PART 1
Note before we start, I've rewritten the answers to your posts, initially I was not going to post a reply. The reasoning for it is in my first reply in here (the one for your second unreplied post).
To note for others possibly reading this. I've ran into admin (s?) and astroturfers before, note my tag. Due to the reasons in the posts I'm not confident you do this for personal insight. I do not second guess myself but rationalise what outcomes that matter.
For me it is just as likely that you're a random worker for the Tru mp campaign, which means giving you insight into socialdemocracy might either help you change your perspective or give a note of plays to be done when the real election starts. I believe in trust and that all people generally want to do good, no matter if they are an illegal agent of the gov. or whatever corp., someone entangled in the educational system or simply any average person.
I've decided to adapt the second post (to your first reply for this purpose), I'll include the solution to the educational troubles decently equipped schools may meet as it is one that Sweden is living through from being one of the top nations for
Answer to the last post
I'll take that as a yes.
Being a teacher you no doubt know better. Honesty matters. When the main channels are owned by billionsized companies and control/profit is the first priority there is no real liberal mainstream media as long as plutocracy rule.
Why was this important to me (?), because it speaks of your willingness to spend time on debating the real issues or not. If you are truly personally invested or simply want me to put information on print for you. Seing as you did not take it seriously and just put up the usual suspects I have my answer.
I'm amazed that you get a data connection in that cave you're living in.
When two informal interest groups control the absolute majority of the media for
plutocratic governance (socio-economic status quo) there isn't much freedom left. John Stewart had a segment on something similar but more formally acceptable, both left and right getting news from the same sources (buying their segments is one way to view it, oligopolisation and control of the media is another).
It's also very easy to find who formally controls what (AOL, Clear Channel, Disney, News Corp and Viacom...).
Right now as we speak the (read; surface) net (not the alternatives) is getting "locked down" (the oligpolisation of information and search engines, including things as excluding algorithms, passive and active censorship, ISP blocks etc), governments and corporations allready have vast lobbygroups (systems of astroturfers and other despicable methods) in use.
So for those who might think that that was a serious effort from you...
The ones you've listed; MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, NPR, New York Times, Newsweek, Washington Post,
MSN.com, Yahoo, Huffington Post.
2010 was the year
Washington Post sold Newsweek to the billionaire Sidney Harman (now Newsweek Global, webpublication).
Walt Disney holds ownership of: ABC
GE holds ownership of: MSNBC, NBC and not to forget Telemundo.
Microsoft holds ownership of:
MSN.com and Yahoo.
One one side Bill Gates promises his fortune away once he dies on the other his OS has backdoors, automatically circumvents users disregarding binding contracts and uses hidden automatic updates at times (I'm not talking about Windows update here).
You are telling me that you seriously think CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, MSN and Yahoo are liberal? And you have been involved in the education system (possibly the economical part, because the vast majority of teachers would not be that blindsided).
*PBS and NPR is leaning to the direction to whom has controlled the government for relevant period (and the informal interest groups who steer it). USA has the worlds largest military - steps are being taking to use the stations actively for more propaganda (read between the lines)
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-broadcasting-idUSKBN0ML1MN20150325.
Huffington Post can possibly be argued as liberal accurately (I do not have much experience with it and feel free to use CBS as an example (the latter as I canno't be arsed posting about them - most know what group they are connected to).
If you want to perpetuate that media is general liberal leaning is that the regressives (conservative owners) is that they can't play whack a mole well enough to eliminate all liberal staff, and if they canno't do that they canno't really eliminate liberal segments.
If you include the political leaning of non-news programming (talk shows, satire, etc.) the list get much much longer.
Without catering to the masses the satire shows would not attain their main goal (as far as those with investment goes - generalising) which is profit.
***Everything in here is stated as opinion for legal reasons, have a look and you will see for yourself.
______________________________________________________________________________
Dependency on the exploatation of others. draw in meritocracy.********
Again, I think it's naive to imply that conservatives are any more regressive than liberals.
Then YOU are the one being naive. Conservatism is regression of the democractic nation state and it's powerstructure.
I'm argueing on ideological basis, not what is the reality in the USA (where the vast majority of liberal politicians are actual conservatives), i have encouraged people to look onto what they think might be one thing and ask why and how before and ask you to do so now.
Saying that those who portray liberalism are liberal is simply not accurate in todays political climate (easily verfified by donations and policy support).
Conservatism is named so as its main goal is to conserve the socio-economic powerstructure (normative values), it is really that simple. Liberalism argues for equal access to markets (equality under law, egalitarian). Without laws ensuring freedoms there would still be mass slavery (there is allready today millions of slaves in the human trafficking market, who do you think buy these slaves? - those without means to do so? only criminals?) - you could argue that there is debtslavery today with no real wage increase but that is not what i mean. Liberalism has to strive further, while conservatism only has to tear down wht others build for them to "succeed".
Yes, being politically correct can undermine a discussion. There is a big difference in being right and unable to reason and being right and able to reason.
In one of those positions you need to hold your own opinion open, the other one strengthens ignorance/arrogance if you debate. That is something that is often abused by lobbygroups (thinktanks, formal and informal interst groups and contracted usury agents - politicians abusing their previous standing after leaving office) that have alot of capital to spend on missinformation).
Can liberal policies be regressive in a passive-agressive manner? Yes, no doubt.
But cooperating is not dependency in the manner you suggest. Neither is paying taxes and taking part of the benfits that that brings. Due to plutocratic manipulation and criminal behaviour the system has become highly imbalanced, so for those sitting on large fortunes unlawfully gained and talking about right and wrong, there will be harder times coming (and I'm not talking about the probably scrubbed release from ICIJ from a year ago that hit mainstream as the Panama list recently).
First, it encourages dependency.
This is wrong, if you do know that all individuals strive to be lazy you would be right. Most people want things, they act to achieve those, to think otherwise would be irrational by Rational Choice standards.
Nation states collect taxes, that is working together for a common goal. What Social democracy says is basically that more areas than military, roads and the government should be taken care of by the government.
What that does is to free up time and effort that can be put into advancing ones self or the society around you. Together paying for essentials as infrastructure (water, road, rail, sewer and informationgrids) education, hospitals, police and firedept are things that will ease a transition for the workforce into higher qualified jobs.
Have a look at historical rates of unemployment, conservatism requires more unemployed - that is often refered to as "natural unemployment" and what that means is that conservatives uses the term coined for the actual natural unemployment which refers to those in between different jobs (relocalisation due to whatever reason) and applies that to a model where you have a certain % unemployed to cut wages and put downward pressure on wages. Those who have little have less to bargain with when it comes to negotioations - meaning that if you can't put bread on your table you are less inclined to strive for better technologies/systems/benefits to be applied where you work to ease work and the hardships it brings.
In my eyes, the ultimate goal for all citizens should be to work hard to better themselves and their situation.
Taxes are payed together by each and everyone (except those who deal in taxevation - which is a big list - there is an actual list nicknamed the "Lagarde list", the greek part was leaked before the police could break the law and arrest the editor of "hot docu" - the list leaked and to most who wanted to know and wondered they could find the list online and see what companies had ruined the greek economy, there are still scrubbed and unscrubbed lists online it varies from 1900-2800 names depending on which version you read). Improving yourself and for others work better if you pay taxes in a democracy then not doing so (though as long as it isn't a real democracy there are platitudes alive and real that can be exploited for cheap debating points unless corrected).
The goal as a society should be to have all able-bodied adults working and contributing. Tax revenue would increase, GDP would increase, crime would go down, etc. I think ultimately, we really have the same idealistic goal of everyone supporting themselves, their families, and contributing to the greater good. Where we differ is in the approach. The idea of throwing money at the problem and thinking that it will be used honestly by both the government and the public is naive.
I agree on that as many as possible should work, now i ask you to have a look if liberal and social democratic nations have a higher unemployed rate or a lower one than any western conservative nation (excluding tax havens like Switzerland, Belgium & Monaco and the alike).
The idea to throw money at it is not one proposed,
gathering money is just one of the initial phases where you fund the project you are about to start (with taxes).
The key is what you use the money collected for to in a functioning democracy versus one that only is democratic on paper. In the latter it usually ends up as subsidies for the largest companies and in corrupt pockets. In the former it ends up cutting away problems created within society that the private markets canno't adequately solve in an efficient manner (garbage collection, infrastructure as; physical grids like water, roads, fiber - which companies then can compete on for a feee that keeps all parts of those grids in good working order, education, police/military - monopoly on force/ruling judiciary system, healthcare and firefighters.
I am not going to try and lie to you, there is a transition time, and the further gith your nation is the longer it will be unless you get someone like Bernie and he actually succeeds in implementing change. It will be either that or more of what in english has become called "trickle-down-economics", only one way leads forward and betting your money on P NA C is not the right choice.
