The Socialistic Shit-Case

[Muskan]

LONDON: In an effort to combat soaring teenage pregnancy in UK, government has ordered local authorities to press girls as young as 13 to have contraceptive jabs, which can make girls infertile for up to three months, a policy that has sparked an outcry in the country.
The Labour government has identified failures by teenage girls to take the daily pill correctly as one reason for soaring under-age pregnancy rates, which was the highest in Europe. Now British health and education ministers have ordered council and health chief executives to increase the uptake of “long-acting” contraception in teen pregnancy “hot spots”.
Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Outrage_in_UK_as_govt_orders_birth-control_injections_for_teens/articleshow/3720810.cms)
Why is so that British girls are so keen to be pregnant?
Why is preteen sex so normal in Britain?
By providing such injections, UK government may get some success in controlling birth rate, but what about the rise in infections such cases will cause?
British kids are having sex at very young age, who is responsible for this? Who should address this?
Schools? Government?
There is a rise in teenage pregnancy and it is the government which suffers if a lot of teenage girls want to have a baby. Government suffers because it needs to pay for the girl.
Government pays the pregnant girls and families with single mothers.
It is a very socialistic Idea. It is just like the idea of Universal Health care.
The socialistic government want to help the single mothers. But now, every other teenage girl want to be mother because she gets incentives for being a mother and their families gets monetary profits.
So who dig the pit? Socialists did it.
It remained the idea of all socialist schools, be it religious or political.
The religious socialism exclaimed sacrifice of Good Man in favour of the guilty one; Jesus Christ is the epitome for that. Political socialism exclaimed sacrifice of the hard worker for the lazy one. Marx was epitome for that.
And UK government pays the teenage single mothers on behalf of the tax payers' money which is sacrifice a honest worker does.

Socialism never works and it always causes havoc and it is right what is happening in Britain. While trying to help the single mothers, they actually provided incentives for every teenage girl to be a single mother. And now the government is suspicious about the situation.
The government is obviously not worried about the girls anymore, it is more worried about the money it has to give for the single mothers.
The experts say that it will promote promiscuity and those injections and implants will not protect against the rampant spread of sexually transmitted disease. Some health experts also say that the drugs are unsuitable for girls who are still growing.
Also, after being injected, girls will think that ‘Nothing can happen to me because I can’t get pregnant" and that attitude will obviously be dangerous because those injections just cannot provide safety against the sexually transmitted diseases.
Can schools and government address the problem?
They are constantly failing in doing so.
And why should a school or government be responsible for a kid if he/she is promiscuous or irresponsible towards his/her sexual behaviour?
In the case of Britain, the government is responsible. It is a socialist government.
The parents hold minimal rights over their kids.
They even cannot smack them.
A father was arrested by police and locked in a cell overnight after smacking his son's bottom.
Mark Frearson's young son had wandered off alone after dark while they were at a Plymouth shopping centre together.
Mr Frearson, who is separated from the boy's mother, found his son in a park 10 minutes later and smacked him once.
But a passer-by reported it to Plymouth police and four officers arrived at his house, took him away and locked him in a cell awaiting questioning.
BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/7732954.stm)

[Muskan]

The government has tried everything to reject the freedom, parents feel difficult (almost impossible) to control and discipline their own kids and teach them some rational moralities and attitudes regarding life.
Government and schools find it difficult to teach students about the bad effects of teenage sexual escapades and pregnancies.
According to figures from five of England’s 152 primary care trusts, girls as young as 13 have been administered injections and implants.
What will be the definition of molestation when even the girls of age 13 are being given anti-pregnancy injections?
I reiterate, socialism is the cause for all this, and responsible is the government.

[lucy]

How on earth could i have failed to notice the red star and the hammer and sickle on the union jack...:)
Darn sneaky commies.

[Muskan]

How on earth could i have failed to notice the red star and the hammer and sickle on the union jack...:)
Darn sneaky commies.

A red star and a sickle doesnot represent a socialist government with mixed economy. It represents communism.

UK is mixed economy socialist government as most of the other governments of the world nations are. Even China is no more communist but a mixed economy communist government now.

And the idea of paying for the single mother on behalf of the tax payers, and hence providing an incentive for every girl to be the mother, is one of the major cause of the problem.
Government is not injecting those girls for the sake of their health, as it is quite clear that these injections are not feasible for pertaining good health.
Government is doing that to curb the burdens of paying the single mothers, as teen girls are commonly opting for that.
Parents are almost helpless to properly give a good assistance and upbringing for their kids and hence avoid the cases of preteen and teen sex in general because of the excessive rules and regulations parenting is suffering from.

No jokes can avoid the reality, and you know that.

yet again, there is no Capitalist country whole round the world, even not Hongkong or Singapore, even there, citizens are provided with free/subsidized water and home on behalf of the taxes.
And there is no country in the world which is not socialist to some extent or other.

[gagged_Louise]

China - the Beacon of Hope

1949: Communism is the last hope for China
1979: Capitalism is the last hope for China
1989: China is the last hope for command communism
2009: China is the last hope for jungle capitalism.

[lucy]

I agree that it isn't smart to give teenage girls incentives to get pregnant, was wondering about that too. I disagree when you say Britains government is socialist. It's not even social democrat, imho

But here you are completely utterly totally wrong. Like uber-wrong!


No jokes can avoid the reality, and you know that.

Jokes are in fact the only way to avoid reality. No, not true, going insane is another one.

I prefer joking. :264:

[MMI]

I agree with you, lucy. New Labour owes more to Maggie Thatcher than to Ramsay MacDonald or Clement Atlee. It might not have forsaken young nymphomanics, but it has lost its socialist principles!

[Muskan]

But here you are completely utterly totally wrong.

That is your point of view.

For me, The statist government of UK is extremely socialist. it is far more socialist than Indian Government is.

There is nothing like perfect socialism anywhere.
But the principles on which the laws of helping and incentives for "single mothers" disallowing parents to have freedom to growup and discipline their own children is nothing but crap socialism.

Alduous Huxley or George Orwell may help you in understanding what is "socialism"!

Try to get a copy of "A Brave New World!" and then you may try for 1984 too.

[Muskan]

New Labour owes more to Maggie Thatcher than to Ramsay MacDonald or Clement Atlee.

Ohh wow!

And how much you know about Thacther or Thatcherism?
How much you know about Ronald Reagen or Reagnomics?

It wasn't thatcher who proposed the idea of helping middle class and single mothers and poor by looting the rich!


By the way, this idea comes from keynesian economics which is worst transformation of Socialism. Keynesians always suggests that to reduce the effect of recessions, one should opt for supply side economics.

It is the only keynesaisn who will say that the hardworking and saving ants, who saves food for the future during the good whether to firmly face the upcoming bad whether are wrong and the grasshopper doing nothing and wasting time and money caring nothing about the bad whether is good. ( i hope you do remember the story of Ants and grasshopper).

Just to provide consumer power for the lazies who even don't want to work, keynesians wants government to keep giving allowances and incentives and monetary help for such people on behalf of the tax the government loots from the hard workers.
Why? because if the consumer power of the lazies will increase, the production demand will increase, and that will provide more work for the hardworker who are (keynesians assumes) are genetically made to be looted sacrificed and exploited by the socialist government and altruism demanding lazies.

[Muskan]

1949: Communism is the last hope for China
1979: Capitalism is the last hope for China
1989: China is the last hope for command communism
2009: China is the last hope for jungle capitalism.

Jungle capitalism?

There is not a single place in whole world where Capitalism is being followed.

USA follows mixed economy guided by crooney capitalism loaded with shit of lobbyists, France, UK, Germany follows mixed economy tilted towards socialism guided by keynesianism, China follows mixed economy opening gates for capitalism yet driven by communism. India follows Mixed economy controlled by government trying to liberate certain parts of economy for capitalism.

The Only hope for the whole world including China is Capitalism.
(otherwise, china will also go down in same way as USA is going now). Why? because socialists, communists, croony capitalists and lobbyists cannot calculate the design of profits and loss.

[gagged_Louise]

1949: Communism is the last hope for China
1979: Capitalism is the last hope for China
1989: China is the last hope for command communism
2009: China is the last hope for jungle capitalism.

Jungle capitalism?

There is not a single place in whole world where Capitalism is being followed.

USA follows mixed economy guided by crooney capitalism loaded with shit of lobbyists, France, UK, Germany follows mixed economy tilted towards socialism guided by keynesianism, China follows mixed economy opening gates for capitalism yet driven by communism. India follows Mixed economy controlled by government trying to liberate certain parts of economy for capitalism.

The Only hope for the whole world including China is Capitalism.
(otherwise, china will also go down in same way as USA is going now). Why? because socialists, communists, croony capitalists and lobbyists cannot calculate the design of profits and loss.

It doesn't matter a lot to the corporations that are at work in Mainland China that the government keeps strict control of the media, that there is no freedom to start independent newspapers, tv channels or newsdesks, or that the state can decide where you should put up a factory. It counts a great deal more that the supply of assembly-line workers (already trained to read and understand instructions, and not to voice opposition) is pretty unlimited and that the state and the army more or less guarantee that there will be no unrest - no strikes, no independent unions, no unfavourable lawsuits, no workplace agitation - and that you can have wages and 14-hour shifts that we used to see as history books stuff in the developed world.

Total-free-market liberals often affirm their creed that a free, unhinged market will pull democracy in its wake. Wrong - there is no trouble for an unhinged capitalism to coexist with a very rough and repressive dictatorial state that keeps people on the mat (China executes far more people that any other country on the planet, even set against the size of its population, and rigidly controls the media). So this is what happens under the Red Sun, what happened in Chile in the 1980s. And what is largely happening in South Africa - the victory over apartheid was a glorious thing, but after that the country was soon forced to accept an extreme brand of flinging it open to corporate exploitation that could never have been pushed through in any highly developed country.

[lucy]

But here you are completely utterly totally wrong.

That is your point of view.

For me, The statist government of UK is extremely socialist. it is far more socialist than Indian Government is.

There is nothing like perfect socialism anywhere.
But the principles on which the laws of helping and incentives for "single mothers" disallowing parents to have freedom to growup and discipline their own children is nothing but crap socialism.

Alduous Huxley or George Orwell may help you in understanding what is "socialism"!

Try to get a copy of "A Brave New World!" and then you may try for 1984 too.
When i said you're completely utterly wrong i referred to you saying that joking doesn't help to avoid reality. Of course it does. Hahahaha. See? It worked. Again. Ha! :D

And yeah, i read Huxley and Orwell. For me both books where more like a description of fascism than socialism, although i admit that the two share some similarities.

[Ladymad]

Oh no, watch out! The reds are under the bed ;)

[Logic1]

I read what you posted Muskan and I honestly cant see anything socialistic about your first post so enlighten me.

[gagged_Louise]

I thought socialism was supposed to be about freedom to jump in bed with whoever you wanted for the moment... *rolls eyes*

[MMI]

New Labour owes more to Maggie Thatcher than to Ramsay MacDonald or Clement Atlee.

Ohh wow!

And how much you know about Thacther or Thatcherism?


I'm a Brit who lived through the Thatcher era and watched her grind the working classes into the mud. She was the sordid inspiration of the subsequent culture of greed, material acquisition and ostentatious display of wealth. She called herself a monetarist, not a keynesian because she considered the Labour Party's attempts to regulate the economy using keynesian principles had failed. She focused on money supply, interest rates and inflation.

She also reduced public spending on education (she was once Education Secretary) and health, she destroyed or severely weakened the trade unions - the miners' union in particular - and she prolonged the Cold War through her hostility to the Soviet Union. She declared war over a few useless islands in the South Atlantic to boost her chances of re-election, and cost Argentina and UK many valuable lives, including the murder of the entire company on board the Belgrano. She was xenophobic and possibly racist. She allowed ten IRA prisoners to starve themselves to death before she agreed to award them the status of policitcal prisoners: our H blocks, your Guantanamo Bay.

She stole mutual companies (belonging to the customers) and sold them off to private purchasers, keeping the money for the Treasury. She sold off many state-owned corporations and assets at below value - such as British Rail, British Telecom and many others - so that private investors - many of them foreign - could get rich as they sold off their investments for their true value and cleared a huge profit at the country's expense. This was "people's capitalism". It was daylight robbery!

Tony Blair a superficial sociatlist - received her approval as he followed in her footsteps.

Is that enough to comment? I must say, reviewing the above, it's no wonder Republicans approve of her.
How much you know about Ronald Reagen or Reagnomics?


