-
[QUOTE=Gray Lensman;3830709]I understand that, although (as an outsider looking in) the first vote was marred by 3 things. Lack of understanding as to the costs of leaving, overstatement (to outright lies) of the benefits of doing so, and outside propaganda - Russian skullduggery isn't limited to the US and former Soviet states. So, I think one do over is easily justified.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. However, I've met many people in Labour circles who have openly told me that even a second vote to leave would be protested against until it results in remain.
-
I opposed, after my Party took power in 2008, letting all the War Criminals of the Bush Administration, and all the criminals from Wall Street and the Banks off the hook.
They should have paid for their misdeeds.
-
[QUOTE=4saken1;3830336]For the record, I don't agree with mandatory drug testing. It proves nothing. I think we should provide everything to welfare recipients that they need to survive. [/quote]
Sure.
[QUOTE]I delivered mail in low income housing on and off for the better part of 10 years, however. Seeing a multitude of cars parked in the lots which were much nicer than the one I drive, satellite dishes attached to the outside of apartments, people sitting around getting high, and countless times seeing a three year old outside watching their 18 month old sibling out near the road while their parent is nowhere to be seen, these things have led me to believe that we are doing things wrong in this country. A huge percent of these people are content to live in the system for as long as they can. Welfare should be designed to try to get people off public assistance, not as a lifestyle choice.
[/QUOTE]
Oh dear lord.
[QUOTE]
I would actually like for us to spend MORE money on welfare, though, because I think the payoff of investing in people would yield huge returns and end the cycle of dependence. Free schooling, job training, childcare, and public transportation. Heck, I think if we could get some of the welfare recipients certified in childcare, they could get paid to watch the children of others in the system who are going to school and/or working.[/QUOTE]
Universal basic income, thank you.
[QUOTE]
On the other hand, I don't really agree with giving welfare recipients cash, but instead think we should provide them all the goods and services they need to survive. Food stamps should be limited to staples and not include soda or junk food. Clothing allowances should be allotted, which could be used at any second hand or uniform store. Public transportation should be expanded, as required, to accommodate those who need to get to school or work. Preferential hiring in certain government jobs would help get many into the workforce, etc.
[/QUOTE]
I really don't think this would wind up very pleasant for any of the people involved.
[QUOTE]
I just don't get the line of thinking wherein even trying to get individuals to be fiscally responsible for the upbringing of their offspring in the slightest is met with "OH THE HUMANITY!!!"
[/QUOTE]
Usually because the people proclaiming this get mad when they have visions of poor people eating lobster.
[url]https://www.theodysseyonline.com/what-learned-growing-up-on-welfare[/url]
[url]https://talkpoverty.org/2014/10/15/reflections-on-hand-to-mouth/[/url]
We spend all this time talking about how to help the 'poor' when what we are often assuming is that they're incapable of making their own decisions for themselves because if they were, they wouldn't be poor. You're doing that right now, right here, in this thread, while assuming that you know their circumstances based off satellite dishes and cars, that require public assistance. Fraud is pretty uncommon. Welfare, actual direct cash assistance, works far better than just about anything else we've tried because we're afraid of 'irresponsible poors'.
[quote]Absolutely! As I alluded to in my last post, I see these as an even bigger financial burden than welfare. Pretty sure we can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time, though. Many farm subsidies, especially corn and wheat, make these crops cheap to buy. As a result, Americans consume them at an alarming rate, causing us to have a exorbitant number of cases of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc. We end up paying for this in medical costs anyways, so I don't see any reason why these products should be cheaper. Pretty sure we could at least half our military spending without seeing any catastrophic results.[/QUOTE]
Keeping poor Americans fat, tired, and overworked is one of the ways the system maintains itself.
-
Typically Labour supporter in UK.
I have been opposed over the years to several Labour positions, such as their support for U.K. in some wars that struck me as pointless (from a UK perspective ). And today the presence of some people in Shadow Cabinet strikes me as near absurd.
But the last few decades, it’s been the lack of worthwhile radical policies that saddens me, rather than things done. For example, it’s been obvious for many years that overall tax system is unfair and not fit for purpose...Labour should have come up with policies on that long ago.
-
[QUOTE=4saken1;3830336]I delivered mail in low income housing on and off for the better part of 10 years, however. Seeing a multitude of cars parked in the lots which were much nicer than the one I drive, satellite dishes attached to the outside of apartments, people sitting around getting high, and countless times seeing a three year old outside watching their 18 month old sibling out near the road while their parent is nowhere to be seen, these things have led me to believe that we are doing things wrong in this country. A huge percent of these people are content to live in the system for as long as they can. Welfare should be designed to try to get people off public assistance, not as a lifestyle choice.