As an example, I'm very involved in one of the toughest public school systems in the country. They have tons of resources. Great pay to attract good staff, better equipped computer labs than most private schools in the area, a huge wealth of social support personnel including counselors, social workers, psychologists, child advocates, tons of extracurricular activities, mentor programs. In short, these kids have everything we could possibly provide them in the school setting, but they're still failing.
I am from Sweden and we used to have one of the leading schoolsystems in the world, i even think we aced it for quite some time. Recently even Finland (the neighbour we like to scorn) and Japan (which is built "on" conservatism/Friedman to give you one example - though it would not work without the strong regulatory phramwork that exists which is in liberal ideology). Sweden at this point has been (basically) plummeting downwards.
The liberalisation and then harsh conservatism that basically has destroyed the Swedish wellfare system started with a social democract that shifted the socialdemocratic agenda a huge step towards the middle (Goran Persson), this was after Carl Bildt (formerly Swedish prime minister, and wikileaked NSA agent since his teens) had run the government into massive/the majority of current debt.
As the conservatives and Jan Bjorklund infront (a now strong public debater that the social democrats are at fault - ruining the school system) - schoolminister for the conservative during the last two periods (2006-2014). What happened was the groups grew at the same time, time spent by each teacher per pupil was lessened increasingly (this is as you know a key factor for education). On that was stacked an increase in required subjects (on the same time per season and pupil), an insane amount of scheduled tests which schools were to administer - both shifting the focus from long term knowledge to temporary throwaway information and creating hefty burdens on the teachers. Ad to that the problem of parents wanting their children having a too good life (the so called curling parent - which stifles exploration and empiric experience rather than supporting it, which at it's peak amassed in what conservatives called the "curling society" to misinform and gain easy poltiical points, where those who were unable to see the difference in a nation state and parenting got a large space to voice their opinions publically).
A change also impacting this question was made in the 80's which was that alot of secretaries were removed from the state controlled areas, which served to raise equality but also raised the paper burden on teachers (and others) which has since then grown and grown.
So what is the quick fix? Give teachers time to teach,
smaller groups, less paperwork (tests and otherwise) and you will turn it around. And yes, (if you are a teacher) keep computers in the classrom but phones out of it.
*There is also a certain lack today (as far as i know) for scientists and educated personas to ease accessibility to knowledge - one of the key things for human accumulation of knolwedge is archiving and accessing - which is not possible without making complicated issues uncomplicated examples.
No. It's because these kids go home to a family situation that just doesn't care. Increasing spending in this case ends up being counterproductive. Crime is terrible and a lot of the problem is the fact that the family members don't want to work and instead spend all day in the streets. We offer job training and various other job placement services - do you know what the most common response is? Why would I work when I don't have to? That's a problem - a huge one.
I do not know which area in particular you argue now, what you mention about schools having all those items you've listed and still youth and families that do not care sounds weird and I do not believe for one second that is generally true across the society.
If people live in relative poverty and have education they tend to want to better themselves. This is nothing really debated as it is how conservatives also views it, people strive to do better or to be better (what can impact this easily is top down signals, if corruption is high that will have an impact on the normative values of society).
Changing the society in manners that also change the not so nice places (was raised myself in an area that was nicknamed little LA due to the hefty crime - so i have a good understanding even if not perfect and most likely not even close to the worst areas in USA) will help sending signals that a better tomorrow is possible. Either monopolising and nationalising the prison system or legalising weed is one easy change that would impact criminality quite a bit (I am one of those that believe that if weed was legalised it should also assimilate the whole production and control over it - even if it is legal i would bet it increases accidents which means an increased cost for society - making it rational to balance the big profit that it makes and put that profit to use for society as done in those countries that have gambling monopolies and alcoholic monopolies).
I missed this part: ...than most private schools in the area...
Which age are you referring to as higher education often means relocation, aka the "good" private schools that you refer to is neccessarily not representative for the whole state or nation.
In reality, you'd have a very tough time finding a wellfare recipient down there that doesn't have a big screen tv and a smartphone. Having grown up in a place where the systems were heavily abused, worked in finance for years where I was exposed to a huge number of client income and spending habits, and now being exposed to a public school system, I can tell you that there are huge problems with the system. These are problems that need to be fixed long before we try throwing more money at these failing social programs.
First off, big screen TV has dropped tremendously in cost - TV's these days are below what the CRT's cost not long ago. Smartphones can be had cheaply (stolen and unlocked) or through mothly subscription, I've also heard "black friday" is big in USA - in the nordic countries we have the same thing but after christmas to new year).
If a system is rigged to stack the odds in the favour of those who have against those who don't people will do alot to keep above the water. Today internet is basically required to have access to a row of things from the social sphere to employment etc - so having a smartphone is essential for more than sending txt messages, which means people will prioratise it. If you have more than one job it is allmost required (especially if those jobs are service based).
Those two examples is examples of time moving forward with new technologies and applications applied throughout society.
The main problem does not lie in public schools not being private schools (if i may paraphrase you) because there will never be generally good quality private schools in a status quo system, private (for profit) school will always pick the raisins out of the cake first and then take whatever can give them profit taken from taxpayer money. Without a nationalisation you will never have somewhat equal education in the younger stages - something required to infuse a society with meritocracy.
reply
share
shide_85
9 years ago
PART 2/2
There is however a real issue with "curling-parents" as new citizens need to be aware that the rights do come with responsibilities. That being said; educating people and freeing time is key to create a change in the system. Once people are healthy, educated and have steady access to the neccessities of life society will change and it will do so while getting there.
Top down and bottom up change is needed, in heaps. Depending on the credibility of that change and how it is implemented (this is touching on the frontline discourse to date regarding how successfull polities are formed) people will participate and embrace it.
In short increasing the informationflow is key - why do you think internet and search-engines are being so stifled right now (yes, i do mean in the modern world). So nationalising basic education is one key factor in advancing society.
To initiate real change you need funding, it is not throwing money at a problem when the structural changes gets earmarked capital. Change costs, not changing costs even moreso.
I disagree entirely. I think most conservatives don't have some evil intention of putting people down.
I'm not saying people who are born into conservatism or generally the older generations are intentionally evil. I'm saying that those who abide by the regressive agenda (read; conservatism) by propagating taking from the many and giving to the few are part of the problems USA has today and that is being exported through "free-trade" "agreements".
I think that instead, they realize that those that are able need to contribute to the system.
You are kicking in an open door once again, NO ONE says anything differntly except possibly anarchists and aristocrats. When you have met those that are fully able that does not care to participate in society they are generally the exception NOT the rule (or the Nordic nations would only have wellfare recipients, even with the extremely high amount of immigrants we get showed on us that still isn't the case) - regarding immigrants it will take a period of time before they are assimilated into a society and participate in it properly. Being imported as cheap labour in the conservative notion does not work well, ask Sweden which have taken on per capita more immigrants than most other nations in the world. Immigration without assimilation is multiculturalism - an ideal that initially was pushed into the public sphere by conservatives and thinktanks in Sweden (quickly adopted by the left). The reason in Sweden i think it was accepted was to ease assimilation as you need to be able to reconsider your point of contention (aka open up the society in this case) - taking up some norms and customs into the Swedish society (as the greek did, as the Romans did, as the settlers of the new world did) is then needed - which meant alot of the left simply adopted the phrase the multicultural society (globalisation also naturally helped). Note the multiculcutral society served it's purpose, to break a normative hegemony - for me breaking hegemony based on democracy is very bad but it did serve to break down the society as most likely exspected (divide and conquer - a people united will never be defeated...).
Liberals try to create all of these special classes of people that don't need to contribute.
Pluralism is actually a conservative notion used by conservatives to break universal norms (read; equality). So you got that the other way around (it is not exclusive - but in the context you use it is for me - note which states in the USA accepts the largest subsidies), note that those who claim to be liberal are not always liberal.
Regarding that children and handicapped does not need to work in the same degree as others I think that is a good thing. I also think that a pension age that is below 70 is positive.
Let's face it, we have a shrinking job market when it comes to lowly skilled workers, and a huge market for highly skilled workers.
Now we are finally getting to the problem. The market of labour needs restructuring. Something that would not be hard if there was a wellfare state that you could act through. Instead USA basically has fascism, brought on by conservatives. Neither does it work out good for the majority.
To get the increased skill of workers, I'm for higher education and ease the retainment of it (single payer healthcare, public roads, access to clean water and sanitary living), aka not less education, less information and less time to develop on.
Liberals are encouraging people to stop at the ground level and demand everything be given to them.
Liberals are (should be) easing the access to education. In base this is simply wrong, liberals progress society, this discrepancy created in society is fully brought on by a conservative societal structure. The gap to leap is simply to big now for most to get across now, that is why a gamechanger is needed. Well, unless you want a big part of the population to simply lie down and die.