I'm a Brit who lived through the Reagan era ...

I do remember a satirical programme on ITV at the time: "Spitting Image" it was called. It had a running series called "The President's Brain is Missing". Hilarious!


It wasn't thatcher who proposed the idea of helping middle class and single mothers and poor by looting the rich!


It sure wasn't New Labour, either. After all, hasn't George Brown just eliminated the lowest tax band - (10%) to pay for tax reductions for the higher rate tax payers. And isn't he allowing the wealthiest of our taxpayers to get away with not declaring their overseas income and paying tax on that? Robbing the poor to give to the rich. Not the sort of thing Labour's founders would have ever dreamt of.


By the way, this idea comes from keynesian economics which is worst transformation of Socialism. Keynesians always suggests that to reduce the effect of recessions, one should opt for supply side economics.

It is the only keynesaisn who will say that the hardworking and saving ants, who saves food for the future during the good whether to firmly face the upcoming bad whether are wrong and the grasshopper doing nothing and wasting time and money caring nothing about the bad whether is good. ( i hope you do remember the story of Ants and grasshopper).


You can't mix Aesop's Fables and economics. Because it's just as easy to demonstrate that the grasshopper was right to live for now, to enjoy life's blessings and to die young, while the poor old ant colony slaved all summer so the queen and all her princesses could thrive. And when the princesses all grew up and left to look for their own husbands, they poor worker ants wandered about aimlessly until they died ... or had boiling water poured on them by a fascist or communist tyrant.

Just to provide consumer power for the lazies who even don't want to work, keynesians wants government to keep giving allowances and incentives and monetary help for such people on behalf of the tax the government loots from the hard workers.
Why? because if the consumer power of the lazies will increase, the production demand will increase, and that will provide more work for the hardworker who are (keynesians assumes) are genetically made to be looted sacrificed and exploited by the socialist government and altruism demanding lazies.


Sounds like prejudiced Republican rhetoric to me ... that is, if Republicans can debate. I think the workers are more likely to be exploited by the capitalist bosses (the real "lazies"), as history richly demonstrates.

[SauvagePouline]

I know this is *slightly* off topic (i'm not going to touch the political part.) But this whole shot to preteens, sounds awful regardless of motivation.

If the "shot" is the one they have over here (depo provera) and it sounds like it (?) It is a bad bad form of birth control. I was on it for a while and it screwed up my whole system, and the gyno i met in the hospital after lots of blood loss b/c of said shot, was blown away that my (now ex) gyno ever recommended it. He mentioned lots of studies I've forgotten now... but yea

Plus, doesn't long term hormonal birth control increase chances of infertility and lots of other stuff??

I hate these kinds of gov't fixes that jump without thought *grumble* of conscequences for the individuals they're talking about.


anyways... back to the politics, have fun.


SP

[MMI]

If the original post had simply questioned whether providing contraception for sexually active pre-teens was a good idea or not, instead of using it to demonstrate the failure of British society and the impotence of socialism, I'm sure the thread would have followed an entirely different (and possibly much more constuctive) path.

In my long life in Britain I've never met or even come close to a preteen mother and only too a very few mothers who became pregnant outside a long-term relationship. The majority of single parents in my experience are divorcees. Just like in USA, I bet.

But you can make the news say whatever you want it to say if you're sufficiently selective, can't you?

As for your remarks about the health implications, I cannot comment apart from saying I would prefer a very young girl didn't get pregnant to having a child she couldn't look after or brings up in wretched conditions.

[Tufty]

It wasn't Thatcher who proposed the idea of helping middle class and single mothers and poor by looting the rich!


Erm...maybe you're thinking of Robin Hood??

[Muskan]

Erm...maybe you're thinking of Robin Hood?

A government working on Compulsory Taxation and forced subsidies is nothing but Robin Hood.

[Muskan]

In my long life in Britain I've never met or even come close to a preteen mother

And how many Britons you know?

Some British teenagers disagrees with you like this one--

I am a teenager. I am 14 years old and although I think it shouldn't be that big of a deal if a 15 to 17 year old has a baby, it really is. I'm not saying I would want to have a baby right now, but it happens a lot now. I wouldn't be surprised if someone I know through High School got pregnant.

http://www.wineintro.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=324213


Anyways, you are free to have your own opinions and love for socialism, I have my freedom to despise socialism in any pattern.

[Muskan]

Plus, doesn't long term hormonal birth control increase chances of infertility and lots of other stuff??


And what a government has to do with that?

Government's incentive to reduce preteen cases is to reduce the amount to be paid for the single mothers.

[Muskan]

Sounds like prejudiced Republican rhetoric to me ... that is, if Republicans can debate. I think the workers are more likely to be exploited by the capitalist bosses (the real "lazies"), as history richly demonstrates.

Irrespective of all that, you can mention no time period where Capitalism was experienced anywhere in whole world

Now don't try to say that you consider there is no difference between Capitalism and Feudalism or Oligarchy, or whatever you were trying to criticize.

Infact your comment shows your ignorance about Capitalism.

[Muskan]

You can't mix Aesop's Fables and economics.

Yes i know I cannot mix them nor i tried to mix them. I just gave a hypothetical example which was not demanding the extension of the story.

Although I can surely give you realitic examples to prove the point, but the problem which you will face is that a socialist economist can even not calculate.

[Muskan]

Tony Blair a superficial sociatlist

And may be someone told you in your dreams that Tony Blair is nor socialist or Reagen was Capitalist? Who said that? Not me. Not even dreams.

Laissez-Faire system has never been applied anywhere by anybody. (you may try to give some example if it was during your long life)

I wonder why some people try to gain some points because they have lived a long life.

[Muskan]

I thought socialism was supposed to be about freedom to jump in bed with whoever you wanted for the moment...

if government is paying for the result of your irresponsible jumping in bed or stock market or whereever, (that is, it is bailing you out) then it is socialism irrespective of your thoughts.
And helping single mothers through taxed collection is just like that.

[Muskan]

I read what you posted Muskan and I honestly cant see anything socialistic about your first post so enlighten me.


You may try to seek out what is NOT SOCIALIST in Taxation, Subsidies, governmental help for poor, single mothers, farm owners, drowning bankers, failing businessmen etc.

And socialism always fails in fulfilling the ends which causes the government to take the nasty steps, and injecting contraceptives to teenagers is just such a nasty step.

[MMI]

Muskan, are you advocating voluntary taxation? Let me know how you get on with that idea!

I know lots of Britons, being resident in Great Britain. That's as daft as me asking you how many Americans you know.

I repeat, there are nowhere near as many preteen mothers in UK as you are trying to make out and blame on socialism. If you don't believe me, you could come over and check, rather than rely on publications that have their own agendas to pursue.

To my mind, the number of people young girls sleep with has nothing to do with socialism, communism or Thatcher's fascism. Kids have been sleeping around, to my certain knowledge, under all forms of government since the 60's, and, so I hear, for a long time before then too.

The number of teenage pregnancies tends to be greatest in the poorer sections of society. It is natural therefore for the socialist movement to be concerned to help these people out of poverty for their own good, the good of the babies, and for the good of the country. It would be futile, obviously, to look for help from the kind of capitalists you seem to revere.

[his_girl_l]

I agree with you, lucy. New Labour owes more to Maggie Thatcher than to Ramsay MacDonald or Clement Atlee. It might not have forsaken young nymphomanics, but it has lost its socialist principles!


There is a current trend among two party democracies for both parties to move towards the centre. Oppositions tend to co opt incumbents policies, eventually bringing both parties full circle with very similar positions on a lot of things.

It happened in Australia last year, with a labour government being elected on a platform almost identical to that that the liberals (who are the conservatives here, i know that is confusing, esp for Americans) had run on four years earlier, the major differences being symbolic gestures rather than hard policy.

From what i observe of British politics, the conservatives are co opting a lot of new labour's social and environmental policies.

And even in America Obama has made a point of matching the republicans on points such as national security. The republicans, on the other hand, are throwing state money at private enterprises.

I'm not saying this is bad - it seems to me to be a case of political parties trying to form the sort of government that people want, which is what democracy is all about. after all. Or maybe just society evolving and learning to work outside rigid political belief systems.

Parties of small government are becoming a thing of the past - because once a party becomes a government it becomes in its own interest to grow.

[MMI]

So ... maybe what you are saying, lgirl (and you might be right for all I know) is that the British Labour and Conservative parties will continue to adopt each other's policies until they become virtually indistinguishable. Maybe totally indistinguishable. I don't believe that would be a good development - a tyranny of centrists, in fact.

I regret that this shift towards the centre has happened: we have a perfectly good "middle of the road" party in the Liberals, but, strangely enough, they now appear to be the most left-wing of the three.

But that's not really the point of this thread. Muskan has suggested that because the British social services spend money in looking after pregnant preteen girls, every British girl is going to contrive to become pregnant in order to get government handouts, which is effectively robbing the honest worker of his hard-earned crust, and this will eventuallt drag Britain down into chaos. I believe I have paraphrased his initial post correctly - no doubt he will correct me if I haven't.

He blames this on socialism, not the centrism you have observed, and so I have tried to express the difficulty I am having in understand his equation, young pregnant girls + social help and assistance = economic breakdown. I find his later replies unhelpful.

When you consider the trillions handed over to bail out capitalist institutions that lost their financial gambles, and the billions being spent on the Afghan war, what difference will a few hundred thousand going to a handful of unfortunate girls make to the economy? Apart, perhaps, from making it easier for a young mother to bring up her child and become a useful member of society.

[his_girl_l]

i agree with you. Ensuring young mothers and their children have access to support isn't socialism - it's compassion.

i guess what i was trying to say is that it isn't always helpful to label policies with often outdated concepts of political theory. It tends to inflame people rather than helping debate.

[lucy]

I cannot help but get the impression that this was exactly one of the purposes of the thread title. I could be wrong, tho.

Something else: i have no idea how this is in other countries, but where i live nobody "enjoys" having to go to get welfare. You're kinda stigmatised if you have to, even if it's not your fault (for example when your shithead of a husband has left you and doesn't pay his alimony)

[MMI]

Trying to get benefits when your ex should be paying alimony? Disgraceful! Make him pay instead of leeching off me. I work for my own good, not yours, or society's.

Sue him!

What? You can't afford to pay for a solicitor? Then get a job!



PS - I agree about the title. Inflammatory is right.

[Logic1]

i agree with you. Ensuring young mothers and their children have access to support isn't socialism - it's compassion.

or just plain ole humanism perhaps

I dont get the whole US scare with socialism actually. It is like they draw a = between that and communism which isnt at all the same. Stuck in the 50s and 60s maybe?
What is wrong with helping eachother out? People to me, isnt as good as the money they make and they shouldnt be either.

(and just some info. I dont consider myself a socialist either)

[Thorne]

I dont get the whole US scare with socialism actually.

I don't know about scared, but I'll tell you my problem with socialism, at least socialism as I understand it.

Socialism demands that those who work hard to earn a living and make something of themselves must donate money (through taxes) to those who aren't interested in working hard, but are more interested in getting a free ride. The hard workers have no say in who gets their tax money, whether it goes to the sick, or injured, or those who are just plain unlucky. Everyone gets a piece, deserving or not.

There are organizations which are designed to help those who cannot help themselves (that's CANnot, not WILL not.) Those who wish to help these downtrodden and deserving people can do so, voluntarily, by donating to these organizations. This makes it more likely that those who are truly deserving receive the help they need, while those who are just lazy do not.

This is probably a simplistic view of things, but it's basically the way I see things. As it stands, far too much of my tax money goes to support people and institutions which I don't believe are deserving of help, so I refuse to donate to charity, either financially or with my time. If the government is so concerned for these people, let them help. They certainly get enough of my money!

[MMI]

Then you are totally mistaken about it, Thorne, and yes, it's a simplisitic view. I'm not necessarily surprised that you oppose socialism, but I expected you to have a better reason for doing so.

Anyone interested in gettting a free ride will get one, whatever economic or political system he's living in. Usually, he will do it by breaking the law. Here, in UK, he will claim benefits he's not entitled to. That's an illegal act: it's fraud, and there are penalties for those who commit it. I expect that it's illegal in the USA to make use of the government sponsored aid programmes if you don't qualify for them, too.

But, in reality, the number of people getting free rides is very low, despite what agitators with vested interests say.

