Do you think incomes......

[pqr]

Actual socialist countries? None. But like I said, what many people here brand as socialism and actual socialism are usually two very different things, and I wish people would get their facts straight, because it would make it so much easier to discuss stuff like this.

 

As I said before, I think we should take a page from countries with governments that do much more to provide for their people, instead of trying to have less government. Many people here in the US would call that socialism, though it isn't.

 

 

Well I have and it is miserable.

 

As to the Nanny State (government running more of our lives) I have also lived in those nations and it too is miserable. Government rarely, if ever, does anything as well as the private sector, and to believe that they do is to ignore reality.

 

Churchill described Socialism best when he said "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery".

Edited September 19, 2010 by pqr

[Mergath]

As to the Nanny State (government running more of our lives) I have also lived in those nations and it too is miserable. Government rarely, if ever, does anything as well as the private sector, and to believe that they do is to ignore reality.

 

And yet, many of the countries that have this kind of state also have people who consistantly top the "happiest people in the world" lists, as well as having awesome health care and education. I'm sure there are countries that royally screw it up, but many countries make it work very well. What we've been doing just isn't working. It doesn't seem to matter which party controls the government. Overall, we've been going downhill for awhile now. If we don't make some drastic changes. we're going to end up with a massive population of people living in poverty, and insane wealth inequality. I know some people don't see anything wrong with that, because it's just what happens when you have free markets, but I'd like to see some drastic changes.

Edited September 19, 2010 by Mergath

[Guest janainaz]

While not being negative with what I see in the future, we set our life up so that we can survive in the worst case scenario. We have a sensible house payment, one car, and while we do 'live', we are careful about how we live. We find the sensible balance for us. The question is not about wether it will improve or not improve. The question is how will you adjust your life and learn to be content in case it doesn't. Will you see things really turning around, and start needing bigger and better? Or will you adjust your life according to your true means and be content?

[Murphy101]

IME how happy people are is not necessarily a sign of anything being done right. It just means they are accepting of the situation or don't care about any of the injustice the situation might lead to or maybe they just don't know any different and don't care to learn different.

 

I agree there is a lot in the US that doesn't work the way it should.

 

But there is also a hell of a lot of freedom too.

 

I'd rather my children be free than pretty much anything else.

 

This is a sentiment that I'm not sure those outside the US can comprehend or those inside the US can fully appreciate given how it is taken for granted.

[BlsdMama]

 

I'd rather my children be free than pretty much anything else.

 

 

 

:iagree:

 

Freedom over happiness and freedom over safety. We seem to prize "safe" over everything else at this time. :(

[Mergath]

IME how happy people are is not necessarily a sign of anything being done right. It just means they are accepting of the situation or don't care about any of the injustice the situation might lead to or maybe they just don't know any different and don't care to learn different.

 

I agree there is a lot in the US that doesn't work the way it should.

 

But there is also a hell of a lot of freedom too.

 

I'd rather my children be free than pretty much anything else.

 

This is a sentiment that I'm not sure those outside the US can comprehend or those inside the US can fully appreciate given how it is taken for granted.

 

At the same time, people who are living horrible, oppressed lives aren't going to say that they're quite happy. People generally aren't idiots. And oppression isn't a requirement of having a government that provides more services for the people- usually, just much higher taxes.

 

I want my daughter to be free, but at the same time, I don't want her to end up in grinding poverty, either. If more government control is the price I have to pay for her to get an education, be able to raise her own kids in a safe neighborhood, and go to the doctor when she needs to, so be it.

 

Also, I read somewhere awhile back that most European countries are just as free as the US. Not sure where the article was- if I find it, I'll post a link. But perhaps you could discuss some of the freedoms people in Europe don't have that we do?

[dansamy]

All these comments about others deciding how much an executive should be able to earn and how we should really stick it to him in taxes are familiar.

 

Oh, no. I don't think anyone should mandate how much an executive can/should earn. I gave a figure of what's a reasonable amount. I think companies should funnel the rest of their profits into profit sharing programs, better incomes for all their workers (not just CEOs), better benefits, etc. I don't want the government to mandate/regulate that. I want to see companies who care about all their employess, not just the highly paid executive with an exorbitant compensation package and a golden parachute.

 

The hospital I work for is part of a Christian health system. Although none of the front-line workers have received raises in the last 3 years, the executives have all received their yearly bonuses. Meanwhile, our (really crappy) health care plan has increased in price. Every employee on the front line is feeling the hurt. The entire hospital was understaffed a couple days ago. Every nurse in the place, except ICUs, had 6-8 patients apiece. As direct patient care staff flees to better paying travel assignments and temp contracts, it's only going to get worse.

 

Our hospital system is a non-profit and has a profit sharing program whereby any profits over and above operating costs are used for things like bonuses & capital improvements, like the new open MRI machine we just got - don't ask me how much those things cost because I don't want to know. I know that an open MRI improves our ability to serve our patient population. But if something doesn't shake soon, I'll be joining the fleeing masses. I can put my license at risk somewhere else for better money. I'd take my $19/hr if my license wasn't in jeopardy on a daily basis. But for the workload they're piling on to the direct patient care employees? It's worth about 2x what we're making now. I can find an agency with local assignments and end up back in the same facility, with the same patient load ..... for 2-3x the pay.

[pqr]

Also, I read somewhere awhile back that most European countries are just as free as the US. Not sure where the article was- if I find it, I'll post a link. But perhaps you could discuss some of the freedoms people in Europe don't have that we do?