I'm gonna paraphrase you here for a more kind interpretation of your sentiment, let's theorise that there are some that do not just want to see a large shift in policy but that there is a very very small group overzealous people that do encourage citizens either to do what you say to break the system or do it for some other reason... Seing where the wealth (offical and other is located) the discrepancy lies not in poor wanting a few crumbs more but plutocrats demanding that the people who build their wealth gets next to nothing. -That is simply not fair and hopefully plutocrats will keep pushing this angle and force a nationalisation of banks (which at this point would force a repatriation of means due to the high level of debt, and I'm not talking about a little scrubbed list that amounts to a drop in the ocean here).
It's putting us in this situation where there aren't enough starter jobs to go around and at the same time we're having to pull in people from out of the country to fill jobs because we don't have the talent available locally. I think most conservatives want to turn the leeches into producers, whereas a lot of liberals are ok with leaving them leeches and taking more from the evil rich (screw the 50 that work their asses off for it because there's one evil bastard that inherited his/her wealth and squanders it, right?)
You are not in touch with reality, which refers you back to my initial statement.
Have a look at how the real wages have changed in relation to inflation.
Have a look at how the price of living has changed.
Have a look at how the housing market has changed.
This is not turning people into leeches, it's giving credit where credit is due - at the blue collar labourforce (which if this continues pretty soon will have those white collar jobs in it that won't sell out due to the informationflow and what that has, even in EU - the UK - blacklists, and will lead to).
Liberals try to deal with it by easing access to those things the workingclass needs to improve and reach higher standards while conservatives rather remove anything that can help and then try to exploit the situation (as one example; clean water & Nestle), that really isn't tough love but usury. Look to mashlows hierarchy of needs and it will guide you on this point, this is nothing that isn't recognised by plutocrats, real left wing extremeists, the two largest informal interest groups and on and on...
The notion that there is some kind of equal retribution for work done is pure and simple *beep* any meritocracy canno't be joined into a conservative system as is today (not saying there is not ways to theoretically doin so, but none that likely wouldn't be corrupted rapidly at this point in time).
The fairytale of meritocracy in a plutocratic system is best left as is, as a fairytale.*Oh, there is not 50 wealthy people to every 1 personas that have inherited wealth, the more wealth you have the easier it is to attain more as the available prospects increase.
If you want general "good" conservatives i will bet you money that there are more of them in nations where the rich are less rich but there are more of them (aka in societies with a more equal aristocracy that is not devoid of the world).
USA needs to shift the society forwards if they are to compete with the developed world (which will rise if they get forcefed the "free-trade" agreemtens which will shift the societies backwards.
To enable individuals to better themselves they must have be given the ability to do so. There will always be a "Honeymoon" phase, people with existing medical condition they do not afford taken care of will do so when single payer system would be introduced as one example, in return the employer get a healthier workforce.
The former Swedish model (pretty much demolished by Carl Bilt and during Reinfeldts rule) meant that 1. You tried to educate people as effectively as possible. 2. You enabled people to take work where there was work (security to uproot). 3. The "working line": You tied some benefits to working, to see to that people worked and produced to get parts of those benefits (this did obviously not include education, healthcare, police and firedept).
Overall there was a system that eased the stability and smooth flow of work (this will be a hard pill for you to swallow but corporations and the state encouraged workers to unionise, which partly was taking place, to streamline negotioations, increase uptimes and lessen problems within the society - all set to increase productivety and efficiency).
Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered.
reply
share
kelsier25
9 years ago
Thanks. I had a strong suspicion that you were from outside of the US and were arguing more on the merits on paper vs the system as currently applied in the US.
First, you absolutely cannot compare a country with 9.6mil population with one with 319mil population. Scale brings a completely different set of problems. Even if you ignore the numbers, you're comparing two countries with vastly different cultures. Culture plays a huge part in the views on productivity, work ethic, responsibility, etc. Even reading through your post, it's obvious that you're doing the exact same thing that many americans who were brought up in beautiful, white-washed gated communities do.
I'll even go as far as to say that if not for human nature (or the current stte of it in the US) I'd be much more fiscally liberal. I'm with you 100% on the utopian society on paper and I'd love to live in it. The problem is that with the current culture in the US, it's not possible. Culture needs to change first, and we can't think that throwing free money out will change culture.
So for those who might think that that was a serious effort from you...
I thought the "Off the top of my head" would be enough hint that it wasn't a serious effort at all. As for do I think those really have a liberal slant? Absolutely. Turns out most americans do also. There have been numerous studies, polls, even books on the matter and they all have the similar results. I won't bother citing because it is so much available even with a single google search. Again, not sure if you're still living in Sweden or not, but maybe that has something to do with this confusion.
Satire doesn't have to lean left to cater to the masses and make a profit. Being completely biased is inherently ostracizing a potential portion of your audience. As crude as it is, look how successful South Park was? Most fans of the show watched it because they truly were fearless enough to make fun of everyone. Again, nobody should be safe or protected or you lose credibility.
Then YOU are the one being naive.
I'm argueing on ideological basis
This is truly the heart of the entire debate. Your argument is about the ideological, on paper version of all of this. We'll have to disagree, but I think that you need to look at the actual application.
This is wrong, if you do know that all individuals strive to be lazy you would be right.
Sorry, but you're wrong here. All individuals don't have to strive to be lazy to make me right. Just a large enough portion. It's pointless saying, because your idealistic, sheltered view of people in the US will never be swayed by my first-hand experience, but there is a huge portion of people who "strive to be lazy" as you put it in most major american cities.
Taxes are payed together by each and everyone
No they're not. If you think that, then we've got even bigger issues here. There's a large portion of the population that receives far more back in tax credits than they pay - even in sales tax. This is a problem if people are avoiding paying at the top also as liberals will often harp on (if they're doing it illegally). Don't even go into loopholes - the word implies that you're circumventing the laws while the vast majority are following the law exactly as it was intended when it was written.
The key is what you use the money collected for
We agree completely here. The first step of this is figuring out what we're using the money for and what is working, not working, being abused, etc. Exactly what I said.
So what is the quick fix? Give teachers time to teach, smaller groups, less paperwork (tests and otherwise) and you will turn it around. And yes, (if you are a teacher) keep computers in the classrom but phones out of it.
I won't be too harsh on this because it's just a lack of exposure. In terms of time, I think the opposite needs to happen somewhat. They've eliminated all breaks for the kids other than a 30min lunch. You can tell it really stresses the kids out and it's just too much for them - they get burnt out. Even a couple of 15 minutes breaks to stretch their legs would be nice. Teacher to student ratio in our state is excellent and kids that are struggling can pretty easily get placed into programs with a lot more personalized attention. I'll agree that there is too much testing, but it was put in place because the systems were failing, so I don't necessarily believe that it's the cause.
what you mention about schools having all those items you've listed and still youth and families that do not care sounds weird and I do not believe for one second that is generally true across the society.
I invite you to spend some time in some heavily populated US cities, especially in the impoverished areas. Talk to educators and staff that are actually in the system. I have a lot of exposure to national networks of staff and educators and attend national and regional conferences regularly. This feedback is absolutely consistent. Again, I think there's a large disconnect here from the average high population, high crime city.
If people live in relative poverty and have education they tend to want to better themselves.
Great on paper and I wish it were true here. We wouldn't be debating a thing if this were true. Unfortunately, in our society, people typically look for the easiest way to get by.
I agree somewhat on legalizing weed. I wouldn't want government to assimilate production (government is typically very, very inefficient and too much money would be wasted), but I'm all for legalizing it and then taxing the hell out of it. Though with the PC culture, that would probably be construed as discrimination somehow.
First off, big screen TV has dropped tremendously in cost - TV's these days are below what the CRT's cost not long ago. Smartphones can be had cheaply (stolen and unlocked) or through mothly subscription,
They have, but I haven't been in finance in years. They were still pretty pricey at the time. As were the car audio systems, obnoxious rims, etc. I viewed thousands of bank statements on a monthly basis. The average cable bill of an SSI recipient was about $100 and the average phone bill was about $125. Entertainment spending was typically higher than middle class accounts as was dining out. I think there's a huge difference in a necessity and a luxury and a lot of luxuries are being figured into the "living wage" calculations currently in the news. It's a core belief we'll have to disagree on. I believe that if you're given anything, it is solely necessities. You can work for luxuries.
The main problem does not lie in public schools not being private schools (if i may paraphrase you)
You may paraphrase me. That's not at all what you did though. I think that the quality of public schooling (in my city, at least) is fantastic. I don't plan to send my child to private school and have no desire for public schooling to be privatized. The problem we have is cultural - we're being allocated more money than we know what to do with..literally - we just spent millions upgrading all staff laptops (most were under 2 years old) to Macbooks. The best part? The Macbooks aren't compatible with the software systems that we spent tens of thousands on at the beginning of the year. Why did this happen? The money was allocated to IT spending and we have an Apple fan in charge of IT. This is what I mean when I say that the system is broken and we need to control spending before expanding or gathering more.
You are kicking in an open door once again, NO ONE says anything
Not directly, but they say it though the policy they support and propose. When you support systems that allow able-bodied individuals to live fairly comfortably and promote ideas that encourage stopping at the ground level of your career, this is exactly what you're saying.
Regarding that children and handicapped does not need to work in the same degree as others I think that is a good thing. I also think that a pension age that is below 70 is positive.
Again, we agree completely here. It would be great if the system limited it to these people.
To get the increased skill of workers, I'm for higher education and ease the retainment of it
I think this is very out of touch with the current situation in the US. Higher education graduation rates are so high that a college degrees are now the new high school diploma. There are more and more job markets that masters or doctorates are required even to break into a 35k a year entry level job. This is also pushing the age of entering the workforce back by 4-8 year. In a lot of these markets, the higher degrees aren't required at all to do the job. Instead, the company asks for it because they can and people are desperate. Sending everyone to college devalues the bachelors degree and isn't necessary for all fields. It really just ends up pumping tons of money into academia and doesn't necessarily do much. Where does the money come from? Either more ridiculous student debt or more in taxes.
Liberals are (should be) easing the access to education. In base this is simply wrong, liberals progress society, this discrepancy created in society is fully brought on by a conservative societal structure. The gap to leap is simply to big now for most to get across now, that is why a gamechanger is needed. Well, unless you want a big part of the population to simply lie down and die.
So you can spend 4+ years in higher education and come out making less than someone flipping burgers at McDonalds? Why would you ever go to college? Is that really promoting higher education? I had a college degree and years in a career before I was making $15 an hour. I think your hatred of meritocracy is based strongly on a misunderstanding. The merit isn't in how hard you work while at work. The merit is in how hard you work to develop and further a career. I have what I have today because I worked 3 jobs to put myself through college and then worked my ass off enough to build a reputation and gain specialized knowledge. Do I physically work harder than the guy flipping burgers? No. But I gave up the luxuries so that I could trade hard physical work for work that requires specialized knowledge.
You are not in touch with reality,
A harsh thing to say when it sounds like you haven't had much exposure to many large american cities (and the real inner cities - not the sheltered suburbs).
Liberals try to deal with it by easing access to those things the workingclass needs to improve and reach higher standards while conservatives rather remove anything that can help and then try to exploit the situation
Liberals think that they're doing that and the ideology is respectable. Where they falter is in analysis of the outcomes and consequences of their systems. You need to account for human nature's desire to take the simplest path with safeguards. Unfortunately, most liberals think solely in an idealistic and "on paper" way. They refuse to believe that the average person (american, at least) isn't necessarily living for the greater good. We live in an extremely self centered society and there are just too many people that have absolutely no interest in the greater good.
reply
share
shide_85
9 years ago
PART 1
At times I might come off as harsh, so did you and I think you can see the points through it that are done with good intentions.
Before i start please don't distort and quote out of context (and if you think i am please point it out and reason why):
Context
'Again, I think it's naive to imply that conservatives are any more regressive than liberals.'
Then YOU are the one being naive. Conservatism is regression of the democractic nation state and it's powerstructure.
I'm argueing on ideological basis, not what is the reality in the USA (where the vast majority of liberal politicians are actual conservatives), i have encouraged people to look onto what they think might be one thing and ask why and how before and ask you to do so now.
Saying that those who portray liberalism are liberal is simply not accurate in todays political climate (easily verfified by donations and policy support).
'
Then YOU are the one being naive.
I'm argueing on ideological basis
'
This is truly the heart of the entire debate. Your argument is about the ideological, on paper version of all of this. We'll have to disagree, but I think that you need to look at the actual application.
You are extrapolating an arguementation in one issue towards the whole debate.
This quote is taken out of context from policy creation.
I do thank you do for showing me your perspective and what platform (so to speak) you argue from. That is appriciated, not to poke holes. Here i would have said, "but to try and possibly show empiric solutions when asked for them." if i was not unsure on your pretext and intent with this discussion.
So with that said;
First, you absolutely cannot compare a country with 9.6mil population with one with 319mil population.
I can and I do, every system built on universality is scaleable (bureaucratically particularism is ALOT harder to scale and it's done through fascism - so
that is a preconception that is wrong). It is about triangles of power and polities, the issues you do not see solutions to have been solved to a large extent allready (if you want more of those solutions, except for the solutions to education, you will have to read up for yourself, I am sorry but I've stopped posting hard political material on IMDb).
Even if you ignore the numbers, you're comparing two countries with vastly different cultures.
This is partly true, I'm comparing a former high trust nation with a formerly working democracy (now, not so much) to a low trust society with a currently not working democracy (disregarding the democratia vs. republius debate).
Culture plays a huge part in the views on productivity, work ethic, responsibility, etc. Even reading through your post, it's obvious that you're doing the exact same thing that many americans who were brought up in beautiful, white-washed gated communities do.
I was brought up in a country that was still run well while growing up, but you are wrong about the rest,
I am not going to give you specifics of my background though, I do not know you and i refer you back to what I've previously mentioned about this.I'll even go as far as to say that if not for human nature (or the current stte of it in the US) I'd be much more fiscally liberal. I'm with you 100% on the utopian society on paper and I'd love to live in it. The problem is that with the current culture in the US, it's not possible. Culture needs to change first, and we can't think that throwing free money out will change culture.
The norms will change as the people do, that will force the system to change or break... And people are chaging. The majority of democrats and a big portion of republicans are and that will spread knowledge about injustice and inefficiency in the system further and even make those who stay republican harder to deal with for whomever they vote for.
As long as information comes out about things as the thievery (as in by politicians against democracy) of righteous votes cast or electronic voting machines getting manipulated people will react. It might be slow and take a long time, but change is coming - be sure of that. It always does.
For your own part you need to strive to be more naive again if so, cynicism only helps apathy while naivety helps action. Every single action you take matters, may it be an astroturfer or agent qutting his dayjob or someone speculating in the educationsystem looking around that extra 1,2 and 3rd time for a solution to a perceived problem.
As for do I think those really have a liberal slant? Absolutely. Turns out most americans do also. There have been numerous studies, polls, even books on the matter and they all have the similar results.
Please stick with referencing your own opinion, I do not care of a set of imagined or not opinions - right now I only care for yours.
Regarding polls and studies in this subject you might very well be right even regarding unbiased ones (which are hard to come by these days) but
I've allready spoken about perception of politics earlier and why it is key. Nothing has changed since i did that. *Feel free to reference two books made solely on the subject on citizens perceiving those mainstream media stations as liberal. I do not see that as contended so it would be weird making books on that subject so getting the references you make to those would be fun.
*For future reference feel free not to borrow credibility from sources - UNLESS you specify which they are and if possible where you can find those. Note that on this particular subject I don't doubt that there are both polls and studies backing up what you have written due to how politics are perceived, but it keeps the discussion on a better level if associative manipulation is avoided.
Satire doesn't have to lean left to cater to the masses and make a profit.
It depends on how big the production is and in what context it's made, if a "large" production is made specifically for the south of USA you are bound to be right. But if it is made for liberal states you are bound to be wrong. This is a none statement.
In a generalisation (in the context of a modern educated society, it will have to have a left leaning slant to be successfull in viewing numbers) the oposite to be true.
Being completely biased is inherently ostracizing a potential portion of your audience.
For the vast majority yes, that is why you get the large prodcuers of cinema trying to eliminate certain aspects to cater to as wide audience as possible - more viewers = larger profit. With that being said, politically is just one of several sub categories and it is one that when you have fascism will have a negative effect when the wealth is redistributed from the working class and the poor to the rich through systemic corruption and manipulation (now on a global scale).
As crude as it is, look how successful South Park was? Most fans of the show watched it because they truly were fearless enough to make fun of everyone. Again, nobody should be safe or protected or you lose credibility.
I've never argued that anyone should be safe, quite the oposite. If you think you do you missed the points I've made;
I agree and when there are larger screw ups by democrats (as there will be) I do hope they bring some of them up. But seing the shape of US that fascism has brought it too and the dept amassed finding flaws in conservative lines is as easy as peach pie.
Full Frontal is neither the only show focusing on political satire and the daily show (to my knowledge) has focused alot on Hillary Clinton and even Sanders (after it's through with Trump).
What I've argued is that if you've caused alot of harm (or will) to the nation that should be taken up before someone who has caused a little gets the spotlight. You know, unless it makes sense to choose the oposite for once.
...but I think that you need to look at the actual application.
I've lived the actual application, you have not if you live in USA (which you do as far as i know..?).