I believe you know enough about socialism to realise that your brief synopsis is overstated. Socialism isn't about giving anyone free rides. It expects everyone to work hard to earn their living and pay taxes. Then it expects the government to provide the necessary support and services to keep the workers happy and helthy. That includes, for example, schools, health care services, pensions, family benefits and so on, including specific help for special needs (such as preteen mothers).

I'm sure you are aware that there are more people in USA who cannot afford medical insurance, for example, than there are who do not deserve to be given medical treatment. I hope you realise that, if it were left to voluntary donations and charitable organisations, that there would be even less provision for the needy in your country than there is already.

What I really think you and your compatriots object to (and forgive me for putting words in your mouth - especially if I am wrong) is being made to contribute to a government aid programme that you are not able to participate in or benefit from. I would object to paying my taxes to support the NHS if I wasn't going to benefit from it. But I have.

I do not consider myself to be one of the freeloaders you describe, but I was brought into the world under the NHS. I've been treated for various minor ailments under it, and have had life-long treatment for poor vision. More recently I have received life-saving treatment under it, and am being treated for another life-long condition. My wife has benefitted similarly, and as a child, she received cutting-edge eye surgery, and, again more recently she received surgery and treatment for a life-threatening disease. We did not have to concern ourselves how we would pay for this treatment. It was already paid for out of taxes. We had no fear of bankruptcy, nor did we have to worry about being refused insurance cover in future, or our premiums being loaded so much as to make them unaffordable.

I was educated under the state system. My wife received a private education: her parents chose to pay for it in addition to paying taxes. We have that freedom.

We can choose to pay for private medical treatment too, if we wish.

I have been unemployed. With a wife and two children to support and a hefty mortgage to serivce, unemployment is a major worry. (In case you don't know it, the cost of a small house in the UK would buy a luxury home with a swimming pool in USA: mortgages are very heavy burdens here). Unemployment benefits do not go anywhere near meeting the cost of living, let alone cover a mortgage - which is excluded from the calculation of entitlements anyway -but at least it helps.

If I had a 12 year-old daughter, and she got herself pregnant, she probably would not be able to get any benefits from the state, because she would be able to rely on me. But if (say) she had run away from home and had no-one to support her, then it is right that the state should give her everything she needs. How would you feel if it was beyond your reach to help your daughter, and no-one else bothered to help her either, even though they could?

Socialism, as it is practiced in Europe at least, is a very humane system of government, and one I would recommend as significantly (I nearly said infinitely) superior to the American system any time.

Of course, we don't have as much disposable income, because of the taxes we pay, and what we pay for is heavily taxed too, but we do have greater peace of mind and a less "beggar-my-neighbour" attitude.

[lucy]

But, in reality, the number of people getting free rides is very low, despite what agitators with vested interests say.

This was extensively investigated here in the last couple of months, because their had been some spectacular cases of fraud: 3% of all the people getting welfare did receive too much money or shouldn't have gotten any money at all.

[his_girl_l]

The government here is incredibly tough on welfare fraud and overpayments.

As well as criminally prosecuting people who make false claims, it aggressively pursues people who are accidentally overpaid by administrative error.

But as welfare agencies have access to tax office records i would think it would be almost impossible to cheat and get away with it for more than one financial year.

There was an interesting case a few years ago that i followed pretty closely as i was working as a legal secretary at the time and had access to law journals. The Australian Taxation Office was claiming that a drug dealers profits were legally income, no matter how they were derived. They ended up getting a judgement that he had to pay tax on it and also charged him with welfare fraud and he also had to repay the benefits he had received during the period he was dealing.

i don't think anyone, no matter what their political leanings, would argue that welfare
payments should go to anyone who wasn't in genuine need.

And to return to the point of this post, teen mothers without a supportive partner or the education required to get a job that would cover child care and also support them and their child are about as needy as people can get.

i have qualifications, a good work history and child support payments from my ex husband, a well off professional. And i still find it hard to find work that will make ends meet after child care payments for my three pre school age children.

The only way for teen mothers to get independent and educated is to have assistance in the early years, be it from state, charity or family.

But prevention is better than cure, and while i would never advocate forcing any drug on anyone, programmes to encourage teenagers to use contraception can only be a good thing in my opinion.

True, an implant won't prevent STDs. But a lot of teens are obviously not using condoms anyway. In fact the statistics here show that teenage use of condoms is down to pre 80s levels as the threat of aids isn't viewed as as serious as it was a generation ago.

If it's a choice between teens contracting sexually transmitted diseases AND getting pregnant AND potentially passing the diseases on to their babies, or just getting STDs, i know which i would choose.

[MMI]

This was extensively investigated here in the last couple of months, because their had been some spectacular cases of fraud: 3% of all the people getting welfare did receive too much money or shouldn't have gotten any money at all.

Thanks for this information. However, something's missing.

3% of how many? And what proportion is that of the working population?

Furthermore, how much too much did they receive? A dollar or two, or hundreds? And how much of the overpayments was due to fraud as opposed to clerical error (working out benefits can be incredibly - and unnecessarily - complicated, even for the people who work in the welfare departments).

In Britain we have a population of 60 million (per National Statistics Office). Of those, we have a workforce of 30 million, of which 1.7 million are unemployed. 3% of that would mean 51,000 people were being paid too much unemployment benefit, for one reason or another - not all of it due to fraudulent claims.

11% of the UK population regard their health as "not good". Assuming that indicates that they make significant use of the NHS, then 6,600,000 are doing so. If 3% of these people were making fraudulent use of the NHS, we would be talking about 198,000 people.

We have, perhaps, 16 million people aged over 65, most of whom will be receiving benefits of some sort. Is pension fraud included in the 3% figure?

Britain's population is about 1/20th of that of USA, but however you look at it, 3% of a nation's economy produces numbers that can be scarily large. It is not proof that the nation is being dragged into financial ruin by people who refuse to contribute their fair share of work. The country can and should afford that in order to make sure the other 97% of benefits are paid out to people who do deserve it. Maybe it should work harder to eliminate the fraudsters.

[Logic1]

The governments SHOULD be tough on welfare fraud but for me personally I rather pay a bit more tax and then if I happen to get sick or out of a job or something along those lines I would like for the society as a whole to help me through the tough times than if I go and get sick or whatever have to solely rely on myself and the money I have saved up for myself.
I think of it as humane and considerate and not bad at all.

[Thorne]

I've read much of what has been said here and I agree with some of the things you are saying, to some degree. But I still tend to balk at the idea that the government should be responsible for taking care of people. People should first take care of themselves, second their families and friends, and third, other people if they wish to do so.

Regardless of what religion might tell you, I am not responsible for every other person in this world, or in this country, or even in my neighborhood. Your 12 year old daughter is pregnant? Unless it's my son who got her there, it's not my problem. Your baby was born with aids? Not my problem. You have asthma, bronchitis, a broken leg and heart disease? Not my problem!!

I see images on the TV of people starving in Africa, and people in Asia homeless, and people in Texas ravaged by storms, and I say: NOT MY PROBLEM!

I read an article recently about two slackers in Britain who were both out of work, or unable to work, who spent a vast amount of time, and money, on the "Second Life" computer world, so much so that their real lives were adversely affected by it. These people, who were obviously not starving to death, couldn't get out and get work, but they could afford internet access and whatever the fees for that silly program? All on YOUR tax dollars? Is that what socialism is all about?

I've worked hard all my life. Sure, I've been out of work. Sure, I've had spells when I didn't have any health care benefits. And maybe I've just been lucky that I haven't had any serious illnesses. But I've always, always tried to pay my own way.

When I was out of work, we cut back on the luxuries. We didn't pay for every movie network on the cable, and sometimes we couldn't even pay for the cable. We didn't buy high end electronics or expensive clothes. We made do with what we had and only bought what we needed. And even while working, and bringing in enough money, we still didn't buy anything that wasn't absolutely necessary unless we had the cash to pay for it!

Now, my home is paid for, my kids are grown (though apparently not totally independent), I am not smothered under credit card debt, and my wife and I are seeing retirement just around the corner. I'm not interested in a system that is going to tax me to death to pay for your kid's problems, or for that starving family in the Philippines or any of the thousands, millions of hard-luck people around the world. I'll take care of myself and my family. Let others do the same.

And just one more rock to throw into that socialist pond: I know it's not politically correct, but I don't believe that every life is sacred or deserving of being saved. Some people should just be allowed to die off naturally, hopefully before they can pass on their defective genes.

This is not a racial or cultural idea, either. I don't care which part of the world you come from, what color your skin is, or what religion, if any, you choose to associate with. I'm talking strictly about the genetic makeup of humanity. Keeping kids with congenital defects alive just because they might grow up to be the next Beethoven or Einstein or Mandela isn't doing humanity any good. The next Dr. King or Ghandi, or perhaps even the next Hitler or Stalin, will eventually come along anyway, and he or she will be healthy enough to survive into adulthood without extraordinary means. Spending hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dollars to keep a kid alive just because he's a kid is stupid and arrogant. Odds are his value to society will always be a negative. The Hawkings of the world are few and far between.

[lucy]

You are lying on the street, robbed, beaten, hurting, aching, bleeding, about to kick the bucket?
Fuck it! It's not my problem! I just walk by.

No, wrong. F*** YOU! Your stupidity of being in the wrong place at the wrong time probably will cost me (as a taxpayer!!!) some of my hard earned Swiss Francs.

(Just to make sure everyone gets it: It's called sarcasm. And not personal. Just an example, although a graphical one.)

As for your questions, MMI: Right, my post wasn't all that helpful. I'll try to fill in the blanks if i get around to do some research.

[MMI]

No problem, lucy.
:)

[his_girl_l]

[QUOTE=Thorne;767924]
And just one more rock to throw into that socialist pond: I know it's not politically correct, but I don't believe that every life is sacred or deserving of being saved. Some people should just be allowed to die off naturally, hopefully before they can pass on their defective genes.


As far as i know the concept of every life being sacred isn't unique to any political creed.

Before there were organised welfare states church run charities took care of people in extreme need. True, you might have been able to opt out, but until the 19th century there was enormous social pressure to be active in your local church and also to tithe - and those tithes helped look after people who had fallen on hard times.

Do you really believe that, at say 2 weeks old, one babies life is of more value than another? What if you and your wife had died in a car accident when your children were young. Would you expect your kids to be left to starve to weed out genes for risk taking driving behaviour?

I am not a socialist, but i really really don't think this argument is about politics anymore, if it ever was.

It is a huge leap to go from arguing that adults who can earn their own living shouldn't receive tax payer subsidy to arguing that some babies and children who are incapable of looking after themselves should be condemned because of the circumstances of their birth.

You seem to believe in free agency. Don't you think the children of the poor, teenage mothers, even the majority of the earths population living in the third world that you are willing to dismiss to quickly, deserve the chance to grow up to practice theirs?

[MMI]

Double posting

[MMI]

I composed a long reply to Thorne, but it took too long and I was timed out before I could post it. Just as well, my thoughts have changed.

I now think that many Americans do believe they are worth more than anyone else, just because they have more money and power than the rest. Including other Americans who have the misfortune to be poorer. That being so, there's no arguing with them, because we have no common values, principles or morality. They do not value compassion or comprehend social conscience, just like we cannot understand their cold, dispassionate, animal-like isolationism.

Britain is not a socialist country, but we Britons choose to support our needy, and in particular, to help our young single mothers (for the sake of the children more than anything else). For the most part, we are happy to do so. As America values freedom of choice, they should allow us to do so without comment. Let their own unfortunates die in their own filth if that's what they want, but don't tell us that the American way is better than ours. It stinks!

I have nothing else to say.

[Torq]

Thread moved to Politics Area.

Note: In this area there is a LITTLE more allowances for OPINIONS ON THE TOPIC!!!!!!

NOTE Key word LITTLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

STAY on TOPIC

TY


T

[Thorne]

You are lying on the street, robbed, beaten, hurting, aching, bleeding, about to kick the bucket?
Fuck it! It's not my problem! I just walk by.

You think this is unusual? I would bet that this happens far too often in almost any major city in the world.

A young woman is gang-raped in a bar. Not a single patron comes to her aid and, in fact, many of them cheer on the rapists.

A man is badly injured by a hit and run driver. No one passing by bothers to even notify emergency services, and at least one "Good Samaritan" actually tries to rob the man.

A woman screams in pain and terror as her husband/boy friend beats her mercilessly, night after night. Not one neighbor interferes or notifies police. When the woman is found dead, several weeks later, all the neighbors are "shocked! He seemed like such a nice man!"

