Quote from: Laura Hope on April 05, 2010, 10:40:26 AM
The classic thing about these discussions is that when it costs WAY more than they say it will (which will happen, see Meedicare for an obvious example) two things will happen:

1. Both sides will insist the other side screwed it up

2. Both sides will insist only they can fix it because the other side is so sorry

and the wheel will turn over again.

Which is why every day I'm a bit more cynical about all politics and more resigned to just washing my hands of all of it and adopting an "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" philosophy (when it comes to politics)

Yeah, I agree with you on that one. I used to believe that if the right person was elected that things would change for the better. Now I see that it doesn't really matter because the system is so clogged with lobbyists and all of the shady backroom deals, etc that it's a waste of time to worry about it all.

Quote from: Laura91 on April 05, 2010, 10:48:50 AM
Yeah, I agree with you on that one. I used to believe that if the right person was elected that things would change for the better. Now I see that it doesn't really matter because the system is so clogged with lobbyists and all of the shady backroom deals, etc that it's a waste of time to worry about it all.

Which is why I see the only real solution is to change the entire voting system.  I posted something a while ago about how it would be done but basically we get rid of all campaign contributions, establish the needed qualifications for each position and give each qualified candidate a certain amount, based on the position, to use to run for office.

By eliminating campaign contributions, you reduce or even eliminate the "appreciation" politicians pay back to their contributors with tax payer dollars.  Part of the tax revenue savings can be put towards the campaign dollars we give to the candidates, some could even go towards providing a better salary for our public servants. 

And maybe that would attract a better breed of candidates, ones who actually want to perform the duties expected of them.  And by controlling the campaign process, it gives more time for the elected official to do the work they were voted in to do.

A lot of people are against tax payers funding campaigns, but when you look at all the tax dollars politicians dole out to their supporters (in various forms), you realize there could actually be a tax savings, maybe even a substantial one.

I used to be apolitical.  Then I started listening to Rush Limbaugh.  Then I realized I had to take a stand if I didn't want his type to take over the country. 

Quote from: Julie Marie on April 06, 2010, 09:31:28 AM
Which is why I see the only real solution is to change the entire voting system.  I posted something a while ago about how it would be done but basically we get rid of all campaign contributions, establish the needed qualifications for each position and give each qualified candidate a certain amount, based on the position, to use to run for office.

By eliminating campaign contributions, you reduce or even eliminate the "appreciation" politicians pay back to their contributors with tax payer dollars.  Part of the tax revenue savings can be put towards the campaign dollars we give to the candidates, some could even go towards providing a better salary for our public servants. 

And maybe that would attract a better breed of candidates, ones who actually want to perform the duties expected of them.  And by controlling the campaign process, it gives more time for the elected official to do the work they were voted in to do.

A lot of people are against tax payers funding campaigns, but when you look at all the tax dollars politicians dole out to their supporters (in various forms), you realize there could actually be a tax savings, maybe even a substantial one.

I used to be apolitical.  Then I started listening to Rush Limbaugh.  Then I realized I had to take a stand if I didn't want his type to take over the country.

While I do agree with the last sentence in your post, I don't ever see things changing in the way that you described. It would be great if that actually happened but everyone knows that money is what rules our political system and people aren't going to give up all that cash.

Quoteso many Americans to expect government to do big things

Quote22  Location:San Francisco, CA, USA

I have a book for you. "Deliberate Dumbing Down of America "  Free down load http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/index.html

Americans especially the ones who took American history before the national religion was declared as Secular Humanism acknowledge by the Supreme Court do not expect the Federal Government should do big things in fact they would like the  the Federal Government to only handle National defense. I do not want Social Security, Medicare, or forced health insurance. I worked and saved my life to take care of myself. It is called responsibility. Many young people today still want their diaper changed by the Government.

I do not "want my diaper changed by the government." I expect the government to be responsible and to actually tackle pressing issues which the government, being the sole legitimate arbiter of force, taxation and regulation, is uniquely situated to tackle. Wanting a strong, independent philanthropic and nonprofit sector is all well and good and I support it completely, but foundations cannot prevent companies from putting their employees at unnecessary physical risk, or polluting excessively. Governments can.

There is no such thing as a free lunch; by paying taxes for Medicare, Social Security and other programs, we are paying the government to work for the greater good. We pay the government so that the old, feeble and unable to work among us are able to scrape by, and so that when we grow old and feeble, or get in an accident and are paralyzed for life, we too are able to scrape by. How this concept gets twisted into the idea of "getting one's diaper changed by the government" baffles me. This is not demanding that the government give us free stuff, it's being socially responsible.

The sort of "diaper changing" I object to is the sort put forth by social conservatives: prioritization and subtle enforcement of a monolithic, repressive, religiously-based vision of culture that privileges more Christian, straight, cisgendered, white, patriarchal moneyed and "American" groups at the expense of out-groups: non-religious and non-Christians, people of color, women the poor, queer and trans people, and anyone else deemed scary, foreign or impure. It is a politics of fear and exclusion that posits preachers, pastors and moralizers as the more-or-less mandatory guideposts of society. It punishes adventurousness, pleasure, dissent, and free thought, and intimates that people are simply too stupid to be anything more than reactionary, fearful, angry creatures, lashing out at the world around them, responding to the slightest difference with militarism and anger, fearing their own bodies.

