World Politics

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i also can speak from experience,

if it were not for the welfare state system, unfortunately my family would have been well below the poverty line many times, and so I wholeheartedly, ifyou haven't guessed already, support the welfatre system, and left-of-centre politics

[inked]

Other than nausea-type reactions to the Germany item, does anyone think that the logic of the move is errant or *gasp* immoral, and on what, if any, grounds?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by inked

Other than nausea-type reactions to the Germany item, does anyone think that the logic of the move is errant or *gasp* immoral, and on what, if any, grounds?

well, obviously people should have a choice over what career they want, but to say to her that her unemployment benefit has been stopped because she won't sell her body is ridiculous IMHO

[Nurvingiel]

Well of course the taxes here are high too, but people are not taxed beyond their means.

Also, there are many other factors to GDP besides taxes. Taxes is also not a direct influence, but rather, would affect consumer investment. Imports and Exports, however are direct factors.

Major economic trends, 1980–2004

Like many other highly developed industrial countries, Sweden has experienced weaker growth in recent decades. Between 1980 and 2003, GDP rose by an average of 2.0% annually. This can be compared with 3.3% in the 1950s and 4.6% in the 1960s.

Because of weaker growth, per capita GDP has increased more slowly in Sweden than in other countries. In 1970, Sweden’s per capita GDP exceeded the average in 15 EU countries by about 24%, after adjusting for differences in price levels. This lead had shrunk to about 6% in 2001. In krona terms, per capita GDP was more than SEK 250,000 in 2001, which at that time was equivalent to about USD 25,000.

GDP has increased less per year than it has, but 2%/year growth is still not shabby.

That quote was from this article.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

if it were not for the welfare state system, unfortunately my family would have been well below the poverty line many times, and so I wholeheartedly, ifyou haven't guessed already, support the welfatre system, and left-of-centre politics

Yeah - and when I was gorwing up my parents couldn't even afford to buy me a bike - I had a hand me down from my cousin who was a girl. My parents used money they were saving for our vacation that year to get me a bike so the kids in the neighborhood would stop making fun of me. When I was growing up - my mother made chop meat go further by loading it up with bread - which I could not stand. They worked hard though to make a better life for us. My father went from that to starting a multi-million dollar printing company.

Some people do need help - and it should be there for EXTREME cases - but generally people just want a free ride and live off the system. In my opinion - it makes people lazy. And I am not saying that your family is lazy or anything - I'm just a similar experience. We lived in an apartment when I was a baby which my mother said had cockroaches hanging from the ceiling and stuff.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Well of course the taxes here are high too, but people are not taxed beyond their means.

Also, there are many other factors to GDP besides taxes. Taxes is also not a direct influence, but rather, would affect consumer investment. Imports and Exports, however are direct factors.

Taxes affect more than just what people are able to buy.

GDP has increased less per year than it has, but 2%/year growth is still not shabby.

That quote was from this article.

2% growth here is considered relatively weak. While Germany and France have 10%+ unemployment rate - here Bush was being attacked for the US unemployment rate of 5.6% and a growth rate of 2+%. Who is going to pay for all the increased costs to the social programs? France's health care system is practically bankrupt. Tyhey're been cutting benefits - or trying to. They tried to pass taxes onto cigaretts and alchohol to pay for the increased health care benefits - but then business owners went to the streets and marched. So what they ended up doing - is they kept the tax, and now give the businesses a credit on their taxes. So the people pay the taxes - the businesses pay it to the government and then the government gives the taxes back to the businesses at the end of the year. So now - the problem that instituted the taxes to begin with is still there. But the people are still taxed.

It's my money - I worked for it - i should get to keep it.

