# Will Wonders Never Cease?



## Sukerkin (Jan 19, 2012)

A Tory, a 'class enemy' of the working people saying something about structuring capitalism into something beneficial for someone other than his rich mates?!  I'm flabbergasted and, if he means it, quite hopeful that the Coalition government might yet actually do some good:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16626707


----------



## billc (Jan 19, 2012)

Let capitalism work, and things will improve.  The more the government tries to "structure" capitalism the more corruption and profit making by the politicians.   Remember the fourth greatest lie, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you."  The government that does anything but lower taxes to the lowest point possible is just using the power to tax as a way to extort money from private enterprises.  Were seeing that here in Illinois where they raised the tax rate on businesses and now they allow businesses special breaks.  Unfortunately, only the really large businesses get these breaks.  The smaller business are either moving to other states or shutting down.  Of course, those special breaks come at a price...


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 20, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Let capitalism work, and things will improve. The more the government tries to "structure" capitalism the more corruption and profit making by the politicians.



Oh, indeed.  The 19th century was a paradise on Earth for the working man (and child).  Things only got worse for the worker when the government came along and mandated 40 hour work weeks, overtime pay, job protection due to sick leave and the like, and tightly regulating child labor.  When will the government remove the cruel oppression of the 40 hour work week from our bowed necks!  Our children are crying out to work in the factories once again!


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 20, 2012)

The past 60 years of government intervention just means our great grandchildren will be paying for the services we are using today.

Unrestrained capitalism is not the answer either.

The answer is a balance somewhere in the middle, sometimes you need to move to the right on some issues, sometimes to the left.

One thing is for certain though, we need to pay down the debts we owe and not leave them for future generations.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 20, 2012)

Ken Morgan said:


> One thing is for certain though, we need to pay down the debts we owe and not leave them for future generations.



But But that means we have to give up our free stuff.  The Govt needs to stop spending, and needs to makes some cuts on things like Military and Social Programs.  How will we ever get by with out Govt funded research on the breeding habits of Earthworms?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 20, 2012)

One of the big issues in the US is a lack of jobs.
Companies just aren't hiring.
Why?
Most small businesses are 'holding their breath' waiting for the BS from 'Obamacare' to fully hit. Result: Hiring freeze.

You want jobs? Make it easy for companies to hire and operate again. 
More jobs = more taxpayers = more tax revenue.
Less jobs = less taxpayers = less tax revenue.

Math. What the government sucks at.


----------



## billc (Jan 20, 2012)

But if companies are able to hire people and pay salaries again they will just be making more of those greedy people who have money.  It is probably better if no one works, and they simply get money from the government.  Wouldn't that be the fairest way to get money.  That way no one is getting ripped off by the greedy 1%, everyone has a "living wage," as mandated by the government, everyone has free healthcare, everyone has a free house and no one will be exploited by greedy business owners.  The solution is simple really...just have the government give us everything we need and the problem is solved.  Think of how much free time everyone would have if no one worked for greedy people, and they just did what they wanted all the time.  It might even end war as an activity.  If everyone doesn't have to worry about money anymore, there is no need to take other peoples stuff.  Hey...we just solved the crime problem as well.  Not bad for a Friday.


----------



## billc (Jan 20, 2012)

And like magic, my favorite author speaks to this very topic...

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/



> Any crisis&#8230; Any problem&#8230; You ask the feds to fix it, you get this kind of answer.  Almost never do the laws fix the actual problem. Instead the government gets bigger and gains a few more powers and it doesn&#8217;t fix the issue. When the problem gets bigger, then the government gets bigger and gains a few more powers that actually make the problem worse. Oh look! Despite all of these laws the problem has gotten even bigger? Whatever should we do? Why, I know! Let&#8217;s pass an even bigger law that takes away more individual freedom and gives the government more control!
> Repeat, repeat, repeat. Any topic, any situation, any problem.  They address it, you lose freedom and they gain more control. Some of you are only offended today because this particular law hurts something you enjoy. The rest of the time? Screw it. You can&#8217;t be bothered to pay attention. Or worse, people like me who are up in arms over an issue are just cranks or anti-government crackpots.
> I was going to close this blog post with a quote I read about freedom versus control, but Wikipedia was down protesting SOPA.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 21, 2012)

billcihak said:


