"If we do not make an effort, we cannot put an end to this scourge"
-
What's in it for me; what do I care if other people starve?
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
Well, the universities do need the money, but the REAL problem is the totally absurd target of 50% of school leavers attending uni. This is total madness. Not only does this ridiculous target mean that more funding is required, it also means a degree becomes devalued! In fact, this is already starting to happen - to qualifications in general - A levels, degrees, etc. are not worth the same to industry as they were 10 years ago. Some companies are unofficially penalising students form the old polytechnics, citing that their degrees are not the same as from other more established universities. University should be for the brightest and best - no matter the social background - perhaps the top 10% for example. They SHOULD be for the intellectual elite quite frankly (regardless of how much your parents earn). I am more than happy to help pay for the best of each generation to attend uni - bring back the grant if possible too - but I do not want my tax pounds paying for people to do worthless degrees for the hell of it (or so they can "attend the school of life"). If someone wants to do a degree in fucking pop music studies then they should pay for it. Degrees in engineering, science/medicine, etc. are different - they will actually benefit society. But, if the goverment insists on this crazy target of 50%, then they get my reluctant support for top-up fees. I don't want to pay for legions of students - many of whom will not have a job when they finish because the degree they have chosen is, well, rubbish - to attend univewrsity if they are not going to be helping society. Business is screaming for more people to do vocational courses, or to be trained on the job - this I am happy for my tax money to help with as it has an immidiate benefit to the economy. I am totally amazed how New Labour can introduce a Thatcherite policy despite promising not to just 2 years ago AND how the Conservatives can then stand up and oppose it! What the fuck is going on?
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I am totally amazed how New Labour can introduce a Thatcherite policy despite promising not to just 2 years ago AND how the Conservatives can then stand up and oppose it! What the f*** is going on? The depoliticization of politics itself and the increase of "personality politics" - something we're seeing all over Westernised civilizations. The UK Tories, US Democrats, and similar Oppositions in Australia, Russia and France AFAIK, are looking to get leaders who have a chance of beating the incumbent based on image, and irregardless of policy, rather than a leader who will push forward the policies of that party. I think this is most obvious in the States, but it seems to afflict the Tories and Lib Dems here to an extent too. This results in the situation where the incumbents can do what the hell they like given enough weaselling and "spin" to the public and media, because they've at some point managed to discredit their opposition even more so (and frequently, the opposition discredit themselves - look at the Tory leadership fiascoes since Major lost the '97 election)
Ian Darling "The different versions of the UN*X brand operating system are numbered in a logical sequence: 5, 6, 7, 2, 2.9, 3, 4.0, III, 4.1, V, 4.2, V.2, and 4.3" - Alan Filipski
-
This seems to overlook the fact that lots of money that is allocated to the needy - never gets there. Due to corruption, tin pot little dictators and the like. Finding more money isn't the answer. Making sure the money that is currently been used to solve these problems is better used. Michael But you know when the truth is told, That you can get what you want or you can just get old, Your're going to kick off before you even get halfway through. When will you realise... Vienna waits for you? - "The Stranger," Billy Joel
-
Because it's also your interest these people don't starve. Don't believe it has or will have no consequence on your everyday life.
In amongst the statues Stare at nothing in The garden moves...
KaЯl wrote: Because it's also your interest these people don't starve. Don't believe it has or will have no consequence on your everyday life. When people start arguing that you should be altruistic because it is in your self interest, then defeat has been conceded (the argument is 90% rubbish anyway since altruism toward people remote from you is rarely in your self interest). People should be altruistic out of human sympathy and a sense of justice. If those are lacking, then altruism is pretty much a lost cause. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I am totally amazed how New Labour can introduce a Thatcherite policy despite promising not to just 2 years ago AND how the Conservatives can then stand up and oppose it! What the f*** is going on? The depoliticization of politics itself and the increase of "personality politics" - something we're seeing all over Westernised civilizations. The UK Tories, US Democrats, and similar Oppositions in Australia, Russia and France AFAIK, are looking to get leaders who have a chance of beating the incumbent based on image, and irregardless of policy, rather than a leader who will push forward the policies of that party. I think this is most obvious in the States, but it seems to afflict the Tories and Lib Dems here to an extent too. This results in the situation where the incumbents can do what the hell they like given enough weaselling and "spin" to the public and media, because they've at some point managed to discredit their opposition even more so (and frequently, the opposition discredit themselves - look at the Tory leadership fiascoes since Major lost the '97 election)
Ian Darling "The different versions of the UN*X brand operating system are numbered in a logical sequence: 5, 6, 7, 2, 2.9, 3, 4.0, III, 4.1, V, 4.2, V.2, and 4.3" - Alan Filipski
That is so depressing because it means that policy comes second to the leaders charisma. Does this mean that an extreme-left or extreme-right party could end up in power because their leader looks good on TV or is a better public speaker than any of the opposition? Scary if true.