[edit]Looked it up - Bush was being beat up for an economy with a 3.1% growth rate.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

of course, if there were no taxes, how would gov'ts be able to find their little wars and so on?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Other than nausea-type reactions to the Germany item, does anyone think that the logic of the move is errant or *gasp* immoral, and on what, if any, grounds?

i'm not too keen on any form of "forced" employment... and taking away someone's ability to survive is forced... the receipt of welfare should not be tied to employment... and it should also be scaled in a way that makes partial-employment and option... instead of some "cut-off" income that only encourages abuse

it is more of a threat to a country's general well-being to have some of it's populace be dirt-poor... it is a fact of life that some will take advantage of the system... but many do not... who should be the priority?

and even those that do... would it be better to leave them no resort but crime?

btw, if it's legal in germany... it's not really immoral, is it

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

of course, if there were no taxes, how would gov'ts be able to find their little wars and so on?

I didn't say no taxes - but socialism encourages HIGH taxes - there is a difference. The federal government's main purpose was for the Defense of the US - not to be a nanny state.

if the Europe continues to move toward socialism - it will collapse because the money won't be there to support and everyone will be against any cut backs (as they already are) to save some of the required social programs.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i'm not too keen on any form of "forced" employment... and taking away someone's ability to survive is forced... the receipt of welfare should not be tied to employment... and it should also be scaled in a way that makes partial-employment and option... instead of some "cut-off" income that only encourages abuse

it is more of a threat to a country's general well-being to have some of it's populace be dirt-poor... it is a fact of life that some will take advantage of the system... but many do not... who should be the priority?

in the UK, you can only claim JSA (Job Seekers Allowance) for 16 weeks before having it stopped completely, and if you don't go to a job interview they arrange for you, or abything like that, they cut it completely, which IMHO is wrong, although if you are claiming incapacity, they dont stop your JSA

[jerseydevil]

btw - NJ in November 2004 had an unmployment rate of 4.4% while the US average was - 5.4%.

New Jersey Economic Indicators (pdf)

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

in the UK, you can only claim JSA (Job Seekers Allowance) for 16 weeks before having it stopped completely, and if you don't go to a job interview they arrange for you, or abything like that, they cut it completely, which IMHO is wrong, although if you are claiming incapacity, they dont stop your JSA

In NJ you must go to school or be actively looking for a job. You have a limit of 3 times you can be on unemployment I believe.

[inked]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i'm not too keen on any form of "forced" employment... and taking away someone's ability to survive is forced... the receipt of welfare should not be tied to employment... and it should also be scaled in a way that makes partial-employment and option... instead of some "cut-off" income that only encourages abuse

it is more of a threat to a country's general well-being to have some of it's populace be dirt-poor... it is a fact of life that some will take advantage of the system... but many do not... who should be the priority?

and even those that do... would it be better to leave them no resort but crime?

btw, if it's legal in germany... it's not really immoral, is it

Ahhh, Brownjenkins, I was hoping you'd note that. Given your society determines morality views, I rather doubt you can condemn either Germany or the allowance of poverty in any given society. After all the absence of prostitution and the presence of poverty makes Islamic countries what they are today? Right?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Northern Ireland Peace Process in Crisis (From AOL News)



The IRA has rejected claims it was involved in a £26.5m bank robbery

The IRA has withdrawn future co-operation on disarmament as the Northern Ireland peace process hit a new crisis.

The Provisionals said the scheme to put all its weapons completely and verifiably beyond use was no longer on the table, claiming the British and Irish governments had withdrawn their commitments and obligations.

The IRA has carried out three acts of decommissioning.

But in a new statement it denied it was an obstacle to a lasting and durable settlement over allegations of criminal activity.

A statement said: "We do not intend to remain quiescent within this unacceptable and unstable situation. It has tried our patience to the limit."

"Consequently, on reassessment of our position, and in response to the governments and others withdrawing their commitments, we are taking all our proposals off the table.

"It is our intention to closely monitor and to protect to the best of our ability the rights of Republicans and our support base."

The IRA has already rejected claims it was involved in the £26.5 million Northern Bank robbery but claims by police chiefs on both sides of the Irish border that it was, as well as allegations by the Republic's Taioseach Bertie Ahern that the Sinn Fein leadership of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness were aware of the planning of the raid have ruled out any lingering hope of getting the peace process back on track again.

