Are you trying to argue that because “lots and lots” of people believe something is true, it is true?
Yes. And? So?
In case this isn’t a whoosh, let’s take this from the top down:
-
The whole system of the country and the laws don’t change simply because of the party the chancellor belongs to. Or do you mean that the US is a democracy when Clinton and Obama are POTUS, and a republic when Reagan and Bush are POTUS?
-
The SPD is (officially in name) the social democratic party of Germany, not the Socialist party.
Practically, they stopped following social democratic goals during the 80s, when Kohl and the CDU/CSU (consies) kept winning and winning. In a typical fit of stupidity and ignoring the voters’ will, they decided the way to win again was to follow the consies in their trek to the right. (What the voters wanted, of course, was stop all the infighting and grow a spine and start pushing social democratic issues). -
As for chancellors: Brandt was a visionary in the same time and ideals as JFK. Or maybe you think JFK was a socialist.
Schröder, on the other hand, was not a social democrat, but a power-hungry jerk, a copy of Kohl, who enacted some laws that went against core social democrat principles, like the Agenda 2010 and Hartz IV. -
The SPD was part of a coalition- Brandt with the liberals, Schröder with the greens.
-
After the fall of the wall and the collapse of the DDR (GDR), there was no German socialist state any longer; with the collapse of the USSR, no socialist or communist state in the rest of Europe.
No, after the collapse of the USSR, there were no totalitarian communist states in Europe. Social democracy in Europe is alive and well. As of 2001 (which is when I could find the numbers for), 18 European countries spent more than 20% of their GDP on social welfare programs (excluding education).
No… I’m saying that there’s the possibility that it’s true. Unless all of those people are completely crazy.
I believe that it is.
Partisans like EP won’t even admit the possibility.
You tell me who’s more reasonable.
There are a lot of crazy people in the world. I guess it’s possible that the Earth is 6000 years old. It’s possible that Bush & Cheney conspired to have airplanes flown into the World Trade Center. It’s possible that the H1N1 vaccine is a vehicle for microchips to be implanted in all of us. It’s possible that the world is going to end in 2012. I mean, I could easily find a “lot” of people who would say all those things are true and, unless you’re trying to say all those people are completely crazy, you should at least admit that all those things are possibilities. Unless you want to be unreasonable.
Fair point; I guess if there’s a significant portion of ‘truthers’ or ‘birthers’ or whatever other crazy theory, that doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily a fact. I leap to my conclusions based on a) an understanding of human nature, especially the nature of those who choose to enter politics, and b) a read on how things have turned out over the last 50 years of war on poverty.
At the end of the day, 1 + 1 = 2, in my book; the conclusion seems pretty self evident to me. No, there’s no cites for this conspiracy theory, but there wouldn’t be, unless someday we get a deathbed confession or something from one of these sub-humans looking to perpetuate power by keepin’ the black man down.
Yes. And? So? I’ll repeat again
SOCIAL DEMOCRACY = ! SOCIALISM (is not like)
I mean, we had socalist countries in front of our door, so I think we should know the difference, even if for American consies, “everything not conservatie = socalism = communism” and similar.
After all, a certain amount of Americans also argues that the US is not a democracy because democracy means “direct vote”, like the Swiss canton-style, which obviously isn’t practised in the US, so if it doesn’t meet that definition, it’s not a real one. (That’s similar to saying “dogs are Chiwawas” and then saying a Golden Retriever or Pitbull aren’t dogs).
Yes, and? so? “Social democracy” isn’t only about how much money you spend on programs, it’s a certain political philosophy. Otherwise, the US would be the healthiest country, because it spends so much money on healthcare.
You had communist dictatorships that called themselves socialist, but didn’t have anything to do with actual democratic socialism.
You did not address me. Oh well.
Yes there is a possibility that it could be true. Everything is possible. I just fail to see how you can adopt this position based on correlative evidence that says nothing about the mental states of liberals. You are basically saying X happened among infinite variables; therefore liberals wanted X to happen.
The people you speak of are not “completely crazy.” They are simply partisan onlookers imputing evil motivations to their political opponents. Much like the liberals who think all Republicans are evil Christian corporatists who hate the poor and want to make decisions for women. Look in a mirror. How are you any different?
King, I do think that some Republicans are evil who hate the poor and are threatened by/want to control women (assuming you are alluding to abortion/right to life there).
Don’t mistake me for a conservative or Republican. I’m as down-the-middle as you can get. I just like to act as a balance/devils’ advocate to some of the threads on this board, which is skewed heavily left of course (*especially the Pit).
Again, what I’m suggesting isn’t really ‘provable’. But human nature plus the results of the last 50 years make it a very reasonable assumption for me to make about some of the liberal politicians in this country. And even if I did find some cathartic confession somewhere online by a lefty, I’m sure he would be quickly disavowed by other politicians and this board as an outlier, doesn’t represent the party’s policy, etc.