> But if companies are able to hire people and pay salaries again they will just be making more of those greedy people who have money. It is probably better if no one works, and they simply get money from the government. Wouldn't that be the fairest way to get money. That way no one is getting ripped off by the greedy 1%, everyone has a "living wage," as mandated by the government, everyone has free healthcare, everyone has a free house and no one will be exploited by greedy business owners. The solution is simple really...just have the government give us everything we need and the problem is solved. Think of how much free time everyone would have if no one worked for greedy people, and they just did what they wanted all the time. It might even end war as an activity. If everyone doesn't have to worry about money anymore, there is no need to take other peoples stuff. Hey...we just solved the crime problem as well. Not bad for a Friday.



What a load of bollocks.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 21, 2012)

While Bill was being sarcastic, he's almost quoting Nancy Pelosi's argument for the health insurance bill they passed recently. Which was bollocks then too. Pelosi, the bill and the thinking.  Mega-Bollocks.  At least a Kilo-Ramsey's worth.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 21, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> While Bill was being sarcastic, he's almost quoting Nancy Pelosi's argument for the health insurance bill they passed recently. Which was bollocks then too. Pelosi, the bill and the thinking. Mega-Bollocks. At least a Kilo-Ramsey's worth.



I'd suggest he's being less sarcastic more socialist bashing again.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 21, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> A Tory, a 'class enemy' of the working people




Mark, my MJER brother, I disagree with this statement, though I am looking at it from a Canada vs. UK perspective. 

I am a Conservative, proud to call myself a Tory here in Canada, though Jaclyn will disagree with my reasoning&#8217;s. Every Tory I know works or is a student, they blame no one for their failures but themselves, but are apt to give credit to others when things go right.

I still find it very odd how much the Brits deal with the class issue, even some of my UK cousins will make comments regarding those with fancy cars or big houses. Some of my cousins are with the ones with fancy cars and big houses, but they earned and worked for it, ever pence. 

I think it&#8217;s still a throwback to the aristocracy and a 1000 years of conditioning. 

Is class really and honestly still a huge issue over there?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 21, 2012)

Aye it is still an issue and Tories are still the enemy of the working man.  Conservatives here not the same as Conservatives in Canada (tho' they are not as insane as American Right Wingers).


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 21, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Aye it is still an issue and Tories are still the enemy of the working man.



How so?

From what I've seen, in Canada, we're all working men and women.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 21, 2012)

That may well be the case in Canada for now - however, just give it some time and let the income inequality grow a little more and you'll soon have a 'class divide' of your own.  

It might not be one that is based on 'Old Money', just nice, egalitarian, 'New Money' but it'll be there.  Historically, "One Law for the Rich and Another Law for the Poor" is a trend which grows when those with unearned/inherited wealth to start thinking they 'deserve' it and are 'better' than others that don't have it.

Once that gets entrenched, 'class', no matter what it is termed, begins to stratify society over time and barriers to travel across the boundaries of class start to solidify.  So, over here, Tories are the party of the idle, over-renumerated, rich and Labour was the party of those working class oiks (like me) who earn what little they have (I used the past tense as, sadly, the Labour party is almost indistinguishable from the Tories thanks to Snake Oil Blair).


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 21, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> (tho' they are not as insane as American Right Wingers).


What about the American Right wing do you find insane?


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 21, 2012)

I know people with loads of money and many who are, if it is at all possible, more broke then I. Only two of them inherited their money, yet they work 50-60 hours a week in the family business. The rest work 60 hour weeks in their own businesses, some of them earn more in a day then I do in a week. The first type needs to work hard just to maintain what they have, the second work hard to enjoy nice lifestyles.   

The odd time I have seen people with money have big egos, so what? They would still have been *******s had they been poorer. It is them, their attitudes not the money that is the issue. 

For both I hold no resentment, good for both types for being where they are. I am by no means at either level yet, but that is no ones fault but my own, I have made some bad & good choices, I have had some bad & good luck, but no one manipulated the system to drive me down. I am at the level I am at because of me, no one else.

