Isn't she lovely..........hmmmmmm
POSTED BY: FutureMrsFIllion
UPDATED: Saturday, September 13, 2008 14:12
VIEWED: 7881
PAGE 14 of 14
Ah, But Mrs. Fillion,
If we stop occupying other countries, and if we use good diplomacy, then we would only need a military large enough to maintain a strong defensive posture.
And that is a military much smaller than the one we have now.
What we are having a great deal of trouble doing, is maintaining a strong offensive posture.
It turns out it's difficult to police the whole world and fight two wars of occupation while stationing thousands of troops in countries like Korea. We ought not to be doing those things, and then we'll make do with less. AND the smaller portion we retain can be better supplied, trained, and supported overall.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Anyhow, the existence or absence of socialist programs currently in our country does not help explain to me whether Liberals or Democrats support a socialist agenda, which is, in short, "Give us your money, and we will re-distribute it according to need."
There's lots of reasons. One would be simple morality, but it's trite and does somewhat imply that those that don't share that opinion are immoral.
More I'd aim to point out that we're more than just individuals, that any paradigm that aims to promote only individual effort is bound to fail. Also the most successful societies and economies have struck a strong balance between the public private and state spheres. It seems to me to be rather short sighted to ignore social programs for short term private gain. The public at large are your work force, a healthy happy work force is obviously a more productive work force.
Social programs are a boost, not a brake, on any economy. They are a safety net that simply is not substituted by any private actor. Yes there is some level of wealth redistribution inherent within many social programs, but this isn't Socialism nor Communism, any more than going to Church on Sunday is Militant Christian Fundamentalism.
Fairness and equality are important concepts. People work harder if they believe they can change their social standing, and the evidence clearly points to Social programs being integral to that end. In broad sweeps take a look at the difference between the United States and Europe. The Us has far fewer social programs than Europe, but belied by it's moniker "the land of opportunity", the United States not only has much higher levels of inequality (a much larger gap between rich and poor) than Europe, but a much lower social mobility. That is, one is much less likely to improve ones income in the US, than in Europe. The trend holds true within Europe itself, the more social programs there are, the lower the gap between rich and poor, and the high the social mobility.
It's about striking a balance between the Public and Private good, the needs of society as a whole, and the needs of the individual. Neglect either one, and you end up with a sick society.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I've often suspected that the City also pockets a portion, which they use to fund whatever they couldn't get funding for through a public vote. City finances often feel slushy to me."
I can't answer for Florida except it always seemed slushy in general (and that has nothing to do with the general low level of Florida and the fact it would be mostly gone if the ocean level were to rise much).
Over here in Los Angeles County the cities have two main sources of income - building fees and a portion of the sales taxes generated within the city. (The City of Los Angeles is an exception, which is such a large entity it has its own taxes, water and power departments, sanitation district etc.) When a city gets 'built out' it causes severe financial dislocation as has happened to several cities over the last few years. The sales-tax stream is the reason why so many cities here look like endless strip-malls.
I used to be an (unpaid, as were we all) sanitation committee member for my local city to get the California-mandated recycling program going.
What I saw of my city is that it's usually run by businessmen - look at your next election slate and see who's running. Ordinary working folk mostly don't have the time and resources to go for city council member or mayor.
Eventually everyone knows everyone else and it's all very comfortable and mutually beneficial. When there is slush here it happens at a low, personal level - expense accounts for business luncheons and trips wink wink. The general city expenses for lighting, street signs, roads, trash collection, police and fire (the city contracts with Los Angeles county for police and fire) etc here are on the up and up.
Of course that's not true of all cities. Compton mayor Omar Bradley hired his relatives and friends, awarded contracts to people he knew, played fast and loose with city meetings having people removed who tried to address the council, used city money and credit cards for blatantly personal reasons etc.
But that's the exception, not the rule.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Anyhow, the existence or absence of socialist programs currently in our country does not help explain to me whether Liberals or Democrats support a socialist agenda, which is, in short, "Give us your money, and we will re-distribute it according to need."
There's lots of reasons. One would be simple morality, but it's trite and does somewhat imply that those that don't share that opinion are immoral.
More I'd aim to point out that we're more than just individuals, that any paradigm that aims to promote only individual effort is bound to fail. Also the most successful societies and economies have struck a strong balance between the public private and state spheres. It seems to me to be rather short sighted to ignore social programs for short term private gain. The public at large are your work force, a healthy happy work force is obviously a more productive work force.
Social programs are a boost, not a brake, on any economy. They are a safety net that simply is not substituted by any private actor. Yes there is some level of wealth redistribution inherent within many social programs, but this isn't Socialism nor Communism, any more than going to Church on Sunday is Militant Christian Fundamentalism.
Fairness and equality are important concepts. People work harder if they believe they can change their social standing, and the evidence clearly points to Social programs being integral to that end. In broad sweeps take a look at the difference between the United States and Europe. The Us has far fewer social programs than Europe, but belied by it's moniker "the land of opportunity", the United States not only has much higher levels of inequality (a much larger gap between rich and poor) than Europe, but a much lower social mobility. That is, one is much less likely to improve ones income in the US, than in Europe. The trend holds true within Europe itself, the more social programs there are, the lower the gap between rich and poor, and the high the social mobility.
It's about striking a balance between the Public and Private good, the needs of society as a whole, and the needs of the individual. Neglect either one, and you end up with a sick society.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
Hello,
So would you say then that Liberals and/or Democrats support a 'fair balance' between Social programs and individual prosperity?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Give us your money, and we will re-distribute it according to need."
If I may chime in here briefly - there is a concept called 'public goods' - 'goods' used in the economic sense not the moral one.
Not everything can be purchased by an individual as a discrete item - for example clean air, clean land, a non-infectious population, areal mosquito control, storm surge protection by islands, the oft-mentioned 'infrastructure', etc.
Taxes are often used to provide and maintain these 'public goods' which are necessary for the efficient functioning of a society. That's irrespective of any moral quality of those programs or individual needs.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
So would you say then that Liberals and/or Democrats support a 'fair balance' between Social programs and individual prosperity?
I would say so, but I wouldn't wish to speak for all Liberals and/or Democrats (especially since I don't consider myself to be simply a 'liberal'). Personally I think true individual prosperity requires social programs. Without them inequality grows and social mobility atrophies. For certain some individuals become very prosperous under that scheme, but what you end up with is a static society, where the rich and powerful use their riches and power, to remain rich and powerful, and those at the bottom of the scale find it impossible to break into the market.
Essentially, what a lack of social programs gives you is an aristocracy.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
So would you say then that Liberals and/or Democrats support a 'fair balance' between Social programs and individual prosperity?
Wouldn't you say that conservatives also support such a balance? I think the sticking point generally seems to be what that "fair balance" consists of.
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME