|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 5:54 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Um, thats a bit much. So USGS types or people serving in the military can't vote? Government service is a benefit to society, and if the need is real the people who fill that need should be respected.
As far as the revolution, we need 50 of them. I remember reading that around the turn of the century, federal control was so weak that there were dozens of different models set up in the states. Washington state was called the "soviet of washington" as it was so liberal. we also had faux theocracies, and in some states like montana, pretty much no gov at all. I would love to go back to it. Let the liberals live in a little sweden, and us libertarians could all move to new hampshire and make ourselves a little libertarian paradise. the US is supposed to be a social experiment, not a cohesive whole. Screw Teddy Roosevelt, and lets go back to the old times! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| Let the liberals live in a little sweden, and us libertarians could all move to new hampshire and make ourselves a little libertarian paradise. the US is supposed to be a social experiment, not a cohesive whole. Screw Teddy Roosevelt, and lets go back to the old times! |
Yes, and in fact this is my biggest beef with liberals. They want to place all their bets on one Federal big state model when they could have as many as twenty-five different liberal models. And all because "the government has to be big enough to control corporations," which is utter nonsense because regulatory bodies governing interstate commerce could exist on the Federal level. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
El Exigente
Joined: 10 Sep 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
Maybe we should bring back property requirements for voting.
At the very least not let welfare recipients vote. |
People who take money from the state: welfare, social security, government workers, paid officeholders, contractors, professional military etc ... should not be allowed to vote. |
Great idea! But how many people would be left? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wai Mian
Joined: 03 Sep 2010
Location: WE DIDNT
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
| Wai Mian wrote: |
I know it's supposed to be a mark of a sophisticated political thinker to say "it's just the human condition, politics is a dirty business no matter which side of the isle", but I think the GOP is far dirtier and deluded, and it's mostly in the legions of retirees who are scared crapless and just want to hold on to their entitlements and retirement funds, to hell with everyone else. This is where it gets its 'party discipline' from. Whether Southern populists or Western libertarians, it's an old white party that doesn't want anything to change in the least if it doesn't involve more cops and less taxes. |
Way to stoke the flames of racial hatred, cause we all know only 'old white folks' want lower taxes and cops on the streets, right?
You want to raid other peoples' retirement funds, get your hands on other peoples' money, eh?
Feck off!
Maybe we should bring back property requirements for voting.
|
That's what taxation is, getting your hands on people's money. Where were all these concerned patriots when Medicare D and its $700 billion entitlement was doled out during Bush II? it comes down to "I had to pay for my insurance, now these welfare queens get it for free? HELL NO", never forgetting that welfare queen is code for "black people".
| Quote: |
| At the very least not let welfare recipients vote. |
That's a flat out racist statement if I've ever seen one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koreadays
Joined: 20 May 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| America has its problems. Those problems are as of yet no where near bad enough to pick up a gun and harm another human being over, and anyone willing to "violently revolt" based on the status quo would be totally untrustworthy to form a new government if their revolt were somehow beyond all odds successful. |
been following the news ? IRAQ or Afghanistan ring a bell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koreadays
Joined: 20 May 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I believe it needs to be Bloody violent, and millions of people should die!
a real message needs to be delivered because without it, those fat cats in Washington will keep enjoying their mansions and yachts and just not do anything.
who will lead the revolution? in the past they all got murdered before they could do anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
| At the very least not let welfare recipients vote[/b]. |
Wow, this is just incredible. Why would you penalise someone for losing their job through no fault of their own? Unemployment is an inevitable feature of our economic system. Unemployed people should have a say via the ballot box as politicians determine economic policy. From your tone I am guessing that you would support these employers too*. What an unforgiving country the US is. I am surprised that there hasn't been a violent reaction there yet. Stoicism is great if your house is destroyed in an earthquake, but man-made destruction should never be accepted.
*
http://uspoverty.change.org/blog/view/for_job_openings_the_unemployed_need_not_apply |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wai Mian wrote: |
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
| Wai Mian wrote: |
I know it's supposed to be a mark of a sophisticated political thinker to say "it's just the human condition, politics is a dirty business no matter which side of the isle", but I think the GOP is far dirtier and deluded, and it's mostly in the legions of retirees who are scared crapless and just want to hold on to their entitlements and retirement funds, to hell with everyone else. This is where it gets its 'party discipline' from. Whether Southern populists or Western libertarians, it's an old white party that doesn't want anything to change in the least if it doesn't involve more cops and less taxes. |
Way to stoke the flames of racial hatred, cause we all know only 'old white folks' want lower taxes and cops on the streets, right?
You want to raid other peoples' retirement funds, get your hands on other peoples' money, eh?
Feck off!
Maybe we should bring back property requirements for voting.
|
That's what taxation is, getting your hands on people's money. Where were all these concerned patriots when Medicare D and its $700 billion entitlement was doled out during Bush II? it comes down to "I had to pay for my insurance, now these welfare queens get it for free? HELL NO", never forgetting that welfare queen is code for "black people".
| Quote: |
| At the very least not let welfare recipients vote. |
That's a flat out racist statement if I've ever seen one. |
You assume only blacks are on welfare? How very racist of you, my friend.
Anyway, I don't want my country becoming a welfare state. Do you?
Yes or no?
And Gwangjuboy, not to be harsh, but if people can vote themselves more money they generally will. Congress does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
And Gwangjuboy, not to be harsh, but if people can vote themselves more money they generally will. Congress does. |
Is it not beyond the realms of possibility that some of the unemployed might actually vote for policies that would increase their chances of getting a job, rather than vote simply on the basis of how generous the welfare cheques are?