How are their two sets of laws?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 21, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I'd suggest he's being less sarcastic more socialist bashing again.



Well, I do take issue with many Socialist and socialist ideas. After all:
&#8220;Do you have a right to somebody else&#8217;s property? No, not even if the government is giving it to you.&#8221; (Michael Badnarik)
is an idea I subscribe to.


But not all of them mind you. Some are useful in a modern society, in moderation.


----------



## granfire (Jan 21, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> What about the American Right wing do you find insane?



Just about everything.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 21, 2012)

Aye, the very question reduces me to wondering silence .  Ballen, it is only because you grew up in the environment and in the country that you did that you don't see anything out-of-the-ordinary about American Right Wing politics.  

When I became a regular here at MT, it took me a while to adjust to the fact that  Right-Wingers (TM) were serious and not joking when they wrote the things they did about almost anything to do with economics or social policy.  I adapted after a while and stopped trying to counter-argue because my forehead was getting bruised from banging it against that brick wall :lol:.  Just take it as read that that is what I (and most of the rest of Europe) thinks and don't allow it to get in the way of our talking about other things.

For, after all is said and done, what you fellows think of as Pinko-Commy-Socialists (aka Democrats) I consider to be Right Wing; so imagine what I think of the Republicans .


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 21, 2012)

Well with the US being so much larger than either Canada or the UK, there are a lot more crazies floating to the top&#8230;. ;-)

The systems are different. In the Parliamentary system enjoyed by Canada and the UK, there are serious limits set on and enforced on election spending, such limits don&#8217;t exist in the US. It&#8217;s a wild west on fundraising and spending, as a result candidates and subsequent politicians are beholden to their donors. They say they&#8217;re not, but come on.

The Christian right is larger and louder in the US then in either Canada or the UK. 

The cold war fueled serious anti-communist/socialist feelings in the US, these feelings have never gone away, in direct contrast to the pure libertarianism, capitalist, direct pure democracy, as an ideal held aloft by the right in the US.

I also get the feeling that party discipline is stronger in Canada and the UK.

I don&#8217;t think the US right is anymore crazy than any other countries right, just there are more of them, they are loud and they have the money to get their messaging out.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 21, 2012)

Ken Morgan said:


> How are there two sets of laws?




Have you really never heard of that phrase?  It's as common as "Noone Ever Got Rich Working for a Living"; that one is unknown over the other side of the Atlantic too I was surprised to learn the other year.

As to the first part of your post there, I get the feeling I am trying to explain colour to a blind man when it comes to class discrimination and. no disrespect intended because I know you're interested rather than just being contrary, I'm not going to delve into it any further as I'll just get even more annoyed about the whole thing than I am already (got my annual 'pay cut' through the post this morning (that's what happens when you don't have a union by the way)).  I guess you just have to live under it to understand it - it's a subtle maze of social prejudice and invisible glass walls and ceilings that was starting to go away but then Maggie set things in motion that brought them back up to strength again.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 22, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Well, I do take issue with many Socialist and socialist ideas. After all:
> &#8220;Do you have a right to somebody else&#8217;s property? No, not even if the government is giving it to you.&#8221; (Michael Badnarik)
> is an idea I subscribe to.
> 
> ...



That's not the real socialism however. Socialism isn't about taking others property, communism is however. I suspect that like being a liberal, socialism means something else to Americans than it does to us.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 22, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> That's not the real socialism however. Socialism isn't about taking others property, communism is however. I suspect that like being a liberal, socialism means something else to Americans than it does to us.


So what is your def of socialism?


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 22, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I suspect that like being a liberal, socialism means something else to Americans than it does to us.



Typically I see the Term "Socialism" used here as a means of describing taking "extra" from the Haves, to give to the Have Nots so everyone has a more equal share.   It's not a perfect definition, but the closest I can come to how *I* see it used all the time.


----------



## billc (Jan 22, 2012)

Socialism is the intermediate step to pure communism.  It is the stage where the government controls the means of production, and then transitions to the utopia of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."  The actual form of control has taken different paths, depending on the actual socialist trying to achieve this end.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 23, 2012)

This is socialism. http://www.labour.org.uk/what_is_the_labour_party

their beliefs
 social justice 
&#8226; strong community and strong values 
&#8226; reward for hard work 
&#8226; decency 
&#8226; rights matched by responsibilities.


It's very little to do with taking from the rich to give to the poor, that's the fictional Robin Hood but more about raising the poor to the rich, not taking from anyone. yes those who earn obscene bonuses from failing banks are liable to be made to pay but then the Conservastives are also saying that. It's about social justice not bringing everyone down,but raising people up by education, workers rights (and yes we need those),fair chances for everyone. It is not the next step to communism though there's nothing wrong with communism, what we've seen of it however is not communism but tryanny by certain leaders and this is as common among the right wing as it is the left.

When we over here look at the American issues we see something that is far more restrive than we have, we've had gays in the military for 11 years, we have abortion rights, same sex marriage etc these are all non political issues here. We hated Maggies trying to rein us in, we are socilaist at heart because we believe in equality, fair goes for all. The government is our servant not the other way around. We swear allegiance to the monarch not the government, the armed forces belong to the Crown, the police and Civil Service do as well. You can't judge our socialism by what you think it is. It's raising the people to be what they can be, not dragging everyone down. Of course not everyone wants to be raised but that's not the socialists fault! 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/20/britain-socialism-psyche-cameron-capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism_in_Great_Britain


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 23, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> This is socialism. http://www.labour.org.uk/what_is_the_labour_party
> 
> their beliefs
> social justice
> ...



So where does the money come from to "Lift" up the poor and why are the poor entitled to be lifted up?


----------



## billc (Jan 23, 2012)

Yes, you swear allegiance to a monarch which makes you 2nd class citizens from the beginning.  Or is it 3rd class after the nobility.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 23, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> This is socialism. http://www.labour.org.uk/what_is_the_labour_party
> 
> their beliefs
> social justice
> ...



I doubt anyone would disagree with those values you listed at the start, though i would argue in Canada all the parties would say they support them, including we in the Conservative party. The argument doesn't come from the values themselves, it comes from how they are paid for, and how they are implemented. The money must come from someone, be it an individual or a company, do you/we have a right to take someone elses money and use it for my/our projects? As for implementation, how does that relate to other jurisdictions rights, the constitution, or the right of individuals, are we stepping outside of our legal authority?

TEZ I find it odd that class is such a huge issue still in the UK as compared to Canada or the US. Is it really? Or do so many people just have a huge chip on their shoulders regarding historical inequalities? I get the feeling people dont want it fixed, they just want to ***** about it.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 24, 2012)

Bili, you manage to be insulting so much of the time, it's quite pathetic. Second class citizens? Hardly. As usual you misunderstand..deliberately?.. the situation in a country that's not your own, actually I wonder sometimes if you even understand your own country. 

The way to 'raise' the poor in any country is by education and training, making people fit for work. _Investing_ money in good schools, colleges and universities is never wasted. You make people 'fit' for work and by working they will rasie themselves up, you don't do it by chucking money at them but by people earning decent wages in decent jobs. You raise generations who can work,  they will start businesses, companies will come to places where there's a decent workforce. We need well educated people in all walks of life. I think however you need to ask a British socialist about their beliefs, I'm a British Liberal, a different animal  and something very different from what American think of as Liberals, in fact socialists aren't what they are in America.

 I don't think there's much moaning about 'class equalities' anymore here, it rarely gets mentioned these days. Most 'aristocrats' apart from a couple who are good business people, most are skint. Having a title doesn't really get you anywhere, the working class here is proud of what they've achieved, the saying now is that we are all middle class now. The bankers are the ones being hated right now, they aren't upper class. I don't see or hear of people with any chips on their shoulders about class, I tend to think that's a Hollywood invention these days or like Bili just want to be insulting. In truth there is no class equality as such. There is an underclass that none of us like, the chavs, the benefit, cheats those who think they are entitled, that's a far bigger issue than class here. 
We do have nationalism, where the Scots, Welsh and Irish all want complete independance, if Scotland gets that the Shetland Isles will want independance from them or at least to go back to Norway. These are the issues here along with the recession, immigration and local issues, class doesn't come into it.

