World Politics

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by 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.

how about crime?

I also disagree that the government should give out handouts to people who don't wish to help themselves.

fair enough... but which is worse:

1) a system that helps everyone who really needs it, but some uneedy take advantage of

2) a system that is extremely hard to take advantage of but, as a result, leaves many of the needy wanting

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

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.

it's simple economics... make a desired commodity more scarce, the price goes up

you could still get any drug you wanted anywhere in the US at the height of the drug war, but you had to pay three times as much... and where does an addict get this kind of money? usually crime

less people polled in the 80s reported using drugs... but given the stigma at the time, that is not surprising

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

how about crime?

Crime isn't only related to poverty though. There are many reasons for crime - the biggest is growing up with a lack of respect for others. Crime also develops out of boredom and because of low self esteem. I've known many people who were poor and didn't resort to crime. Crime is more about education - than poverty. I'd rather invest the money into schools and educate peole - than give them handouts.

fair enough... but which is worse:

1) a system that helps everyone who really needs it, but some uneedy take advantage of

2) a system that is extremely hard to take advantage of but, as a result, leaves many of the needy wanting

The first one in my opinion is worse - because it makes people lazy. Why should people work when they can live off the system? That's why in France a frenchman takes almost a year longer to get a job than in the US. They don't have to go get a job right away =- because their benefits pay out longer. No incentive to get a job.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

it's simple economics... make a desired commodity more scarce, the price goes up

you could still get any drug you wanted anywhere in the US at the height of the drug war, but you had to pay three times as much... and where does an addict get this kind of money? usually crime

Well then - why don't we just give drugs out for free? I've lived in Oregon - the drug use there is ridiculous. They have very liberal laws there regarding drug use - including giving out meth to addicts. During the winter there was a line all the way from west portland - over the bridge - into east portland, of homeless and drug addicts waiting to get into a shelter. Liberal laws don't make drug use less or help people who are a drug addict - it only makes it worse.

I have a friend who is a heroin addict (claims he hasn't taken any in a while). I've seen first hand what drugs can do.

less people polled in the 80s reported using drugs... but given the stigma at the time, that is not surprising

Ahhh I see - the old argument "I believe the polls that support my opinion -but your polls are flawed because...." Give me a break. Polls are anonymous - and also - there are many other ways to see if drug use goes down or not - besides polls.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

The first one in my opinion is worse - because it makes people lazy. Why should people work when they can live off the system? That's why in France a frenchman takes almost a year longer to get a job than in the US. They don't have to go get a job right away =- because their benefits pay out longer. No incentive to get a job.

that's the essence of our difference in opinion i guess... i'd chose 1)

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

that's the essence of our difference in opinion i guess... i'd chose 1)

You think living off the work of others is good for society too? We wouldn't have many of the things today - if it wasn't for the reward people recieve when they take risks. When people have an incentive to go out and make a better life for themselves - without waiting for someone to hand it to them - they in turn - end up contributing MORE to society as a whole.

As for your second choose you wrote - I ignored your little "leaves many of the needy wanting" add on - because just because something is difficult to get - doesn't mean that the there woudl be MANY needy left wanting. You get things in relation to how much effort you put in.

[EarthBound]

He made the remarks before a visit to Paris Tuesday by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice aimed in part at repairing ties damaged by the U.S.-led war in Iraq, which France opposed.

"The moment has come for a fresh start in our relations," Barnier said in an interview with the French daily Liberation which was conducted late last week.

"Alliance doesn't signify allegiance," he said, underlining the need for a mutual partnership. "A renewed transatlantic alliance must be based on two pillars (European and American)."

Here's the link

I'm tired of the leading countries bashing upon each other, but it's hard to ignore France’s need to put us in the "Jethro" category every time they "FEEL" threatened (like the fact we produce great wines, good beer, awesome cheeses, tasty breads, beat them figure skating quite a bit, OH and in a word --LANCE ARMSTRONG...LOL.....of course I think we antagonize them as well. Over here in the states whenever we start getting a bit Viva La France they somehow manage to make some snide remark that builds bad feelings again. Perception Perception Perception... They remind me of the Older sister that REFUSES to acknowledge we have something worth saying or doing WITHOUT their “much needed” approval. (we’d be the snotty little brother to them of course) RANT RANT RANT...LOL

I'd like our country to have better relations with them...but I'm not exactly hopeful. We'd have to have a different President that liked to smooch with everyone instead of "Cowboy Up - Bush" (who seems to think big and resent anyone who doesn't). AnyHoo, since I'm ALL for the US but I'm too smart think imaginary boundaries make us anything other than Earthlings I'll keep mooting with the everyone from everywhere until "someone" figures out how to get everyone playing nice in the sandbox (and keep Murdering Thugs from peeing in it...did I say that?)