I would actually like for us to spend MORE money on welfare, though, because I think the payoff of investing in people would yield huge returns and end the cycle of dependence. Free schooling, job training, childcare, and public transportation. Heck, I think if we could get some of the welfare recipients certified in childcare, they could get paid to watch the children of others in the system who are going to school and/or working.
On the other hand, I don't really agree with giving welfare recipients cash, but instead think we should provide them all the goods and services they need to survive. Food stamps should be limited to staples and not include soda or junk food. Clothing allowances should be allotted, which could be used at any second hand or uniform store. Public transportation should be expanded, as required, to accommodate those who need to get to school or work. Preferential hiring in certain government jobs would help get many into the workforce, etc.
[/QUOTE]
Serious question(a couple actually)...
- Do you believe that the situation you describe is a universal when it comes to low income housing?
- Why would capitalism step in and change the current system to wipe out what you describe?
-
[QUOTE=numberthirty;3831148]Serious question(a couple actually)...
- Do you believe that the situation you describe is a universal when it comes to low income housing?
- Why would capitalism step in and change the current system to wipe out what you describe?[/QUOTE]
As to the first question, I don't think there is anything that is universal. There are a significant percentage of people on public assistance who are trying to better themselves so that they no longer need public assistance. While I realize those that live in public housing are only a fraction of those who receive welfare, and thusly don't paint a complete picture of recipients as a whole, I think that the left tends to gloss over just how many people are completely OK with sitting around and doing absolutely nothing as long as they are getting paid to do so.
To the second question, no I don't expect capitalism to significantly change the ways in which we handle welfare in America. I can see how the systems in place appear to be designed to keep the poorest Americans poor, though. Just like universal healthcare - it is a pipe dream unless corporations can figure out a way to maximize profitability off of it. I always laugh whenever I hear Novo Nordisk (the lead supplier of diabetes supplies) advertisements talking about how they are trying to find a cure for diabetes. It makes me laugh because why would they shoot themselves in the foot like that when the disease is a multi-billion dollar industry for them? But I digress.......I hope that answered your questions.
-
[QUOTE=Zetsubou;3827923][B]I don't consider my self conservative or liberal. I may not even be a moderate.[/B]
I am totally against illegal immigration, although I don't think the government should make the visas too difficult for poor immigrants to obtain. I believe that some of the illegal immigrants are leeching off the welfare all paid by taxpayer dime.
I believe it is necessary to regulate and restrict, if not eliminate, gun ownership rights.
But I do support abortion (liberal position) and death penalty (conservative position). I also support separation between church and state. I am totally in favor of decriminalization and legalization of marijuana. I think the government should also legalize medical and recreational marijuana.
Why should the death row inmates, who remorselessly took innocent lives, be entitled to free things like 3 meals a day, housing and even medical care for at least 10 years before going to the electric chair, gas chamber or the needle?
I am not in favor of welfare benefits and food stamps especially when the welfare recipients are too lazy to work and earn money. I support welfare only if the recipients are able to pay back what they owe the taxpayers.[/QUOTE]
If you're neither conservative, liberal, nor even moderate. What do you even consider yourself on the political spectrum?
-
[QUOTE=Zetsubou;3827923]Why should the death row inmates, who remorselessly took innocent lives...[/QUOTE]
They generally aren't remorseless, and disturbingly often not even actually guilty.
Also, they're people.
-
[QUOTE=Zetsubou;3827923]I don't consider my self conservative or liberal. I may not even be a moderate.
I am totally against illegal immigration, although I don't think the government should make the visas too difficult for poor immigrants to obtain. I believe that some of the illegal immigrants are leeching off the welfare all paid by taxpayer dime.
I believe it is necessary to regulate and restrict, if not eliminate, gun ownership rights.
But I do support abortion (liberal position) and death penalty (conservative position). I also support separation between church and state. I am totally in favor of decriminalization and legalization of marijuana. I think the government should also legalize medical and recreational marijuana.
Why should the death row inmates, who remorselessly took innocent lives, be entitled to free things like 3 meals a day, housing and even medical care for at least 10 years before going to the electric chair, gas chamber or the needle?
I am not in favor of welfare benefits and food stamps especially when the welfare recipients are too lazy to work and earn money. I support welfare only if the recipients are able to pay back what they owe the taxpayers.[/QUOTE]
This aligns pretty well with my positions and I'm left leaning but near the centre according to the existing political compass tests I've taken as well by my own estimation. I do have a higher benchmark for executions, someone who's shown they are adept at escaping confinement to murder, like Ted Bundy or a dangerous thought leader for murderers like Bin Laden or dictator like Hussein, I'm good with receiving an execution from the state to ensure others safety, but generally I think it's crueller and thereby preferable to keep abhorrent criminals jailed for life. As well, I think it's preferable to perform abortions within the first trimester if required, so there is as little of a human being formed as possible. The dichotomy of one exercise over the cessation of life being a left wing issue and the other being right wing is something I find a bit absurd, quite frankly. There's degrees, there's context or shades of grey informing when, how and why these practices should take place that's above a left/ right dichotomy.