In this way, the ultra-conservative religious fundamentalists of Christianity and Islam are very similar indeed. John Hagee is not so different in his Catholic-bashing and homophobia from the antisemitic conspiracy theories of Hamas propaganda. Pat Robertson declares Islam a wicked cult of death and the governments of the Middle East evil; Sayyid Qutb, one of Osama bin Laden's inspirations, declared the West wicked, decadent and materialistic. If we speak of "Islamism," let us also speak of "Christianism," its counterpart, a movement just as dangerous and violent and just as intolerant. The evangelicals condemn the world-conquering/world-converting ambitions of Salafi Islamists, and then turn around and exhort Christians to go forth and convert the entire planet to their particular strain of religion.

Social responsibility is a blessing, not a problem. It is the religious right-wingers, hypocritically holding the torch of moral purity, who look to change the diapers of society, not the social justice activists who call for safety nets and universal healthcare.

Wicked golf clap.

Well said!  Articulate, insightful and accurate.  You should write a book, if you haven't already...

Thank you both! My father is a professional writer and speaker, and expatiation does seem to run in the family - we have a peculiar dialogue style, in which we take turns more or less giving speeches to each other. I'm told it's quite amusing.
I'm a comics artist, so I am looking to make a career out of writing (and laying out, and drawing, and lettering etc.) books. I'm hoping that they'll be on subjects more exciting (and more fictional) than social safety nets.

Quotebut foundations cannot prevent companies from putting their employees at unnecessary physical risk, or polluting excessively

You can spout all the propaganda you like but "Companies are made up of citizens. It is a citizens responsibility to the community not to do those things. You do not need laws to force them, only the virtues of being a citizen. When people depend on laws they lose responsibility figuring the Government will take care of it. Fact is most crimes and law breakers do not get caught or punished. So you have a system of lies. One which those who cheat the best get the most from those who comply. The Government does not provide a safety net they only remove personal responsibility. If you are so empathic to those in need then I am sure you will volunteer your time and money to help those people.

You will do a much better job changing their diapers than the Government.

And the reasons that people are not flocking to your side is exactly what?

So you think that people can just take personal responsibility all the time without so much as a nudge from any higher authority, do you? If that's the case, why hasn't it happened yet - and why have government at all? Why aren't you an Anarchist if people can be decent and responsible without an enforced social contract?

Incidentally, I do volunteer, and so does everyone else in my house. I volunteer, I give money to charity, and I pay my taxes. It's called being a responsible citizen. You talk about the system allowing people to be irresponsible, but you engage in the ultimate act of irresponsibility - you seem to just give up on trying to solve society's problems altogether. It reveals a callous attitude towards those in need, and permits the greedy and heartless to do what they will without consequences. That is irresponsible.

"It's called being a responsible citizen."
============
You talk about companies polluting and are unsafe without regulations. Yet you buy from them all the time especially things made in China. No amount of regulation can protect you from contributing to the horrors you say you are against except you yourself and the money you spend. A responsible citizen doe not try to buy their way to morals. They work at it. Giving money to a third middle man only invites corruption as it also separates you from where the money is going.

Quotewhy hasn't it happened yet

It has happened till people let the Federal government take over. Each state had local control that met the different cultures needs. Then the corporate states wanted control of the agricultural states. Then that was not enough profits so they started using slavery from out side the grasp of the national Government. Unless you plan on a level playing field world wide people who make the money will just move to more friendly places.

Am I misreading you, or did you just blame the North for the civil war?

Quote from: lisagurl on April 10, 2010, 04:09:57 PM
You can spout all the propaganda you like but "Companies are made up of citizens. It is a citizens responsibility to the community not to do those things. You do not need laws to force them, only the virtues of being a citizen.

So... how do you suggest we get 300 million people to take full responsibility for themselves? 

How do you suggest we get the government to lower the taxes because we are all now taking full responsibility for ourselves? 

How can we convince politicians we don't need them anymore because we are taking full responsibility for ourselves?

How can you convince a few hundred million people who are taking full responsibility for themselves to all band together for a common cause?  Like when someone kills some of these responsible citizens.

Or maybe this full responsibility civilization doesn't worry about the guy next door or the innocent people killed by a senseless act of violence.

Where's Sarah Palin when you need her?

In Lisagurl's world slavery would still exist today. And for any of us to be able to leave the house presenting as who we are? Forget that! We would be killed pretty quickly. I love my country because of it's government.

I have to say that I do not think that you can get even 50% compliance on self policing Lisa.
So what is the solution to a world where some people feel that they do not need to worry about what they do?
Factory owners who polute rivers do not rely on said river other than a dump for chemicals so what is to prevent such people from being callous and dumping in the river that others do rely on? Self policing, and personal responsibility?
good luck on that.
We must have government and enforcement of laws. Otherwise this planet would die alot faster than it already is.