 

Well that simply is not true.

 

In many European countries one does NOT have freedom of speech.

France is about to make it illegal to wear a veil.

Most nations in Europe do NOT allow ownership of firearms.

Many European nations do NOT allow homeschooling.

Certain books are banned in some European nations.

In Germany you have to report to the police statio every time you move.

In some European nations you can not spank your children.

In some European nations the right to defend yourself from attack is illegal.

In the Nanny States they take over half your income, they also have wonderful revenue raising procedures such as a licence to own a TV and a licence for just about everything else.

In many European nations there is no law against trespass, so someone can come on your land any time they want.

 

 

and this is just for starters.

[Rosie_0801]

As to the Nanny State (government running more of our lives) I have also lived in those nations and it too is miserable. Government rarely, if ever, does anything as well as the private sector, and to believe that they do is to ignore reality.

 

You haven't lived in Australia. Or if you have, we need a discussion about perceptions of reality.

 

People generally aren't idiots.

 

We could debate that too :D

 

Rosie

Edited September 19, 2010 by Rosie_0801

[Audrey]

Well you are certainly welcome to leave this horrid country and report back to us in a few years to tell us how it works out.

 

 

I know this wasn't directed at me, and I'm not particularly directing my response here at you Dana -- rather using your post as a jumping off point -- but I left 16 years ago and I'm doing far, far better than when I lived there, and far, far better than my friends and family who are now struggling through a very tough recession/depression/economic downturn -- or whatever you choose to call it.

 

On top of that my chosen country is faring quite well economically. We're not in a recession, probably due to those stringent banking regulations we have, and the fact that we have a modest military that doesn't get used to waste billions (or is it trillions?) by invading other countries for dubious reasons.

 

I also get universal health care and pay less in taxes between my dh and I together than I, for myself alone, paid for health care premiums when I lived down south. I also get more than just health care for the taxes I pay.

 

So, while I didn't leave for political or economic reasons, it has turned out to be a big bonus. I enjoy plenty of freedom, thank you. I could argue that I have more freedom here than down south, but I honestly think the idea of arguing who is "freer" than whom is somewhat ridiculous. You can call it socialism, communism, or whatever other word you choose to misuse. It does work, and it works quite well.

Edited September 19, 2010 by Audrey

[Mergath]

Well that simply is not true.

 

In many European countries one does NOT have freedom of speech.

France is about to make it illegal to wear a veil.

Most nations in Europe do NOT allow ownership of firearms.

Many European nations do NOT allow homeschooling.

Certain books are banned in some European nations.

In Germany you have to report to the police statio every time you move.

In some European nations you can not spank your children.

In some European nations the right to defend yourself from attack is illegal.

In the Nanny States they take over half your income, they also have wonderful revenue raising procedures such as a licence to own a TV and a licence for just about everything else.

In many European nations there is no law against trespass, so someone can come on your land any time they want.

 

 

and this is just for starters.

 

We also have laws unique to our country, including restrictions on speech, homeschooling, and firearms. Some states have laws that make it illegal to have an unassisted homebirth, whereas in many parts of Europe, it's much more common. While we don't have books that were banned nationwide, there are countless attempts (sometimes successful) around the country to have books censored locally. And many would think that not having the right to an affordable or even free college education or to be able to go to the doctor without having to declare bankruptcy afterwards are unimaginable restrictions. We have to have licenses to drive a car, teach in a school, own a gun, and in some places, help a woman give birth. It's all about perception. We aren't any more free than a lot of the countries you mentioned- we just have restrictions in different areas of life.

 

Also, in some of your examples, you're twisting actual laws to make your point. Unless you'd like to post sources for your claims?

[pqr]

You haven't lived in Australia. Or if you have, we need a discussion about perceptions of reality.

 

Never had the pleasure so can not speak to Australia, but do you maintain that the government there runs things better than private enterprise?

 

Then again several Australian friends were fuming over the government's "school building program" which was how much over budget?

Edited September 19, 2010 by pqr

[Mergath]

 

We could debate that too :D

 

Rosie

 

Hmm. Good point. Though I'm pretty sure that discussion would lead to my being banned again. :D

[Barry Goldwater]

Hmm. Good point. Though I'm pretty sure that discussion would lead to my being banned again. :D

:lurk5:

[Vida Winter]

I know this wasn't directed at me, and I'm not particularly directing my response here at you Dana -- rather using your post as a jumping off point -- but I left 16 years ago and I'm doing far, far better than when I lived there, and far, far better than my friends and family who are now struggling through a very tough recession/depression/economic downturn -- or whatever you choose to call it.

 

On top of that my chosen country is faring quite well economically. We're not in a recession, probably due to those stringent banking regulations we have, and the fact that we have a modest military that doesn't get used to waste billions (or is it trillions?) by invading other countries for dubious reasons.

 

I also get universal health care and pay less in taxes between my dh and I together than I, for myself alone, paid for health care premiums when I lived down south. I also get more than just health care for the taxes I pay.

 

So, while I didn't leave for political or economic reasons, it has turned out to be a big bonus. I enjoy plenty of freedom, thank you. I could argue that I have more freedom here than down south, but I honestly think the idea of arguing who is "freer" than whom is somewhat ridiculous. You can call it socialism, communism, or whatever other word you choose to misuse. It does work, and it works quite well.

 

Well, whatever floats your boat. Part of the reason you're free to enjoy your benefits is that you've got alliances and protection from your abominable neighbor to the south. Freedom has a price, even if you're not the one paying it.