If you want to read the difference read Putnam Bowling for Columbine and then some of Bo Rothsteins work. Only one of those have a solid foundation for how trust (paraphrased term) is created in society (the road USA can choose to walk down and make its own to the benfit of all).
I'm not a bureaucrat with decades under my belt but I do know the application and how it works well. You can either choose to ignore this solution to many of the BIG problems in USA and lable it under red scaretactics or actually see that it has capitalism at heart and build on it not despite of it. This is your personal choice to make, as it is for others in USA.
Personally I would contemplate if I could make so much pain and suffering go away with so little effort in an action to advance the workforce for tomorrows requirements, what the downside actually was (those artistocrats that do actually have merit to their vast fortunes will not be threatened by this change).
Sorry, but you're wrong here. All individuals don't have to strive to be lazy to make me right. Just a large enough portion. It's pointless saying, because your idealistic, sheltered view of people in the US will never be swayed by my first-hand experience, but there is a huge portion of people who "strive to be lazy" as you put it in most major american cities.
I disgaree, this is a missconception that is perpetuated to justify regressive policies or that other policies (and polities) would not work. I am NOT saying it will happen over night, but it can be achieved step by step over 25-50 years (abouts) - other nations have done it, large aswell as small (from Iceland to Germany and France, even the UK before the woman who knew about pedophilia rampant in the conservative party came to power and did nothing, and before they started harbouring the very rich and aim policymaking to them) even though EU is rapidly dismantligt the public sectors in most nations, despite huge demonstrations and public outcry - the last addition is a formal "blue" card for any foreign worker to mirror US green cards (that and TTiP is good reminders of how much influence military power and informal interest groups can get you).
I am in no way sheltered as you perceive me to be in the manner i can read between the lines (generally about people). I've had plenty of conversations with americans, I've read studies, and also read a book or two on the subject.
Besides that there is forums, documentaries and about 1 decade of life in Sweden (the american way is what is replacing the Swedish model).
I would however not meet as many people from the poorest parts as a teacher from those parts (if that is what you are? - if you simply own a school or administer for someone who does this will matter so please enlighten me if you have daily direct contact with those on the low end on the socio-economic scale or not).
The problem might be that you have simply experienced and seen too much of the worst... We are daily bombareded with the worst of man, but rarely is the best of man given space in media. You can trust most people, but there is always those who you can't, that is a learning curve. You do not change those who have given up or taken the easiest way through life by giving up on them. And it is not those you will turn to first when changing the norms.
Me 'Taxes are payed together by each and everyone...'
You: 'No they're not. If you think that, then we've got even bigger issues here.
There's a large portion of the population that receives far more back in tax credits than they pay - even in sales tax.'
I think that says enough, everyone pays the taxes except those who deal in tax evation, those should be punished - no matter if they are rich or poor.
Most of the taxes in question are collected on a relative base of income, price etc and are not flat as sales tax which is harsher for the working and middle class than the upper class.
This is a problem if people are avoiding paying at the top also as liberals will often harp on (if they're doing it illegally). Don't even go into loopholes - the word implies that you're circumventing the laws while the vast majority are following the law exactly as it was intended when it was written.
This statement from you is *beep*
as long as you accept the pretext that the elected politicians are the peoples representatives. If you argue FOR and FROM a fascist perspective you are right. But you are not right on loopholes if it comes to a democratic standpoint - which no doubt a majority of maericans would argue from.
*Yes a few loopholes are indeed left to maneuver through by the nation to defend it's interests but that does in no way equal that the vast majority of rich aristocrats are meant to be able to tax evade through them in a democratic nation. Right now the rich are the ones not pulling their weight, that can easily be read from real wage changes compared to inflation and the large lists of tax evaders in circulation (the "Panama" list is just one drop in an "ocean").
I then missinterpreted your statement:
The idea of throwing money at the problem and thinking that it will be used honestly by both the government and the public is naive.
' The key is what you use the money collected for...'
'We agree completely here. The first step of this is figuring out what we're using the money for and what is working, not working, being abused, etc. Exactly what I said.'
*Just to clarify; cutting taxes is not something i propose.
Neither do I see the tiny current wellfare system as much to abuse, meaning that cutting parts of it would not result in large gains to be redistributed elsewhere. Though I am for reworking the system, I'm though unsure if we are on the same page here. For me
more taxes needs to be collected, some markets needs to be strongly regulated and controlled (if that does not work; nationalised) and things as workbenefits, childaid etc tied to your working situation.
I do not mean as one example that by missmanaging the system - producing uneducated people you have a reason to cut education.
I won't be too harsh on this because it's just a lack of exposure. In terms of time, I think the opposite needs to happen somewhat. They've eliminated all breaks for the kids other than a 30min lunch. You can tell it really stresses the kids out and it's just too much for them - they get burnt out. Even a couple of 15 minutes breaks to stretch their legs would be nice. Teacher to student ratio in our state is excellent and kids that are struggling can pretty easily get placed into programs with a lot more personalized attention. I'll agree that there is too much testing, but it was put in place because the systems were failing, so I don't necessarily believe that it's the cause.
This does sound weird and
possibly something that I'm blindsided on.
Regulating more time over the year should mean that the schedules doesn't get forced to be to tight to save money for those managing them (forced savings on posts for for the workforce etc). If there are more and more to teach and less and less time over the year (or the same time) things will get worse.
The burning out of children in my opinion is down to the temporary knowledge that is propagated by more and more tests that puts stress on a child/young adult to learn for the moment.
Please enlighten me on
which state and what student to teacher ratio you have? For basic education 13:1 (class 1-9) is a golden standard as it after that shows a greater impact on results. For higher education I canno't properly recall where the magical limit lies (I think it's between 18-21).
...placed into programs with a lot more personalized attention.
This is an excellent point that is alot harder to impact. The change in society in bombardment with commercials (dropping the attentionspann of people) and the sensationalism. This is a large problem I did not touch on and you did and it is one that should be pointed out. Thanks for doing so.
Solution? Regulate the commerical market harder (time for spots on TV, no commercials aimed at young children), set the national broadcasting channels free (with a regulatory framwork but outside the governments hands of influence) with a larger budget aimed at proper news (hard pill to swallow if you want your citisens uninformed) and regulate away screens with a lower update rate than 70Hz (to ease long times infront of screens). There are also things that should be studied but not touched until unbiased reports are made as in cummulative exposure to electronic equipment (Ericsson and Nokia did a couple of these that became controversial in Sweden/Scandinavia 15-20 years ago - new unbiased large ones are needed to avoid the spread of faulty information).
I'll agree that there is too much testing, but it was put in place because the systems were failing, so I don't necessarily believe that it's the cause.
Just to clarify, I don't see test in themselves as the cause until they start eating time and effort from the teachers and students. It's stress that prevents proper preparations and adequate time to value and intake the presented information.
I invite you to spend some time in some heavily populated US cities, especially in the impoverished areas. Talk to educators and staff that are actually in the system. I have a lot of exposure to national networks of staff and educators and attend national and regional conferences regularly. This feedback is absolutely consistent. Again, I think there's a large disconnect here from the average high population, high crime city.
I won't and canno't travel to USA for more reasons than one.
I found it strange with schools having all:
As an example, I'm very involved in one of the toughest public school systems in the country. They have tons of resources. Great pay to attract good staff, better equipped computer labs than most private schools in the area, a huge wealth of social support personnel including counselors, social workers, psychologists, child advocates, tons of extracurricular activities, mentor programs. In short, these kids have everything we could possibly provide them in the school setting, but they're still failing.
the essentials private schools in US had and still failing to produce educated children.
I agree with you that there are more issues outside in the public sphere that needs to get dealt with, but I start from what the majority can impact through governance - it usually also have the greatest impact.
I believe (on good grounds) that when you improve society and make having a job something recogniseably good again things will change. A wellfare state takes care of its workforce, it also removed hinders for the poor to educate themselves. As I've said (paraphrased); normative changes doesn't come over night - don't exspect me (if you do) to present you with an overnight solution to all the societal problems - what I've done is I've listed the "quick" fixes and then discussed the deeper changes needed.
reply
share
shide_85
9 years ago
PART 2/2
There are a few things you can quite easily do to help turn things around;
Increased spending on streetlights, greenery/upkeep, police etc stave off crime - architecture also has a role to play in public and other housingprojects.
Access to sports and engaging people in the community is things you can locally do.
This is also where legalisationand monopolisation of Marijuana could be of great benefit - it would lessen exposre to criminal schools (prison) and help some to make room for a new a new deal.
Great on paper and I wish it were true here. We wouldn't be debating a thing if this were true. Unfortunately, in our society, people typically look for the easiest way to get by.
This will change as society does, people are under fierce pressure right now, that isn't something that is brought up in particular (yes that the discrepancy has grown but not the actual results of that pressure) as far as i know I think that is strongly correlated. I agree with Mashlows hierarcy of needs (widely know and empirically recognised) which also agrees with me.