And one more point, while I have your attention:
Even if it isn’t intentional, it’s pretty hard to ignore that we still have a vast underclass, and it’s not hard to see that the ‘war on poverty’ has been mostly a failure (in terms of people actually lifted out of poverty), wrt bang for the buck. It’s hard to miss that we have had generation after generation trapped in the welfare cycle. Some call it generational handouts.
Ask yourself who has been the proponent of policies that enslaved those generations (and I use that word intentionally). Ask yourself, at some point, don’t we figure out what works and what doesn’t? That giving more aid to the downtrodden has only driven many (most?) of them to rely more and more on that aid, instead of productive labor? That a lifestyle of living off of the government tit ensures that they will continue to vote for those who offer those benefits to them?
So, if you prefer to call the some of that group of politicians ignorant and misguided instead of intentionally evil, I probably wouldn’t argue with that.
I’ve been looking for “productive labor” for two effing years now! I have a college degree and a solid work record for over 25 years and I can’t get permanent work! FIND ME A JOB and I’ll happily stop relying on aid but until that time if we did not have help we WOULD be starving! What part of that do you not understand? The ONLY help I get, or qualify for, is food stamps. I have NO other “aid” - not for medical care, not for rent, not even for effin’ SOAP so I don’t go to a job interview all stinky. Or do you have the attitude that if you starve and degrade the poor until they are homeless and smelly that it will somehow help them? THAT is why you appear heartless - your continual contention that anyone poor is “enslaved” by “generational handouts” and is a lazy, shiftless bum until proven otherwise. Frankly, I get frikkin’ tired of having to prove over and over that I am no such thing.
It seem to me that you, like so many, seem to think government aid results in a life of luxury. Let me tell you, it doesn’t.
What to cure poverty? Decent jobs. That’s what cures poverty.
Broomstick, I guess you missed my response in Post 181 to pretty much the same posting you’ve made here. Please go back and read that first.
Now; welcome back.
As I’ve said before, I don’t believe that we should “starve and degrade the poor”, as you put it. And I understand that evidently this is hitting home for you and therefore emotions are coming into it.
There should be a safety net. It should be temporary. It must balance the need to backstop the well-meaning but down-on-their-luck, against creating a culture of dependency and cycle of government-funded existence.
Government aid definitely does not result in a “life of luxury”, as you put it. But for some, it becomes a lifestyle selection. I remember reading a story about 6 months ago on MSNBC about some woman offered a job at a dentist’s office; it turned out it was about 10% less than her unemployment benefit, so she turned down the job. (I don’t have the link but it was in their Elkhart Indiana series, I’m sure someone could track it down if they cared enough).
The point is, there is always a downside and unintended consequences when putting government assistance plans in place. It would defy logic to assume that no politicians want to keep a steady supply of consitituents, so they can continue to be re-elected. Since most politicians are smart (IMHO), it further defies logic to assume that at least some of them understand this unintended consequence, and in fact count on it as a means to creating a captive group of voters, now beholden to those politicians to continue to provide the gravy train.
This works with any government spending: healthcare, welfare, food stamps… and on the other side, military contracting.
This just in, shit-for-brains indicted dickhead Tom Delay says the only thing wrong with Bunning filibuster was the PR behind it.
Also, he admits to being a telepath because apparently he knows that people are unemployed because they want to be. One can only pray he doesn’t use this newfound power for evil, but then again its Tom Delay, so the best we can hope for is less evil than usual
Ass cancer is too good a fate for Tom Delay.
Maybe he could use it to determine whether cockroaches feel pain and terror in greater or lesser amounts when you kill them*. I mean I hate them because they won’t go away from my apartment no matter how many of them I kill, so I *want * them to feel pain and terror when I kill them, and as much as possible; and I’m willing to go to extra lengths of creativity to maximize it. But if they don’t have the capacity to experience and appreciate pain and terror, I’m just wasting my time and energy.
So how 'bout it, Tommy? Is there any point in continuing with my research?
*‘cos, you know, his irl job is bug-killin’.
Mr Smashy, thanks for your reply and I apologize for the trolling comment earlier. I get where you are coming from. It just seems you are looking at the war on poverty in a vacuum. It is simply impossible to look at just the war on poverty and make sweeping conclusions when you do not factor in things such as NATO, globalization, deregulation, political efforts that result in increased wealth disparity, poor funding in education, targeted law enforcement depleting poor communities of productive workers, corrupt and clueless local governments, etc. You are essentially throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I do not profess to be an expert on this particular slice of history, so wikipedia will have to be my position,
This does not seem to be the abject failure you are implying. I realize you said bang for buck, so you are factoring how much we spent as opposed to just looking at results. We will just have to disagree.
I am not sure what you are getting at here. I assume you are not saying liberals supported policies that put the poor in the situations they are in.