-
The notion that an economy can be taxed to prosperity is utter Marxist propaganda. The biggest problem with the world's economy today is over-taxation, not under-taxation. And the irony is that the people who are hurt most by the economic inefficiency produced by over-taxation are the poor themselves. The real reason for taxation is that it gives an elitist minority control over the behavior of large masses of people. Taxation gives the leftist elite the power to dictate behavior to people, and that is why that promote the completely ludicrous notion that we need an international tax of some kind. The people of the world, especially the poor, have got to be weened from the expectation that it is the responsibility of government to care for them. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
Where's the thumbs up icon? Got my 5!
-
President Lyndon Johnson tried something like this called "The Great Society", and failed miserably.
"We have done so much in the last 2 years, and it doesn't happen by standing around with your finger in your ear, hoping everyone thinks that that's nice." - Donald Rumsfeld
Jason Henderson
blogThe "Great Society" didn't fail miserably. Everybody forgets the grinding, crushing, poverty in the rural south in the years before the mid-60s. Things have improved since then. That doesn't mean that there aren't still poor people... but there is no comparison between today's por people and those from the early 60s and before.
-
"The fight against poverty is a moral obligation for those who govern all the countries in the world," the Brazilian president and former trade unionist told journalists. "I would like us to have the strength to guarantee a percentage of all money circulating in the world," he added.[^]
In amongst the statues Stare at nothing in The garden moves...
If I ever become homeless, I'm going to stand on the corner with a sign that reads, "The fight against poverty is a moral obligation". :-D ------------------------------------------ Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. In any debate, Hitler's opinion on the subject is automatically the evil one, so it had better be contrary to the side you're arguing.
-
KaЯl wrote: Because it's also your interest these people don't starve. Don't believe it has or will have no consequence on your everyday life. When people start arguing that you should be altruistic because it is in your self interest, then defeat has been conceded (the argument is 90% rubbish anyway since altruism toward people remote from you is rarely in your self interest). People should be altruistic out of human sympathy and a sense of justice. If those are lacking, then altruism is pretty much a lost cause. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
John Carson wrote: When people start arguing that you should be altruistic because it is in your self interest, then defeat has been conceded (the argument is 90% rubbish anyway since altruism toward people remote from you is rarely in your self interest). Never heard about the Marshall Plan, I suppose? Helping the poor countries to reach a new level of developement is the best way to boost the world economy in a gigantic way. 3/4 of the humanity is out of the game, why don't you see the interest to make them in?
In amongst the statues Stare at nothing in The garden moves...
-
If I ever become homeless, I'm going to stand on the corner with a sign that reads, "The fight against poverty is a moral obligation". :-D ------------------------------------------ Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. In any debate, Hitler's opinion on the subject is automatically the evil one, so it had better be contrary to the side you're arguing.
-
Well, the universities do need the money, but the REAL problem is the totally absurd target of 50% of school leavers attending uni. This is total madness. Not only does this ridiculous target mean that more funding is required, it also means a degree becomes devalued! In fact, this is already starting to happen - to qualifications in general - A levels, degrees, etc. are not worth the same to industry as they were 10 years ago. Some companies are unofficially penalising students form the old polytechnics, citing that their degrees are not the same as from other more established universities. University should be for the brightest and best - no matter the social background - perhaps the top 10% for example. They SHOULD be for the intellectual elite quite frankly (regardless of how much your parents earn). I am more than happy to help pay for the best of each generation to attend uni - bring back the grant if possible too - but I do not want my tax pounds paying for people to do worthless degrees for the hell of it (or so they can "attend the school of life"). If someone wants to do a degree in fucking pop music studies then they should pay for it. Degrees in engineering, science/medicine, etc. are different - they will actually benefit society. But, if the goverment insists on this crazy target of 50%, then they get my reluctant support for top-up fees. I don't want to pay for legions of students - many of whom will not have a job when they finish because the degree they have chosen is, well, rubbish - to attend univewrsity if they are not going to be helping society. Business is screaming for more people to do vocational courses, or to be trained on the job - this I am happy for my tax money to help with as it has an immidiate benefit to the economy. I am totally amazed how New Labour can introduce a Thatcherite policy despite promising not to just 2 years ago AND how the Conservatives can then stand up and oppose it! What the fuck is going on?
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: but the REAL problem is the totally absurd target of 50% of school leavers attending uni. Picking any arbitrary number like 50% is idiotness, In one country 60% might be appropriate while another 20% in a given yr. However it always depends on the economics of supply and demand like any resource. Also I think a lot of students at leaving age are not ready for a University life and would be better joining the workforce for a few yrs. Then after may be picking up a trade or lifeskills, they could be sponsored through Uni. Looking back I should never have gone to Uni straight from school. How the hell is a 16 or 17 yr old know what they really want to study for a vocation anyway. Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
-
That is so depressing because it means that policy comes second to the leaders charisma. Does this mean that an extreme-left or extreme-right party could end up in power because their leader looks good on TV or is a better public speaker than any of the opposition? Scary if true.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Scary if true. Then be scared, because it's been true for a while now. Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
-
If I ever become homeless, I'm going to stand on the corner with a sign that reads, "The fight against poverty is a moral obligation". :-D ------------------------------------------ Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. In any debate, Hitler's opinion on the subject is automatically the evil one, so it had better be contrary to the side you're arguing.
I think that would turn most people off. You should instead go with the old stand-by "Why lie, I need a beer". I believe that I can get you one of these signs from the smelly gentleman on the corner of 14th & Techwood on my way home today... :) -- Russell Morris "So, broccoli, mother says you're good for me... but I'm afraid I'm no good for you!" - Stewy
-
"The fight against poverty is a moral obligation for those who govern all the countries in the world," the Brazilian president and former trade unionist told journalists. "I would like us to have the strength to guarantee a percentage of all money circulating in the world," he added.[^]
In amongst the statues Stare at nothing in The garden moves...
Possibly the biggest fallacy in all wealth redistribution schemes is the assumption that if the wealth of the world were evenly distributed, everyone would have a quality life. The first problem with this is that the average income in the world is very near starvation level. No matter how you cut it, the result of equal distribution of wealth would leave a world where no one had the means to do more than just survive. The second biggest fallacy is the tacit assumption that it is the duty of governments to do this "for us", coupled with the assumption that govenments would not cheat and just keep a little bigger share for their own, to insure there own continued power... All that the proposed tax would create is more wealth for tax accountants, lawyers, civil servants and the creation of yet another criminal enterprise devoted to avoiding the tax. Economies are much like thermodynamic systems, they depend to a large degree on "temperature differences", and like them reaching a state of maximum entropy is not a particularly desirable outcome. Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
-
If I ever become homeless, I'm going to stand on the corner with a sign that reads, "The fight against poverty is a moral obligation". :-D ------------------------------------------ Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. In any debate, Hitler's opinion on the subject is automatically the evil one, so it had better be contrary to the side you're arguing.
Brit wrote: If I ever become homeless, I'm going to stand on the corner with a sign that reads, "The fight against poverty is a moral obligation". One would think you might be better off seeking gainful employment, so that you could cease to be homeless. Standing around with moralizing signs is does not pay very well... Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
-
John Carson wrote: When people start arguing that you should be altruistic because it is in your self interest, then defeat has been conceded (the argument is 90% rubbish anyway since altruism toward people remote from you is rarely in your self interest). Never heard about the Marshall Plan, I suppose? Helping the poor countries to reach a new level of developement is the best way to boost the world economy in a gigantic way. 3/4 of the humanity is out of the game, why don't you see the interest to make them in?