QuoteIn Lisagurl's world slavery would still exist today

Nobodies: Modern American Slave Labor and the Dark Side of the New Global Economy by John Bowe

---

Post Merge: April 11, 2010, 11:34:16 AM

---

QuoteWe must have government and enforcement of laws. Otherwise this planet would die alot faster than it already is.

No, we have selective enforcement and corruption. Our educational system is a shambles. What we need is to go back to good old fashion morals, ethics, character, virtue, and honor. We need to instill honesty, self control, patients, focus, community and friendships. The academic subjects will take care of themselves when the students have self worth and values. The teacher's goal is to inspire the students will do the rest.
Read : Deliberate Dumbing Down of America  http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/index.html

It seems that the California experiment of the Government taking care of the people has not worked either. Another solar company has just moved out of the overtaxed, over regulated, unethical, and over populated mess on the west coast.  If you want a utopia you have to start with individual motives. A society based on selfishness, to attain individual pleasure and desires will not work even with the strict enforcement to equally distribute wealth.  Individuals have to put the community ahead of their own welfare for a society that will benefit all. It works in small communities but not on a national scale.  It has not even worked on a state scale. So states that allow each community to operate independently without large government interference would have the greatest chance of success. You do understand that many communities would have very different laws and cultures. That would allow like minded people to live together. But it would also require those who visit communities that are not their own would have to be on their best behavior as not to offend that which they visit.

Lisagurl, you obviously know nothing about the California economy and government. Our problem here, in the power industry especially, has been a disastrous deregulation program that backfired and created a statewide energy crisis. We've spent years and years recovering from it. Meanwhile, the Governator is terribly mishandling the budget, and we labor under tax rules left over from the "Taxpayers' Revolution" days which require a 2/3rds majority in the state legislature to raise taxes - making balancing the budget under increasing budgetary needs practically impossible. Our education system is in crisis, our prison system has been ballooning for years, and yet the tax rules are so difficult to repeal that there seems to be no good way out of the mess.

You don't seem to understand what the welfare state is for. It exists to prevent suffering, not to feed the greed of individuals. It is true that some people abuse it, but the solution to welfare abuse is to implement a better-designed system, not to get rid of the system altogether.

As for forced/unfree labor, it is true that there are more people in slavery and other coerced/unfree labor situations around the world than at any other time in history; however,  they make up a smaller portion of the world population than they ever have - a product of population growth. As with other problems, I would ask you: what would you have us do, if not institute government regulation and try to enforce it as best we can? Is the solution to people running red lights really to remove the red lights? Surely you don't think that slaveholders will simply release their slaves voluntarily.

The book on education you linked to looks by all accounts to be a gross misreading of a variety of sources, theories and studies, from John Dewey downwards, plugged into a hysterical, ax-grinding conspiracy theory about evil socialists ruining American education. Pardon me if I don't waste my time reading it.

I will not be swayed by the opinions of others unless they make sense to me.  I've read many books but I've never read one that I completely believe in its entire content.  For every book or article one may present, there is one or more out there to contradict it.  No one person has all the answers.  But there are certain basic principles that work, like equality.

Going back to the "good old days"?  No thanks!  The days when social repression ruled?  The days when the majority stomped out any minorities it didn't like?  The days when we "put people in their places"?  You can have it!

The extreme right wants things to go back to the good old days.  They talk about being the party of change but all they want to change is encouraging progress.  They want "those people" put back in their boxes and out of sight.  They can't stand diversity. They embrace sameness, a world where everyone acts and dresses alike, where everyone marches in lockstep.  That's not what I want. 

My message to the teabaggers: It's not my cup of tea.

" has been a disastrous deregulation program that backfired and created a statewide energy crisis."
=============
Your problem has been the environmental refusal to build power plants and power lines. Which left you no choose but to buy power from middle men.

"that there seems to be no good way out of the mess."
============
There is a simple way out of it  Get rid of the prop system and then reduce entitlement programs like education, health care, welfare and other's. Then start population control by getting rid of illegal workers. then get rid of the three strike law. Make the prisoners support their own needs such as growing their own food and making their own cloths etc.

"It exists to prevent suffering, not to feed the greed of individuals."

-------
Suffering is necessary when people do irrational things. Let them suffer. It is the best teacher.


"Is the solution to people running red lights really to remove the red lights?"

Better yet remove insurance. So when they break their car they will have to walk. Insurance makes people not be responsible. Just as the health care will allow people to do thing sthat cause health problems knowing they can get help. It takes away personal responsibility.

---

Post Merge: April 12, 2010, 05:24:53 PM

---

QuoteNo one person has all the answers.  But there are certain basic principles that work, like equality.

The simple fact is that people are not equal. Everyone is different and has different attributes some are valued by society and some are not.

QuoteThey talk about being the party of change but all they want to change is encouraging progress.

The world can not have progress. The resources are being used faster than they can be renewed. We are headed for a lower standard of living especially if we do not reduce population.  You do not have to worry about the majority social repression because many will die of the over population by natural events as in the past such as war, disease, starvation, lack of water etc.