Visits to Stately homes however are always a favourite day out, most are owned by the National Trust now, though some are owned still by the original oweners who have to open them to make any money, they are huge money pits.  

My daughter's boyfriend worked in America for a year, he said there was considerable snobbery there, with the rich at the top and the 'trailer trash' and immigrants at the bottom. Perhaps not 'class' as such but certainly a very insidious form of discrimination. Being a racehorse trainer he certainly saw the very rich and they way they treated, talked about and regarded 'the poor' and those from the wrong side of the tracks, opened his eyes he said to a place where everyone was supposed to be equal.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 24, 2012)

I concur with most of what Tez says above, other than the fact that class is still very much in evidence within British social structures.  It is not so much about the Aristocracy any more but, as in America, the extremely (often undeservedly) wealthy.  They are the Upper class and they tend to come from the same backgrounds and schools as each other.  The Old Boy Network is alive and kicking and feeding its members into the government as it ever has.  

That is indeed part of the problem and why those that govern us seem so unresponsive to the needs of those whose votes nominally put them in place.  MP's incomes are in the top 2% of the country - how on earth are they supposed to identify even with the likes of me?  For even as a very well qualified person and with fifteen years of seniority just in my present job, I still earn less than the national average (Britain does not love engineers any more ).  How much less can they understand the problems facing a working mum who gets minimum wage working as a cleaner or suchlike?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 24, 2012)

It's less class and more money that speaks these days, the greed is good policy of Maggie Thatcher has a lot to answer for. The old aristocracy did have a 'service to the nation' ethos that todays rich simply don't have, the footballers, celebrities and the banking types are in it for the money. I don't find the Upper class such a problem, and we have a few up here, all the Guards Officers here are upper class, we have various lords and ladies locally with whom I hunt, people don't mind that, they have manners and while they may be rich and have the old boy network it's Maggies lot that are ruining the country with their 'me, me' actions and thoughts. she has brought generations now into thinking they are entitled to everything, it was never the socialists that did this it was the Tories. maggie told everone they could own their own houses, have all the material goods they wanted, she forgot to say you had to work and earn everything, now they demand without producing anything. They won't start at the bottom and work up they want the 'X Factor' and they want it now.

Sukering, there's a very good series on BBC at the moment, it's a Danish drama and follows a female MP as she becomes Prime Minister and you can see how the machinations of politics turn her from a idealistic well meaning politician into someone who has to fight dirty just to keep her position. It's very good, called Borgen. You should be able to catch it on I Player.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 24, 2012)

