I would have rather bombed the Imperial Palace but hey I wasn't born until the 80s.

Ampharos64 Wrote:Gosh. I'll never understand the opposition some American politicians seem to have to socialism.

Well what is socialism other than a milder implementation of communism? And communism doesn't exactly have the best track record. Also socialism seems to be hitting the fan in Europe so to speak. That's where the opposition comes from.

I think it is in the interest of society to make sure people at the bottom are provided for. But the question is what is the best way to achieve this long term? Is it a large welfare state supported by uneven wealth redistribution and debt? Or a very modest safety net paid for by a stronger and more efficient economy (with lower taxes for all)? Should we just leave it to the free market and charity? I think some combination of the latter 2 should be found. Some ways of strengthening the economy are massively reducing taxation and regulation, cutting back military spending, stimulus spending, government programs and non-essential welfare. Defining non-essential is a matter for debate of course. But in general, I think that welfare (and while we're at it insurance too) really ought to be about helping people out in times of catastrophe, it shouldn't become a long term solution, at least not for any statistically significant proportion of the population.

I don't know how many Americans exactly are supported by welfare. But if it really is 47%, that seems way too high. If this percentage were significantly lower (5-10%?), I don't think it would be nearly as big a drain on the economy, or generate nearly as much complaint. Unless you have very severe mental or physical disabilities it should be possible to find some job with which to support yourself. The idea that such a large proportion of able bodied human beings need to be taken care of is ridiculous.

47% is (close to) the number of people who don't pay income tax (EDIT: See JimmySeal's post below), not the number of people on welfare. I paid no US income tax for 2011 but I also did not receive any welfare (I paid no tax because part of the year I lived off my savings and then I was in Japan). Republicans are hypocritical when they attack this because they're the ones who supported a lot of the tax cuts and deductions that allow so many people to pay no income tax. Romney falsely suggests that these people not paying income tax are benefiting from liberal handout programs.

Of course, I paid taxes. I paid sales tax on everything I bought. Conservatives often fail to distinguish between not paying *income* tax and not paying tax at all. The number of people in the US (at least above a certain age) who pay literally no taxes is insignificant.

The percentage of the US on welfare is 4-5%, nowhere near 47%. If you include other government programs that aren't traditional "welfare" the number goes up, but nowhere near 47%. The unemployment rate is around 8% now.

As I said above, I think a lot of people on both sides of the political divide realize that we have to do something about entitlement spending (particularly health care) and the debt. But this can be done without insulting people who receive government benefits.

nadiatims Wrote:I don't know how many Americans exactly are supported by welfare. But if it really is 47%, that seems way too high.

No, it's not the number of people on welfare (did someone say that it was?). It's actually a pretty meaningless number that does little more than reveal Mitt Romney's ignorance about the world outside his ivory tower.

47% is the portion of households that had no federal income tax liability for 2011. Some people (including Mitt Romney) misinterperet that to mean that 47% of Americans pay no federal income tax, but that's not true. It's just that a lot of federal taxes are paid through payroll taxes (i.e. in advance), so when tax day comes, 47% of people don't owe any more than they've already paid.

The actual portion of households who pay no federal income tax or payroll tax at all is around 15%, and most of those people are retired senior citizens, students, and people with disabilities.

This page sums everything up pretty nicely.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

JimmySeal Wrote:No, it's not the number of people on welfare (did someone say that it was?).

If you look at Romney's quote, he strongly implies (if not outright states) that 47% is the number of people receiving some kind of government handout.

You can debate the specific numbers all you want. He was just speaking on the fly. But the core of his argument is fairly spot on. There is a large percentage of Americans who do believe they are entitled to redistributed wealth and are never going to consider voting for a republican.

yudantaiteki Wrote:

JimmySeal Wrote:No, it's not the number of people on welfare (did someone say that it was?).

If you look at Romney's quote, he strongly implies (if not outright states) that 47% is the number of people receiving some kind of government handout.

Yeah, after re-reading the quote, he definitely does pretty much outright state that 47% are getting handouts.

