The Political Discussion Thread

[mad_gater]

I think both FH and Annoyed have valid points. It probably would be difficult to find US citizens or legal immigrants to the US to work on farms primarily because many of us have lost the work ethic that once made our country great.

As for welfare, I do think that there is more abuse of it than most people realize. This is mainly because the government has made it far too easy to live off welfare. Back when it was more difficult to live on welfare it provided more of an incentive to find work to support themselves and their families. Now on welfare I've seen people use their EBT cards to buy pre-made baked goods from bakeries. What's wrong with this picture? Today I see a lot of people buying junk food with their welfare benefits instead of food necessary for survival. So basically it's become too easy to live off welfare, at least here in the US, robbing people of incentive to go out and find work.

As for the "Natives were displaced when European colonists arrived" argument, I will say that our ancestors did make some mistakes in their relations with the native peoples. However the Native American peoples aren't exactly innocent either. When the first colonists arrived they actually did their best to cultivate friendly relations with the tribes that welcomed them. But as is often the case in such events, after allying themselves with friendly tribes, the colonists explored more and more of this then new country and eventually encountered tribes of Native Americans that weren't so friendly and were in fact downright violent, and were more often than not also enemies of the friendly tribes. So what likely happened was that encountering the less friendly tribes soured their relations with Native Americans as a whole which led to the many and varied skirmishes that led to their eventual placement on reservations.

But I do agree with Annoyed that it's best to help people who are down on their luck help themselves. You know that whole "teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime" thing. But I do also agree with FH that having some sort of centralized services for emergency situations is necessary. And from where I'm sitting it looks like both Annoyed and FH, and myself, agree that government assistance should be temporary.

Going back to the "Americans don't want to work on farms" thing, I would've gladly worked on a farm as an entry level job to support myself through school.

[Annoyed]

As for welfare, I do think that there is more abuse of it than most people realize. This is mainly because the government has made it far too easy to live off welfare. Back when it was more difficult to live on welfare it provided more of an incentive to find work to support themselves and their families. Now on welfare I've seen people use their EBT cards to buy pre-made baked goods from bakeries. What's wrong with this picture? Today I see a lot of people buying junk food with their welfare benefits instead of food necessary for survival. So basically it's become too easy to live off welfare, at least here in the US, robbing people of incentive to go out and find work.

There is a reason that it's so easy.
The government actually encourages people hop on the free ride gravy train which we taxpayers are pulling. You see, riding on the other side of that railroad car are millions of people who make their livings tending to the needs of the freeloaders. These government employees are usually heavily unionized, and have wage and benefit packages which are far, far above what a similarly skilled person could make in the private sector.

Government both feeds the beast and feeds on the beast. It's a symbiotic relationship. In many areas, all a politician has to do is promise more free stuff and he's guaranteed to win at the polls. He is also guaranteed the financial support of the aforementioned unionized government employees. It's a win win for everybody besides the taxpayer.

[Coco Pops]

FH I think you'll find that modern man was the cause of Neanderthals dying out by over population.... They were bred out of existence. Plus the planet's climate changed in many ways making it not suitable for them any more but modern humans seemed to take to it very well.

Also I suspect there may be other reasons they died out too. But I don't think our modern anscestors killed them off. They just died out.

[Womble]

I think both FH and Annoyed have valid points. It probably would be difficult to find US citizens or legal immigrants to the US to work on farms primarily because many of us have lost the work ethic that once made our country great.

Or rather because the jobs have lost their attractiveness, with better options widely available.

People looking for work are not volunteers. Preaching about "work ethic that once made our country great" isn't going to convince anybody. If one has to work for a minimum wage, they will choose a job that is easier and less damaging to their health. Want to attract people to farm jobs? Raise the wages.

Of course, if you raise the wages, that will cut into the farms' profit margins and food prices will go up. Everything has a price.

As for welfare, I do think that there is more abuse of it than most people realize. This is mainly because the government has made it far too easy to live off welfare. Back when it was more difficult to live on welfare it provided more of an incentive to find work to support themselves and their families. Now on welfare I've seen people use their EBT cards to buy pre-made baked goods from bakeries. What's wrong with this picture? Today I see a lot of people buying junk food with their welfare benefits instead of food necessary for survival. So basically it's become too easy to live off welfare, at least here in the US, robbing people of incentive to go out and find work.

