Essentially how do the rich keep on getting richer whilst the poor keep on getting poorer. Surely in a civilised society the rich should sacrifice a few of their fast cars and big houses so that the people who slave 12 hours a day in their sweat shops can eat.
Its not descrimination at all. Romney is not on any boards right now but as soon as he stops running for office he will be right back on those boards with a seat thats been kept nice and warm for him. In other words, he still has interests in helping those companies. How can this be ok. Do you trust Romney that much?
How would you know he would run back right to his ''warmed'' seat? Also, even if he would, how does that cast any doubt on his political integrity now? Just because he's an entrepreneur?
They haven't done a very good job then considering the corruption.
Examples. Whilst there have been cases of corruption, the vast majority of politicians are not.
For a country that runs around righting wrongs in the rest of the world I think that a lack of transparancy sounds like a red light to me.
24 out of 193 is quite a feat, given that the countries in front of it are minute in size and population, which would indicate that corruption would be easier to detect and quash. And no, when the Americans right wrongs, most of the times its due to realist geo-political reasons that would affect the USA. They overthrew Marxist regimes and erected US-friendly dictatorships in Latin America during the Cold War for political purposes rather than promoting democracy or whatever nice and fashionable liberal values.
How would you know he would run back right to his ''warmed'' seat? Also, even if he would, how does that cast any doubt on his political integrity now? Just because he's an entrepreneur?
Cmon dude, of couse he is gonna run back to that luvly warm seat, he did every other time he stopped running for office. And I thought we had established that politik and business are dangerous because of corruption. This Romney thing is exactly the situation that breeds corruption.
Examples.
No examples needed. Corruption has been rife since recorded history began. I know that many politicians are not corrupt. Saying the vast majority is just too darn hopefull I really hope your right but considering the laws they keep passing that keep hitting the poorest hardest, I sincerely doubt this.
[quote]And no, when the Americans right wrongs, most of the times its due to realist geo-political reasons that would affect the USA. They overthrew Marxist regimes and erected US-friendly dictatorships in Latin America during the Cold War for political purposes rather than promoting democracy or whatever nice and fashionable liberal values./quote]
Im extremely glad you see it for what it is. I see America and European countries doing this still and I know that most politicians go along with it or dont even know about it (wtf are they doing there then!). Why? Money! They certainly didnt do it to help the country, they did it to line their own pockets or boost their political image.
Cmon dude, of couse he is gonna run back to that luvly warm seat, he did every other time he stopped running for office. And I thought we had established that politik and business are dangerous because of corruption. This Romney thing is exactly the situation that breeds corruption.
To taint all politicians with the same brush is dangerous, and discriminatory.
No examples needed. Corruption has been rife since recorded history began. I know that many politicians are not corrupt. Saying the vast majority is just too darn hopefull I really hope your right but considering the laws they keep passing that keep hitting the poorest hardest, I sincerely doubt this.
BS. If you think the laws in Europe are ''hard'', come to Asia. You guys have an excellent welfare system compared to whatever we have. Europe's welfare largesse has arguably cost it a recession and crisis. If a country tries to sustain such huge public spending, yet it doesn't match up in terms of efficiency and competitiveness, such as Europe's twilight in manufactored goods now, then it has no right to maintain such a system. My economics lecturer had a friend who was a British railway inspector. A simple fellow who had no education, and he used to earn about 5000 USD per month. Ridiculous.
The poor shouldn't always look towards the government. Yes they should to cover the most basic of necessities, but the government needs to shore up the education system, get more economically competitive, and grind it out.
No examples needed. Corruption has been rife since recorded history began. I know that many politicians are not corrupt. Saying the vast majority is just too darn hopefull I really hope your right but considering the laws they keep passing that keep hitting the poorest hardest, I sincerely doubt this.
Well, if you continue this cycle of circlejerk on politicians in general, then you might consider dropping out of society, because that's the way things are going to be. People aren't qualified to lead themselves. They just aren't. If cynicism is going to be how you lead your life to the point of such scepticism, then really, there's nothing to be done.