Want to give my opinion about what concerns me in this discussion.

From my end, all I see is that the US government decisions having to do with the Middle-East didn't change after Obama became the president:

1- Obama pulling the US forces from Iraq is no worse than Bush's decision to attack, they destroyed the country and left it in certain group hands to do as they will with it.

2- The support of Israel is the same. Not forgetting that the banks problem has some controversy. And I don't expect that to change as long as it has it's influence in the US government.

3- When his leadership led to killing Bin Laden, provided that he was killed (let alone being a real figure, ignore the possibility as you wish, some people know what you don't), it absolutely had no effect.

4- There's still problems in Afghanistan.

That being said, I prefer to see a new president, at least there might be a change in our end.

BTW, I haven't got the chance to say this before; I feel extremely sorry about the killing of the US ambassador in Libya, it was shocking. I still don't know if it really represented the Libyans or it was by a terrorist group to heat things up. We had a number of Libyan forces for training here, but it didn't work out because they made fights and were drinking in the barracks, they even burned two barracks! So they maybe (and the film was actually made by a certain religious group from Egypt who wanted to heat things up between Muslims and Christians in Egypt, so that reply was by just ignorant and idiot people)
This is another discussion for another day, but I felt this is a chance to express my condolences.

kitakitsune Wrote:You can debate the specific numbers all you want. He was just speaking on the fly. But the core of his argument is fairly spot on. There is a large percentage of Americans who do believe they are entitled to redistributed wealth and are never going to consider voting for a republican.

We might just have to agree to disagree, but I think the portion of Americans who think that way is extremely small.

thanks for clarifying what the 47% refers to. Should have read more closely.

I don't think there's anything wrong per-se in not paying any tax. After all, I'm for less taxation for everyone.

But it still is slightly troubling if a large proportion of the population are calling for things like guaranteed affordable healthcare, education, minimum wage etc but expect the money for all these things to come from somewhere else.

Why not just apply a very low tax rate peaking at say 5% and then limit spending to whatever that can pay for. With priorities being things like paying for treatment of sudden health catastrophes for uninsured people, benefits for the suddenly unemployed or severely disabled, and domestic security.

I don't think you should have a right to lasik surgery, yoga classes, or to study medieval pottery or pursue a career in acting unless you yourself are willing to shoulder the full costs for such things as determined by the market.

JimmySeal Wrote:We might just have to agree to disagree, but I think the portion of Americans who think that way is extremely small.

Depending on how you are defining "wealth redistribution." I think a lot of the left is in favor for it I know I sure as hell am. There are way too many loop holes and low tax rates for people that are pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars. Most of these methods for maintaining your wealth at a low tax rate are only available to people that can make it to the Upper High Class. The rest of the lower and middle class are shafted with higher net taxes than the upper, which results in many people living paycheck to paycheck.

So ya, probably 40% of the country (Dems/Leftists) believe in wealth redistribution. The whole 99% vs 1%.

Sebastian Wrote:

prink Wrote:Mitt Romney is a power hungry sociopath.

I think some of you will find this article interesting:

Psychopath Cowboys; Sociopath Herds: A New Theory of How Evil Happens

Like most pop psychology, that's founded on some pretty shoddy science. Try looking up the one or two scientific studies that this stuff is built on, last I checked there wasn't any good research backing this up. As a side note, neither 'psychopath' nor 'sociopath' have definitions that are agreed on by all people in the scientific community, they aren't included in DSM/ICD-10 and only a subset of psychologists use tests of 'psychopaths' at all, some of which haven't been even been widely accepted as valid for testing the purported 'psychopath' criteria. Again like most pop psychology (and pop sociology, economy, environmentalism...) it also grossly exaggerates the importance of the particular factor/phenomenon that it presents, EVERYTHING can suddenly be explained in its entirety by examining that one contributing factor. To me it seems somewhat likely that at least among fairly anonymous corporate high-ups "cold-blooded" traits would be more common but it hasn't been proven well and it's ridiculous to extend that prediction/trend to ALL leaders.