These are horrid examples of man's inhumanity, and I don't for one instant claim that they are good or right. But they are a far cry from telling someone who is healthy and fit that they are no longer getting a free ride, but will have to work to support themselves.

Sure, help those who cannot help themselves. I have no problem with that. And those who have already done their bit for society, the elderly who are finally able to set aside their burdens, they deserve the support of that society. They've earned it.

But don't expect me to feel sorry for some schmuck who has spent his whole life chasing from one drug-fueled high to another. Or some foolish woman who has come to realize that the government will give her more money if she has more kids, and she won't have to work for it.

I've worked my whole life only to see the fruits of my labors wasted on people like this. I say, let them fend for themselves, and if they can't hack it, then too bad. We must all pay the price for our own stupidity.

[Thorne]

[QUOTE=Thorne;767924]Do you really believe that, at say 2 weeks old, one babies life is of more value than another?
Absolutely! If one of those children is healthy and fit, with little or no physical defects; and the other child has severe physical problems, the kinds of problems which would result in multiple surgeries and years of intensive care to allow that child to live a life of pain and anguish, a life which is almost certainly going to be short and unproductive; then yes, one child has more value.

I have seen these kinds of defects, seen the amount of resources devoted to keeping children alive for just one more day, one more week. Children who should have died immediately after birth, who would never even leave the hospital. Some who had even been, finally, abandoned by their families because they were not going to survive, yet kept alive simply because medicine can keep them alive.


What if you and your wife had died in a car accident when your children were young. Would you expect your kids to be left to starve to weed out genes for risk taking driving behaviour?
In this kind of case, I would expect that my family, or hers, or both, would step in and take over the raising of my children. And if there is no family, then yes, the state would take over.

I'm not talking about genetic problems which may or may not appear later in someone's life, but genetic problems which appear at birth, physical and/or mental deformities which preclude a child from living any kind of meaningful life. Admittedly, there is a fine line there. Who decides. I don't claim to know the answers. I just know that there are serious problems with the system as it stands.


You seem to believe in free agency. Don't you think the children of the poor, teenage mothers, even the majority of the earths population living in the third world that you are willing to dismiss to quickly, deserve the chance to grow up to practice theirs?
Absolutely! They deserve just as much chance as I was given by my parents, and as much chance as I was able to provide my children. Just don't expect me to subsidize their chances.

[Skyybird]

OK...so...we are here to debate why the teenage pregnancy rate in the UK is so high? Thats how I read the first post anyway.

I will give you the benefit of my experience, I work in this exact field and can tell you that it is rarely solely due to the financial remuneration offered by the government to support young girls in this situation.

I can tell you, it is about nothing more than sex.

Sex education in this country sucks big time. I have posted in a thread elsewhere about this and I said then, as I say now, sex is everywhere.

TV, Music, Newspapers, Clubs, you name it....everything is sold on it's intrinsic sexy value added appeal.

Teenage girls are no longer innocent. The generation their parents belong to have sealed their fate in opening the world up to being liberal and removing taboo's. We have all switched on our computers, tv's radios, opened our newspapers etc and invited sex into our lives. Our children no longer see sex as something adult.

Education in schools has pretty much irradicated the inclusion of anything other than basic sex education. Not enough time is given to focus on self repsect and relationships. We fill them full of the mechanics but fail to provide the complexities of life into it.

I joke you not...when my daughter became a woman, I told her in no uncertain terms she was now physically capable of bearing a child, she is 11. I also lightened the moment by telling her there should be no more sex!! It was a joke, She laughed rightly so, she is a mature young lady in the making and we speak freely about this subject because I truly believe to grow up understanding relationships is the key to making it past your teens without getting pregnant.

So...do we just let these girls get pregnant and not look after them? Do we let these innocent babies come into the world to be negelected, malnourished and to grow into carbon copies of their parents? I dont think so. I think we have the responsibility as a society to provide for them, both the mother and the child, who lets face it have no idea what they are getting into.

Do we not give them contraception and let them get pregnant repeatedly over time to repeat their own niaive mistakes? I agree that the injection may not be ideal, but it is the least forgettable type of contraception second to an IUD (coil) which is not recommended until a woman has had her first child. Until another form of contraception can be made available which is safe for young girls and which doesnt rely on the girl remebering everyday to take a pill, which itself isn't suitable to all women either, we have to concentrate on education.

http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/health/teenagepregnancy/about/

You may find this document helpful.

Just to clarify, the current benefit paid to young girls who have babies is the same as that which is paid to anyone who has a child at any age. The extra benefits are in order to make sure she has a place to live that is safe and clean for her and her childs health. Such places in my experience are rarely up to the task. Social services will not separate a mother and child until there is significant concern for the childs wellbeing. But that is a whole other story.

[Skyybird]

I've read much of what has been said here and I agree with some of the things you are saying, to some degree. But I still tend to balk at the idea that the government should be responsible for taking care of people. People should first take care of themselves, second their families and friends, and third, other people if they wish to do so.

Regardless of what religion might tell you, I am not responsible for every other person in this world, or in this country, or even in my neighborhood. Your 12 year old daughter is pregnant? Unless it's my son who got her there, it's not my problem. Your baby was born with aids? Not my problem. You have asthma, bronchitis, a broken leg and heart disease? Not my problem!!

I see images on the TV of people starving in Africa, and people in Asia homeless, and people in Texas ravaged by storms, and I say: NOT MY PROBLEM!

I read an article recently about two slackers in Britain who were both out of work, or unable to work, who spent a vast amount of time, and money, on the "Second Life" computer world, so much so that their real lives were adversely affected by it. These people, who were obviously not starving to death, couldn't get out and get work, but they could afford internet access and whatever the fees for that silly program? All on YOUR tax dollars? Is that what socialism is all about?

I've worked hard all my life. Sure, I've been out of work. Sure, I've had spells when I didn't have any health care benefits. And maybe I've just been lucky that I haven't had any serious illnesses. But I've always, always tried to pay my own way.

When I was out of work, we cut back on the luxuries. We didn't pay for every movie network on the cable, and sometimes we couldn't even pay for the cable. We didn't buy high end electronics or expensive clothes. We made do with what we had and only bought what we needed. And even while working, and bringing in enough money, we still didn't buy anything that wasn't absolutely necessary unless we had the cash to pay for it!

Now, my home is paid for, my kids are grown (though apparently not totally independent), I am not smothered under credit card debt, and my wife and I are seeing retirement just around the corner. I'm not interested in a system that is going to tax me to death to pay for your kid's problems, or for that starving family in the Philippines or any of the thousands, millions of hard-luck people around the world. I'll take care of myself and my family. Let others do the same.

And just one more rock to throw into that socialist pond: I know it's not politically correct, but I don't believe that every life is sacred or deserving of being saved. Some people should just be allowed to die off naturally, hopefully before they can pass on their defective genes.

This is not a racial or cultural idea, either. I don't care which part of the world you come from, what color your skin is, or what religion, if any, you choose to associate with. I'm talking strictly about the genetic makeup of humanity. Keeping kids with congenital defects alive just because they might grow up to be the next Beethoven or Einstein or Mandela isn't doing humanity any good. The next Dr. King or Ghandi, or perhaps even the next Hitler or Stalin, will eventually come along anyway, and he or she will be healthy enough to survive into adulthood without extraordinary means. Spending hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dollars to keep a kid alive just because he's a kid is stupid and arrogant. Odds are his value to society will always be a negative. The Hawkings of the world are few and far between.

I'm sorry but I'm afraid I think you are lacking compassion. You have been very lucky in your life and you have obviously been raised with a good sense of responsibility for yourself and your family. Sadly, through no fault of their own, many other people in this world have not.

I hope to god you never loose your home and your income.

Life is just not that black and white.

[Skyybird]

Trying to get benefits when your ex should be paying alimony? Disgraceful! Make him pay instead of leeching off me. I work for my own good, not yours, or society's.

Sue him!

What? You can't afford to pay for a solicitor? Then get a job!



PS - I agree about the title. Inflammatory is right.

And a free nanny for the kids and some free petrol for the car to get to work?

Put yourself in those shoes for one minute. It just isnt that easy. A solicitor and a court order is not the guarrantee of payment if there is no money to be given.

[Thorne]

I'm sorry but I'm afraid I think you are lacking compassion. You have been very lucky in your life and you have obviously been raised with a good sense of responsibility for yourself and your family. Sadly, through no fault of their own, many other people in this world have not.

I hope to god you never loose your home and your income.

Life is just not that black and white.
I think I do have compassion, just not for every sick little puppy that crosses my path. If a young mother gets injured or killed by a drunk driver, certainly her kids will need to be helped. Preferably by the drunk who's responsible. He has his own family? Fine! Let half his income go to helping the family he deprived of a mother. Sure, that deprives his family, but he should have thought about that before getting behind the wheel drunk.

I feel sorry for a lot of people in this world, and I know things are not always black and white. Hardly ever, in fact. But there are still certain standards which we have developed in this country, and perhaps others, which deflect responsibility from those who should be held responsible and onto those who haven't done anything wrong but must pay for someone else's mistakes.

So, you have a young mother who can't afford to raise her own child? What should she do? Go out and have more children? That doesn't help anything. I know! Let's give her money and tell her that she'll be supported by society because she's just a poor unfortunate girl. Then she can learn that having kids will keep her from having to get a job. Isn't that brilliant?

I don't claim to know all the answers, either. I do know that education and a sense of personal responsibility will do more for people's lives than all the welfare in the world. Let's spend our money on those things, instead.

[Skyybird]

I don't claim to know all the answers, either. I do know that education and a sense of personal responsibility will do more for people's lives than all the welfare in the world. Let's spend our money on those things, instead.

I agree there are always going to be people who play the system, I'm not innocent enough to think everyone is honest and hard working. But working in the middle of these young people really does change one's beliefs. They dress and act so mature but yet inside they are still children and have no idea what they are getting into.

You are so right. We need to invest in our future generations with not just finances but with our skills and experience to give them the best life chances.

If a man under the influence of alcohol drives his car and kills a mother, his family should not have to suffer either....he will pay his debt as is prescribed by law. His children should not have to pay his debt for him.

It's easy to believe our own principles are correct, and virtuous, until it is us who stands in the shoes of those we judge.

[Thorne]

If a man under the influence of alcohol drives his car and kills a mother, his family should not have to suffer either....he will pay his debt as is prescribed by law. His children should not have to pay his debt for him.
I agree, they should not. Neither should the children of the woman he's killed, but they do. And neither should I have to pay his debt, yet I must help to pay for his incarceration as well as for those children, and probably for his children. Yet I don't know any of them and had nothing to do with the circumstances which caused the whole mess. Where's the justice in that?

There are charitable organizations and religious organizations which claim to help those in need, and those who feel the need can donate to those organizations. Let these groups handle the needs of those children.

[MonsterMaster{vg}]

Thorne's opinions are one of the problems I have with the country I love. Within the last 8 years we have turned into a selfish, mean country in our views.

Compassion has been lost. I love how, THorne, you say that you are compassionate when your views express just the opposite. Saying it does not make it so.

Fear of socialism is just a bugaboo with the criminals that have run the country the last eight years. The criminals that care for one thing and one thing alone, lining the pockets of themselves and their rich friends.

THorne's opinions are the reason we are hated throughout the world. And the administration that is luckily on its way out DID express MMI's views that AMericans believe they are better than anyone else. With NO basis for that view.

I love my country and hope we can get back to being a country worthy of that love. A country that takes care of its own and deals with ALL the criminals, including the ones that have run this country into the ground.

As an American that loves his country and thinks that maybe we are getting back on the right track I apologize for people like Thorne and the arrogant folks that have run this country in the last 8 years.

There are still good people in this country, but their voices have been silenced for a long time.

[Thorne]

Compassion has been lost. I love how, THorne, you say that you are compassionate when your views express just the opposite. Saying it does not make it so.
Showing "compassion" for every person, deserving or not, does not make one compassionate, either. Gullible comes to mind. I can feel sympathy for someone who loses his home due to unseen calamities. But a rich man who builds his home on the beach has to expect a hurricane to take it sooner or later. No compassion for him!


THorne's opinions are the reason we are hated throughout the world. And the administration that is luckily on its way out DID express MMI's views that AMericans believe they are better than anyone else. With NO basis for that view.
Ah, yes. The country that does more to help people than any other. The country that led the fight to get relief into Myanmar during their recent calamity. The country that leaps to send searchers and doctors and workers to countries destroyed by earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. True, far too many Americans think they are better than anyone else. So, too, do people of other countries. Most people believe their country is the best. It's taught to us from birth. But don't include me in them. I've seen the limitations of my country. Don't blame the people or the country, blame the politicians. They are why people hate us!