I agree somewhat on legalizing weed. I wouldn't want government to assimilate production (government is typically very, very inefficient and too much money would be wasted), but I'm all for legalizing it and then taxing the hell out of it. Though with the PC culture, that would probably be construed as discrimination somehow.
The average cable bill of an SSI recipient was about $100 and the average phone bill was about $125. Entertainment spending was typically higher than middle class accounts as was dining out. I think there's a huge difference in a necessity and a luxury and a lot of luxuries are being figured into the "living wage" calculations currently in the news. It's a core belief we'll have to disagree on. I believe that if you're given anything, it is solely necessities. You can work for luxuries.
In large parts I agree (though TV's and smartphones wasn't the best way to put forth your side of it). Today in Sweden we have been partly forced (most likely, though not formally known) to accept huge amounts of refugees. This also stems from social democracy's inability to deal with fertility rates of a well educated and relatively prosperous population, huge debts amassed under conservative rule that made it possible for international loansharks to put pressure on Sweden and create normative change (deregulate and sell off assets cheaply) aswell as the regerssive agenda during the last decade of reign by the conservatives ("alliansen"). And yes informal interest groups also had a hand in the play.
Cable should not be something you can afford, but I do believe fiber and that every household should be able to afford a computer.
You may paraphrase me. That's not at all what you did though. I think that the quality of public schooling (in my city, at least) is fantastic. I don't plan to send my child to private school and have no desire for public schooling to be privatized. The problem we have is cultural - we're being allocated more money than we know what to do with..literally - we just spent millions upgrading all staff laptops (most were under 2 years old) to Macbooks. The best part? The Macbooks aren't compatible with the software systems that we spent tens of thousands on at the beginning of the year. Why did this happen? The money was allocated to IT spending and we have an Apple fan in charge of IT. This is what I mean when I say that the system is broken and we need to control spending before expanding or gathering more.
Sorry to have missinterpreted you.
I am glad to hear that you do believe in equal access to education and public schools.
Those kinds of errors that you mention are often made, but that is more down to the upstream of information gets ignored by the downstream of power. It simply means you need to flatten the hierarchy between bureaucrats and those employed in the educational system (organise the staff and make their voice heard - this is one of the great missconceptions regarding unions, in Sweden many corporations also wanted unions as it would sort a range of problems and create sideeffects that would smoothen the workflow and raise efficieny - avoiding these kinds of investments would fall under that). I'm asuming the person in charge was fired if s/he was employed by the school. Either way - that is a management issue not one that directly affects the student results (passively obviously through time spent by teachers on IT troubles).
Not directly, but they say it though the policy they support and propose. When you support systems that allow able-bodied individuals to live fairly comfortably and promote ideas that encourage stopping at the ground level of your career, this is exactly what you're saying.
No, humans strive to better themselves - those who don't does not get ahead and get sorted out by the harshness of reality in an alot larger extent - which over time advances society.
...promote ideas that encourage stopping at the ground level of your career...
I've specifically made reference how you avoid this in wellfare systems.
Again, we agree completely here. It would be great if the system limited it to these people.
In sweden that is mostly the case (there is naturally a small small % that do work they way you describe). There is also a larger % of immigrants/refugees that canno't or will not get work. There are also criminals that trick the system (one or two well known organised biker groups that house a fair share of criminals have successfully had a few of these).
Usually the systems are related to the problems here on the individual level; if you have a wheelchair your employer might get a small subsidy to employ you. most locations in Sweden are made fully handicap accessible (which is a liberal principle of equality pushed one step forward).
I think this is very out of touch with the current situation in the US. Higher education graduation rates are so high that a college degrees are now the new high school diploma. There are more and more job markets that masters or doctorates are required even to break into a 35k a year entry level job. This is also pushing the age of entering the workforce back by 4-8 year. In a lot of these markets, the higher degrees aren't required at all to do the job. Instead, the company asks for it because they can and people are desperate. Sending everyone to college devalues the bachelors degree and isn't necessary for all fields. It really just ends up pumping tons of money into academia and doesn't necessarily do much. Where does the money come from? Either more ridiculous student debt or more in taxes.
I did in no way say that sending people to college and university was the only way to retain it. Neither did i say that companies aren't being completely unreasonable when they ask for overqualification (the latter is also an issue in Sweden). That can be solved through regulation, in Sweden we used to have a strong and simple "workintermediary" (the word by word translation is workagency but that does not mirror the intent which it was run and set up with) which allowed us to keep the unemployment under 5% - now with conservative policies we've been close to 10% (of people between 15–74 years of age).
So you can spend 4+ years in higher education and come out making less than someone flipping burgers at McDonalds? Why would you ever go to college? Is that really promoting higher education? I had a college degree and years in a career before I was making $15 an hour. I think your hatred of meritocracy is based strongly on a misunderstanding. The merit isn't in how hard you work while at work. The merit is in how hard you work to develop and further a career. I have what I have today because I worked 3 jobs to put myself through college and then worked my ass off enough to build a reputation and gain specialized knowledge. Do I physically work harder than the guy flipping burgers? No. But I gave up the luxuries so that I could trade hard physical work for work that requires specialized knowledge.
People go to college because they want to improve, change the world, follow their dream or for whatever reason. Even though they will have a tough ride they continue to do so, because when given the chance people want to improve (humans are curious by nature).
I think your hatred of meritocracy is based strongly on a misunderstanding.
I have not got a hatred for meritocracy - the complete oposite I dismiss the notion of inhereting aristocracy (wealth) and that it should determine the positions in society - the very oposite.
Did you do it all by yourself? And did you work 3 jobs or 3 jobs simultaneously? Because as far as i know that is basically what is required today for the poor to have a chance to educate themselves through the educational system.
$15 when? $15 25 years ago was ALOT more than $15 is worth today.
People simply can't make the same tradeoffs as you could do 25 years or more ago without having what is likely to be a lifelong debt.
...and then worked my ass off enough to build a reputation and gain specialized knowledge.
The problem today is that many get their jobs based of whom you know what you you do, that is how it is in fascism, it is even partly how it is in social democracy but in far of a less extent. That is not meritocracy.
'You are not in touch with reality,...'
'A harsh thing to say when it sounds like you haven't had much exposure to many large american cities (and the real inner cities - not the sheltered suburbs).'
This was misscontstrewed by being taken out of context and rationality (not putting effor tinto something you knew were untrue - the "liberal" media, what people perceive and what is, is not always the same as I'm sure you do know).
Your quote is below;
I think most conservatives want to turn the leeches into producers, whereas a lot of liberals are ok with leaving them leeches and taking more from the evil rich (screw the 50 that work their asses off for it because there's one evil bastard that inherited his/her wealth and squanders it, right?)
That is not a meritocratic statement from your side that is hypocricy, you also state that you do not work harder that someone flipping burgers (physically that is no doubt true if you sy it is) but to argue on behalf of low payed workers when you post something like this does not ad up at all. Reverting me back to the initial statement on the longer post.
Liberals think that they're doing that and the ideology is respectable. Where they falter is in analysis of the outcomes and consequences of their systems. You need to account for human nature's desire to take the simplest path with safeguards. Unfortunately, most liberals think solely in an idealistic and "on paper" way. They refuse to believe that the average person (american, at least) isn't necessarily living for the greater good. We live in an extremely self centered society and there are just too many people that have absolutely no interest in the greater good.
Greed is what fascism is built on and that is not the path of least resistance even if it involves a great deal of corruption.
Socialdemocracy and socialliberalism has brought a good majority of the countries (partly laid to waste) in the world since WWII back into the leading positions.
Generally you either work against the system and exploit its weaknesses or for it and work to strengthen it. Conservatism does not work to strengthen the system the work to exploit it to upkeep status quo (aristocracy) while liberals strive for equality - equality increases money in circulation and increases the size of the classes that produces the most - the working class and the middle class.
Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered.
reply
share
kelsier25
9 years ago
You are extrapolating an arguementation in one issue towards the whole debate.
Not really. Every argument you make is an "on paper" argument that ignores the current cultural problems that need to be addressed. You speak of a 25-50 year process to adjust society, but don't connect that much of the suggested liberal policy would have to happen after this societal change.
I can and I do, every system built on universality is scaleable
Absolutely you can make these comparisons, but it's all an ideological daydream. The US has a completely different set of problems and they're at a much larger scale. You cannot apply a system that is(was) successful in one country and assume that it will be successful in another. Again, culture and society plays a huge role into the specifics of a successful system.
For your own part you need to strive to be more naive again if so, cynicism only helps apathy while naivety helps action.
Let's not make assumptions here. I devote large parts of my life to helping those who have the desire to succeed in life (and in sparking that desire in those that do not).
Please stick with referencing your own opinion, I do not care of a set of imagined or not opinions - right now I only care for yours.