[Audrey]

Well, whatever floats your boat. Part of the reason you're free to enjoy your benefits is that you've got alliances and protection from your abominable neighbor to the south. Freedom has a price, even if you're not the one paying it.

 

 

No doubt that it pays to be a good neighbour. That goes both ways. :001_smile:

[pqr]

We also have laws unique to our country, including restrictions on speech, homeschooling, and firearms. Some states have laws that make it illegal to have an unassisted homebirth, whereas in many parts of Europe, it's much more common. While we don't have books that were banned nationwide, there are countless attempts (sometimes successful) around the country to have books censored locally. And many would think that not having the right to an affordable or even free college education or to be able to go to the doctor without having to declare bankruptcy afterwards are unimaginable restrictions. We have to have licenses to drive a car, teach in a school, own a gun, and in some places, help a woman give birth. It's all about perception. We aren't any more free than a lot of the countries you mentioned- we just have restrictions in different areas of life.

 

Also, in some of your examples, you're twisting actual laws to make your point. Unless you'd like to post sources for your claims?

 

Which law am I twisting?

Please give me the US state that forbids free speech.

Attempting to ban a book and having a national a law that does so are two very different things. We have the freedom in this nation to read what we will, that is NOT true in parts of Europe.

 

There is no perception here. Some nations in Europe do not have freedom of speech.

 

As to the examples you cite, free college education is NOT a right.

 

Despite debate on systems et al, the fact remains that we can not afford to pay for all these mandates. Eventually the system will crash as appears to be happening in Europe. Your most earnest desires will not create money and you can only TAKE so much before the wealthy are driven into lower brackets or simply stop working. We need the American work ethic to come back, stand on your own two feet, don't constantly look for a hand out and accept that the rights in this nation do not and can not include cradle to grave support. You (writ large not you in particular)have no right to free college education, you have no right to have someone else pay for your needs and you have no right to constantly take and not give.

 

Franklin answered your points-People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both. Perhaps this is what we see in some European nations.

Edited September 19, 2010 by pqr

[Vida Winter]

I'd love to, actually. :) I'm planning on teaching my dd Norwegian in case she wants to move there someday.

 

Also, the old "if you're going to be critical of any aspect of American society then just leave" argument gets a little old. We'd be a lot worse off now if no one ever pointed out the things that weren't working.

 

Well you've probably heard that argument before. It's the same one I'd give a spoiled adult child that was complaining about things at home.

[Murphy101]

I actually whole heartedly agree with BOTH of you!

 

We cannot compare all of any country to any other.

 

But we can compare certain aspects of what is right and what works from various areas on one area.

 

The states obviously do not have all the answers.

 

Neither does any other country.

 

But I grow impatient with the constant harping of let's do things like in Europe and the just leave if you don't like it here.

 

Europe is not any more a utopia than the states.

 

 

Well that simply is not true.

 

In many European countries one does NOT have freedom of speech.

France is about to make it illegal to wear a veil.

Most nations in Europe do NOT allow ownership of firearms.

Many European nations do NOT allow homeschooling.

Certain books are banned in some European nations.

In Germany you have to report to the police statio every time you move.

In some European nations you can not spank your children.

In some European nations the right to defend yourself from attack is illegal.

In the Nanny States they take over half your income, they also have wonderful revenue raising procedures such as a licence to own a TV and a licence for just about everything else.

In many European nations there is no law against trespass, so someone can come on your land any time they want.

 

 

and this is just for starters.

 

I know this wasn't directed at me, and I'm not particularly directing my response here at you Dana -- rather using your post as a jumping off point -- but I left 16 years ago and I'm doing far, far better than when I lived there, and far, far better than my friends and family who are now struggling through a very tough recession/depression/economic downturn -- or whatever you choose to call it.

 

On top of that my chosen country is faring quite well economically. We're not in a recession, probably due to those stringent banking regulations we have, and the fact that we have a modest military that doesn't get used to waste billions (or is it trillions?) by invading other countries for dubious reasons.

 

I also get universal health care and pay less in taxes between my dh and I together than I, for myself alone, paid for health care premiums when I lived down south. I also get more than just health care for the taxes I pay.

 

So, while I didn't leave for political or economic reasons, it has turned out to be a big bonus. I enjoy plenty of freedom, thank you. I could argue that I have more freedom here than down south, but I honestly think the idea of arguing who is "freer" than whom is somewhat ridiculous. You can call it socialism, communism, or whatever other word you choose to misuse. It does work, and it works quite well.

[Murphy101]

No doubt that it pays to be a good neighbour. That goes both ways. :001_smile:

 

:iagree:

 

Nevermind the fact that it gets insane cold up there, so many people have no desire to ever "take it" Many people being me. I hate cold dreary weather. As far as I'm concerned, the weather is your best defense up there.;)

[Mrs Mungo]

Well, whatever floats your boat. Part of the reason you're free to enjoy your benefits is that you've got alliances and protection from your abominable neighbor to the south. Freedom has a price, even if you're not the one paying it.

 

I find this offensive. Canada and Australia are close allies of the US and their soldiers fight side-by-side with US soldiers in the Global War on Terror.

 

Can we stop pretending that the sides can be divided up like college football teams? *Everyone* in politics has good ideas and bad. Every country has its own ideology, some work better than others, some work not at all. Claiming taxes = stealing isn't going to get you ANYWHERE with the other side because that is crazy talk. Claiming that the US is just like North Korea isn't going to get you anywhere, because that is crazy talk.