All that sound great in a perfect world but we dont live in a perfect world.  To be succesful you have to work hard for it and people dont want to work hard.  They would rather go out and party then stay home a study and get an education.  If that were not true we wouldnt have high school drop outs, people failing out of college.  Social programs are designed to make people dependant on the Govt for survival.  Once the people are dependant on the Govt the Govt can do what ever it wants.  
Ive said it before in the projects turing 16 is a happy day not because they get to get a drivers license but because thats the day you get to apply for Govt housing.  There is a 2 year waiting list so by the time your 18 you can get your "own" place.  There are 4 generations of familys living in the same Govt housing project.  None have finished high school.  They have food stamps, city paid Bus passes, Govt paid housing, heat and even internet when the city decided it want fair for the poor not to have acces to the internet. Where is the motivation for any of them to go get an education?  There are 1000's of grants available for the poor to get an education but they choose not too.  They would rather hang out in the streets all night and sleep all day.  We did a search warrant the other day I found 4 bottles of clean urine in the residence because the mother was on probation and was drug tested.  1 bottle was in the bathroom, 1 was in the mothers bedroom, one was in the living room and 1 in the pantry with the food. I asked her where the urine came from because she was high as a kite on PCP and she pointed to her 3 year old son.  She makes him pee in a bottle to pass a drug test.  Now I ask WHY on earth should we take tax dollars and pay for anything for her? Thats one example out of millions.  
Socialist dont care about helping people they care about creating a society of dependants and making sure they stay in power and making sure the people stay in line with the threat of reducing social programs.  Now I dont think that are all like that there are some that just dont see the dark side of the world they live in there little circles and never see anything else and they really think they are just helping people.  There is a person in my Dojo that is like that so I set them up to do a ride along and tehy showed her what the world is really like outside of her book clubs and dinner parties.  Shes now very conflicted about her beliefs and still to this day talks about the ride along which was back in June.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 24, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> All that sound great in a perfect world but we dont live in a perfect world. To be succesful you have to work hard for it and people dont want to work hard. They would rather go out and party then stay home a study and get an education. If that were not true we wouldnt have high school drop outs, people failing out of college. Social programs are designed to make people dependant on the Govt for survival. Once the people are dependant on the Govt the Govt can do what ever it wants.
> Ive said it before in the projects turing 16 is a happy day not because they get to get a drivers license but because thats the day you get to apply for Govt housing. There is a 2 year waiting list so by the time your 18 you can get your "own" place. There are 4 generations of familys living in the same Govt housing project. None have finished high school. They have food stamps, city paid Bus passes, Govt paid housing, heat and even internet when the city decided it want fair for the poor not to have acces to the internet. Where is the motivation for any of them to go get an education? There are 1000's of grants available for the poor to get an education but they choose not too. They would rather hang out in the streets all night and sleep all day. We did a search warrant the other day I found 4 bottles of clean urine in the residence because the mother was on probation and was drug tested. 1 bottle was in the bathroom, 1 was in the mothers bedroom, one was in the living room and 1 in the pantry with the food. I asked her where the urine came from because she was high as a kite on PCP and she pointed to her 3 year old son. She makes him pee in a bottle to pass a drug test. Now I ask WHY on earth should we take tax dollars and pay for anything for her? Thats one example out of millions.
> Socialist dont care about helping people they care about creating a society of dependants and making sure they stay in power and making sure the people stay in line with the threat of reducing social programs. Now I dont think that are all like that there are some that just dont see the dark side of the world they live in there little circles and never see anything else and they really think they are just helping people. There is a person in my Dojo that is like that so I set them up to do a ride along and tehy showed her what the world is really like outside of her book clubs and dinner parties. Shes now very conflicted about her beliefs and still to this day talks about the ride along which was back in June.



Here however it's the conservatives that want the people' kept down', they want the masses compliant and unemployment has always been highest when they are in power, it's the highest it's been for years again at the moment. We have companies laying off people, people losing their homes, education costin more than ever. Under the Tories we lost many industries including coal, ship building and most engineering. I'm afraid things here are only good for the few under the Tories. They've single handedly put more people on the dole than any socialist government we've had.

I hear people on the news calling Obama a socialist but looking at him and his policies I can see nothing socialist about him, he's not even left wing according to our standards, he's fit in with the more centralist Tories here.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 24, 2012)

Mind you, to be fair to the Tories, as evidenced by the OP video, there are stirrings in the bushes and even hints that, saints preserve us, Thatcher may have been wrong about the consequences of the economic path she put us all on.  To those of us who were never swayed by the Chicago School and have always pointed at the Austrian School as an example of a failure to model certain economic truths, this is hardly a surprise.

There is a rising tide within the Tory 'sea' that is lifting boats emblazoned with such words as "Ethical", "Sustainable" and "Inclusive" attached to the more familiar labels of "Free Market" (Ha! Never been any such thing) and "Capitalism".  Frighteningly {LOL}, this afternoon I was listening to some junior ministers (and eminent economics professors) actually talking sense about the damage caused by excessive inequality of income (especially 'unearned' or 'unjustified' income).  That damage is not only to 'faith in the system' and the social poisoning that that results in but also very real practical damage to the economy itself.

Answers are thin on the ground at present tho' about how to deal with it but at least there is the recognition is there that we cannot simply hope to bail out the banks at the expense of the 'poor' (that's us by the way) and hope to go on as before.  The economic landscape is changing and that can only be for the better.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 24, 2012)

Perhaps the Lib-Dems are having some influence on their blue chums after all.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 24, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Here however it's the conservatives that want the people' kept down', they want the masses compliant and unemployment has always been highest when they are in power, it's the highest it's been for years again at the moment. We have companies laying off people, people losing their homes, education costin more than ever. Under the Tories we lost many industries including coal, ship building and most engineering. I'm afraid things here are only good for the few under the Tories. They've single handedly put more people on the dole than any socialist government we've had.
> 
> I hear people on the news calling Obama a socialist but looking at him and his policies I can see nothing socialist about him, he's not even left wing according to our standards, he's fit in with the more centralist Tories here.