I love my country and hope we can get back to being a country worthy of that love. A country that takes care of its own and deals with ALL the criminals, including the ones that have run this country into the ground.

There are still good people in this country, but their voices have been silenced for a long time.
Here, at least, we are in agreement.


As an American that loves his country and thinks that maybe we are getting back on the right track I apologize for people like Thorne and the arrogant folks that have run this country in the last 8 years.
This saddens me. I love my country just as much as anyone. I don't love what it's become. I am a fairly solitary person who believes in personal responsibility and hard work. I believe that this country, this world, would be better if more people felt the same way. If that is "arrogant", then excuse me for breathing.

[Skyybird]

I agree, they should not. Neither should the children of the woman he's killed, but they do. And neither should I have to pay his debt, yet I must help to pay for his incarceration as well as for those children, and probably for his children. Yet I don't know any of them and had nothing to do with the circumstances which caused the whole mess. Where's the justice in that?

So if your taxes do not contribute to the incarceration of criminals...exactly where are we to find the funding to hold these criminals if not in state run, tax payer funded, organised, consistent and humane circumstances?


There are charitable organizations and religious organizations which claim to help those in need, and those who feel the need can donate to those organizations. Let these groups handle the needs of those children.

Of course there are organisations of this calibre and I'm sure the family would be more than worthy of such assistance, but charities rely on the kindness of others and their pot of money is never big enough to help everyone. So how do we go about drawing the line? Where do we say yes to one family or victim and no to another?

I really do understand your reluctance to fund the consequences of another man's crime but can we really abandon one life in favour of another? How is that even humane?

[Skyybird]

This saddens me. I love my country just as much as anyone. I don't love what it's become. I am a fairly solitary person who believes in personal responsibility and hard work. I believe that this country, this world, would be better if more people felt the same way. If that is "arrogant", then excuse me for breathing.

I dont think your philosophy is at all arrogant. I work hard, pay my bills, support my family and take responsibility for my actions. The major differrence is that I think everyone deserves a break because but for the grace of "god" (which is a whole other thread!) go all of us.

[Thorne]

I think everyone deserves a break because but for the grace of "god" (which is a whole other thread!) go all of us.
I don't think everyone desrves a break, and that's the real problem some people have with my attitude. I feel that there are some people (and no, I don't claim to know which ones all the time) who don't deserve any sort of break: those who commit pre-meditated murder; child molestors (true molestors, not some 16 year old kid dating a 15 year old and having sex); and others of this kind.

Yes, everyone deserves his day in court, and I'm a firm believer in innocent until proven guilty. But once proven guilty, especially of some heinous crime, you forfeit any chance you ever had of getting a "break."

[lucy]

Ah, yes. The country that does more to help people than any other. The country that led the fight to get relief into Myanmar during their recent calamity. The country that leaps to send searchers and doctors and workers to countries destroyed by earthquakes or volcanic eruptions.
The first world doesn't help the third. We don't help, we exploit. Not as brutal as in colonial days, today it's more subtle: Closing our borders for agricultural products so a couple of American sugar farmers can have a good living is just one of many examples. Same with rice, meat, just about every agricultural product is protected by taxes in the western civ, while we demand from the developing countries that they open their borders for our services and technological products. There's a good reason why Brazil, India and some African countries brought down the newest round of the World Trading Organization talks.

About sending doctors: Screw that. Screw that big time. In fact what happens right now is that America, Britain, Canada and to a lesser extent other countries of the western civilization are actually draining medical personnel from developing countries such as Ghana and Malawi. There are more Ghanese nurses working outside of Ghana than there are in Ghana, same with Malawian doctors.


True, far too many Americans think they are better than anyone else. So, too, do people of other countries. Most people believe their country is the best. It's taught to us from birth. But don't include me in them. I've seen the limitations of my country. Don't blame the people or the country, blame the politicians. They are why people hate us!

Umm, now i could say that the people and the country get the politicians they elected (or deserve), but that would be cheap. It's still true, though.

[Thorne]

Umm, now i could say that the people and the country get the politicians they elected (or deserve), but that would be cheap. It's still true, though.
I agree to some extent. But in many cases it always seems to be a choice between bad and worse. There are very few independent politicians any more. They all have some sort of heavy, business backing, which generally taints there terms in office. I suppose I could blame my lack of interest in politics in general, but in my experience it really doesn't seem to matter. We're stuck with the people that big business (for want of a better term) foists upon us.

[lucy]

Yeah, sometimes, when i look at the candidates i can vote for i feel as if i have to choose between a dog turd and a heap of cowshit too :D

[Duke Cador]

Why is so that British girls are so keen to be pregnant?
I don't think they are. I think they just enjoy having sex, for the same reason many feamles here do.

Why is preteen sex so normal in Britain?
Are we talking about preteen sex or sex under the legal age? I would like to see some statistics to support your claim that it is normal. It may not be unusual, it may be on the rise but normal is another matter.

But to answer the question I think fashion and culture is probably the driving force. When you have rock star role models singing about sex and a fashion industry selling sexually provocative clothes, make up etc. etc. it is no surprise. Young people are very impressionable and considered not competent to decide for themselves (hence no vote) so is it not for those in power or with power to influence them in positive rather than negative ways.

Government pays the pregnant girls and families with single mothers.
This is where your argument goes off the rails. You say it as if the girls are being given a reward or financial incentive to be pregnant. The money is not for the girls. The money is for the child and paid to whoever is repsonsible for the child. If the child were taken away from its mother the mother would reeive no child support.

It is a very socialistic Idea. It is just like the idea of Universal Health care.
The child, as a British citizen, has the right to food, shelter, healthcare, education and justice. To my mind that is not socialist it is the noble and right path to follow. The concept of nobless oblige, which requires the haves to help the have nots, was around well before socialism. And the concept of charity and helping those less fortunate is to be found in all the great religions of the world and has been with us for a couple of thousand of years.

So who dig the pit? Socialists did it.
I am fairly confident that the rich man who hates paying tax and always votes right wing would get his bean counter to work out that injections cost less than child support payments. The idea of injecting contraceptives to prevent unwanted prregnancy is, I suspect, a policy that right wing parties and voters could support.

How you make the leap from the injections to socialists baffles me. Yes, it may have been introduced by the Labour Party but calling the New Labour Party socialist is like calling the Democrat Party socialist.

The religious socialism exclaimed sacrifice of Good Man in favour of the guilty one
The measure is for the purpose of reducing the burden on the good man not to increase it. The good man is texed less by the cost of injections than child support. And don't forget the child support is not for the guilty mother but the innocent child.

Socialism never works and it always causes havoc
You mean never works like the cradle-to-grave social care in Sweden, a country in havoc. And if socialism never works howcome voters re-elect the Labour Party. Come to that howcome the socialist parties even exist. The answer is because the black-white concept of socialist or capitalist is invalid. No party or government is socialist or capitalist, they are a mixture ot the two. The blend changes with the times and this mix is precisely what the voters decide on in elections.

Also, after being injected, girls will think that ‘Nothing can happen to me because I can’t get pregnant" and that attitude will obviously be dangerous
Yes there is a danger of that but I think the injections are given to girl who are going to do i anyway so its a case of damage limitation rather than preventing under-age sex. And the argument that it is wrong because it may lead to a "nothing can happen to me" attitude is invalid. By that logic we should ban crash helmets or seat belts because the wear may take that attitude and be encouraged to drive recklessly!

The parents hold minimal rights over their kids. They even cannot smack them.
If children are brought up to think that if you are angry with somebody or somebody does wrong then the solution is to resort to physical violence then the danger is clear. Cases of assualt will inevitably rise and should that kid grow up to be a leader he may think that attacking a country for not complying with rules is the solution.

Mr Frearson, who is separated from the boy's mother, found his son in a park 10 minutes later and smacked him once. But a passer-by reported it to Plymouth police and four officers arrived at his house, took him away and locked him in a cell awaiting questioning.
Well done passer-by. Just imagine she did nothing and next day she reads about a boy abducted from the park because a man threatened to smack him again if he did not get into his car.

We don't know all the details of this case. The man may not have been charged. He may have been kept overnight to cool down rather than sending him home to his kid in a rage. Yes probably he is a decent father but how are we to guard against child abuse if we cannot detain and intervew those hitting their son. And maybe if those policemen had been brought up thinking that smacking is the way to stop people breaking rules they would have smacked the father about instead of putting him in a cell!

I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill with this injection controversy. Yes it is a debateablle topic but to make it the argument against the evils of socialism or that epitome of socialism Jesus Christ is off the mark. And what may happen if there is no injection or child support. Babies in plastic bags dumped in trash cans or begging on the streets as is often the case in less developed countries without the safety net of a "socialist" welfare system. What solution would you propose to the problem of unwanted pregnacy.

[Duke Cador]

To introduce some levity into a heavy thread, I wonder, if injections lead to more promiscuity would it not then be a good idea for the site to give some cyber injections to submissives. And if females are getting pregnant only to get money should the site give cyber dollars to submissives getting cyber pregnant as a result of cyber sex. I would propose this but for the fear of submissives proposing cyber castration as an alternative way to prevent unwanted cyber pregnancy.

[his_girl_l]

"it is a very socialistic idea. Just like the idea of universal healthcare"

I have never heard or read that Stalinist Russia had a surge of teen pregnancies or was a utopia for single mothers.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT POLITICAL SYSTEMS

This is about wealthy countries dealing with modern social issues to the best of their ability.

In George Bush's neo con USA, in Australia under 12 years of conservative government, there were programs to give teens access to free contraceptives and financial support in the event that they became mothers.

19th century political labels are really not helpful in discussing this issue.

[js207]

The first world doesn't help the third. We don't help, we exploit. Not as brutal as in colonial days, today it's more subtle: Closing our borders for agricultural products so a couple of American sugar farmers can have a good living is just one of many examples. Same with rice, meat, just about every agricultural product is protected by taxes in the western civ, while we demand from the developing countries that they open their borders for our services and technological products. There's a good reason why Brazil, India and some African countries brought down the newest round of the World Trading Organization talks.

Yes, which is one reason I'm strongly opposed to protectionism like this. I would love to see all the tariffs and subsidies eradicated, but there are too many votes to be bought by keeping them.


About sending doctors: Screw that. Screw that big time. In fact what happens right now is that America, Britain, Canada and to a lesser extent other countries of the western civilization are actually draining medical personnel from developing countries such as Ghana and Malawi. There are more Ghanese nurses working outside of Ghana than there are in Ghana, same with Malawian doctors.

No. Absolutely not. I hate this sort of speech, because of the implicit assumption that when someone chooses to move from one place to another this represents an asset - property - being taken from its owner. I may live in the UK, and bear a British passport, but I am not the property of the British government: if I choose to lead a better life elsewhere, that is my decision and my right. I am not being "drained" or "taken": I am under no obligation whatsoever to stay or work here - and any country which I choose for myself is entirely blameless. The notion that being born in Ghana or Malawi should somehow oblige me to stay there rather than lead the best life I can is not just absurd to me, but smacks very much of slavery or feudalism. Not to mention hypocrisy, as you complain about barriers to free movement of goods, then complain about a lack of barriers to movement of people!

[lucy]

No. Absolutely not. I hate this sort of speech, because of the implicit assumption that when someone chooses to move from one place to another this represents an asset - property - being taken from its owner. I may live in the UK, and bear a British passport, but I am not the property of the British government: if I choose to lead a better life elsewhere, that is my decision and my right. I am not being "drained" or "taken": I am under no obligation whatsoever to stay or work here - and any country which I choose for myself is entirely blameless. The notion that being born in Ghana or Malawi should somehow oblige me to stay there rather than lead the best life I can is not just absurd to me, but smacks very much of slavery or feudalism. Not to mention hypocrisy, as you complain about barriers to free movement of goods, then complain about a lack of barriers to movement of people!
I don't say the people should be made to stay in Ghana or wherever, i just wanted to point out that those countries invest a lot of money to educate a nurse or a physician which then goes abroad. It's just another form of draining resources.
They of course have all the right on earth to move. Sorry if i didn't make that clear at all.