 

Christians who are HOPING for an economic collapse are not Christians *at all* in my opinion. Why?

Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper." 8 Yes, this is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: "Do not let the prophets and diviners among you deceive you. Do not listen to the dreams you encourage them to have. 9 They are prophesying lies to you in my name. I have not sent them," declares the LORD.

Being a bane rather than a blessing to the society in which you live, creating divisions rather than being a blessing and thereby converting people to your side (book of Daniel, anyone?) isn't the Christian way, at all.

 

Yes, there are certain freedoms we in the US lack, in some cases corporations/lawyers are causing the restrictions, rather than government (the reason many states don't allow lay or even certified midwives).

 

There are certain freedoms restricted in other countries (you CAN own a firearm in Germany, you just have to be a member of a hunting club and you keep your weapon at the club instead of in your home).

 

No government is perfect. Taxes have been part of government since the beginning of governments, pretending it is something recent is just stupid.

[Audrey]

:iagree:

 

Nevermind the fact that it gets insane cold up there, so many people have no desire to ever "take it" Many people being me. I hate cold dreary weather. As far as I'm concerned, the weather is your best defense up there.;)

 

 

Trust me, we know! :D

[pqr]

Canada and Australia are close allies of the US and their soldiers fight side-by-side with US soldiers in the Global War on Terror.

 

.

 

Absolutely right. Canadian troopers are generally superb and their snipers are par excellence, they have made kills at over 1,500 yards. (and yes that is a very good thing).

Edited September 19, 2010 by pqr

[Rosie_0801]

Never had the pleasure so can not speak to Australia, but do you maintain that the government there runs things better than private enterprise?

 

Believe it or not, sometimes they do! Telecommunications and public transport both ran better before they were sold off, and there was a major hoo ha over the drop in service when the ambulance services were privatised. If I remember correctly, the average reaction time doubled for quite a while. That has been resolved though, or at least we've never had a problem. Actually, we've had ambulances show up too soon!

 

Then again several Australian friends were fuming over the government's "school building program" which was how much over budget?

 

We wouldn't know what to do with ourselves if they spoiled our national hobby of dissing the government, so it is probably for the best that they aren't perfect. Our entire world views would have to change and that is so uncomfortable. About the particular example you've cited, though, a budget blow out is less stupid than the program itself.

 

Of course the government does stupid things. They do a lot of stupid things, but there are numerous instances where, when privatisation has occurred, the private company has done even more stupid things. We're not talking about who is good and who is bad, we're talking about who is "dumb" and who is "dumber" and it happens here that, over all, we perceive the government to be dumb and the private companies running public services to be dumber. It seems to be the other way around in the US, from what I read here, but that doesn't make us wrong about our own backyard because our backyard isn't in the US, or Europe, or anywhere except here.

 

This is why we don't like it when it is suggested we are delusional beings who don't realise how un-free we are. We are all socialised according to the cage (but we're calling them countries here) we grew up in, and it is natural to prefer the type of un-freedom we have than someone else's kind of un-freedom. (No comment on extremist regimes.)

 

It's pretty tricky to compare freedoms anyway, because we value freedoms differently. For the most part, Americans value their freedom to own guns. For the most part, Australians value their freedom to live somewhere with strict gun laws. The Howard government tightened our gun laws, and even everyone who wanted vote him out (and that was a lot of people :D) applauded that. Yes there are people who don't like the law, but they are a very small minority. A law like that gets applauded here, a law like that would cause a revolution in the US. It's a matter of different priorities, not one being free-er than the other. We've both got what we want on that issue, so we are equally free on that issue.

 

Rosie

[Crimson Wife]

And yet, many of the countries that have this kind of state also have people who consistantly top the "happiest people in the world" lists, as well as having awesome health care and education.

 

If you think socialized medicine is "awesome health care" than you need to talk to families who have experience with the military health care system.

 

I hate the amount of money we have to pay for our current private coverage but no way in H*** would I ever wish to return to having to use socialized medicine.

[Melissa in Australia]

 

Of course the government does stupid things. They do a lot of stupid things, but there are numerous instances where, when privatisation has occurred, the private company has done even more stupid things. We're not talking about who is good and who is bad, we're talking about who is "dumb" and who is "dumber" and it happens here that, over all, we perceive the government to be dumb and the private companies running public services to be dumber. It seems to be the other way around in the US, from what I read here, but that doesn't make us wrong about our own backyard because our backyard isn't in the US, or Europe, or anywhere except here.

 

This is why we don't like it when it is suggested we are delusional beings who don't realise how un-free we are. We are all socialised according to the cage (but we're calling them countries here) we grew up in, and it is natural to prefer the type of un-freedom we have than someone else's kind of un-freedom. (No comment on extremist regimes.)

 

It's pretty tricky to compare freedoms anyway, because we value freedoms differently. For the most part, Americans value their freedom to own guns. For the most part, Australians value their freedom to live somewhere with strict gun laws. The Howard government tightened our gun laws, and even everyone who wanted vote him out (and that was a lot of people :D) applauded that. Yes there are people who don't like the law, but they are a very small minority. A law like that gets applauded here, a law like that would cause a revolution in the US. It's a matter of different priorities, not one being free-er than the other. We've both got what we want on that issue, so we are equally free on that issue.

 

Rosie

:iagree: Yay for ROSIE !