Being the president means, usually, having to uphold a somewhat warm-hearted and sympathetic image, something that psychopaths - as defined by and theorized about by people like Robert Hare - are supposedly notoriously bad at. Instead, they are - again, supposedly - mostly about coming into social groups for a shorter term to grab as many benefits for themselves as they can and then leaving after finishing usurping before people catch on and realize that they are total leprechaun. That doesn't seem to jive well with making a four-year commitment. Then again, the writer of the article you linked might disagree on that point - but if they disregard the theorization that's been used so far by the very people who are trying to define the words the writer uses, that just means they ought to have used some other, clearer terms. Instead of abusing those two for achieving sensationalism (then again some might argue that that's what even the people who came up with the diagnosis/criteria of 'psychopathy' ever did).

Moreover, it's mostly not that fruitful to guess as to what 'personality' specific political leaders have, because you're using circular reasoning. Leader x did terrible thing y, which implies that it has personality z, which means that it will probably do terrible thing x again and thinks that it's OK to do it. To me, it's much better to directly criticize the individual decisions a leader makes and the patterns of these decisions instead of trying to construct some weird ad hominem attack under the guise of less-than-respectable 'Psychology'. Now, if you want to do research on whether and how personality measures and/or previous behavioral history can predict presidential decisions, that's different. But judging by how well organizational psychology is doing on that front, you shouldn't hope for too much in the coming years. I had a lecture by an organizational psychologist who was trying to present the most 'modern' and 'hip' research and methods in their field, and apparently they think using self-rated personality measures is AWESOME and totally great. Seriously, ***** that field for constantly abusing the image of serious research to prop up their shallow salesman rhetoric,. They're selling snake oil and saying that it's built on SCIENCE, when all they really have are some ambiguous results that they choose to interpret in the way that suits them currently, or sometimes they latch on to other people's research and interpret it in a way that's faaar beyond the original scope of the research. The writer you quoted is just as bad as them.

@undead_saif: You're ignoring that it could have been WORSE if the kind of 'tactics' that the Bush administration was using would have been continued. For example, would the US have taken a much more hard-line stance toward Libya and Syria had people like the Bush administration been around? Would they have blamed the Middle East for domestic economy problems and to push 'safety/terrorist laws', ie increased surveillance, even more? I'd say it's very likely.

JimmySeal Wrote:

kitakitsune Wrote:You can debate the specific numbers all you want. He was just speaking on the fly. But the core of his argument is fairly spot on. There is a large percentage of Americans who do believe they are entitled to redistributed wealth and are never going to consider voting for a republican.

We might just have to agree to disagree, but I think the portion of Americans who think that way is extremely small.

Yeah, I don't think there's any proof for this assertion. There are a lot of Americans who support government assistance programs, but this includes a significant portion of Republicans -- Medicare is just as much a handout as food stamps. I also think it's facetious to try to draw a strong link between people who support these programs and people who benefit from them. I've never been on welfare (and statistically I'm unlikely to ever be) but I still think my tax dollars should go to support it.

Virtually everyone believes in "redistributed wealth" of some kind. If you have any system where richer people pay more taxes (not even a higher rate, just more raw dollars), then you have wealth redistribution of some kind. The Republicans like to use this term as some sort of code word for socialism or communism, but it's just partisan attacks. Even most Republicans believe there should be some form of welfare -- note that Romney (falsely) attacks Obama over the work requirement for welfare and the Ryan budget includes significant cuts to food stamps, but neither of them believe that the food stamp program should be eliminated entirely.

yudantaiteki Wrote:Even most Republicans believe there should be some form of welfare -- note that Romney (falsely) attacks Obama over the work requirement for welfare and the Ryan budget includes significant cuts to food stamps, but neither of them believe that the food stamp program should be eliminated entirely.

I really think this is boiling frog syndrome. They will cut it slightly and then a few years later when the budget still can't be balanced (ie: Need more money for defense contracts), they'll cut it again even more. Eventually it'll be cut to such a level that it may as well not exist. Medicare is headed that way.

imabi Wrote:1. I do believe in global warming thank you. I don't think any of the solutions being proposed are viable solutions thank you.

