of your own circles have to endure and what problems plague those people less fortunate than yourself... or anybody able to merely move from the rural or recently industrial evacuated (read: multiple closings) areas.Quote:
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.
Many people around the world would consider a basic existence as being able to eat. The only way you can starve to death in America is to lock yourself in a closet. A homeless person in any decent size city can get 3 meals a day for free by simply walking into a shelter. Obviously they're not eating caviar and lobster, but I'm willing to bet it's better than what we feed our military. I've eaten at 1 homeless shelter here and DC and I must say it's better than the slush they fed me in my high school cafeteria. Point is...anytime I see a homeless person with a "Please help, I'm Hungry" sign, I'm pretty confident that person is hungry because they either forgot to eat...or that they are "hungry" for beer.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
Side note, I can't imagine anyone being homeless in the US because they are lazy. Most are homeless because they are mentally disabled, have schizophrenia, or severe drug/alcohol addiction.
We do have those procedures, there are many government funded non profits that provide free employment services to homeless and unemployed for whatever reason. When you are laid off from a job you collect unemployment benefits. Requirements are in place to ensure that you are actively seeking employment.Quote:
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?
Beyond that, not sure what you think the role of government is...to hold someone's hand their entire life? You can land someone a job interview, and even make sure they show up in a suit and tie, but you cannot require that they actually get the job.
....ah the tangled paths a thread can follow :) thumbs up to all of you.
david
Is it better for you if the news comes from FOX? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
There you go: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html
Bin Laden these days is just US gov terrorism marketing.Quote:
Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.
"The Coalition troops are engaged in a mad search operation but they would never be able to fulfill their cherished goal of getting Usama alive or dead," the source said.
Bin Laden, according to the source, was suffering from a serious lung complication and succumbed to the disease in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. The source claimed that bin Laden was laid to rest honorably in his last abode and his grave was made as per his Wahabi belief.
About 30 close associates of bin Laden in Al Qaeda, including his most trusted and personal bodyguards, his family members and some "Taliban friends," attended the funeral rites. A volley of bullets was also fired to pay final tribute to the "great leader."
The Taliban source who claims to have seen bin Laden's face before burial said "he looked pale ... but calm, relaxed and confident."
Asked whether bin Laden had any feelings of remorse before death, the source vehemently said "no." Instead, he said, bin Laden was proud that he succeeded in his mission of igniting awareness amongst Muslims about hegemonistic designs and conspiracies of "pagans" against Islam. Bin Laden, he said, held the view that the sacrifice of a few hundred people in Afghanistan was nothing, as those who laid their lives in creating an atmosphere of resistance will be adequately rewarded by Almighty Allah.
When asked where bin Laden was buried, the source said, "I am sure that like other places in Tora Bora, that particular place too must have vanished."
Fredi
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
:confused:
For a person without a family.. you don't need much money to pack up and try something new.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
I didn't say they were. I'm the child of a single mother and a deadbeat dad.Quote:
Single mother's aren't the bane of society.
That being said if you have a child long before you are ready (and you are never truly ready but mid to late 20's is a lot better than mid to late teens) you are almost locked into poverty.
Alot of what I wrote makes me sound like more of true bastard than you.. but I moved countless times as a child.. think around 15, maybe more. Some of those due to eviction. I may have a limited idea of problems in rural areas, but i did grow up rather poor and I have spent time in an area destroyed by the nations loss of furniture and textiles.. but tell me please what stops an unattached person with a high school degree from moving to the city except mind set?Quote:
And I don't want to sound like a true bastard;
Quite a few things. I mean... yes, I'm from the school of "want it, work for it..." and I'm willing to travel myself quite a bit.Quote:
but tell me please what stops an unattached person with a high school degree from moving to the city except mind set?
And there's no silver spoons in this mouth. I disagree with the child part though... it's all based on the support mechanism around that person. And then, the drive of that person in that situation.
The reason I say money though... I have plenty of family that I'd consider smarter than myself that never could leave Trinidad solely due to lack of options in education - even having a bachelor's from the local schools there would be overridden by a good high school diploma from the US - and yet they are pretty much locked there unless they find a way out. Usually it's something minor like living on the couch of a relative in the US or elsewhere... or getting a job on a cruise ship and then doing your research per port.
Now, with that said, I've seen utter failures due to lack of opportunity.
it has been my experience that if you rely on support from other people you are doomed. If you have a child and a good support system you can still achieve. My "rant" about having a child to early is supported mostly by statistics about those living under the poverty level.. and personal experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
well I was largely speaking of the u.s. Leaving Trinidad I imagine is a bit more difficult than leaving the foot hills of Appalachia.Quote:
The reason I say money though... I have plenty of family that I'd consider smarter than myself that never could leave Trinidad solely due to lack of options in education - even having a bachelor's from the local schools there would be overridden by a good high school diploma from the US - and yet they are pretty much locked there unless they find a way out. Usually it's something minor like living on the couch of a relative in the US or elsewhere... or getting a job on a cruise ship and then doing your research per port.
in the u.s. I have not.. I have seen poor decisions(big and small) lead to a lack of opportunity though.Quote:
Now, with that said, I've seen utter failures due to lack of opportunity.
That's a cultural thing though, because as soon as you say "you don't give them a choice" in the U.S. - at this time at least - there will be people griping about it and citing that you're limiting their ability to do x, y, and z. The ACLU will be all over you, and god help you if you say that to a minority.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
Hell no! Bush is FAR worse in his handling of the Bin Laden issue, but neither of them accomplished to main goal which is solving the issue ... either through arms or diplomacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
Bush has greatly hindered Bin Laden's ability to operate himself, but the consequence of his policy is a bazillion more Bin Laden wanna-be's ... which is a disaster.
Clinton's efforts all failed as he wasn't able to do anything against Bin Laden, and the threat was never pushed as being as serious as it really was.
Now, one could argue that neither of them thought the results of their policies would result in what they resulted in, but I can't honestly say either of them was effective in dealing with the threat.
And to repeat: Bush is far worse.
My deal is that he's not the only one, and people too often tend to act like this is all about Bush ... we'd be better off if it wasn't about Bush at all.
I have to agree with this. However, a lot of resources that should go to these people are used by people who could work and choose to get on govt cheese as a way of life. The people living on the streets, who shouldn't be and really need help because of severe mental or physical disabilities, are overlooked because of a system that doesn't send the $ to those with the most severe needs ... just to the ones who can fill out the paperwork.Quote:
Originally Posted by Visionray