[js207]

I don't say the people should be made to stay in Ghana or wherever, i just wanted to point out that those countries invest a lot of money to educate a nurse or a physician which then goes abroad. It's just another form of draining resources.
They of course have all the right on earth to move. Sorry if i didn't make that clear at all.

It seems clear enough, but my objection remains: it is not "draining resources" for them to leave - rather, the countries are failing to attract and retain people they need. It's something I see here, which is probably why it irritates me so much: people talk of a "brain drain" when people like me (the IT profession has been particularly affected, for obvious reasons) and talk of creating obstacles to us leaving, rather than identifying and fixing the root problem: rather than changing the country's laws and systems so we *can't* leave as easily, change them so we don't *want* to leave any more!

(Companies occasionally fall into this trap, too, regarding their customers and staff as an entitlement to be prevented from leaving, rather than people on whom their existence depends, people they need to attract and convince to stay voluntarily. Long term, that never works.)

[lucy]

Fair enough, of course much of the world would be a much better place if people hadn't to leave their home for whatever reason. I'm agree completely with you.
But i was referring to Thorne saying "we send doctors" when in fact it's exactly vice versa. In the end it's poor countries financing the education of doctors and nurses and other professionals for very rich countries.
Ok, now you can say "well, that's global competition". That's not exactly good in my opinion, but i guess it's not completely wrong either. What is wrong, though, is that the first world drains all that educated personnel and then goes around bragging what good guys we all are when we send some relief goods or the odd doc when a catastrophe has occurred or people die of cholera or leprosy. That's hipocrisy at it's best.

[MMI]

[QUOTE=Thorne;793436]

...

Ah, yes. The country that does more to help people than any other. The country that led the fight to get relief into Myanmar during their recent calamity. The country that leaps to send searchers and doctors and workers to countries destroyed by earthquakes or volcanic eruptions

...
QUOTE]

Yes, you give so much. Much more than any other individual nation. But, by comparison to your wealth (however you measure it) so much less than many many other countries, and far far less than is needed. A poultice on a tumour.

[Thorne]

Yes, you give so much. Much more than any other individual nation. But, by comparison to your wealth (however you measure it) so much less than many many other countries, and far far less than is needed. A poultice on a tumour.
When I read comments like this I start to understand why so many Americans think we should withdraw from the international community and simply take care of our own.

This country is trillions of dollars in debt, far more debt than we can ever hope to repay. Yet, when a disaster strikes somewhere in the world, anywhere in the world, we are among the first to offer, and provide, aid in whatever form we can: food, medicine, rescue experts, anything that's needed. We don't ask who's going to pay, we don't put political restrictions on our help, we just do it.

And we don't expect the world to love us for it, or to give thanks for it. We don't want people to feel they owe us anything for it. All we ask is that we be respected for what we try to do. But the world seems to want us to do more. Why?

If I buy a meal for a starving man, sure it's only a temporary fix, "A poultice on a tumour" if you will, but it's one more meal than he would have had without me. And if her doesn't have the decency to at least say Thank You, I can live with that. But when he starts screaming at me and complaining about how much more I could do for him, how much more I have to work with, do you honestly believe I should do more? Should I take him home and give him a place to sleep? Give him my clothes? Maybe give him my car, so he won't have to walk so much? Where do I draw the line?

No, I would turn away and write him off as a bad job, but I'd be damned sure less willing to buy a meal for the next starving man I see! Or the next country that suffers a devastating earthquake, or is inundated by a flood, or has any number of other problems. Let them help themselves, I say.

And I would say that for the rest of the world. You don't have to love us. You don't have to admire us. But just a little bit of respect would be nice.

[MMI]

Respect has to be earned, Thorne. It is not a right. And it most certainly does not accrue to any nation simply because it makes half-hearted gestures. Mealy-mouthed assistance creates more resentment than gratitude.

Britain knows that better than most other nations because of its history. It made itself rich on the backs of its colonies and it is still rich, while many of its former colonies are among the poorest nations in the world. Thus, when we make aid payments, we do not receive much thanks: it is regarded as a form of recompense. America is seen by those nations in much the same light as Britain. Not the former colonial power (America has only a few overseas possessions or colonies), but a commercial invader instead. While people hunger in the bush, Gerneral Motors, Bank of America, McDonalds and Coca-Cola make fortunes in the cities, which are then turned into dollars and repatriated to the USA. American companies have extracted at least as much from the third world countries as Britain did and can rightly be considered to have grown even richer as a result. Its moral duty to offer recompense is no less than ours, or France's, Germany's Belgium's or Holland's. It's just that these other nations recognise they have that obligation.

Thus, it does not sound well when you complain that you are not thanked for "all" the aid you give: what thanks did you give (as a nation) for the riches you have approrpiated from those poor countries?

But my comments were not really focused on the duty to repay other obligations, but to respond to real and urgent need. If tiny Luxemburg and Scandinaiva can all give about 1% of their income in the form of international aid, why can the world's richest nations give only a fraction of that amount? Britain and Germany give only 1/3 percent, while Japan and USA can give only 1/6%. OK, USA gives more dollars than anyone else - twice as much as the next country, but it can - and should - give much more if it truly wants to provide real assistance rather than just to salve its conscience. The comments Thorne and other Americans have made here and elsewhere in this connection demonstrate why USA is seen as an extremely mean country.

(And the aid given by Germany, Japan, France and Britain is mean too, I admit that, but we have long ago accepted the fact that everyone hates us for growing rich at their expense.)

As for the statement that you give without strings, think again. More than any other nation, American aid is tied to trade agreements, political concessions and economic preferences. Frequently American aid is repayable and interest-bearing. And how much aid is, in fact, military expenditure. Israel receives vast amounts of military aid from USA - the curent murderous attacks on Palestinian citizens in Gaza benefits from American support, for example. USA supports unpopular governments because it gains an advantage from doing so. it has financed "counter-terrorism" (another word for terrorism) where favoured countries suffer from civil unrest, and it supports "freedom fighters/resistance movements" (more euphemisms for terrorists) where it does not approve of a national government. American aid follows American interests more closely than it goes to areas of need.

You'll get your respect when you deserve it.

[Stealth694]

You do have good points MMI, but lets be honest, the real reason third world countries hate us is because we HAVE and they HAVE NOT.
Look at what happens to these half-hearted gestures, food intended for disaster victims is put on the black market by the local govt. Aid money is skimmed, scammed, and stolen by same govt.
Example: UN brought a load of wheat to an Afgahn village, put it into a building to be distributed the next day, come morning the wheat was gone and NO ONE knew how" Agreed "Forign Aid" is usually used to manipulate these govts but still you think they would invest in their own country?
Example: The Phillipenes, when the Navy closed down Subic Bay, they turned it over to the Phillipene govt. Within 5 yrs the Govt was trying to sell both it and Clark Air force base back to the US, "the deal was killed by a volcano true" but the govt had top quality facilities that they could have converted into anything, but they let both facilities fall apart. WHY??
Maybe the 1st world govt are bastards, but you look at every Colony that was given its freedom, how many profitable colonies are now impovrished because of bad govt. Ask yourself this were they better off as a Colony??
Personal opinion, lets cut Forign Aid for 4 yrs and see what happes???

[MMI]

I think we've moved on a bit from unmarried mothers in Britain living off government handouts, but that's the nature of these kinds of discussion.

Stealth, I liked what you said, but I disagree with your conclusion.

Let's look at the Third World. What does it have going for it? Grinding poverty, hunger and disease. Civil wars where unspeakable acts of cruelty are carried out under the approving eye of some warlord, dictator or guerrilla fighters. Repression by mullahs and shaman/witch doctors.

It also has great mineral wealth - gold, diamonds, oil and so on, but all of that is exploited by the Old and New Worlds (the "West" for convenience), and very little of that wealth finds its way back to the population. There is an elite tier of society, created by the colonial powers, or at least allowed by them to assert itself over the rest of the population - other tribes, cultures or religions and with or without the West's connivance (and I'm sure it's "with") it skims off most of the profits that do come back to the nation. Guess what happens to that bit of wealth? Frequently it buys dollars which are deposited in Swiss Bank accounts in the name of the rulers. Often it finances illegal activities such as arms smuggling or drugs. what it doesn;'t do is feed the masses.

But USA isn't responsible for that corruption, I hear you say. I think it is - along with Britain and the rest. It is responsible because it allows it to happen, and gains a little bit more wealth into the bargain. It watches genocide taking place in places like Darfur. It allows women and children to be raped mutilated and massacred in DR Congo ... DR, what a laugh! ... It stands by as impotent as a eunuch while that madman Mugabe allows those Zimbabwean citizens he doesn't beat-up, imprison or murder to die of AIDS and other diseases, or starvation. The Zimbabwean dollar won't buy a thing: his wealth, stolen from his fellow citizens, is in American dollars.

We allow bastards like him to strut around ostentatiously, cocking a snook at us and pissing on his citizens, and letting him blame US for it, because if we interfere, we would be committing an international crime: Zimbabwe is a sovereign nation and he can do what he likes within its borders. That smacks of the same kind of weak-minded indifference that allowed Hitler to take over in Germany. No it's worse, because Germany's inhabitants were visibly prosperous and thriving (the plight of the Jews and other "misfits" was well hidden) so it is more understandable that he was allowed to operate the way he did. In Zimbabwe, it's there for all to see.

No, we shouldn't stand back and withhold aid for years to see how many more people die, we should move right in and take over the responsibility for food distribution and medical aid, using force if necessary. Then we should endeavour to ensure that whoever was responsible for al that greed and corruption is subjected to due legal process.

Might not be a truly socialist answer, but I think it has a lot to commend itself with.

[Thorne]

America is seen by those nations in much the same light as Britain. Not the former colonial power (America has only a few overseas possessions or colonies), but a commercial invader instead. While people hunger in the bush, Gerneral Motors, Bank of America, McDonalds and Coca-Cola make fortunes in the cities, which are then turned into dollars and repatriated to the USA. American companies have extracted at least as much from the third world countries as Britain did and can rightly be considered to have grown even richer as a result.
So, you're saying that the American military is parading around these third world countries forcing their citizens to buy American goods? No? Then how are we "exploiting" them? Simply by offering our goods for sale?

And by the same token, how many dollars are siphoned out of the US by foreign companies selling products here? Face it: it's a global marketplace, and if you have something to sell at a reasonable price, why not sell it?

And as for exploiting these countries, sure, the oil companies, for example, made obscene amounts of money by extracting oil from places around the world. They also spent obscene amounts of money to build the infrastructure to do so, as many industries do. And a significant portion of that money went directly to the country involved. If the government of that country decided to keep it for themselves rather than give it to the people, who's fault is that?


Thus, it does not sound well when you complain that you are not thanked for "all" the aid you give: what thanks did you give (as a nation) for the riches you have approrpiated from those poor countries?
Perhaps respect is the wrong word. And I'm not speaking about foreign aid, which is something completely different. I'm talking about disaster relief. And I'm talking about, primarily, American citizens, not politicians. So instead of respect, which must be earned, I agree, let's just say recognition for all that the American people (NOT government) donates to charities world-wide.


But my comments were not really focused on the duty to repay other obligations, but to respond to real and urgent need. If tiny Luxemburg and Scandinaiva can all give about 1% of their income in the form of international aid, why can the world's richest nations give only a fraction of that amount? Britain and Germany give only 1/3 percent, while Japan and USA can give only 1/6%. OK, USA gives more dollars than anyone else - twice as much as the next country, but it can - and should - give much more if it truly wants to provide real assistance rather than just to salve its conscience. The comments Thorne and other Americans have made here and elsewhere in this connection demonstrate why USA is seen as an extremely mean country.
Am I correct in assuming that these figures are for official, government controlled foreign aid?

At any rate, this kind of attitude is the problem with Socialism as I see it. The poor expect the wealthy to "give back" their wealth, regardless of how they may have earned it. I'm not a rich person, but I don't expect anyone to give me anything I haven't earned.

[MMI]

So, you're saying that the American military is parading around these third world countries forcing their citizens to buy American goods? No?

That's right: No! So why mention it?

Actually, in many places, the only goods worth buying come from the West. Often made from resources coming from the Third World originally, but taken out, repackaged and sold back. No force involved, but the only alternative is to go without.

How did the West (not just America, but certainly including it) exploit the Third World? Where to begin ... ?? Extracting mineral wealth using local labour but paying wages that, at best, were menial. Paying the lowest possible royalties and licence fees for the right to extract those resources - using economic muscle to ensure they had to pay as little as possible. Exporting those resources to the West to be sold and resold at higher and higher cost until they reached the final consumer, but none of those resale profits went back to the Third World countries the resources originally came from.