Again, i don't think you are comprehending how critical this issue is. We've had more than 30 years to provide "viable solutions". Unfortunately, nobody bothered to invest in them. Now we HAVE to act. There really isn't any choice anymore, or any time left.

A lot of technology IS available even so. Germany provides 50% of it's power through non carbon producing methods.

Here is Mitt Romney's "plan" for energy:

Romney Wrote:Energy Independence
• Increase access to domestic energy resources
• Streamline permitting for exploration and
development
• Eliminate regulations destroying the coal industry
• Approve the Keystone XL pipeline

That is absolute suicide.

I really cannot stress enough how important it is that everybody understands this issue now.

Here's an interesting article about the numbers: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/new...h-20120719

Yudantaiteki Wrote:I've never been on welfare (and statistically I'm unlikely to ever be) but I still think my tax dollars should go to support it.

Would you support voluntary taxation?

nadiatims Wrote:

Yudantaiteki Wrote:I've never been on welfare (and statistically I'm unlikely to ever be) but I still think my tax dollars should go to support it.

Would you support voluntary taxation?

It depends on the specifics, but I'm doubtful that such a system would work in practice. I don't think that's how a country should work -- you often can't choose what government services you are taking advantage of, so I'm not sure why you should be able to choose exactly where your tax money goes. For instance, it's virtually impossible not to benefit from publicly maintained roads (even if you don't drive), so it seems odd that you should have the option not to support the roads.

Part of the purpose of a government is so that the public does not have to micromanage government expenditures.

imabi Wrote:The Constitution has never been used--except prohibition--been a document to limit the rights of anyone.

US Constitution Article 1 Section 9 Wrote:The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

(ie no federal ban on importing slaves possible until 1808)

Article 4 Section 2 Wrote:No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

(ie escaped slaves to be returned to their masters)

The US constitution is a pretty good document but it is in part a compromise between the states that at the time favoured slavery and those who didn't (see also the 3/5ths clause) and because of those compromises some parts of it did indeed limit the rights of some people and were used for that purpose in the past.

nadiatims Wrote:I don't think you should have a right to lasik surgery, yoga classes, or to study medieval pottery or pursue a career in acting unless you yourself are willing to shoulder the full costs for such things as determined by the market.

Please, this is a caricature. The affordable healthcare people are asking for is the assurance that they won't have to choose between dying or selling all of their family's possesions if they get sick. The education people are asking for is education up to the secondary level. And minimum wage!?! Are you joking? Must I remind you how businesses operated 100 years ago?

In this day and age, I don't think it's unreasonable for people to hope to be kept alive if they get sick, and not be paid slave wages by their employers. Life should not be a privilege for only those who can afford it.

Oh but don't forget, civil suits can take care of that.

Quote:The jury acquitted the two men, but they lost a subsequent civil suit in 1913 in which plaintiffs won compensation in the amount of $75 per deceased victim. The insurance company paid Blanck and Harris about $60,000 more than the reported losses, or about $400 per casualty. In 1913, Blanck was once again arrested for locking the door in his factory during working hours. He was fined $20

On the health care issue, there's also the fact that preventative care and regular checkups are less expensive than paying for someone's ER visit once they fall seriously ill.

Now don't get me wrong -- the rising cost of health care is a serious problem, probably the most serious economic problem next to climate change that's facing the US. But it's a serious problem whether a national health-care system exists or not. (I'm having some dental work done here in Japan because it's cheaper than in the US; even the raw cost not counting the insurance is cheaper, and my 30% copay is 12 times cheaper than what I paid for a similar thing in the US.)

JimmySeal Wrote:Please, this is a caricature. The affordable healthcare people are asking for is the assurance that they won't have to choose between dying or selling all of their family's possesions if they get sick. The education people are asking for is education up to the secondary level. And minimum wage!?! Are you joking? Must I remind you how businesses operated 100 years ago?

nadiatims is a libertarian so he's definitely not joking.