I would guess you're near the centre with some libertarian views, fiscally conservative, touch of nationalism, some socialist leanings.
I would recommend taking one or more political compass tests if your looking to gain perspective on where you may specifically, most closely align politically
-
I lean more towards the right. I wrote this elsewhere about my political beliefs, but on fiscal issues, I think the government should spend money efficiently, in contrast to libertarians who think there should be no role for government, as well as the big government types and redistributionists (the latter category includes many social conservatives who want government subsidies in order to maintain an inefficient rural way of life).
Socially, I do believe that certain things that are currently illegal should be allowed to consenting adults. I am pro-life, although I think certain steps should be taken to significantly reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies before outlawing abortion becomes a workable policy, if ever. I think gay marriage should be legal, but individuals who do not support it should not face fines/ jail time/ civil lawsuits if they don’t want to participate. I think immigration reform is necessary. I don’t believe people who have come to this country illegally should be deported, but they’re not entitled to full citizenship. I’d prefer some middle ground where they don’t get voting rights or various entitlements. Legal immigration should be determined by the country’s need, although I think the numbers of people we accept should be higher.
I think capitalism and cheap energy have done more to lift billions out of poverty and improve the quality of life than all the labor unions in the world. I’m cautious about raising or lowering the minimum wage. I’d favor Earned Income Tax Credits as a way to provide more money to people with greater need/ dependents. I am concerned about public sector unions, as the government does not have sufficient incentives to control costs. I think linking health insurance to jobs has been a disaster since it makes it harder for people to move/ change employers. The ACA, or whatever replaces it, should offer more bare minimum plans as a way to lower costs, and should raise costs for older Americans, who have more need for medical procedures. I think tort reform is necessary. A system where the loser of a civil suit pays the expenses of the winner will avoid frivolous lawsuits. I support the death penalty, although I don’t care that much about various aspects that make it more palatable to the average American (IE- lethal injection VS firing squad.)
I have a low tolerance for bullshit, hence my concerns about political correctness. I prefer to have discussions about the least popular aspects of someone’s political beliefs. Social conservatives should explain why they want policies that make premarital sex riskier. Supporters of affirmative action should explain why they want less Asian Americans in selective schools.
As for where I disagree with my party/ side, I'll try to avoid the cheap answer of saying when the party hasn't gone far enough (IE- the equivalent of a liberal who thinks the biggest problem Democrats have is that they haven't announced that all cops are bastards) or when they haven't been consistent in conservative policies.
Conservatives have tended to advocate for the free market, but they don't realize there are going to be losers and there should be some kind of explicit policies to help them out. They don't often realize that if something creates 1,000 net jobs it's not automatically a matter of 1,000 people being better off. It could be that 4,000 people in one place gained jobs, and 3,000 lost them somewhere else.
There are times when policies have adverse effects, and when a desire to incentivize proper behavior comes across as cruel, and provide resources to places that don't need them. A regulation on the amount of money people could take per day on welfare leads to banks collecting more fees.
[url]https://www.vox.com/2015/5/22/8643921/kansas-poor-welfare-atm[/url]
-
As a life long Democrat, I think we need to take a second look at the abortion issue.
First let me tell you that I’m a man who will never become pregnant, so I’ll never know how it would feel to be a woman.
I’m believe abortion should only be used in certain situations, such as life of the mother, rape and incest.
I don’t believe abortion should be used as a contraceptive, which is allowed by the law.
I believe everyone should have the choice what to do with their own body.
I believe the choice is already made when both man and woman decide to have consentual intercourse, even if it’s protected sex.
Pro abortion people say a women has the right of chose, I say the choice was already made when she decide to have sex.
-
[QUOTE=Raiders;3834430]First let me tell you that I’m a man who will never become pregnant, so I’ll never know how it would feel to be a woman.[/QUOTE]
You lead with this and yet you somehow still go on about how feel like you ought to have a say in this?
-
[QUOTE=Carabas;3834529]You lead with this and yet you somehow still go on about how feel like you ought to have a say in this?[/QUOTE]
Surely he’s got a right to express an opinion?
And..of course...the reality is that the legislature that passes the laws that allow or don’t allow abortion will be numerically heavily dominated by men.
Would you prefer “women only” votes on the subject?
-
[QUOTE=Carabas;3834529]You lead with this and yet you somehow still go on about how feel like you ought to have a say in this?[/QUOTE]
It's not like he is preaching to American's about the flaws in their government, despite being from Belgium. Or something. =P
-
What is this board's general view on Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism? From a social and cultural standpoint especially?