 

( Though I do think the government was worse than dumber with their mad spending spree that blew out the budget!!)

[Sandra in FL]

Well, whatever floats your boat. Part of the reason you're free to enjoy your benefits is that you've got alliances and protection from your abominable neighbor to the south. Freedom has a price, even if you're not the one paying it.

Well, I know that it irked me a lot when some Canadian friends after telling me about the $400 allowance they get for massages said, "Oh, we don't have to worry about military spending because no one would dare invade us (because we border the US)."

[jazzyfizzle]

It is definitely doable to have a car, cell phones, internet and home on $40-60K a year- we do it. It is a matter of what is priority.

 

What we consider as our luxuries (not must-haves or entitlements)-

 

Cell phones/internet (no text or pictures)

Scarce eating out -this includes fast food

Packaged snack food, convenience food

New clothes or shoes

Trips of any kind

Full price theater visit

Flavored coffee creamer

A few seasonal extras- such as a new bathing suit/pool inflatable.

 

We will not do those expensive coffee places. We rarely eat out. I actually went to the Olive Garden for the first time ever a few weeks ago (and this was because my brother was buying for all- and insisted). I knew the price would be something we could, but would not, pay- just by looking at the place- a huge waste of money.

 

We have a very full life and have a lot of fun. A trip to the zoo or museum is considered an important day and incorporated into school, so we have a two for one. The eating out for that day is a treat. We go to the beach (only cost of gas money),fishing, swimming.

We never pay for a full price theater ticket- we wait until it is at the $1.00 theater. It is by no means less fun. We enjoy our animals, the parks and recreational areas.

 

I feel we live very well off. :)

 

ETA- Guess I should add in that I am covering some expenses for a college kid in that- some payments, books, some food, some gas/ misc.

Edited September 20, 2010 by jazzyfizzle

[jazzyfizzle]

 

This is why we don't like it when it is suggested we are delusional beings who don't realise how un-free we are. We are all socialised according to the cage (but we're calling them countries here) we grew up in, and it is natural to prefer the type of un-freedom we have than someone else's kind of un-freedom. (No comment on extremist regimes.)

 

It's pretty tricky to compare freedoms anyway, because we value freedoms differently. For the most part, Americans value their freedom to own guns. For the most part, Australians value their freedom to live somewhere with strict gun laws. The Howard government tightened our gun laws, and even everyone who wanted vote him out (and that was a lot of people :D) applauded that. Yes there are people who don't like the law, but they are a very small minority. A law like that gets applauded here, a law like that would cause a revolution in the US. It's a matter of different priorities, not one being free-er than the other. We've both got what we want on that issue, so we are equally free on that issue.

 

Rosie

 

 

Ahh Rosie- ye be so smart. :thumbup1:

[pqr]

 

It's pretty tricky to compare freedoms anyway, because we value freedoms differently. For the most part, Americans value their freedom to own guns. For the most part, Australians value their freedom to live somewhere with strict gun laws. The Howard government tightened our gun laws, and even everyone who wanted vote him out (and that was a lot of people :D) applauded that. Yes there are people who don't like the law, but they are a very small minority. A law like that gets applauded here, a law like that would cause a revolution in the US. It's a matter of different priorities, not one being free-er than the other. We've both got what we want on that issue, so we are equally free on that issue.

 

Rosie

 

 

Very nicely put, but not a valid argument. To argue that simply because the majority wants something it is acceptable to deprive individuals of a freedom is .... well a poor argument. We tried that with our Jim Crow laws. The fact is that your citizenry has been deprived of the inherent right to self defence beacuse of a knee jerk reaction to a horrible horrible crime is no argument for its validity.

 

Further, my Australian friends dispute the "very small minority" comment. They admit that is true of the cities but state that in Victoria (where they live) this is anything but true. They also stated that Tasmanians feel the same way as many in Victoria.

 

I do admit that I am a little out of my depth on Australian politics, but still call into question the argument that rights can be overturned because a "majority" decides to. A right can not be overturned, it is inherent.

 

There are also some freedoms that can be compared:

 

Do you have freedom of religion?

Do you have freedom of speech?

Do you have freedom of association?

Do you have freedom to defend yourself?

Do you have freedom of movement?

Do you have the freedom to own property?

Do you have the freedom to choose your government?

 

All of these can be compared between nations and Australia does pretty well, better than most places.

Edited September 20, 2010 by pqr

[dansamy]

It is definitely doable to have a car, cell phones, internet and home on $40-60K a year- we do it. It is a matter of what is priority.

 

I think the cost of living in a certain region also plays a role here. Yes, that is an adequate income in some areas. In other areas, it would be virtually destitute due to the elevated cost of living. This is also a problem that needs a resolution of some sort. Why on earth is the same housing 3x the cost in CA as it is in say ... AL or GA?

 

I think the deepening recession will level market prices to some minor fluctuations but not the wild upswing to the west that we have seen. It may not level them enough though.

 

I also think a pp was right in that the increased supply of qualified (and overqualified) workers combined with the decreased demand will cause incomes across the board to fall. In addition, inflation and increased expenses will have the effect of paycuts even on those whose pay scale remains level.

 

I do think we're going to remain in a depressed/recessed economic environment for several years. Hopefully, it won't get too ugly. I'm hoping that we'll avoid a "Great Depression", but the way the yahoos in DC are going, we're going to file bankruptcy and get repossessed. :p

[Guest scannura]

are going to rise back up to where they used to be before the economy crashed? Or, is this a new way of life we are all going to have to adjust too?