Im extremely glad you see it for what it is. I see America and European countries doing this still and I know that most politicians go along with it or dont even know about it (wtf are they doing there then!). Why? Money! They certainly didnt do it to help the country, they did it to line their own pockets or boost their political image.
God, NO. Geo-political reasons isn't ''filling up one's pocket'' with money insomuch as invading to put in friendly governments.
To taint all politicians with the same brush is dangerous, and discriminatory.
Not all, but in my view, most. Its hard not to descriminate when the obvious corruption is spread so thinkly in politics. Its probably worse than I think, and I think its pretty bad.
If you think the laws in Europe are ''hard'', come to Asia. You guys have an excellent welfare system compared to whatever we have.
I agree with you. Europe is childsplay compared to other countries. Europe still runs around committing quiet atrocities. And again Im usually talking worldwide. If we were to split it into different countries then we would be here for years (which, as it happens, I likely will be).
The poor shouldn't always look towards the government. Yes they should to cover the most basic of necessities, but the government needs to shore up the education system, get more economically competitive, and grind it out.
This will only work in the short term. Then what? How long does this last? So far it goes up and down like a yoyo with countries becoming world leaders (popular concensus is that china is next in line, I personally dont know). There are certain things that should and could easily just be available. Communication, clothing, food, transport and accomodation would be easy as pie to sort out if the worlds governments and rich got together. Again, idealistic, but again, totally do-able.
Well, if you continue this cycle of circlejerk on politicians in general, then you might consider dropping out of society, because that's the way things are going to be.
Tempting and I consider it often :\\
People aren't qualified to lead themselves.
Thats a large assumption. People also cannot be happy with a nanny telling them what morals to have and what they can do or not. I do think people can lead themselves with guidance and education. We are not being lead, we are being hearded, manipulated, coerced, forced with threats of violence and bled like stones! We can do better than this. Humans are generally better than this (see, I dont hate the human race)
If cynicism is going to be how you lead your life to the point of such scepticism, then really, there's nothing to be done.
I cant sit by knowing what I know and nod my head passively tho. Id rather kicking up a stink as an alternative.
God, NO. Geo-political reasons isn't ''filling up one's pocket'' with money insomuch as invading to put in friendly governments.
Which improves conditions for the installers. It still comes back to money but I guess at the root its all about power.
Not all, but in my view, most. Its hard not to descriminate when the obvious corruption is spread so thinkly in politics. Its probably worse than I think, and I think its pretty bad.
I disagree. Unless you can come up with a full list of such politicians and then claim that such generalization is supportable, then will I acquiesce. I have already shown you the relative ratings of transparency, which are commendable.
This will only work in the short term. Then what? How long does this last? So far it goes up and down like a yoyo with countries becoming world leaders (popular concensus is that china is next in line, I personally dont know). There are certain things that should and could easily just be available. Communication, clothing, food, transport and accomodation would be easy as pie to sort out if the worlds governments and rich got together. Again, idealistic, but again, totally do-able.
Yes, of course, because that's the way inter-state relations have always worked. There will always be hegemonic powers, and to restrain such powers in order to build on equity is massively unfair and foolish. No I disagree that such basic needs can be parcelled out easily to the world. World governments don't see eye to eye, and put their own national interests first. Countries have shown that they are fully able of withdrawing funding, from the IMF, the World Bank, the UN, UNESCO, etc. They don't come together with a solution to help the world's poor outright; fluffy Millennium Dev Goals are glittery and all, but ultimately it still is a pragmatic world, especially given the crisis now.
Thats a large assumption. People also cannot be happy with a nanny telling them what morals to have and what they can do or not. I do think people can lead themselves with guidance and education. We are not being lead, we are being hearded, manipulated, coerced, forced with threats of violence and bled like stones! We can do better than this. Humans are generally better than this (see, I dont hate the human race)
A doctor is trained with a degree before practising. Similarly a nuclear physicist has to have a degree before conducting experiments. Politicians have to be educated and qualified before being able to lead, not every single average Joe can do so. The fact that much of the electorate is still so poorly and politically educated is tragic, and an alarming indication that the cacophony of voices calling for more freedom can be just self-foot shooting. This was painfully highlighted when 58 percent of Americans believed that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 even after comprehensive reports denying this were released, leading to the disastrous re-election of President Bush in 2004.