Buying junk food isn't a sign of easy living.

People on benefits oftentimes can't afford a car. That once-a-week trip to the grocery store when you fill your trunk with discounted food and stock up your fridge for days? Not an option for some. Such people will shop walking distance away even if the shops in their area aren't necessarily cheaper. They lack other options that free up some time for wealthier people, too, so cooking three times a day may become exhausting over time and yes, they'll go for junk food if it's cheap. It's a global tendency, the link between poverty and junk food - and poverty and obesity. Poor people eat more rice, noodles and potato and can't afford the gym, so poor people grow fat more often than the middle class.

[Annoyed]

Or rather because the jobs have lost their attractiveness, with better options widely available.

People looking for work are not volunteers. Preaching about "work ethic that once made our country great" isn't going to convince anybody. If one has to work for a minimum wage, they will choose a job that is easier and less damaging to their health. Want to attract people to farm jobs? Raise the wages.

This is why the National Republican party is so soft on illegal immigration. Allowing illegals and even legal migration gives businesses a way to avoid having to raise wages in order to attract employees. And this is not just farm labor. Microsoft doesn't operate many farms, and yet they are pushing for more H1B visas so immigrants can come in and take programming jobs, despite there being a glut of US tech workers who are citizens. They just want to keep wages down.

Of course, if you raise the wages, that will cut into the farms' profit margins and food prices will go up. Everything has a price.

Buying junk food isn't a sign of easy living.

People on benefits oftentimes can't afford a car. That once-a-week trip to the grocery store when you fill your trunk with discounted food and stock up your fridge for days? Not an option for some. Such people will shop walking distance away even if the shops in their area aren't necessarily cheaper. They lack other options that free up some time for wealthier people, too, so cooking three times a day may become exhausting over time and yes, they'll go for junk food if it's cheap. It's a global tendency, the link between poverty and junk food - and poverty and obesity. Poor people eat more rice, noodles and potato and can't afford the gym, so poor people grow fat more often than the middle class.

Ok, then explain this. Very often, in the local superstore which is a combination of big box dept. store and grocery store, I'll see someone in a "luxuries" dept, buying TV's or whatever, and half an hour later I see that same person paying for their food with their government benefit cards.

[Annoyed]

FH I think you'll find that modern man was the cause of Neanderthals dying out by over population.... They were bred out of existence. Plus the planet's climate changed in many ways making it not suitable for them any more but modern humans seemed to take to it very well.

Also I suspect there may be other reasons they died out too. But I don't think our modern anscestors killed them off. They just died out.

Oh, my. What is the modern day enviro crowd to do with you? You're saying that climate change occurred without the evil United States being the cause of it?

[Womble]

This is why the National Republican party is so soft on illegal immigration. Allowing illegals and even legal migration gives businesses a way to avoid having to raise wages in order to attract employees. And this is not just farm labor. Microsoft doesn't operate many farms, and yet they are pushing for more H1B visas so immigrants can come in and take programming jobs, despite there being a glut of US tech workers who are citizens. They just want to keep wages down.

They also want to siphon the best foreign brains to work for Microsoft. Innovation comes from "threshhold people" - those with diverse experience and a fresh look. It's not accidental that people who make it big in tech are often immigrants or second-generation immigrants (Apple's Steve Jobs and Google's Sergey Brin, for example). It also allows Microsoft et al to buy a foreign start-up, move it to USA and merge it with Microsoft, turning its workers into Microsoft employees. Microsoft's business model includes a "start-up accelerator" program Microsoft Ventures, which stimulates the emergence of companies innovating on Microsoft technology all over the world. Then Microsoft buys and assimilates the most successful such start-ups. Of course they need visas for prospective employees of such start-ups - they're buying them for the talents as much as for the patents.

Ok, then explain this. Very often, in the local superstore which is a combination of big box dept. store and grocery store, I'll see someone in a "luxuries" dept, buying TV's or whatever, and half an hour later I see that same person paying for their food with their government benefit cards.