Sure. That’s why I would like an objective look at the results of the crackdown on crime (bang for buck). Also, greater funding for education and access to higher education. I’d also like to see a study looking at whether we pay more as a society with an up front cost of say, $500 a month for a family, or as a back-end cost of housing inmates, increase of crime, emergency room for basic health care, etc.
I think you are showing your ignorance here. From here,
I think you are letting the anti-welfare rhetoric of the 1980s cloud your judgment of the real situation. Of course there are people trying to game the system. It seems you think of those people first to confirm your bias against the system. Further, many of the people “living off of the government tit” are productive members. From here,
So it seems this lifestyle of living off of the government is not reflected in reality. It is almost impossible from a monetary standpoint. See this.
Bill Clinton ran for president on the platform of ending welfare as we knew it. He severely limited it while in office. Comments on his support from the poor?
Thanks for the discussion. I fear this has gotten way away from the OP.
One of the major problems right now, however, is that there is no safety net - seriously, I’m head of a two person household and we qualify for ONLY food stamps. That is it Period. Under the current rules we will never get anything else. No matter how desperate we may become we will NEVER get anything other than food stamps. No medicaid. No public housing. NOTHING. How can you call that a “safety net”?
If things don’t improve soon I will be homeless. Oh, joy, with food stamps I’ll be able to buy food - I just won’t have a pot to cook it in or a plate to eat off of.
I call bullshit on that story for the following reasons:
-
As I live in Indiana I am familiar with their rules. She is not allowed to refuse offered employment. Under current rules she should immediately lose her benefits.
-
Most states will pay the differential between a new job and unemployement benefits until the end date of the unemployment benefits. Therefore, she should have accepted the job, taken the differential, and then kept the job after her benefits ran out, because
-
Unemployment is not endless. I know this from experience - my last extension ran out over a year ago.
So - either link to a factual story about this or I flat out don’t believe it happened.
That statement only makes sense if there’s a gravy train - and there isn’t one!
Seriously, how the hell am I supposed to exist on just food stamps? What else do you think I can get? (Answer: nothing. We get absolutely nothing else, and never will under current rules).
Sorry King, I’m actually too busy/lazy to go cite for cite and refute by point with you; suffice to say that a couple friends of mine who are welfare case workers have given me chapter and verse, over many years and many beers, about their clients. Young women (girls, actually) who wouldn’t even consider not getting pregnant before leaving high school (“The government will pay for my baby”). People who intentionally ‘forget’ the name of the dad so they don’t implicate him in child support payments. Women who shack up 3 generations in one small apt (or even one bedroom) and live on the payments from the government.
And this is in Northern Virginia, DC metro area, where we’re about recession-proof as it gets (ie, still lots of jobs around).
So King, obviously after billions (trillions?) spent against poverty, it should have been notched down somewhat as you posted, but as I said, bang-for-the-buck-wise, I don’t think anyone would say it’s been a success.
PS: Clinton ran on ending welfare (“The era of big government is over”) only after Dick “Mr Triangulation” Morris saw Bill get his ass whupped by Newt & Co. in 1994 and advised the paragon of faithfulness to tack to the center, to avoid an even worse ass-whuppin’. In those two years Bill and Dick co-opted several of the GOP issues by pushing them himself, giving poor old Bob Dole nothing to run on in 1996. (I remember an old political cartoon showing Bill with his arm around Bob, saying the popular Bud Light line at the time, “But I love you man!”… with Dole saying, “You can’t have my issues, Bill…”)
Broom, it’s unfortunate that you’re so unhappy and bitter and emotional, and sorry if this hits home too much for you. You can call bullshit all you want, but someone who knows anything about Google should be able to track the story down - MSNBC, Elkhart series. Go find it yourself, as evidently you don’t have a job to go to or anything (OK, sorry, that was mean… but still, you fired the first shot here).
I remember the story very clearly. Unemployment was more money than the job she was offered. She decided to stay on unemployment. If the job offer doesn’t get ‘reported’ anywhere, who’s to know? If Indiana does pay the difference, that wasn’t mentioned in the story; could it be that she refused the job anyway because she was too lazy to work? That she had child care expenses that she can avoid by not working? (I don’t remember if there was a kidlet involved or not, actually).
Even if you find the MSNBC story and STILL don’t believe it, you know, yellow press and muckraking and all: are you saying that EVERYONE receiving government benefits is a Broomstick, that none are just lazy or taking the path of least resistance or gaming the system? Are you prepared to say that there hasn’t been several generations entrenched in squalor by the government benefits that provide just enough to survive?
As for how you are to survive? I don’t know. Charity? Churches? Relatives? Or move to where jobs are, public housing is, or free healthcare exists?
Evidently your life sucks right now, and I’m sorry about that. You seem to want to make it better, and my guess is it will turn up at some point. Life’s not fair, that’s for sure.
You know better than the statistics. I get it.