Which improves conditions for the installers. It still comes back to money but I guess at the root its all about power.
No. I fail to see how Bush benefited privately when he invaded Iraq.
Politicians have to be educated and qualified before being able to lead, not every single average Joe can do so.
And average joe is literally disuaded from even taking serious part in the political sham in any way unless its voting.
58 percent of Americans believed that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 even after comprehensive reports denying this were released
They believed it because they were told to. Imagine if the masses were encouraged to take part.
No. I fail to see how Bush benefited privately when he invaded Iraq.
He chaired companies like Halliburton who did quite well (another seat that would easly be kept warm, one of many for the ex-president). He also sells weapons to the Bin Laden family just like his daddy b4 him. These guys are corrupt war mongering morally lacking power hungry politicians. And thats the guys at the TOP! I really do know that not ALL politicians are corrupt. I dont trust them and we will never truly know how bad it is since they dont run around saying "I look legit but actually Im as corrupt as can be!".
And average joe is literally disuaded from even taking serious part in the political sham in any way unless its voting.
Yes. I don't believe everyone should have an equal say in the actual running of the system; direct democracy cannot work in today's world due to the lack of political education amongst people, the specialised knowledge needed for policies, and because of the whole vote counting process.
They believed it because they were told to. Imagine if the masses were encouraged to take part.
Even after reports were widespread in the media that there was no link.
He also sells weapons to the Bin Laden family just like his daddy b4 him.
This is patently false. The Bin Laden family and the Bush family did have ties in the construction and oil industry, but you're missing a major point by conveniently forgetting that the Bin laden family disowned Osama, so any connections between two should not be taken as a political conspiracy.
This is patently false. The Bin Laden family and the Bush family did have ties in the construction and oil industry, but you're missing a major point by conveniently forgetting that the Bin laden family disowned Osama, so any connections between two should not be taken as a political conspiracy.
So we've come from the rich and poor divide to Bush's and Bin Laden's relationship?
The point of capitalism is that if you work hard and do well, you will succeed and earn lots of money. People shouldn't take advantage of your success if they didn't work as hard.
I of course don't share this view, but I do believe people need to leave the deserved rich alone, and to stop blaming them for not giving more, they have a right to their riches.
But yet again some rich people are complete mugs who have never done a decent day of work in their life and probably inherited their wealth from their parents. They are who I call undeservedly rich, unlike those who have worked hard all their life.
I disagree that all of the rich has to give to the poor, it's life some do better than others. They might not always deserve it but there we go.
If we all helped one another to the point of giving 10% of your income to the poor (the rich already give half of their earnings to the Government in my country) people would be less bothered to work. Many people in my country already live off benefits given by the Government even if they don't even get up in the morning.
We are in difficult times and everyone is looking for someone to blame but we shouldn't blame the rich for not doing more when they already give a lot to society.
[/quote] Essentially how do the rich keep on getting richer whilst the poor keep on getting poorer. Surely in a civilised society the rich should sacrifice a few of their fast cars and big houses so that the people who slave 12 hours a day in their sweat shops can eat.
Discuss.[quote]
Anyone read any Ayn Rand books? Atlas Shrugged, Anthem, etc.? Thats what will happen if everyone thinks the way you do. Free enterprise is why these people are poor; If they work hard enough then they won't be poor anymore. Thats the way America works.
Free enterprise is why these people are poor; If they work hard enough then they won't be poor anymore. Thats the way America works.
My foot. The poor can't rely on the magical nostrum of ''free enterprise'' as so many Reps want us to believe. How do you even start a business and be an entrepreneur if you don't have the capital? How about those people working hard at manual jobs? They have no prospects of climbing the societal rung, because they lack the proper skills. What about those who have no job opportunities?
If you were put in a billionaire's shoes, would you try to get richer?
How much would you put forth to providing the bottom level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs to everyone? Would you go higher? At what level would you stop?
There is something beyond rich and poor that involves caste, here surrounding this topic. Everyone is affected by it. Can you define it?