Yeah, that was mostly a rhetorical question, but I continue to be flabbergasted at the extreme positions libertarians can take.

I haven't read the whole thread, and neither do I ever intend to, but both Obama and Romney are terrible choices, and were I an American citizen I would have not voted for either of them. I see no difference between an Obama voter or a Romney voter; they are both brainwashed fools, putting it extremely lightly.

The only sane candidate was Ron Paul. Too bad most American citizens were/are so utterly foolish and brainwashed not to vote for him. America and the world would have been a better place.

JimmySeal Wrote:Yeah, that was mostly a rhetorical question, but I continue to be flabbergasted at the extreme positions libertarians can take.

On the face, it seems extreme. However, libertarians don't necessarily have to be opposed to reasonable health care and minimum wages. As I understand, a strong libertarian stance opposes government impositions, which of course includes taxation for health care and minimum wage laws. However, this doesn't preclude a world where affordable health care is only accessible to the rich and slave wages are ubiquitous.

In an ideal libertarian world, such social progress would be made by individuals, i.e. the market, not governments. If health care is so important, then either individuals or their employers would take measures to provide adequate health care. Likewise, if wages were so untolerable, then workers would seek out jobs with better wages or take some other form of action. If no such jobs exist, then either a competitor will offer better wages and steal the best talent or the market has decided that the work is not worth any more. This exact scenario is occurring right now with jobs that can be outsourced.

I suppose the idea is that the market should determine the value of goods and services (organic vs. artificial pricing; a good example of artificial pricing that many oppose is the price-fixing of the
Chinese currency) and individuals should not be forced to support other individuals (which may be regarded as a form of slavery/servitude).

It's hard to envision workers resigning or rallying to obtain better wages or health care, especially given the high risk of activities (if it fails, you lose everything). However, I'd expect a libertarian to respond that such people have accepted their situation, and that they would find a way to achieve their goals if they actually were serious in their intents. Therefore, claims about the importance of health care or minimum wages are invalidated by the lack of action taken by individuals. To a libertarian, they're non-issues.

Anyway, the viewpoint I described above certainly isn't unassailable, but it isn't extreme if you hold to the principles that prices should not be artificially determined and that individuals should not be forced to provide for the welfare of others. I suspect most people believe in one or both of those principles, but they also allow the principles to be broken in certain circumstances. The only difference between these people and libertarians is where they draw the line.

toshiromiballza Wrote:The only sane candidate was Ron Paul. Too bad most American citizens were/are so utterly foolish and brainwashed not to vote for him. America and the world would have been a better place.

The claim that Ron Paul is sane is one that can still be debated. Certainly, there's much to like about Ron Paul but at the same time, there are some things that aren't likeable. For example, recently (like a month or two ago) Obama reaffirmed that he leans more towards giving homosexuals equal rights as opposed to against them. Ron Paul on the other hand, wants to make the Federal Government smaller and increase State rights. His logic appears to be that the Federal Government should not have a say on whether homosexuals should or should not have equal rights, that decision should be left up to the States. In other words, the State should have the right to discriminate for (or against) homosexuals and under Ron Paul's hypothetical Government, they would support that decision.

toshiromiballza Wrote:I haven't read the whole thread, and neither do I ever intend to, but both Obama and Romney are terrible choices, and were I an American citizen I would have not voted for either of them. I see no difference between an Obama voter or a Romney voter; they are both brainwashed fools, putting it extremely lightly.

Is it not just as likely that you have been brainwashed by Pro-Ron Paul propaganda?

toshiromiballza Wrote:I see no difference between an Obama voter or a Romney voter; they are both brainwashed fools, putting it extremely lightly.

I think the claim that there is "no difference" is incorrect.

Just one example is that Obama voters (and Liberals in general) tend to lean more towards giving homosexuals equal rights. On the other hand, Romney voters (and Republicans in general), tends to lean more against giving homosexuals equal rights.

Therefore, I think claiming that it is "same thing, both sides" does not reflect reality. The reality is there are differences.