 

Is $10-$15/hr going to be the new going rate for highly educated and qualified employees? With $6-$9/hr for less qualified/uneducated employees?

 

Maybe it is because I am in a highly unemployed state, but the going rate for a college ed. person is around $15/hr and that would be a blessing!

 

If this IS going to be the new trend, will we see inflation or products leveling out to equal our income?

 

I know housing has come down tremendously (thank to foreclosures :glare:), but will food and utilities and like things come down in price also or will they be inflated?

 

Do you think the cost of insurance will start to come down or be inflated more?

 

It would be easier to increase wealth by increasing your value to others. If everyone learned to make more money by providing greater service to others it would be much more universally beneficial than finding someone to work for. The whole system is based on loss and negative expectation.

[Spy Car]

Very nicely put, but not a valid argument. To argue that simply because the majority wants something it is acceptable to deprive individuals of a freedom is .... well a poor argument. We tried that with our Jim Crow laws.

 

Exactly why the rights of a homosexual persons to marry the person of their choice, or the right to serve in our nation's military, shouldn't be a victim of a majority vote or of government policy.

 

You can't have it only one way.

 

Bill

[pqr]

Exactly why the rights of a homosexual persons to marry the person of their choice, or the right to serve in our nation's military, shouldn't be a victim of a majority vote or of government policy.

 

You can't have it only one way.

 

Bill

 

 

So you agree with me then?

 

 

....but then again the government has the right to choose what characteristics are conducive to military service.

[jazzyfizzle]

I think the cost of living in a certain region also plays a role here.

 

I do think we're going to remain in a depressed/recessed economic environment for several years. Hopefully, it won't get too ugly. I'm hoping that we'll avoid a "Great Depression", but the way the yahoos in DC..

 

 

Agreed, and agreed.

And our home is modest, yet warm and charming (to me anyway).

I was hoping to suggest that if the phones/internet were considered the luxuries (which they should be, imo) it would reset perspective. For my family, things that most people consider necessity (eating at places like Olive Garden, Starbucks), or maybe luxury, are things we would not even consider. The smaller things are our luxuries.

Edited September 20, 2010 by jazzyfizzle

[Murphy101]

Exactly why the rights of a homosexual persons to marry the person of their choice, or the right to serve in our nation's military, shouldn't be a victim of a majority vote or of government policy.

 

You can't have it only one way.

 

Bill

 

 

Sure you can.

 

Because marriage and military service are not rights.

[MelanieM]

Very nicely put, but not a valid argument. To argue that simply because the majority wants something it is acceptable to deprive individuals of a freedom is .... well a poor argument. We tried that with our Jim Crow laws. The fact is that your citizenry has been deprived of the inherent right to self defence beacuse of a knee jerk reaction to a horrible horrible crime is no argument for its validity.

 

I have no clue about the legal rights or state of politics in Australia, so perhaps I'm showing my ignorance here, but... Just because something is considered a right for you in the US does not make it so in other countries. Here in Canada, people don't go around talking about the right to own guns, but they do go around talking about the right to health care. Which I believe is the point of Rosie's excellent post: different countries can have different views on rights and freedoms, and vastly different priorities overall. You can't superimpose your viewpoint on another country and make the argument that our perspectives make no sense. (Well, you can... but it rarely makes sense or goes over too well, as is evidenced by the discussions here of late.)

 

Also, are we not speaking of countries that work via majority rule? Why wouldn't it make sense that the country be run the way the majority of people wish it so?

 

Further, my Australian friends dispute the "very small minority" comment. They admit that is true of the cities but state that in Victoria (where they live) this is anything but true. They also stated that Tasmanians feel the same way as many in Victoria.

 

 

Forgive me, but this made me chuckle. It's not surprising that you would have friends that share your perspective. This gun thing seems like a pretty important issue for you, so maybe your Australian friendship base is a little biased that way. (You're not alone in attracting like minds... most of my US friends are in favour of more gun restrictions.)

[pqr]

 

Forgive me, but this made me chuckle. It's not surprising that you would have friends that share your perspective. This gun thing seems like a pretty important issue for you, so maybe your Australian friendship base is a little biased that way. (You're not alone in attracting like minds... most of my US friends are in favour of more gun restrictions.)

 

...but they did not deny that most Aussies supported gun control, their issue was with the "tiny minority" comment and the state that they come from apparently has more than a tiny minority who believe in freedom to defend one's self.

 

I likewise admit that there are substantial numbers of Americans who misread our Constitution and support gun control.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

 

Also, are we not speaking of countries that work via majority rule? Why wouldn't it make sense that the country be run the way the majority of people wish it so?

 

 

The point in the US is that the constitution is above majority rule. The rights enumerated in it are inherent rights of the citizens of the country which the government-federal, state or local cannot revoke or limit.

 

The majority of the citizens or their elected representatives are not to infringe the rights of the people.

 

Hence the difference between a constitutional republic and a constitutional monarchy-no matter the degree of separation from the monarch.

 

Keep in mind when discussing the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution that you are not just discussing the right to own guns or other weapons but the right to self defense. It is not just about who gets to own what gun. Are there countries so safe that the citizens are no longer concerned about self-defense?

[Sebastian (a lady)]

POTUS makes $400k/year.

 

Chairman of the JCS makes around $220k, the military has a formula wherein the highest paid person may only make x times what the lowest paid person makes. I think it's a good strategy.

