Liberal Wackos

[Duke]

that does not answer my question. where does mass unemployment come from, when it is so easy to get a job?

It comes when people refuse to accept a job that is "beneath" them.

It comes when people can make more money on the dole than they can by working for a living.

It comes when unions demand a wage that is not feasible for a company to maintain, and protect workers who do not work.

It comes when taxes to support people on the dole force companies to lay off workers they can't afford, making more people on the dole, making taxes higher, making companies lay off workers... but you get my point.

 

[ledhed]

It comes from outsourcing and mill closings and the loss of a manufacturing base. Illegal immigration and unfair competition from government subsidised companys over seas. It comes from company's leaving the US for tax reasons and taking the jobs with them. It comes from companys going out of business because the unions called thier bluff. next time you call customer service and speak to an Indian or other foriegn worker remember he's got a job an American worker used to have.

 

[1X83Z]

so now everyone that hunts is a 'backwater' hick?

Yep!

so then you have no problem with me saying that everyone who drives a honda is a punk kid who is a F&F fanboy?

Nope!

 

[87chevy]

wow what an ignorant, prejudiced statement.

well M5 i see you didn't refute that ^.do you belong to PETA? or something? or do you assume everyone that hunts is in it for the trophies or...what, can you explain your ignorant unjustified stereotyping?

 

[vladimir]

It comes from outsourcing and mill closings and the loss of a manufacturing base. Illegal immigration and unfair competition from government subsidised companys over seas. It comes from company's leaving the US for tax reasons and taking the jobs with them. It comes from companys going out of business because the unions called thier bluff. next time you call customer service and speak to an Indian or other foriegn worker remember he's got a job an American worker used to have.

at last someone found it out. mass unemployment is not caused by the welfare state, but by the situation of the economy.
people without a job don't have a great life without having to work..these people are bloody poor and they want to work, but its not always that easy to find a job.

and for people that feel a job is "beneath" them...in germany you are forced to look for a job or otherwise you won't get unemplyoment help and someone who thinks working in a supermarket or a fast food restaurant was beneath him, i think living on welfare in a tiny flat and living of frozen pizza with no money to spent whatsoever is definatly even more "beneath".

there are a few that don't want to work, but mass unemployment is caused by a lack of jobs. otherwise the companys would pay more in order to attract workers instead of cutting salarys all the time and firing the people...

 

[Danoff]

there are a few that don't want to work, but mass unemployment is caused by a lack of jobs. otherwise the companys would pay more in order to attract workers instead of cutting salarys all the time and firing the people...

I was hired within the last year, so was my wife. Companies aren't always cutting salaries and firing people.

at last someone found it out. mass unemployment is not caused by the welfare state, but by the situation of the economy.

Why do you think outsourcing is a problem? Because of the massive overhead levied on people who want to employ Americans. The result is that Americans can't compete (because their government won't let them) with people from countries that don't have as many strings attached.

Lawsuits, taxes, the ADA, and unions make the American worker pretty expensive.

That's why companies look overseas.

 

[(G)]

Originally Posted by 87chevy



well M5 i see you didn't refute that ^.do you belong to PETA? or something? or do you assume everyone that hunts is in it for the trophies or...what, can you explain your ignorant unjustified stereotyping?

If he belonged to Peta, he'd be pipebombing your house instead of posting here.

*EDIT*Curse my horrid spelling

 

[Pupik]

...I don't want to pay for it.

That's the mantra everyone in America lives by, whether Conservative or Liberal, though. Everyone wants everything for free; whether it be emergency services, roadways, public schools, corrections, or the salaries of public officials.

 

[Danoff]

That's the mantra everyone in America lives by, whether Conservative or Liberal, though. Everyone wants everything for free; whether it be emergency services, roadways, public schools, corrections, or the salaries of public officials.

While it's true that most Americans want everything for free - which is why they vote to take away the money of the minority - I certainly hope you weren't suggesting that I'm that way. Because I don't want services for free, I don't want as many services, and I certainly want the services that are required to be paid for fairly .

 

[Pupik]

While it's true that most Americans want everything for free - which is why they vote to take away the money of the minority - I certainly hope you weren't suggesting that I'm that way. Because I don't want services for free, I don't want as many services, and I certainly want the services that are required to be paid for fairly .