That's pretty simple. When I was at my poorest, I had a TV at home, too, because when I would come home from a 12 hour night shift, watching TV was the best relaxation I could get. Lots of genuinely poor people will save up and buy a TV. Or a smartphone. Lots of poor Americans use a smartphone as their primary gateway to the Internet, including for online job search.

[Britta]

Oh, my. What is the modern day enviro crowd to do with you? You're saying that climate change occurred without the evil United States being the cause of it?

Some climate change is natural, some is caused by human (not specifically American) activity. Even if you set aside that issue, pollution is bad anyway. Who likes dirty air and toxic water?

Nobody is suggesting that the US Declaration of Independence is a magical climate altering artifact.

[jelgate]

Some climate change is natural, some is caused by human (not specifically American) activity. Even if you set aside that issue, pollution is bad anyway. Who likes dirty air and toxic water?

Nobody is suggesting that the US Declaration of Independence is a magical climate altering artifact.

Everyone knows that is the US Constitution.

[SoulReaver]

Who likes dirty air and toxic water?

a true Patriot™

[Annoyed]

Some climate change is natural, some is caused by human (not specifically American) activity. Even if you set aside that issue, pollution is bad anyway. Who likes dirty air and toxic water?

Nobody is suggesting that the US Declaration of Independence is a magical climate altering artifact.

Perhaps it's a Trouble.
Seriously, I don't advocate rampant disregard of our environment either,
But the current crop of "Environmentalists" have lost all credibility with me. Their only goal now is to extract money from "the western world" (Read: United States)
Even their own has publicly admitted that it's a wealth redistribution scheme.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-...redistribution

Assertions made by climate-change skeptics that there are ulterior motives behind climate-change legislation were confirmed by a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

During an interview with Germany’s NZZ Online Sunday, UN official Ottmar Edenhofer declared, “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Edenhofer confirmed what many Americans have asserted all along: cap and trade will penalize Americans and American industry. The American Chronicle article entitled “Cap-and-Trade Energy Tax will Cause Redistribution of Wealth Among States and Working Families” cites the Congressional Budget Office as stating that cap and trade would cost the average American household an extra $1,600 per year. It would increase the price for a gallon of gasoline between $0.61 to $2.53, and would increase electricity costs anywhere from 44 percent to 129 percent.

In 2009, Our Changing Globe wrote of cap and trade: “The intention is that the industrial world would pay the underdeveloped world huge sums of money for doing nothing at all, and you can easily imagine the bureaucracy and corruption that would occur if this nonsense were ever to come into being.”

It added, “The flawed idea behind Cap and Trade is that companies that were penalized would work hard to reduce their pollution, and even though the technology is presently not available and won’t be in the foreseeable future, Obama is promising that the U.S. will reduce its pollution by 80 percent, which would take it back to levels that existed before the industrial revolution.”

Evidence of this plot for the world’s wealth redistribution dates back as far as 1990, when Maurice Strong, head of the United Nations Environmental Program, suggested this scenario: “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principle [sic] risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t it the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?” Strong allegedly posed this scenario as a speculative plot for a novel that he considered writing, though he has never penned a novel in his life, either before or after 1990.

Add to this the completely boneheaded ideas they've forced upon us, such as plastic shopping bags and CFL light bulbs, which are more harmful to the environment than what they replaced.

Sorry, I don't believe a word they say at this point.

[Coco Pops]

haha we have that here in Australia they banned plastic shopping bags and ordinary light bulbs in favour of CFL...... Stupid boneheaded thinking and someone probably got a huge brown paper bag from such decisions..

[Annoyed]

haha we have that here in Australia they banned plastic shopping bags and ordinary light bulbs in favour of CFL...... Stupid boneheaded thinking and someone probably got a huge brown paper bag filled with money from such decisions..

There, fixed it for you. =)

[pscard]

So what do you suppose is the real story with Walmart?

Wal-Mart mysteriously closed 5 stores and now there's a conspiracy theory explaining why

[Coco Pops]

There, fixed it for you. =)

Thank you.......... Seems there was big money spent all over the world to get CFL bulbs everywhere. Why? They are more toxic then regular bulbs