Labour market 'flexibility' means that unemployment is almost inevitable for most at some point in their lives. The risk of this is even greater during recessionary periods. Times have changed; jobs for life and employment stability are concepts that are way behind us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
On welfare. I think the program is noble in its ideals, but doesn't live up to those ideals. Rather than alleviating poverty, its enabling it.
The reason I am not "progressive" is that I think leftist politics has been a shell game from the 60's on. I would jump at the chance if I thought the left had programs which would actually do what they are supposed to do, help the poverty stricken underclass reach the working class. What measures do you see Barack Obama, or the democratic congress taking now that will make a big difference to this underclass?
I think a jobs programs, to get people into skilled or semi skilled trades would have been the way to go. If BO had focused on the high speed rail, and done EVERYTHING domestically you would have had a new industry that I think everyone would have supported, and would have created tons of jobs. All you need is a jobs program, and to insure that some portion of the new jobs went to people in the underclass you and would have made a huge difference. So what are your ideas?
Last edited by stilicho25 on Mon Sep 20, 2010 6:26 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
Anyway, I don't want my country becoming a welfare state. Do you?
Yes or no?
And Gwangjuboy, not to be harsh, but if people can vote themselves more money they generally will. Congress does. |
What do you mean by welfare state? Almost every government in the world has some form of assistance for poor or disadvantaged people. I want people who can't help themselves to be helped. There are disabled people who can't work, what about them? I very much doubt that you are a rich man, so I would say that what you get for your tax dollars is an amazing bargain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| The reason I am not "progressive" is that I think leftist politics has been a shell game from the 60's on. I would jump at the chance if I thought the left had programs which would actually do what they are supposed to do, help the poverty stricken underclass reach the working class |
Education is the key. The gap between state and private education needs to be narrowed, and there are two ways of doing this: Firstly, you need to pump more money into state education, especially in poor catchment areas. Secondly, state schools, especially in poor catchment areas, need more independence.
| Quote: |
| What measures do you see Barack Obama, or the democratic congress taking now that will make a big difference to this underclass? |
Providing them with health care is a good start. But yes, on the issue of jobs you are right. Education is the main vehicle by which the cycles of poverty can be broken. The education they receive has to be appropriate to their circumstances, and that is why these schools need more independence from government control.
Basically, schools need to be more versatile, and provide an education that instils in poor people confidence as well as the skills necessary to succeed in what is a brutal labour market. A generic education fails the poor more than any other socio-economic group, because they are devoid of the social capital necessary to exploit it, and often the providers are left equally demoralised by the cycle of disinterest and failure.
| Quote: |
| I think a jobs programs, to get people into skilled or semi skilled trades would have been the way to go |
Yes, while this is true, such is the nature of labour market flexibility, it is hard to predict which skills will be useful years down the road. But I agree with you in principle. Education should be geared toward the demands of the labour market, and such is the supply of labour, a more diverse and tailored education is imperative.
Providing everyone with an education which fails to take into account the local and national demands of the labour market or socio-economic influences is insane, especially when the government is doing little to protect the labour market from the disproportionate effects of the market. All men are fallable, but confidence is found in greater concentration amongst the wealthy. Poor people need to be provided with the tools necessary to equip them for the rigours of labour market competition and the confidence in their own abilities which may lead to less dependency on government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Some good points Gwangjuboy, and I agree with you on education. I watched Michelle Ree in DC very closely. I think she tried to do a good job, but I think you need to reach the parents, or all the effort is for nothing. I have no idea how you could fix that. Flexible sounds great, but if the kids don't care, and if their parents don't care, I dont think it will succeed.
On another note, while I don't favour Keynsian economics, I think its perfectly fine to use those methods to jump start an industry, through some private-gov partnership. As long as the gov bows out after a short time, I don't think its entirely bad. Case in point, the space industry. If the gov offered money for stuff like the X-prize on a regular basis, It wouldn't offend my freemarket sensabilities. I don't exactly know how you would apply this to the rail industry, but I think it would be possible. Thats how I think you could predict an industry would need jobs. Of course aerospace industries would not need much semi-skilled labour, but railway does, and green industries as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| Some good points Gwangjuboy, and I agree with you on education. I watched Michelle Ree in DC very closely. I think she tried to do a good job, but I think you need to reach the parents, or all the effort is for nothing. I have no idea how you could fix that. Flexible sounds great, but if the kids don't care, and if their parents don't care, I dont think it will succeed. |
It sounds cruel, but a disproportionate number of parents in the poorest catchment areas don't know what is best for their children, and are equally devoid of the confidence necessary to benefit their children. Objectively, in many cases they had children when they shouldn't have, because they couldn't offer the children what they themselves didn't have.
There is some evidence that children, far from wishing to emulate their parents, want to break away and carve out a different identity for themselves, but if children are faced with a poor domestic environment and an uninspiring education, then their ability to escape the seemingly inevitable poverty trap is massively hampered. I am someone who strongly believes in a role for the government to help the poor, but I must admit that Milton Freidman made a lot of sense on education: free it from the limitations of government control, and make it more responsive of the people it serves, especially in a brutal labour market. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wai Mian
Joined: 03 Sep 2010
Location: WE DIDNT
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Unfortunately I don't think education can be fixed if parents don't get involved. There is absolutely no recourse for the instructors or admin if the parents don't care, and a lot of them don't. My sister is a HS English teacher in Chicago PS, and she ended up fostering a student she used to teach who was homeless because her parents were both bipolar, alcoholic and unemployed. She was almost better on the streets than with her parents. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