Let's abandon this topic. I'm not going to entertain the semantics of what you consider liberal and conservative. It should be obvious when speaking about american shows and american media that we're using the current american perception of liberal and conservative.
I am in no way sheltered as you perceive me to be in the manner i can read between the lines (generally about people). I've had plenty of conversations with americans, I've read studies, and also read a book or two on the subject.
This is a contradiction. Your distance from it limits your means of exposure. You are, in fact, sheltered from the realities of most american cities. Without first-hand exposure, you're stuck relying on 3rd party accounts. Do you know the background and motivation of those who you're hearing this from? Are you reading study that was funded by a special interests group? Are you speaking to someone that grew up in a upper-class, zero diversity neighborhood who's never met a "poor person" before (but sure read a lot about them in college).
if you simply own a school or administer for someone who does this will matter so please enlighten me if you have daily direct contact with those on the low end on the socio-economic scale or not).
Without getting too personal, I work at multiple schools and spend most of my time with troubled students and their families.
The problem might be that you have simply experienced and seen too much of the worst... We are daily bombareded with the worst of man, but rarely is the best of man given space in media.
I experience the worst and the best on a daily basis. This unique experience lets me truly understand the scale and understand the realities of failed policy. I can see first-hand what needs to be fixed and the effects these problems have on children.
I think that says enough, everyone pays the taxes except those who deal in tax evation, those should be punished - no matter if they are rich or poor.
This is incorrect. If you fall below the poverty line, you will almost always receive a tax credit which is greater than the amount of money that you contributed. This is the law and is not considered tax evasion here.
Neither do I see the tiny current wellfare system as much to abuse, meaning that cutting parts of it would not result in large gains to be redistributed elsewhere.
Look at this government report on the "tiny welfare system" that happen to be the largest item on the budget. We spend more on it than social security, medicare, or national defense.
http://www.budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=34919307-6286-47ab-b114-2fd5bcedfeb5I think you may not understand the scale of the problem based on your comment about supporting children, elderly, and disabled with social programs. Do you realize that in most american cities, an able bodied individual can receive welfare, get free childcare, get nearly free housing and utilities, get free food through food stamps/SNAP/WIC, etc. All of this without having to show that you are working or trying to work. The daycare I brought my son to cost me $800 a month. After speaking with the director, I found out that a large portion of the children there went for free with voucher programs and the vast majority of the parents did not work. Why are we paying for daycare for someone who doesn't work?
No, humans strive to better themselves - those who don't does not get ahead and get sorted out by the harshness of reality in an alot larger extent - which over time advances society.
This is the basis for my entire point of view. I agree completely with you. Unfortunately, as illustrated above, those who don't do not currently get sorted out by the harshness of reality. In many cases, they're earning a higher cash equivalent than those that are actually working to better themselves.
Did you do it all by yourself? And did you work 3 jobs or 3 jobs simultaneously? Because as far as i know that is basically what is required today for the poor to have a chance to educate themselves through the educational system.
$15 when? $15 25 years ago was ALOT more than $15 is worth today.
People simply can't make the same tradeoffs as you could do 25 years or more ago without having what is likely to be a lifelong debt.
I worked 3 jobs simultaneously and I did it all by myself. Was that much necessary? No. I did have luxuries and I also did not believe in taking tax dollars for something that I can do with some hard work. Again, as I've said above, this is not required at all for american poor. In most american states, there are low income tuition voucher programs. So if school is free, food is free, housing is nearly free, childcare is free, etc. How would you need to work anything more than a weekend job?
I'm glad you bring up the value of $15 - it plays into the discussion of wasting taxpayer money well. This idea of a national wage hike to $15 is absurd. This whole movement is based on cost of living in some of the areas with the highest cost of living in the country. The average cost of rent for a one bedroom apartment in New York is over $3000. In my current city (and most I've lived in) you can rent a nice 2-3 bedroom house in a nice neighborhood for $1000. One bedroom apartments are $500-600. How can we set a national wage with such a discrepancy? I can see raising it in the cities with an ridiculous cost of living, but doing it here would be wasting money.
That is not a meritocratic statement from your side that is hypocricy, you also state that you do not work harder that someone flipping burgers (physically that is no doubt true if you sy it is) but to argue on behalf of low payed workers when you post something like this does not ad up at all. Reverting me back to the initial statement on the longer post.
Another misunderstanding. I do not physically work harder than the guy flipping burgers (this is an assumption from when I managed a kitchen - not sure how demanding flipping burgers is lol) but my job is much more challenging. It is more stressful. I also worked much harder to better myself and to develop my career. I work very hard to continue learning and developing my career.
Generally you either work against the system and exploit its weaknesses or for it and work to strengthen it.
This is true and those exploits need to be fixed. If there is huge corruption involved in a large portion of government spending, how can you justify continuing to increase government spending. The first step needs to be figuring out how to vastly minimize the corruption. If we don't we're throwing money away and accomplishing nothing. In many cases we're accomplishing less than nothing. For example, the welfare problem listed above plays heavily into the failing school systems that we're dealing with.
reply
share
shide_85
9 years ago
Not really. Every argument you make is an "on paper" argument that ignores the current cultural problems that need to be addressed. You speak of a 25-50 year process to adjust society, but don't connect that much of the suggested liberal policy would have to happen after this societal change.
It does not, and it hasn't empirically in the countries that did this change after WWII - have a look for yourself. (A New deal was started, or happened if prefer, between 1933-38).
Absolutely you can make these comparisons, but it's all an ideological daydream. The US has a completely different set of problems and they're at a much larger scale. You cannot apply a system that is(was) successful in one country and assume that it will be successful in another. Again, culture and society plays a huge role into the specifics of a successful system.
In your opinion, you should dare to dream or rather to aim for the stars - do not lower your exspectations with age (which is common) - every single action in this world counts - make yours do so. Universal norms are simply more easily scaleable than particular norms and the strucutre they require - ask any experienced bureaucrat. Pluralistic management is not easy, related to it - universalism is. Common sense should prevail here.
...a completely different set of problems...
Domestically USA do not have more problems than previously, it has the worlds largest army and oligopolised control over several key markets.
Globally the problems USA has can be solved by prevention of free-trade agreements - forcing local production up and lowering the possiblilities to shift capital freely for the plutocracy.
You cannot apply a system that is(was) successful in one country and assume that it will be successful in another.
It wasn't successfull in one country, it was successfull in most of western Europe.
Please specify what exact parts that would not scale then if you doubt it would.'For your own part you need to strive to be more naive again if so, cynicism only helps apathy while naivety helps action.'
'Let's not make assumptions here. I devote large parts of my life to helping those who have the desire to succeed in life (and in sparking that desire in those that do not).'
This is not an asumptions about you in particular but about the vast majority of citizens of the USA in general (in the context of status quo structure). Paying slightly more (or if you are tax evading -
paying the same as the lower classes do) in taxes and getting rid of the worst effects of poverty, pain, crime and suffering is a small price to pay in my book.
When you really take that what it means when people get treatments for horrible suffering without ruining their future lives through debt that should make anyone weigh their own standpoint twice.
'Please stick with referencing your own opinion, I do not care of a set of imagined or not opinions - right now I only care for yours.'
'Let's abandon this topic. I'm not going to entertain the semantics of what you consider liberal and conservative. It should be obvious when speaking about american shows and american media that we're using the current american perception of liberal and conservative.'
What is conservative and what is liberal is what this discussion is about, abandoning it does not work for me. These are not some random values i make up off the top of my hand - and you know this if you've been part of the educatinal system. When it boils down to it there are differences between the systems that you canno't disregard. - It's something I've pointed out plenty - if you want to contend them go back and reply to what I've previously written.
I do not argue from an imagined opinion (unless that is clear by the text), I argue from my perspective (and I'm not alone about that perspective, though I do not try to infuse that into the text to borrow credibility as you can read from what I've previously written).
This is a contradiction. Your distance from it limits your means of exposure. You are, in fact, sheltered from the realities of most american cities. Without first-hand exposure, you're stuck relying on 3rd party accounts. Do you know the background and motivation of those who you're hearing this from? Are you reading study that was funded by a special interests group? Are you speaking to someone that grew up in a upper-class, zero diversity neighborhood who's never met a "poor person" before (but sure read a lot about them in college).
...your idealistic, sheltered view of people in the US will never be swayed by my first-hand experience, but there is a huge portion of people who "strive to be lazy" as you put it in most major american cities."
I've had plenty of direct exposure to the norms of the american through the net.