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

You think living off the work of others is good for society too? We wouldn't have many of the things today - if it wasn't for the reward people recieve when they take risks. When people have an incentive to go out and make a better life for themselves - without waiting for someone to hand it to them - they in turn - end up contributing MORE to society as a whole.

Taking risks will still give rewards much greater than not taking risks. Some people will try to live off the government simply because they don't want to work, but I believe most people look down upon such behaviour. And don't you think that people will be more willing to take risks if they have a system to back them up in case they fail?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by EarthBound

Here's the link

I'm tired of the leading countries bashing upon each other, but it's hard to ignore France’s need to put us in the "Jethro" category every time they "FEEL" threatened (like the fact we produce great wines, good beer, awesome cheeses, tasty breads, beat them figure skating quite a bit, OH and in a word --LANCE ARMSTRONG...LOL.....of course I think we antagonize them as well. Over here in the states whenever we start getting a bit Viva La France they somehow manage to make some snide remark that builds bad feelings again. Perception Perception Perception... They remind me of the Older sister that REFUSES to acknowledge we have something worth saying or doing WITHOUT their “much needed” approval. (we’d be the snotty little brother to them of course) RANT RANT RANT...LOL

Sorry - I don't buy the "little annoying brother" analogy. France is more suffering from a severe case of jealousy. It's more like we're the rich young powerful country - and they're left with "well 200 years ago we were this this and this..."

I'd like our country to have better relations with them...but I'm not exactly hopeful. We'd have to have a different President that liked to smooch with everyone instead of "Cowboy Up - Bush" (who seems to think big and resent anyone who doesn't). AnyHoo, since I'm ALL for the US but I'm too smart think imaginary boundaries make us anything other than Earthlings I'll keep mooting with the everyone from everywhere until "someone" figures out how to get everyone playing nice in the sandbox (and keep Murdering Thugs from peeing in it...did I say that?)

As for this being Bush's fault - that's bullshit. French/US relations have ALWAYS been strained. Just because we are allies - does NOT require us to do everything that they wish. It's a two way street. If France or Europe expect our respect - then they should be respectful of us too. I don't want a president that's going to kiss their ass or when they say "Jump!" - our president asks "How high?" OUr president is elected to represent the interests of AMERICA - not Europe - that is why they have their governments and representatives.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Falagar

Taking risks will still give rewards much greater than not taking risks. Some people will try to live off the government simply because they don't want to work, but I believe most people look down upon such behaviour. And don't you think that people will be more willing to take risks if they have a system to back them up in case they fail?

Not if they can't benefit from the risks. It has been demonstrated time and time again - that it makes people lazy - not a people who takes risks. The rate of return is directly porportional to the amount of risk one takes. That's why penny stocks can be a windfall and a person can become a billionaire by hitting the next Microsoft as a penny stock - while at the same time - you can end up losing everything if the investment goes south instead.

[Falagar]

I'm not sure which cases you're refering to. Anyway, people will benefit from risks whether or not poor people get money from the government (mostly to help them find jobs on their own). And they still have to work, even if they get some support.

The rate of return is directly porportional to the amount of risk one takes.

Thus people who risk everything will get much if they succeed. People who fail will loose everything. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to help them up again.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Falagar

I'm not sure which cases you're refering to. Anyway, people will benefit from risks whether or not poor people get money from the government (mostly to help them find jobs on their own). And they still have to work, even if they get some support.

Thjere is helping people who are in a time of need and their are the programs that allow people just to live off the system. As for peopel still taking risks evn with outrageous social programs - that isn't necessarily true. If 50% of my hard work is going to go to the damn government - I might as well get a job - then take the risk to develop a company that has the potential of hiring hundreds of people. People like to look at companies and rich people as the bad guys - but they got their start down at the bottom too. Microsoft - for how much I hate them - did come from nothing at one point and now hires millions of people throughout the world. Bill Gates did that because he knew he could benefit from taking a risk - instead of finishing school and just working for someone else.