In amongst the statues Stare at nothing in The garden moves...
Poverty is the best tool to cut down costs for the rich. Why take that away? Best for all isn't, by a longshot, best for those who have money. -- He just smiled and gave me a vegemite sandwich.
-
I think that would turn most people off. You should instead go with the old stand-by "Why lie, I need a beer". I believe that I can get you one of these signs from the smelly gentleman on the corner of 14th & Techwood on my way home today... :) -- Russell Morris "So, broccoli, mother says you're good for me... but I'm afraid I'm no good for you!" - Stewy
Russell Morris wrote: "Why lie, I need a beer" I gave 5 bucks to a guy in SF for wearing a sign like that. He was very pleased. :) -- He just smiled and gave me a vegemite sandwich.
-
The "Great Society" didn't fail miserably. Everybody forgets the grinding, crushing, poverty in the rural south in the years before the mid-60s. Things have improved since then. That doesn't mean that there aren't still poor people... but there is no comparison between today's por people and those from the early 60s and before.
John McIlroy wrote: The "Great Society" didn't fail miserably. Wrong. Now you have big city ghettos populated by single parent familes, breeding like rats, because each child brought in more dollars. So, we dismantled personal responsibility and created inner city breeding farms - because the "Great Society" got what it paid for through welfare targeted to help those poor folk. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times
-
I am convinced that the less tax you pay then the more you spend on good and services that, in turn, generates wealth and helps everyone else. High taxation stifles growth and creates generation after generation of people who think it's their birthright to sit around doint sweet FA ("the government won't let us starve"). When I was younger I flirted with the ideals of Socialism ("tax the rich! redistribute the wealth") but with age comes wisdom (or pragmatism at least) I guess. Tellingly, when the UK had its mosr left-wing government (the Labour goverment of the late 70s) it was also the worst time for this country since WWII. Taxation at 99% (yep - that's why all our rock stars left us!), the unions in charge, lowest productivity in the West, etc. etc. I can't believe that people are being forced the same pill by the current government - and they are falling for it! What's worse is that now, in the noughties, taxation is by the back door - at least previous Labour governments were honest about wanting all your wages! Give it a few years and we'll have to give ALL out money to the chancellor who in turn will give us fucking pocket money.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I am convinced that the less tax you pay then the more you spend on good and services that, in turn, generates wealth and helps everyone else. That is precisely the point. People spend the money they have worked for more productively than the government spends money it has confiscated. Free people buy what they need, then they buy what they want, then they save or invest the rest, which gets used as a collective communal asset for generating even more wealth by becoming invested in ever larger projects, each of which goes on to become wealth generating operations. The more money the government syphons off from that process, at any point (wealthy or middle class), to buy votes for themselves from people who have decided that they simply don't want the responsibility of taking care of themselves, the less efficiently that process functions, and the poorer a overall society becomes. As the society becomes poorer, the less capable it is of caring for the needs of those at the bottom. Conservatives are not hard hearted towards the poor, we simply believe the best way to care for the poor is to maximize their opportunity to care for themselves by keeping the economy functioning as efficiently as possible. That means fewer taxes up and down the economic spectrum. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I am convinced that the less tax you pay then the more you spend on good and services that, in turn, generates wealth and helps everyone else. That is precisely the point. People spend the money they have worked for more productively than the government spends money it has confiscated. Free people buy what they need, then they buy what they want, then they save or invest the rest, which gets used as a collective communal asset for generating even more wealth by becoming invested in ever larger projects, each of which goes on to become wealth generating operations. The more money the government syphons off from that process, at any point (wealthy or middle class), to buy votes for themselves from people who have decided that they simply don't want the responsibility of taking care of themselves, the less efficiently that process functions, and the poorer a overall society becomes. As the society becomes poorer, the less capable it is of caring for the needs of those at the bottom. Conservatives are not hard hearted towards the poor, we simply believe the best way to care for the poor is to maximize their opportunity to care for themselves by keeping the economy functioning as efficiently as possible. That means fewer taxes up and down the economic spectrum. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
Extraordinarily well said, Stan.:-D Heard in Bullhead City - "You haven't lost your girl -
you've just lost your turn..." [sigh] So true...