 

Do you have more info on this? Asking because I thought it was actually the other way around, that the pay was based on being a certain percentage of presidential pay.

 

Of course allowances do stretch this out of shape a bit.

[MelanieM]

The point in the US is that the constitution is above majority rule. The rights enumerated in it are inherent rights of the citizens of the country which the government-federal, state or local cannot revoke or limit.

 

But pqr wasn't talking about the US, which was the point. He was talking about the rights of Australians, looking through an American lense. Your constitution doesn't apply to other countries and what they do or do not vote upon.

[Audrey]

Can we stop pretending that the sides can be divided up like college football teams?

 

 

Tsk, tsk, Mrs M. Being from OK, you should know full well that discussion of college football will get you in hotter water than religion or politics! You pot-stirrer, you! :lol:

Edited September 20, 2010 by Audrey

[Slartibartfast]

So we are less free than our allies?

 

Surely government restriction based on sexual preference no longer has a place among free men. :)

 

I have guns but I don't necessarily see my ownership of a weapon more important than my fellow American's right to marry the person of their choice.

 

"You can have guns, but you can't serve your country. GLWT!"

 

That is not free. YOU might be "free" but many of your fellow Americans are not.

 

 

I do see the point about initiative and creativity not necessarily being rewarded as well due to the difference in taxation but I think there has been quite a lot of documentation showing that while those CEOs were making their companies money they were doing so by shipping our jobs and manufacturing overseas.

 

Not a single pair of blue jeans is made in the US. It is a little disturbing that something so quintessentially American isn't American at all.

 

Sure some people hate unions, but now many union jobs are now held by underpaid, underskilled, not even necessarily documented workers? Just look what happened with the meat packing industry. Those were good jobs with good pay and benefits. You could raise a family on those jobs but now...not so much. Now some of those companies ship in migrant workers to do those jobs.

 

Sure they make a lot of money for Stouffers, but did they really help America? IMO they did not.

 

There are some CEOs doing great things but there are also many who would just as soon shoot us all in the back.

Edited September 20, 2010 by Sis

[Melissa in Australia]

Further, my Australian friends dispute the "very small minority" comment. They admit that is true of the cities but state that in Victoria (where they live) this is anything but true. They also stated that Tasmanians feel the same way as many in Victoria.

 

.

 

I live in Victoria, Australia, in a rural area.

I have neighbours that have guns, one has at least 4 different guns, I have no idea what type, but they are not hand guns, sort of longish ones, a .22, and a shot gun I think. Another that just shifted away the other has a shot gun and some others, including a pistol, he has to be a member of the pistol club to get a permit to have it.

My brother has at least 2 guns, he has a farm.

the laws are that you have to have a gun license, and the guns have to be kept in a locked gun safe, they have to be unloaded, and ammo kept separate. If you want to go hunting, you have to have a hunting license and abide by the hunting season rules. You are not allowed to just walk around the streets carrying a gun.

 

Who needs a gun to defend yourself? haven't you watched Crocodile Dundee? We just use a can of baked beans.:D

 

I have no problem with the gun laws in Australia at all, And I don't know a single person at all that think they should be relaxed.

[Spy Car]

So you agree with me then?

 

If you agree that simply because the majority might wants to deprive individuals of their freedom doesn't male it acceptable, and this includes the right of all Americans (including homosexual Americans) then yes, I agree.

 

 

....but then again the government has the right to choose what characteristics are conducive to military service.

 

The military can have reasonable standards for individuals to meet including things such as a certain level of intellectual capacity, physical ability, minimum levels of education, and a lack of a criminal past (although standards for the last two often prove "flexible.")

 

But the government can't legitimately discriminate on the basis of "characteristics" such as skin-color, hand dominance, or sexual preference. That is a denial of basic civil right.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Surely government restriction based on sexual preference no longer has a place among free men. :)

 

I have guns but I don't necessarily see my ownership of a weapon more important than my fellow American's right to marry the person of their choice.

 

"You can have guns, but you can't serve your country. GLWT!"

 

That is not free. YOU might be "free" but many of your fellow Americans are not.

 

 

 

:iagree: Amen to that sister!

 

Bill

[Mrs Mungo]

Sure you can.

 

Because marriage and military service are not rights.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

 

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

 

As far as the military goes, one is hard-pressed to argue for less stringent education qualifications, implementation of stop-loss and other force-increasing measures when one is kicking people out for dubious reasons.

 

I've pointed out before, our soldiers already serve joint-missions with gay soldiers of allied countries. Therefore, the soldiers are already dealing with this.

 

Also, are we not speaking of countries that work via majority rule? Why wouldn't it make sense that the country be run the way the majority of people wish it so?

 

The point in the US is that the constitution is above majority rule. The rights enumerated in it are inherent rights of the citizens of the country which the government-federal, state or local cannot revoke or limit.

 

The majority of the citizens or their elected representatives are not to infringe the rights of the people.

 

Hence the difference between a constitutional republic and a constitutional monarchy-no matter the degree of separation from the monarch.

 

Keep in mind when discussing the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution that you are not just discussing the right to own guns or other weapons but the right to self defense. It is not just about who gets to own what gun. Are there countries so safe that the citizens are no longer concerned about self-defense?

 

But pqr wasn't talking about the US, which was the point. He was talking about the rights of Australians, looking through an American lense. Your constitution doesn't apply to other countries and what they do or do not vote upon.