The hard hitting statement did not however carry any threat of a return to full scale violence.

A Downing Street spokesman said they were not surprised by the IRA statement. "The fact remains that it was the IRA that did carry out the Northern Bank robbery and as the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach said yesterday therefore it is the IRA that is the sole obstacle to moving forward."

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Ahhh, Brownjenkins, I was hoping you'd note that. Given your society determines morality views, I rather doubt you can condemn either Germany or the allowance of poverty in any given society. After all the absence of prostitution and the presence of poverty makes Islamic countries what they are today? Right?

just because there is no such thing as "universal morals" does not mean you cannot criticize certain practices in certain societies... in fact, it is even easier to criticize, since the basis is reality, as opposed to scripture... some practices have proven themselves over and over again to be detrimental to societies and should be advised against... poverty encourages disease, crime, etc... problems that effect the entire populace... eliminating it would go a long way towards addressing many of the other problems society has to deal with... and the unfortunate reality that some will take advantage of such "welfare" programs is far outweighed by the cost of not providing for everyone

prostitution is a tough one though... every country has it, quite extensively in fact... if it is going to exist no matter what we do, is legality a better way to control the negative aspects of it? not a simple question

[inked]

Ah, the problems yours, brownjenkins, not mine. I can assert that prostitution is immoral because of its devaluation of sexual congress, its degradation of participants, and its destructive nature to society in myriads of contexts. I can also assert that poverty requires a response from individuals and socieal structures. Because there are moral absolutes which are recognized across humanity and religions. But, if Hitler wants to think and act otherwise, you have no basis to reject that society's mores. No more the forced prostitution of employables without other recourse. Your ranking of the "value" betrays your appeal to those absolute values you happen to endorse, but I may reject them (as the purveyors of prostitution in Germany apparently do). Then, how do you justify the imposition of your private morality upon a class of employers who are merely trying to get a productive society going?

From my point of view the forced selling of male or female persons under government order is immoral in any culture of society. Period. on your own argument you cannot assert that. And, if morality is as you say societally derived and the Germans derive this one, how dare you impose your system?

[brownjenkins]

as always, it's a matter of balance... what works best here and now... best being the peaceful survival of both the individual and society as a whole... perfection will never be achieved in our world, eventhough those with an absolute morality work under the assumption that such a thing is possible

do you disagree that poverty, in and of itself, is a cause of many of societies problems?

do you understand the idea that having to compromise one's moral stance on an issue is sometimes necessary to achieve the most workable, albiet not perfect, solution?

do you disagree that prostitution has always and will always be a part of society and that eliminating it is simply not a realistic goal?

to address an issue one must first view it realistically, when laws are designed with unachievable ideals in mind they often have a tendency to actually make the problem worse... a good example is the drug war in the US during the 80s... a noble "ideal" which resulted in higher drug prices, more drug-related crimes, and more deaths

btw, i did say i was against the "forced" part... i don't think subsistance-style welfare programs should have any qualifiers as far as employment goes

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Then, how do you justify the imposition of your private morality upon a class of employers who are merely trying to get a productive society going?

because it doesn't work

[jerseydevil]

Pverty is a problem - but it's also relative. Poverty will always exist - it can be reduced by certain degrees - like it has in the US. Even what is considered poor in the US have their own home - have 1 or 2 cars, etc. There is very little poverty in the US which would produce epedemic diseases like you describe. I also disagree that the government should give out handouts to people who don't wish to help themselves.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

to address an issue one must first view it realistically, when laws are designed with unachievable ideals in mind they often have a tendency to actually make the problem worse... a good example is the drug war in the US during the 80s... a noble "ideal" which resulted in higher drug prices, more drug-related crimes, and more deaths

Actually drug use went down under the "Just Say No to Drugs" program in 80's though - and went back up during the Clinton Adminstration. So it did have a positive affect - it it was in action. I also don't see where you can say that drug crime got worse - since the enactment of the war on drugs was BECAUSE of the rising crime rates related to drugs in the first place.