As for people still working - even if they get support - that isn't always true. It's a requirement in NJ that people must be looking for a job, or going to school. I think for welfare - it should be a requirement that you do public servicve work so many hours a day - unless you are seriously disabled and just can not work. But I feel anyone living off the government who can work - should be put to work in the public sector - even if it's picking trash off the side of the road or cleaning up parks (I would prefer that it would be something a bit more educational though).

Thus people who risk everything will get much if they succeed. People who fail will loose everything. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to help them up again.

I'm nto saying that. I'm saying about the people who just live off the system - because system allows it. When you are guaranteed a job - how hard are you REALLY going to work at? When you are guaranteed a check in the mail - are you really going to bust your ass looking for a job - if you are able to make ends meet with it? It's a fact that the french take longer to get a job after losing theirs - than americans do. One of the reasons is that they don't bother going out looking for one right away - because they get unemployment benefits for a much longer time.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

As for your second choose you wrote - I ignored your little "leaves many of the needy wanting" add on - because just because something is difficult to get - doesn't mean that the there woudl be MANY needy left wanting. You get things in relation to how much effort you put in.

how about "leaves ANY of the needy wanting"... i know people who DO work very hard, but because of their upbringing, the neighborhood they live in, the amount of education they were able to receive, or sometimes even just the amount of intelligence they were born with... they must work 60+ hours a week and depend upon some forms of welfare help, be it food stamps or healthcare

i don't like handouts either, and i think that people should work for what they get... but if the best 40-hour a week job they can hope to get is not enough to consistantly put food on their table and provide education and basic healthcare for themselves and their children... i think it is in society's best interest to make up for the difference... even if some take advantage of the system

in the USA 12.5% (about 36 million) of 3-person families in 2003 made under 15k a year... do you truely believe they are just all lazy?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

the main point is that most people that receive benefit truly need it, and the few that don't, at least in this country, get caught eventually, and they are then required to pay back to the state any opayments they received erroneously. the media is creating a moral panic with their claims that this many people do this, and that many people do that, the rates of benefit-cheats are not as high as people make out.

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Thjere is helping people who are in a time of need and their are the programs that allow people just to live off the system.

Of course, but it depend a bit on where you think the line goes between "help in time of need" and "living off the system". I think most people who receive support really need help, and actually want to get a job and participate.

As for people still working - even if they get support - that isn't always true. It's a requirement in NJ that people must be looking for a job, or going to school. I think for welfare - it should be a requirement that you do public servicve work so many hours a day - unless you are seriously disabled and just can not work. But I feel anyone living off the government who can work - should be put to work in the public sector - even if it's picking trash off the side of the road or cleaning up parks (I would prefer that it would be something a bit more educational though).

Of course, not everyone who get support work. I believe most of them try to get one though. The fact that they get some support means that they can use more time to find a work that suits them. I half-way agree with you on the point that those who receive support also should do some work in public sector, but they also need som time which they can use to look for work.

Have a test to study for, don't have time for more.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Falagar

Of course, not everyone who get support work. I believe most of them try to get one though. The fact that they get some support means that they can use more time to find a work that suits them. I half-way agree with you on the point that those who receive support also should do some work in public sector, but they also need som time which they can use to look for work.

i think one problem is too many programs have a dollar cutoff threshold... i.e. you make $20k or less and get all sorts of assistance... you make $20,001 and you're out... so you end up in a situation where you need a raise in income of 30-50% to actually gain a real benefit from it

as a result, people cheat their way below the threshold until they can make quite a bit more... and they get use to cheating... a more staggered system would be much more effective

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

as a nice topic to bump with:

Japan has decided that princess Aiko(i think that's her name ) will succede prince Taruhito, and so the emperor after the next emperor will be an empress for the first time in over 200 years

[Linaewen]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

There probably are people that do hate Mao or Castro, but I don't think they post here because China heavily restricts internet access (I don't know about Cuba). *Cheers for Peacefire.org*

*Pokes head in*

Actually, I was in China recently and I can say that I did have access to all the sites I visited, including Entmoot. I guess they're not big Tolkien fans over there.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

Japan has decided that princess Aiko(i think that's her name ) will succede prince Taruhito, and so the emperor after the next emperor will be an empress for the first time in over 200 years

But that hasn't been decided yet, has it? They're still revising law that limits accession to the thrones to males and even though government sources are optimistic, the law hasn't been changed yet.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

But that hasn't been decided yet, has it? They're still revising law that limits accession to the thrones to males and even though government sources are optimistic, the law hasn't been changed yet.

my sources (the guardian) said the law had been changed