Obamas health care plan, his tax the rich plans thats what makes him socialist.
Im not rich and never will be but I also dont feel kept down because Im not.  Im glad there are Rich people in the country they are the people that start companies and create jobs.  I dont want their money and I dont want others to their have money either.  There are plenty of ways to get ahead in this world and all it takes is hard work.  Point to any poor person and I can show you where they went wrong.  The left seem to make the rich "EVIL" unless of course they are liberal rich folks then they are enlightened.  I think every one in this world gets what the deserve.  Your delt your cards and its up to you to change them or keep them and you shouldnt steal from others.  Social programs are creating a class of indentured servants to the Govt.  ONly this time its not the plantation owner thats your master its the federal Govt.  There are people in this country that are on unemployment for 2 years and still want more.  There are people that have lived in govt owned housing since the day they were born and dont pay a dime and still want more,  more more more more.  When will it end?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 24, 2012)

From what I've seen of Obama's healthcare plans they are far from socialist as far as we see it. Socialised healthcare would mean that all healthcare was free and/or only paid for by taxes or like us National Insurance. No one would pay for healthcare at the hospitals or doctors. I think for you though they seems socialist.

Britain's National Health Service is one of the best things about this country however I don't think you can duplicate it in America. Aftr the last war Britain was on it's knees, the poverty that wracked the country before the war due to the Depression etc wasn't helped by the country being bombed to pieces. slums were in every city, pepople were still dying from things like typhoid, polio as well as common things like measles, scarlet fever and of course in childbirth. The death rate among children was high.These conditions weren't totally eradicted until the late 1960s. We still had food rationing in the late 1950s. Only the very rich could afford to pay for a doctor and anhospitals were either for the rich or the very poor. the National health Service saved so many lives, brought so much good to this country you wouldn't believe. There was a poll recently and people still regard the NHS, even with it's faults as valuable.
I don't think such a thing , run in the same way, could work in the USA even if people were willing, it's a different era and your country is so much bigger than ours. I don't think Americans have the mindset to be as communal as we are, I think your cities are so large, the country so big you don't have the same feeling as we do about looking after each other. the war has a great deal to do with this, during it we were bombed, we faced obliteration, we were driven to our knees but we survived with a great sense of 'we are all in this together'. After the war there was a feeling that we needed to rebuild this country, that we needed to to have something we could be proud of, medical care for all was one of those things. A socialist government was elected straight after the war as they were felt to be the best ones to rebuild the country how people wanted it, certain industries were nationalised such as coal. coal was the fuel most used at that time, the mine owners, mostly absentee landlords had bad records for safety and pay, nationalising it meant these problems were addresses and the supply of coal was in the publics hands. Maggie Thatcher later destroyed tha industry, leaving whole towns in the north of England, Wales and scotland unemployed. The rail network was nationalised for much the same reasons, again she destroyed that, we have private companies running the train networks, more accidents than ever, huge expensive fares and chaotic timetables. It's a disaster. I can't afford to take a train down to York, half an hour away by train, it costs over £30 for a day return. it means we have more wagons on the roads because no one can afford to ship freight by train. 

I think when it comes to politics our two countries are so far apart as not to actually understand each other. To us Obama seems conservative, he's not a socialist by our lights, he's merely trying to throw a sop at fixing a problem with the poor, mostly because they are an embarrassment to the country. 

We have poor people here, in the old pit villages, in the old steel towns, in the towns where ship building used to be. They haven't done anything wrong, they didn't become poor because they were afraid to work or they expected a handout. these are proud people who have had the Tory government pull the work out from under them. Get on your bike was the advice given to the unemployed by the government. To where? to another town devastated by unemployment? Tell them that it's their fault, we don't build ships anymore, we don't have a coal industry anymore, we don't have steel works anymore, we don't have enough jobs to go around, that's the truth however hard people are willing to work there simply aren't the jobs. The Tories destroyed so much in this country, we still aren't sorted, we may never be to be honest. I'm not a scoilaist so hold no candle for them, they have their faults but dear lord the Tories under Thatcher were the most destructive, nasty, vindictive and destructive government we have ever had. People see the affluence in certain parts of the south of England but it's not like that everywhere. There is so much pain in so much of the country, it leads to so much more trouble too. Simply saying get a job and work hard won't cut it I'm afraid. Perhaps in America but not here, not anymore. This is Maggie's legacy.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 24, 2012)

I have no idea what those little box things are at the end of my previous post! Bizarre!


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 24, 2012)

Makes sense to me thats just not a country I want to live in.  I dont want the Govt running my health care you only need to spend an entire afternoon in the Motor Vehicles Adminstration trying to renew your tags to see the Govt cant run anything.  The only reason the Military orks is because they can order people to do things and they have no choice but to listen.  Like I said In theroy it sounds great but it just wont work here.  Too many spoiled lazy people that will just stop working all together and play on the internent all day if they dont need to work.
Like I said I believe most people get what the earn meaning you work hard you succeed you dont work hard well you dont.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 24, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Makes sense to me thats just not a country I want to live in. I dont want the Govt running my health care you only need to spend an entire afternoon in the Motor Vehicles Adminstration trying to renew your tags to see the Govt cant run anything. The only reason the Military orks is because they can order people to do things and they have no choice but to listen. Like I said In theroy it sounds great but it just wont work here. Too many spoiled lazy people that will just stop working all together and play on the internent all day if they dont need to work.
> Like I said I believe most people get what the earn meaning you work hard you succeed you dont work hard well you dont.



Your government is huge, your country is huge. Your population is just under 313,000,000, ours is 62,3000,000, a vast difference. Your country is approx 3,618,770 sq miles, ours 94060 sq miles so there's going to be a difference in how easily the countries are governed. Most things like the NHS are easier to work here, as I said I can't see the same scheme working for as many people as you have. When the NHS was set up there were only 47 million people in the country. 


Being an island has it's limitations, being small has as well, companies won't come here if it's cheaper to employ labour in Asia and there's no way we can compete with sweatshop wages and conditions. You can only start up so many businesses in a small place, where there's widespread unemployment because the industries have been taken away it's hard to find other work because of the smallness of the place. Imagine being in your fifties, worked hard all your life then dumped on the scrap heap. While we do have those that don't want to work, probably because they believe Simon Cowell is coming to make them a star, we have a lot of people actively looking for work and not succeeding through no fault of their own. Older people especially after redunancy find it hard to find another job. They've paid their taxes and NI all their working lives, if they aren't entitled to claim benefits, it would be a sad day.


The UK is a very different place from the USA however much we speak roughly the same language. I think sometimes we forget that we are very foreign to you and you to us. We see so many things differently yet expect us to be the same. Our history is also different though we share some parts of it, other bits like the trade unions are quite diverse from yours. Our politics I think are very different to yours, the national pysche is also different. The government we have is moulded by us, I think we feel more in control of it than you do of yours, a size thing again perhaps. We don't always like the government but we are actually governed by Parliament rather than just the government, that includes the Opposition, the Queen and the House of Lords which has just given the government a bloody nose and forced it to backtrack on a Bill. Our way of doing things may be an acquired taste but I doubt anyone would want things done any other way. Some things companies just make a mess of and government control is better here than having companies in charge of things that are vital to us. Again I think 'government control' means different things to us than to you.


----------



## billc (Jan 24, 2012)

Definition of a socialist:  You have money that you earned through your own cleverness and hard work, and you had better spend it the way we want you to spend it, or we will take it and spend it the way we think you should have spent it in the first place.  You greedy B******d.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 25, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Definition of a socialist: You have money that you earned through your own cleverness and hard work, and you had better spend it the way we want you to spend it, or we will take it and spend it the way we think you should have spent it in the first place. You greedy B******d.




Definition of a bigot...someone who doesn't know the facts, won't listen to others and is a smug bastard.


----------