As for "offering goods for sale," doesn't it strike you as incongruous that, while people in urban Johannesburg eat at MacDonalds, there are thousands of people still living below the poverty line in shanty towns like Soweto. Is it right that while people in Zimbabwe or Congo are forced to drink parasite-invested water, the Coca Cola Company is peddling its wares to the urbanites and taking the proceeds back home?

Nothing wrong with offering goods for sale, I grant you, but not where to do so is an affront to justice and equality. Isn't it wrong that a major retail outlet in UK, Ireland and Spain makes the clothes it sells using sweat-shop labour in India, or illegal imigrant labour in UK, where the workers could never afford to pay for any of the garments they produce?

As far as I am aware, you only come across sweat shops like that under capitalism. And, before you rush off to try to find instances of sweatshop labour in centralised economies, may I qualify what I said by pointing out that, under capitalism, the labourers work to make individual wealth owners wealthier. Not themselves, not the co-operative, not the nation, but fat, golf-playing, self-centred people who think that possession of more money than others is a sign of greatness.


[The oil companies] also spent obscene amounts of money to build the infrastructure to do so, as many industries do. And a significant portion of that money went directly to the country involved. If the government of that country decided to keep it for themselves rather than give it to the people, who's fault is that?

Three points:


That's capital investment. It is necessary to invest money to generate profits (c'mon - you know that - I thought you were a capitalist)

Yes, a lot of money went to the country involved, but much more was taken out. Several countries found it necessary, in the end, to nationalise the foreign companies to stop the haemorrhaging of money and oil

It's our fault if we knowing dealt with a corrupt regime and were aware that the wealth we did create for those countires was being misappropriated. If the money was being used to build a better infrastructure within the nation, then there's no fault at all.



... let's just say recognition for all that the American people (NOT government) donates to charities world-wide.


Am I correct in assuming that these figures are for official, government controlled foreign aid?

Yes, your assumption is correct. I got it from a website - I don't remember which one, but I'm sure the same figures appear on many others.

If you're confining your comments, as you say, to private donations for simple disaster relief - the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean, perhaps you're thinking of as an example - then maybe you do give more generously than others, I don't know.

But the need is far greater than the occasional disaster that kills a quarter of a million people and makes 10 million homeless. there are, I understand 64 million refugees in the world, all needing ongoing help and assistance. That's more than the entire population of the United Kingdom!

Furthermore, there are 34 million displaced persons due to war. They need help too. Who are the bigggest war-mongers? Easy. We are - the West! We have created most of the world's homeless, and we neglect the world's poor. A dollop of conscience money every few years doesn't help a lot, even if it does come straight from your own wallet or purse.

Besides, I didn't hear a lot of thanks coming out of America when the nations of the world rallied round and sent millions of dollars and tons of food and clothing to USA after Hurricane Katrina. Perhaps the New Orleans people were too preoccupied to think of offering us respect for our kindness ... just like the Indians and Indonesians in 2004, perhaps



At any rate, this kind of attitude is the problem with Socialism as I see it. The poor expect the wealthy to "give back" their wealth, regardless of how they may have earned it. I'm not a rich person, but I don't expect anyone to give me anything I haven't earned.

Poppycock! And that's the problem with free-market capitalists!

Socialism is not about taking wealth away from the rich, it is about making sure that everyone is paid what they deserve. This cannot happen if there's a man with money who wants to gorge himself first because is says he's entitled to. Capitalism is about putting up the money and creaming off the financial rewards first, without regard to the true value of the labour involved.

There are plenty of millionaires in socialist regimes. There are even a lot of millionaires who consider themselves to be socialist. They don't intend to give away their fortunes, but they do want to see others paid what they are worth.

In your world, Thorne, you expect to die if you can't sustain yourself because you are incapable of doing so for some reason. How much better if your all your compatriots agreed your life was worthwhile and clubbed together to save it. After all, it wasn't your fault if you were born disavantaged, was it, and it was not your entitlement, but just good fortune, if you happened to be born privileged?

[Matin]

one thought...

should we really be in darfur, and zimbabwe, congo... where does that end? should we really invade iran? they're oppressed.

thailand's sex trade ruins thousands of young children every year. invade?

economic mismanagement in the philipines has led to rampant poverty and terrorism. invade?

we did that in iraq and afghanistan. it's a bad idea.

ok, yes. we have the greatest economy on earth. and no, i'm not opposed to the idea of simply whacking the tyrants and madmen, but american history has been one long case of drastic interference in the affairs of other countries, and it has not often ended well.

when you interfere in the direction a country takes, there's an implied responsibility being assumed for the direction they take.

and you may call me an assh*le but here's my response to all of it;

socio-economic darwinism. we get all pissed when the gov't bails out failing auto companies, but say we should bail out failing NATIONS.

let them fail. let them be eaten by their better-managed neighbors, just as has always happened through human history.

[MMI]

Good reply, Matin. Yes, it is wrong to interfere with sovereign nations' affairs, as a pretty much hard-and-fast rule. But there are times when it must be done. Zimbabwe and darfur and Congo are places where we should be. Civil government has broken down or has abandoned its role to let horrific violence rule instead. If a state has no effective government, it has no claim to sovereignty, and other states can step in. It might be an invading force by a neighbour, which is probably not a desirable occurrence because who knows how one nation will treat its subjugated enemies; or it might be a UN sponsored "peace" force which will let a legitimate government emerge while dealing with immediate problems humanely.

Thailand? An invasion's not justified, but the nation should be boycotted and travel to that country prohibited until its sex trade reaches internationally acceptable standards.

Philipines? Since when has economic mismanagement been a reason for invasion. And many countries suffer from poverty, because they are poor. But if the rulers are deliberately causing death and starvation when they have the means to prevent it, then, yes, invade. The Philipines is one of your ex-colonies, so the primary responsibility would be yours, I guess. Over to you.

Iraq and Afghanistan. Foolish in the extreme to have invaded Afghanistan. I don't think anyone since the Ottomans has had any success in that department. Britain tried three times in the 18th & 19th centuries, and failed dismally, Russia failed in the 20th century (thanks to American sponsored Osama bin Laden) and now the united forces of USA, Britain and a motley crew of other nations are going to have to find a way to deal with the Taliban that doesn't look like defeat.

Incompetent to have invaded Iraq. Having first done so illegally (and other nations should have driven us out) we failed to consolidate our occupation and allowed the country to fall into worse anarchy than before.

Sure it's a good thing Saddam is dead, but his death doesn't justify the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths caused by the US in their misdirected desire for vengeance. And the lawless state of the country now is down to us alone. As there is no-one to force us to recognise our faults, we must recognise them ourselves, and take steps to put things right.

As for socio-economic Darwinism, that's a misnomer for sure, but a pox on it anyway. I don't get pissed off when banks are bailed our or motor companies saved. I give thanks for all the jobs that have been saved, for the families (American families as well) that can carry on into the New Year with hope, or if not that, then relief. I regret the companies that have not been saved and the consequent misery that the unemployed people will go through. Because the fact they lost their jobs wasn't their fault. They were working away industriously and usefully - if not to say profitably - until CAPITALISTS decided not to make any more capital available, and drove them out of work and onto the tender mercies of a government whose electors say, if you can't get a job, you can't have any support.

There but for fortune, go you and I.

[Thorne]

That's right: No! So why mention it?

Actually, in many places, the only goods worth buying come from the West. Often made from resources coming from the Third World originally, but taken out, repackaged and sold back. No force involved, but the only alternative is to go without.
<sigh> I see that you and I are on opposite sides of a large gulf, here. My point was that there was not force involved. And there are other alternatives than going without. If goods from the West are too expensive, then manufacture your own goods, and sell them to your neighbors. Then you can be the capitalist! But what's wrong with going without? Sometimes you're better off.


How did the West (not just America, but certainly including it) exploit the Third World? Where to begin ... ?? Extracting mineral wealth using local labour but paying wages that, at best, were menial.
But in many cases (not all, I'll grant you) those "menial" wages were far better than the workers could do with their own businesses and industries.


Paying the lowest possible royalties and licence fees for the right to extract those resources - using economic muscle to ensure they had to pay as little as possible. Exporting those resources to the West to be sold and resold at higher and higher cost until they reached the final consumer, but none of those resale profits went back to the Third World countries the resources originally came from.
Sorry. This sounds, ultimately, like good business practice to me.


As for "offering goods for sale," doesn't it strike you as incongruous that, while people in urban Johannesburg eat at MacDonalds, there are thousands of people still living below the poverty line in shanty towns like Soweto. Is it right that while people in Zimbabwe or Congo are forced to drink parasite-invested water, the Coca Cola Company is peddling its wares to the urbanites and taking the proceeds back home?
And just what would you have them do? Pull out of South Africa and let the country go to hell on its own? Why should Coca Cola worry about the poor in Soweto when the damned South African government doesn't?


Nothing wrong with offering goods for sale, I grant you, but not where to do so is an affront to justice and equality. Isn't it wrong that a major retail outlet in UK, Ireland and Spain makes the clothes it sells using sweat-shop labour in India, or illegal imigrant labour in UK, where the workers could never afford to pay for any of the garments they produce?
Is it wrong? Certainly. So don't buy any of those goods. If people let the retailer know they won't stand for those practices then the retailer will have to stop. But there's the real problem. The people don't care! They only care about cheap goods, with no about concern where they come from.


As far as I am aware, you only come across sweat shops like that under capitalism. And, before you rush off to try to find instances of sweatshop labour in centralised economies, may I qualify what I said by pointing out that, under capitalism, the labourers work to make individual wealth owners wealthier. Not themselves, not the co-operative, not the nation, but fat, golf-playing, self-centred people who think that possession of more money than others is a sign of greatness.
This is true of any economic system, regardless of how it's supposed to operate. Those who have the money get richer. So what? I'd be more than happy to ride that wagon!


there are, I understand 64 million refugees in the world, all needing ongoing help and assistance. That's more than the entire population of the United Kingdom!
Furthermore, there are 34 million displaced persons due to war. They need help too. Who are the bigggest war-mongers? Easy. We are - the West! We have created most of the world's homeless, and we neglect the world's poor. A dollop of conscience money every few years doesn't help a lot, even if it does come straight from your own wallet or purse.
So? What would you have us do? If we help these people there will be more to take their place. There are always poor, there are always unfortunates, there are always hungry mouths to feed. You obviously feel that it's our duty to feed them. I don't.

And sure, if I were poor and desperately hungry I'd feel that the rich should give me food. And if I were rich and powerful I'd feel that I had the right to stay that way. I'd much rather live with the idea that someday I might be able to get enough money to be really comfortable, rather than the idea that every extra dollar I manage to scrape together must be given to poor people who are too stupid, too lazy or just plain too unlucky.

[Matin]

Good reply, Matin......There but for fortune, go you and I.

lol just making it clear what i'm responding to.

socio-economic darwinism is just a term i use because other people will 'get it'. throw it away i don't care. but i believe in the idea. i believe in cause and effect. i believe in responsibility and consequence.

if i choose to to work for a company that exists on shaky footing, then it goes under, well, time to move on. even if i just happened to get laid off. move on. that's life. it's not fair, it's not nice, and it's not something that we can make user friendly.

there will always be horror and brutality in the world. it will be here till we as a race get sick of it and change. until then there will always be one more thing to fix, one more country to save, one more WAR TO WAGE until we are left wrecked and ruined also.

so we become byzantium. we build the best and brightest civilisation we can and survive the economic craziness and the terror. we try to lead by example. we try to show the world what we all have the capacity to become.

and for a parting shot; how can we ever hope to fix anything when our own houses are in such disarray? hipocrisy much?

(btw guys great thread :wave:)

[MMI]

<sigh> I see that you and I are on opposite sides of a large gulf, here.

Not unusual, huh? :)

My point was that there was not force involved. And there are other alternatives than going without. If goods from the West are too expensive, then manufacture your own goods, and sell them to your neighbors. Then you can be the capitalist! But what's wrong with going without? Sometimes you're better off.

They don't necessarily have the seed capital or the skills. But the West does. The West is entitled to sell those skills, but not to rip off the buyers.


But in many cases (not all, I'll grant you) those "menial" wages were far better than the workers could do with their own businesses and industries.

I'm not sure that replacing one evil with another one is justification, even if the replacement is a lesser evil.