No, I'm not singling you out, it's just that as Americans we have little to no say in how our tax money is acquired or spent. We do, have control over the way local tax money is to be spent, however, the amount collected for a particular interest is never the same as how much of that money is used toward the said particular interest.

I tend to think that some corporations donate money because it's in their best interest to look good, such as when public opinion of a certain company is low, or because the company can "write it off" on their taxes. I do beleive that most corporations and most people wouldn't give money in the form of charity unless it was compulsory.

I'd like to think that emergency/disaster relief is available in some form or another to myself should the unthinkable happen, and thus, I don't mind paying part of my taxes to help in those cases. But like many of you, I don't like the fact people can get a handout for their multiple kids and lack of interest in a low-prestige and low-paying job just because they are lazy and looked for the easy way out.

I don't think the corporation or the indivdual is any worse than the other, because a corporation is merely a group of individuals. Both man and company pollute the Earth, lie, steal, fraud, and cheat. What I dislike is that a corporation or person can gain special interest by having certain laws and restrictions lifted for any other reason other than political and financial clout. A company shouldn't get a break that another human being down the block can't get.

The only thing that fails me about my thoughts about being Libertarian is that I severely doubt public financing would occur for many things in life we take for granted. On the other hand, public arts and entertainment seem to do quite well. Government handouts to the arts usually are intended to be "start-up" money, and in the case of theater houses or public broadcasting, the amount recieved from tax monies is usually 1% or less, I've read.

Could certain things we all use like roadways, public-use facilities, schools, etc. get paid for strictly by donations? I'd be interested to hear of examples.

[Note: too the Political Compass test, and I wound up one box to the left, one box down from the origin (-1,-1). I guess I'm pretty much a "centrist"?]

 

[Danoff]

What I dislike is that a corporation or person can gain special interest by having certain laws and restrictions lifted for any other reason other than political and financial clout.

This is one of the uglier results of big government - the ability for people with funding to play the system.

I do beleive that most corporations and most people wouldn't give money in the form of charity unless it was compulsory.

I can say with certainty that I would donate if the government did nothing for the poor. Plenty of Americans donate now even though the government forces lots of money out of them. What's more... before government started to take over charity work, more charities existed and more people donated. Once the government stepped in people got the mentality of "I already gave!" and they were right.

Could certain things we all use like roadways, public-use facilities, schools, etc. get paid for strictly by donations? I'd be interested to hear of examples.

Roadways should be publically funded. Same goes for emergency services. Schools, on the other hand, work better when they get their own funding from the parents of students.

 

[Talentless]

i'd rather take a gun from an law abiding citizen than giving a gun to a criminal...

Thus everyone is a criminal.

 

[Talentless]

Liberalism is allright in principle, though any philosophy which constantly evolves to adjust to whatever the present social norms are, might not do so for the better, and could be weak if it lacks a core, such as bibles with many conservatives.

Admirable tenets are only as good as the methods for following them. Otherwise it is arrogant to associate oneself with any philosophies positive aspects when one poorly represents it.

Totalitarianism is not inherent in conservative beliefs unless one disregards the applicability of the claim of intending to better society, proclaiming conservatives as disingenuous. Some of the means to the desired society of conservatives may be totalitarian, but could no one claim some liberal policies which forces the acceptance of the interests of a minority over a majority as an imposition? Albeit it is not so much in the personal life aspect of people, but there's still an imposition.

Also, M5Power, whatever the root of the opposition to gay marriage is on a sociological level, the main argument is based on the beliefs that Judeo-Christianity implies or forbids gay marriage. As marriage remains as being most associted in the US with the two aforementioned religions, especially the latter, and as it is one of the most sacred things an both religions, I would think that an offense at the notion of gay marriage is understandable. It does not make it right to ban gay marriage, and there may be some misunderstandings of the bible; perhaps gay marriage is allright. I am fine with gays adopting, I'm undecided on gay marriage. But I just don't think you post on gay marriage was fair.

Finally, if people do not like criticism of themselves from the left and right, tough. Until the line of legality has been crossed, all sides can call you what they please. They have the right under those terms to do so. I mostly ignore them. But complain if you wish, that's up to you.

 

[milefile]

but could no one claim some liberal policies which forces the acceptance of the interests of a minority the majority as an imposition?

It's called minority veto power and it's wrong. It's only political power are activist judges. Liberalism is almost never elected. It is imposed through lawsuits.