 

The thing is, the US Constitution and most citizens consider these rights endowed by our Creator, that should belong to all. That's the sticking point.

 

Do you have more info on this? Asking because I thought it was actually the other way around, that the pay was based on being a certain percentage of presidential pay.

 

Of course allowances do stretch this out of shape a bit.

 

I will have to look around, I don't have it at my fingertips.

 

I do see the point about initiative and creativity not necessarily being rewarded as well due to the difference in taxation but I think there has been quite a lot of documentation showing that while those CEOs were making their companies money they were doing so by shipping our jobs and manufacturing overseas.

 

Not a single pair of blue jeans is made in the US. It is a little disturbing that something so quintessentially American isn't American at all.

 

Sure some people hate unions, but now many union jobs are now held by underpaid, underskilled, not even necessarily documented workers? Just look what happened with the meat packing industry. Those were good jobs with good pay and benefits. You could raise a family on those jobs but now...not so much. Now some of those companies ship in migrant workers to do those jobs.

 

Sure they make a lot of money for Stouffers, but did they really help America? IMO they did not.

 

There are some CEOs doing great things but there are also many who would just as soon shoot us all in the back.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[Mrs Mungo]

Tsk, tsk, Mrs M. Being from OK, you should know full well that discussion of college football will get you in hotter water than religion or politics! You pot-stirrer, you! :lol:

 

:D

[Rosie_0801]

Very nicely put, but not a valid argument. To argue that simply because the majority wants something it is acceptable to deprive individuals of a freedom is .... well a poor argument.

 

Then don't use it yourself. Just because the majority of Americans wish to be deprived of the freedom to live in areas with loose gun laws doesn't mean, uh, I think you get the point.

 

We tried that with our Jim Crow laws. The fact is that your citizenry has been deprived of the inherent right to self defence beacuse of a knee jerk reaction to a horrible horrible crime is no argument for its validity.

 

And that is another poor argument. The fact that you didn't like how a bunch of laws in your country turned out doesn't mean that similar laws don't work just fine elsewhere. You did read the portion of my previous post about different prioritiies, did you not? There is nothing difficult to understand about this very simple concept:

 

There are Americans and there are people who are not American.

 

Americans may look at the rest of the world, think "hey that's a good idea" and pinch it, as the rest of the world can look at the US and think "hey that's a good idea" and pinch it. Or we can do the opposite and say "that's a dumb idea, I'm glad I don't live there."

 

To say that everyone who is not American shouldn't do what Americans don't like, because it doesn't work, is nothing short of silly. We're not American! We have no power to change your gun laws or your health system, even if we think they are crazy. We are not a threat! On the other hand, if we are fine with our health care system, calling us delusional isn't mannerly or even likely to be true. We can deal with being called weirdo socialists, but delusional is plain bad manners.

 

Further, my Australian friends dispute the "very small minority" comment. They admit that is true of the cities but state that in Victoria (where they live) this is anything but true. They also stated that Tasmanians feel the same way as many in Victoria.

 

As it happens, I live in Victoria, so does MelissaL and Keptwoman. We have as much right to our perceptions as your friends in Victoria. I did not say that everyone agreed with these laws. If you like, I will correct myself to say a minority, rather than "a very small minority" agree with these laws. If your friends believe the majority of people do not support stricter gun laws than we had, and the US has, then I'd be very interested in knowing where they are from. As it happens, MelissaL doesn't live in the city. In fact she lives in the middle of nowhere (:tongue_smilie: to Melissa, she knows that's true!) so I think she can be considered a reliable enough source as to the country opinion. Ask your friends if they'd like gun laws here to be the same as the US. I've never heard anyone say that, and that includes those who own guns.

 

I do admit that I am a little out of my depth on Australian politics, but still call into question the argument that rights can be overturned because a "majority" decides to. A right can not be overturned, it is inherent.

 

That's another argument altogether.

 

...but they did not deny that most Aussies supported gun control, their issue was with the "tiny minority" comment and the state that they come from apparently has more than a tiny minority who believe in freedom to defend one's self.

 

 

Weirdly enough, many of the same people who believe in the right to defend themselves also support our gun laws. And yes, that can make sense.

 

We Australians use our manners here in regards to the mind boggling attitudes of our American friends, it isn't unreasonable to expect Americans to do the same by us. Your feelings might not be so much as scratched but some of your fellow boardies would be hurt to the very core if we stopped using them. Do your part for the feelings of your fellow Americans ;)

 

Rosie

[Melissa in Australia]

 

There are Americans and there are people who are not American.

 

Americans may look at the rest of the world, think "hey that's a good idea" and pinch it, as the rest of the world can look at the US and think "hey that's a good idea" and pinch it. Or we can do the opposite and say "that's a dumb idea, I'm glad I don't live there."

 

 

. As it happens, MelissaL doesn't live in the city. In fact she lives in the middle of nowhere (:tongue_smilie: to Melissa, she knows that's true!) .

 

We Australians use our manners here in regards to the mind boggling attitudes of our American friends, it isn't unreasonable to expect Americans to do the same by us. Your feelings might not be so much as scratched but some of your fellow boardies would be hurt to the very core if we stopped using them. Do your part for the feelings of your fellow Americans ;)

 

 

Rosie

 

love your thing about pinching ideas.:rofl::rofl:

 

I don't live in the middle on nowhere, just on the edge of it!:lol:

 

I agree sometimes the American attitudes are mind boggling, and I for one find it hard to bite my tongue and not sling some mud with the rest of them