Sorry. This sounds, ultimately, like good business practice to me.


Good business practice, maybe, but thoroughly bad business.

And just what would you have them do? Pull out of South Africa and let the country go to hell on its own? Why should Coca Cola worry about the poor in Soweto when the damned South African government doesn't?

Because, even if the South Africans don't know better, we in the West, including the Coca-cola Company do. So, yes, I would have them pull out - they should never have gone in in the first pplace. Unless, of course, they plan to make significant contributions to the way South Africa is run ao that shanty towns like Soweto will disappear.

Is it wrong? Certainly. So don't buy any of those goods. If people let the retailer know they won't stand for those practices then the retailer will have to stop. But there's the real problem. The people don't care! They only care about cheap goods, with no about concern where they come from.

I suspect people do care but feel impotent. Who can take on vested interests and win?

However, I hope, now that this has become public knowledge, that the store concerned will live up to its promises to put things right.


This is true of any economic system, regardless of how it's supposed to operate. Those who have the money get richer. So what? I'd be more than happy to ride that wagon!


Compassion seems to be a rare commodity over on that side of the gulf. But the difference is, under a centralised economy, all work, even "forced" work increases the wealth of the nation as a whole, but under capitalism, it only increases the wealth of individuals who are just as likely to up sticks and go to another country if the see greener grass in the next field.

So? What would you have us do? If we help these people there will be more to take their place. There are always poor, there are always unfortunates, there are always hungry mouths to feed. You obviously feel that it's our duty to feed them. I don't.

Yes, I do feel that way. I'm sorry you don't, especially when I read your next comment.

And sure, if I were poor and desperately hungry I'd feel that the rich should give me food. And if I were rich and powerful I'd feel that I had the right to stay that way. I'd much rather live with the idea that someday I might be able to get enough money to be really comfortable, rather than the idea that every extra dollar I manage to scrape together must be given to poor people who are too stupid, too lazy or just plain too unlucky.

Easy for one of the "lucky" ones to blame poverty on people's stupidity. I bet they all wish they had been as clever as you, and chosen to be born US citizens!



:)

[MMI]

Matin

Doesn't your "parting shot" put a big hole in your argument that we must show the rest of the world what they can become?

Besides, few nations have the advantages the US has always had since the first colonies were established: wealth and massive natural resources. It is doubtful that they can all aspire to America's greatness.

As for your "Darwinist" approach to the problem, I would point out that natural selection is wasteful and random. It is only after countless evolutionary dead-ends have been encountered that a step forward might occur. "Responsibility" and "consequences" are not linked ideas - in fact "responsibility" does not feature at all.

But I'm prepared to adopt your attitude: let's lead by example. Let's show the world what we have the capacity for. Let's double international aid and think about increasing it more. Let's treat the poor as if they are worthwhile people, not stupid fools who deserve their fate because they were born that way!

[Matin]

Matin

Doesn't your "parting shot" put a big hole in your argument that we must show the rest of the world what they can become?

no, i don't think so. i think it demonstrates what happens to a country when it tries to be the global hall monitor. we wage senseless international war, spend billions on useless defense systems, hand money to butchers('strategic allies') and chop education spending while raping social security.

Besides, few nations have the advantages the US has always had since the first colonies were established: wealth and massive natural resources. It is doubtful that they can all aspire to America's greatness.

oh bull. :) many of the worst hells on this planet are resource-rich. it's the gross profiteering that's keeping them down. but let's not forget that america's great natural endowment was reaped by slave labor. my country and yours were built by those horrible insensitive captains of industry.

As for your "Darwinist" approach to the problem, I would point out that natural selection is wasteful and random. It is only after countless evolutionary dead-ends have been encountered that a step forward might occur. "Responsibility" and "consequences" are not linked ideas - in fact "responsibility" does not feature at all.

but they are linked. it is through conflict that our greatest leaders find us. eventually in those countries and war zones we are referring to one of their own will lead them to a better place. or they will be conquered. that is the pattern of our (human) history. they have the government they have because it is what they have provided for themselves.

But I'm prepared to adopt your attitude: let's lead by example. Let's show the world what we have the capacity for. Let's double international aid and think about increasing it more. Let's treat the poor as if they are worthwhile people, not stupid fools who deserve their fate because they were born that way!

nobody born poor 'deserves' it. but c'mon, man, our hand outs are bandaids on arterial wounds! what happened to teaching men to fish? and where exactly does the increased foreign aid come from? america is bankrupting itself now, do we just keep the cash flowing? look, you must at least agree that we have to get back on some stable financial ground before we can throw more money into black holes.
:)

[MMI]

Doesn't your "parting shot" put a big hole in your argument that we must show the rest of the world what they can become?

no, i don't think so. i think it demonstrates what happens to a country when it tries to be the global hall monitor. we wage senseless international war, spend billions on useless defense systems, hand money to butchers('strategic allies') and chop education spending while raping social security.

Exactly so. What kind of example is that to set?



Besides, few nations have the advantages the US has always had since the first colonies were established: wealth and massive natural resources. It is doubtful that they can all aspire to America's greatness.

oh bull. many of the worst hells on this planet are resource-rich. it's the gross profiteering that's keeping them down. but let's not forget that america's great natural endowment was reaped by slave labor. my country and yours were built by those horrible insensitive captains of industry.

True about the slavery. Except we did even worse to the natives of some of the countries we ruled (that reads as if I say it with pride: I do not). The difference is, America kept its resources for itself, whereas the colonial powers, and the later economic invaders stripped those resources out of the poor countries for their own benefit, and continue to do so in many places.



As for your "Darwinist" approach to the problem, I would point out that natural selection is wasteful and random. It is only after countless evolutionary dead-ends have been encountered that a step forward might occur. "Responsibility" and "consequences" are not linked ideas - in fact "responsibility" does not feature at all.

but they are linked. it is through conflict that our greatest leaders find us. eventually in those countries and war zones we are referring to one of their own will lead them to a better place. or they will be conquered. that is the pattern of our (human) history. they have the government they have because it is what they have provided for themselves.

I can see the consequnces of random events in what you describe, but I cannot see responsibility being involved in any of them. All I am saying is, I don't think it's a "Darwinian" description. I have no problem with what you say, I was just being a bit picky about a phrase you used. Apologies.



But I'm prepared to adopt your attitude: let's lead by example. Let's show the world what we have the capacity for. Let's double international aid and think about increasing it more. Let's treat the poor as if they are worthwhile people, not stupid fools who deserve their fate because they were born that way!

nobody born poor 'deserves' it. but c'mon, man, our hand outs are bandaids on arterial wounds! what happened to teaching men to fish? and where exactly does the increased foreign aid come from? america is bankrupting itself now, do we just keep the cash flowing? look, you must at least agree that we have to get back on some stable financial ground before we can throw more money into black holes.

Yes, let's go back to teaching men to fish. And buy them a boat to fish from. Then we can buy their catch and eat, while they buy goods that we make and they don't.

America is NOT going bankrupt. Nowhere near it. Anyone who tells you different is lying, or ignorant. America is going through an economic decline because its economy could not keep up with its consumerism, triggered by avaricious bankers willing to lend to anyone who could sign their name, and fuelled by producers whose affluent consumers have no more easy credit. It will be painful. Those who suffer the most pain will be the poorest. But eventually America will emerge again, rich, plump and greedy, just as before. (I recall my economics lessons where I learnt about Thomas Malthus, who said: The rich, by unfair combinations, contribute frequently to prolong a season of distress among the poor. )

[Matin]

i'll do this by paragraphs lol

P1; we agree to a point. this is a horrible example to set. and still there are those who would have us continue to interfere with the development of other nations. to set more bad examples. so let them be. let them succeed or fail on their own merit. if, as america did during our revolution, they should APPEAL to us for aid in freeing them, then good! by all means! but to jump in without invitation just breeds resentment.

P2; this is hard to argue for me. their wealth goes into the pockets of their elite, who use it to buy western guns to get and keep more of that wealth. and then kill their own people. for which they need more western guns.

it's crap. but it's also a story as old as human history. we know the last part; eventually the people get fed up and there comes from the blood and pain a nation that lasts, and has stability.

so do we interfere?

P3; eh. :) don't apologise it's not the best word to use. i just don't know a better one for that idea.

P4; how many boats can we buy for how many fishermen? seriously? and again my choice of the word bakruptcy was bad. valid, but i should have elaborated more. when any instituution, person, corporation, or whatever carries more debt than they can hope to pay, aren't they considered financially insolvent? it's this threatening instability that worries me so much. these foreign adventures are so often a distraction from mismanagement at home. i want to know that my own country has it's economic problems in line before i support trying to do anything else for anyone. perhaps i'm just a selfish person, but if i'm in debt up to my eyeballs the local soup kitchen is S.O.L.

took awhile but i made it back here :)

[MMI]

P1. As you say, we agree to a point. And then we diverge. I advocate jumping in without an invitation where the situation is sufficiently dire. I allow a lot of leeway because a nation is sovereign, and its citizens have a right to solve their own problems in their own way. But after that, where poverty and/or disease has overrun the whole country, intervention is a compelling obligation.

I think the American analogy is a bad one, all the 13 colonies wanted was "freedom". The people were not starving and their lives was not at risk under the Crown. Nor were their assets (apart from the fact Britain wanted the colonies to contibute towards their own defence ... After all, it was they who provoked the French in the first place - an incompetent officer in the Virginia Militia participating in the ambush and murder of French Canadians in Jumonville Glen, for example - so they should have paid something: instead they virtually bankrupted Great Britain and said the British were cheating them! But that's another argument.) Remember, the American colonials enjoyed some of the highest standards of living in the world, even back then, so there was no need for France and Spain (or Holland, Sweden or Russia for that matter) to intervene on humanitarian grounds. They intervened for political reasons only.

P2. Their wealth goes into the pockets of their elite ... OK - no argument there, except to say that not all of their wealth goes into the pockets of their elite: much of it goes into the pockets of the West which exploits them so efficiently (I wanted to say ruthlessly).

As we have helped ourselves to so much of their wealth, it behoves us to assist them in their development now.

P3 ...

P4 We buy as many boats as they need. We can afford it. Our debt is simply an overdrawn current account due to a sudden contraction of the market. If the "crunch" had not taken place, we would happily be spending the money our governments are being forced to lend, that and more, no doubt. We have oodles of wealth stashed away in the form of land, labour, industry, property, minerals, natural resources, bank deposits and investments - including investments in poor nations, to name just a few. Don't believe the West can't pay its way and is overburdened with debt. It can and it isn't.

[steelish]

I thought socialism was supposed to be about freedom to jump in bed with whoever you wanted for the moment... *rolls eyes*

No! That's socialIZING
;)

[IAN 2411]

Quote:
Originally Posted by gagged_Louise View Post
I thought socialism was supposed to be about freedom to jump in bed with whoever you wanted for the moment... *rolls eyes*
No





No! That's socialIZING
;)

In this swirl of political arguement it was very clever of you to spot the mistake, sleel1sh.
Well there you have it, all those young girls that were taught about Socialism at school, were deprived of the facts. They were under the impression that Sex, socialism and socializing were the same thing. Lighten up, it was an easy mistake to make when you are suposedly 13.

PS

The Falklands have only British people there, and next time Argentina come calling, we will kick ass once more. The Belgrano was sold to them by Britain, we had the right to destroy it, the mesage was; if we give you a gun then point it the other way, or like the Belgrano, we will shuv it up your ass.

Regards ian a true Brit, LoL

[SadisticNature]

I sometimes wonder if any of you were ever thirteen.

Suggesting that the majority of teenage pregnancies are planned actions designed to milk the government for subsidies that actually only pay a fraction of the costs of raising a baby and aren't profitable to the teenager is rather laughable.

The fact is the vast majority of teenage pregnancies are unplanned. Blaming socialism for teenage pregnancy due to subsidies is pretty laughable.

The science in this area is actually pretty woeful because game theory assumes all actions are planned and all agents act in their own best interests which is a terrible model of reality, people do stupid and -EV things all the time. After all insurance is inherently minus EV and hence not in ones own best interests in a game theoretic sense, yet people buy it en mass.

In fact, I think we should consider the fact that Keynesian Economics suggests the problem with the environment is that no one actually owns the air. After all why shouldn't someone own the air, and charge me for converting oxygen to carbon dioxide by breathing. Maybe we all shouldn't have the right to breathe unless we can pay for it. Killing off those who can't afford it to avoid increasing C02 seems reasonable after all :P