You do in no way stand out as humans (as in being hard to interpret and understand), you are however partly right that I can't have as much experience as you do because I do not live nor visit (or plan to) USA. I think though that you underestimate just how much american documentaries we get on TV here since the conservatives came to power, we literally have more educational programs from US than swedish ones on the three main public channels now - something that was never true before they came to power. The difference is huge between the two and I'm not claiming that a few handful of documentaries give an 100% accurate depiction but it shows that I'm not talking out of the blue and I hope you do realise that. A
s you seemingly work with the harsher parts of society I think that might also be good for the discussion, for me you are probable suffering of reversed stockholm syndrome (being influenced by too much exposure of a certain kind).Are you reading study that was funded by a special interests group?
No, the
studies I've bothered to read is mostly unbiased and those that aren't are not given equal value. When i read studies i try to use either big accumulative databases that are generally accepted as a correct depiction of reality, Swedish databases - we have a long (now possibly broken) tradition of having transparency and accurate statistics available, or whatever source i can find that is as unbiased as possible and if neither exist i mention that (or the reliability of the claim) and usually post a link if it's of importance.
It is usually easy to politcally compartmentalise most intellectuals through what terms they use, it is alot harder to do the oposite (you canno't fill a full cup, I'm also counting on you to do that work for me - as I'm trying to point out differences I'm counting on you being, or trying to be, as open as possible, there is a better tomorrow out there).
'The problem might be that you have simply experienced and seen too much of the worst... We are daily bombareded with the worst of man, but rarely is the best of man given space in media.'
'I experience the worst and the best on a daily basis. This unique experience lets me truly understand the scale and understand the realities of failed policy. I can see first-hand what needs to be fixed and the effects these problems have on children.'
Please do share some of the solution you have within the educational field given the american context. Yes there are outer factors, and we differ slightly about how to solve them but feel free to share what you think would help education move forward.
'I think that says enough, everyone pays the taxes except those who deal in tax evation, those should be punished - no matter if they are rich or poor.'
'This is incorrect. If you fall below the poverty line, you will almost always receive a tax credit which is greater than the amount of money that you contributed. This is the law and is not considered tax evasion here.'
I'm not incorrect. You still pay taxes (as long as you have anything to pay on, this is in the context of the able workforce - even if we disregard that everyone pays sales tax, even if it's only on paper as a post, the act of doing so puts the money
within the system), and if you are poor the punishment is harsher for not doing so (it will affect you harder and you won't be able to be represented in court of law on equal basis).
I've never said that people will receive equal support for what they pay in tax, I've stated quite the oposite if you had read it. If that is your issue you should direct your gaze to the aristocrats which sure gets a whole lot more through available infrastructure, an increased influence in public projects and regulations, military supports - war is a huge market (e-spionage and access to similar sources, depending on country - USA is as far as i know one of the "best" at this game with China). Ontop of that national industry often gets prioratised over foreign when taking in offers.
Look at this government report on the "tiny welfare system" that happen to be the largest item on the budget. We spend more on it than social security, medicare, or national defense.
No you don't, i rather trust official statistics from bureaucrats than politicians and unidentified pm's or memo's.
That is a memo not a CRS report (
http://fpc.state.gov/c41253.htm), the CRS "report" lacks all proper identification on it including signatures... a proper report usually actually contains raw data, sources etc (CRS reports:
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/).
Jeff Sessions on paper generally looks allright but he is a die hard republican (have a look at his stance on war and propaganda).
If you count posts that are allready financed (as pensions) it will missrepresent the picture for 2011.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_estimate_vs_actual_2011_XXbs2n#usgs302Am I going to humor this overall? No, because it is not a serious attempt on your behalf.
Even though the wellfare costs in US is NOT the most expensive post it should be - that is normal because it contains ALOT more posts in alot more areas than just one or two. Fix loopholes, contain the tax evation schemes, raise taxes and invest.
Posting that prop piece just antidox'd you (not as a republican idc about that - you are still first a human as any other), I do now "know" you for sure.
In Sweden after dropping alot of the former welfare sector it is now around 30% (European normal was 2008 25-30%) of GDP (2009, relatively decreasing, cummulatively increasing), which for USA would equate to around $1 Tn ($125-200 Bn more than for defense - as in the "memo"!). So just consider it your darkest nightmare and think over what negative impact it might have versus what positive impact it might have (and eventually will have).
Stats from SCB.
Do you realize that in most american cities, an able bodied individual can receive welfare, get free childcare, get nearly free housing and utilities, get free food through food stamps/SNAP/WIC, etc. All of this without having to show that you are working or trying to work. The daycare I brought my son to cost me $800 a month. After speaking with the director, I found out that a large portion of the children there went for free with voucher programs and the vast majority of the parents did not work. Why are we paying for daycare for someone who doesn't work?
You paint a shiny bright picture, I do not think it is that easy to qualify as you put forth while being poor. Though I do think it should be. I am for supporting the poor in society on behalf of everyone else - including the rich. That is redistribution from the many to the weaker instead of to the few from the many (as now).
*Most do not pay $800 for preschool each month, that should be an innercity rate (?). You support them so that they can find work, which takes time and effort (
this is where you can condition benefits as mentioned previously).
Would it not be better that everyone payed a little more in tax and that everyone got (generally speaking) equal preschool?
Children do not choose their parents.'No, humans strive to better themselves - those who don't does not get ahead and get sorted out by the harshness of reality in an alot larger extent - which over time advances society.'
'This is the basis for my entire point of view. I agree completely with you. Unfortunately, as illustrated above, those who don't do not currently get sorted out by the harshness of reality. In many cases, they're earning a higher cash equivalent than those that are actually working to better themselves.'
You have to understand that fascism does not equate meritocracy. When you have fascism democracy is out of play and the odds are stacked against those who make up the society (the people). A society that exploits its weakest instead of helping them is not a good society and not one that I support.
At no point should benefits superseed the average income though (unless the related benefits which increase with income - aka if you are rich and get unemployment benefits you get more to a certain point - many benefits are related to encourage working).
I'm glad you bring up the value of $15 - it plays into the discussion of wasting taxpayer money well. This idea of a national wage hike to $15 is absurd.
In Sweden we use the Swedish model for the labourmarket, unions and organised employers come together and strike agreements for the whole areas (except the few pockets of unorganised labour, which currently is relatively large due to the private labouragencies that unlawfully inhibts the overall model).
That means that the real wage does not drop due to inflation. During the past years unions have agreed to lessen demands ALOT (officially due to the crisis brought on by mainly the american and uk banks and the people beind them but really because of the increasing "free"trade that removes bordercontrols and removes democracy).
Until recently the Swedish model has worked without problems for the labourmarket. It was recently formally aknowledged by EU as worth pursuing (a model Sweden to be completely honest does not hold a patent on).
The average cost of rent for a one bedroom apartment in New York is over $3000. In my current city (and most I've lived in) you can rent a nice 2-3 bedroom house in a nice neighborhood for $1000. One bedroom apartments are $500-600. How can we set a national wage with such a discrepancy? I can see raising it in the cities with an ridiculous cost of living, but doing it here would be wasting money.
This is where regulation comes in, to keep the innercity alive and thriving in Sweden there was rentcontrol, public housing throughout cities - including Stockholm and other regulation/control. That and more was removed by the conservatives, which has resulted in prices going up after the public assets were sold off to the aristocracy. So basically; 1. Sold out public housing. 2. Removed regulation. 3. Prices increase, new loans can be taken. 4. Investments are done to further increase the value. 5. Sell (most are still holding out as prices are still going up) and make a very large profit.
What you do here is simply to bind the benefit to work, if you get the chance to work somewhere else within the field you have practised you have to move there and work or you will loose the benefits...
I also worked much harder to better myself and to develop my career. I work very hard to continue learning and developing my career.
I am glad to hear, I am confident everyone has goals they strive for or want to see furfilled. A person without a purpose is a sad thing to witness. Apathy and indifference often follows (which you are probably all to well familiar with...).
USA has plenty of nationalistic thought (people are not only blindly following the way of the system - consumption and greed), right now it's mostly blocked out by the corruption of the system but hopefully Bernie will win,
if for no other reason than to change the election system for the better.
This is true and those exploits need to be fixed. If there is huge corruption involved in a large portion of government spending, how can you justify continuing to increase government spending. The first step needs to be figuring out how to vastly minimize the corruption. If we don't we're throwing money away and accomplishing nothing. In many cases we're accomplishing less than nothing. For example, the welfare problem listed above plays heavily into the failing school systems that we're dealing with.
The largest problem here is that there need to be a complete turn for it to change, no matter which candidate to bring that is. You can read above for me which candidate I think is the most likely to do that. Warren would be likely to get a leading post for Bernie, unlike if Hillary wins.
The information about tax evation is available to the main informal interest groups (despite what a majority of member might or might not know), the information is available - the question is if there are or will be candidates ideologically strong enough to make change happen (with the support of everyone to the best of their (avail)abilities).
The "daydreams" I have are not far fetched, but they require people to act, a better society won't come freely or without effort.
[EDIT] Spelling on the last two parts.
Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered.
reply
share