Let's have that political discussion.

[Ikpeip]

The Australians, I believe, use the same Claymore as the Americans (although I can't claim to have ever personally seen an Australian Claymore)

They do.

Then what's with the M18 joke?

blindly advocating Australian superiority all over these forums - you're not just a blowhard, you're a hypocrite. Nationalism is fine when you practice it, but not when others do the same?

Citation required.

I have to retract this statement. I based it off your previous post and a post you made about how all the moderators should be Australian, and wrongfully assumed that because I could recall two recent incidents, there must have been more earlier. The point about hypocrisy over nationalism still holds, but the "all over the forums" part I can't substantiate.

It is both ironic and hypocritical of you to say this. I think it's quite clear who is "frothing at the mouth" in this regard. It didn't take much at all to provoke a response reminiscent of a rabid dog.

Your trivial posts received a trivial response.

Your international policy is of less concern to me than your national policy, which is the root cause of how your nation relates to others, and is thus perceived by them. I also think you are overstating my views but nonetheless...

Urban sprawl, decadent consumerism, a society which can only thrive as a result of waste and inefficiency. All to fund an endless cycle of debt. It wouldn't bother me so much if a majority of the rest of the world wasn't bombarded with your own ideals so often that they end up the base model to follow. The US is a great example of the things that are wrong with capitalist societies.

I'll follow with a defense of capitalism tomorrow. What are you advocating in its stead?

Faithfully,

-Paul the Paymaster

[Jalpha]

Then what's with the M18 joke?

We buy them from the states.

I'll follow with a defense of capitalism tomorrow. What are you advocating in its stead?

That is a question to be answered by greater minds than mine. I'm not a proponent of Anarcho-capitalism although I will mention it here as an example of an attempt at philosophizing a newer, more progressive form of government. However... it seems much too wishy-washy for my tastes. I prefer the concept of centralized rule.

Capitalism would be a lot more functional were it to purge certain elements which have bloated it's inherent principles and made it such a burden upon the society it was intended to nurture. Debt with interest is an unnecessary and evil addition to the financial system. Consumerism based upon products made from renewable, recyclable and/or biodegradable materials would go a long way. Having two parts to an elected government, one elected for a long term, and the other for a shorter term might ensure long-term interests aren't sacrificed for the sake of short-term vote grabbing.

In short, I think capitalism could still work for a long time but changes need to be made for it to survive. Sometimes though I long for a Dictator, one with vision, a dream and the ruthlessness to carry it out. The good thing about Dictators is they can get **** done. The bad thing is they tend be be a little... Mad. Gotta take the good with the bad I suppose...

[wormcsa]

But would you, as a tax payer, rather see your taxes go to someone who doesn't work for it or towards encouraging said person to actively pursue an independent life style? .This is of course cruelly said, a lot of people under the poverty line work their asses off. However, recently in Belgium, the discussion about second and even third generation un-employees has been high on the political radar. People who obstinately refuse to work because the system will provide for them. Would you rather they get a yearly stipend for not working instead of paying for various forms of support that will allow those people under the poverty line willing to work to rise out of the pit?

Some notes: i am young, new to the work market and so on and so forth. Bear with me if I seem naive pardon for the ad-hoc choice of words in some places, I am not quite sure of the actual english wording in a lot of places.

Well, you would have to design the system so as to not to diss insensitive work too much. No one wants a system where one "does 0 work and receives $10,000 a year, works full time at minimum wage and gets 0." As a side note, the system as it stands now works quite a lot like this. So perhaps (just making up numbers to explain the idea) it would be $10,000 for anyone with an income of 0, thereafter taxed at 25%. So someone making $40,000 would receive 0, but someone making $20,000 would receive $5,000. This is essentially what Milton Friedman suggested, although he was a bit less generous (taxing at 50%.) The main objections to these sort of systems are they encourage tax fraud, and they require a heavy transition cost (because obviously you can't just end programs overnight for which 80 year olds are dependent.)

Ultimately, however, a country as fantastically rich as the US is going to have wealth transfers, and I think this is a much more cost effective method than the current welfare programs which wastes roughly half of the money in inefficiency and administration. The original idea behind the welfare state was that an intelligent government was going to target spend to get at only the most needy, thereby doing the most poverty reduction with the least amount of money. I think they have failed in this regard to the point that "just give them the money," sounds a lot better to me.

If you are interested in a better explanation than mine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skDgS5nEY6c

@Magicman- You might have taken me the wrong way. I wasn't trying to belittle you or your brother, just asking questions and speculating, and wondering what exactly you were proposing...I am only disrespectful to Claeyt because of his previous personal attacks- if it came across in a similar fashion to you, I apologize.

[MagicManICT]

That is a question to be answered by greater minds than mine.

And why I'm staying out of it for the most part except when I see something that is glaringly stupid or nobody from one side or the other has been able to answer.

Having two parts to an elected government, one elected for a long term, and the other for a shorter term might ensure long-term interests aren't sacrificed for the sake of short-term vote grabbing.

I don't know about term lengths and government organization in Australia without looking up specifics, but I generally recall it is similar to the US and British. In the US, Senators serve 6 years and are 2 per state, giving both to the idea of a longer term AND providing states an equal voice. This really does help balance out a lot of the year to year political swaying that can go on (like the Tea Party) in other parts of the country and the house. However, my non-expert view is that term length doesn't really help with the vote grabbing. It's the larger constituent base that does. When you don't need to worry about the people in just one district that tends towards the far right or far left, you don't need to worry if you take a more sensible view.

Well, you would have to design the system so as to not to diss insensitive work too much. No one wants a system where one "does 0 work and receives $10,000 a year, works full time at minimum wage and gets 0." As a side note, the system as it stands now works quite a lot like this. So perhaps (just making up numbers to explain the idea) it would be $10,000 for anyone with an income of 0, thereafter taxed at 25%. So someone making $40,000 would receive 0, but someone making $20,000 would receive $5,000. This is essentially what Milton Friedman suggested,

This is exactly what the Earned Income Credit is and is available to everyone in the US making a specific income range (see the table I linked in my post above--one or two up, I believe). I will note that wellfare, SSI*, SNAP (food stamps), and other entitlement programs are available at low income. The number of children you have decides where the cutoff for cash and food assistance is (food being significantly higher, of course), and medical assistance (medicaid or the new health law).

*SSI--Social Security disability. Those unable to work for various medical reasons both physical and mental. Requires you to be considered disabled for at least a year before you can collect benefits. Those that receive major injuries that are considered to be life altering (lose both your arms, etc) that would ever prevent work again can apply immediately (if I recall the rules right). Rules state that you are "unable to work" if you cannot maintain employment for six months out of the year or at least 20 hours per week on average. Benefits are dependent on income, so if you have good investments or life insurance that pays for major injury, you may not qualify for cash assistance.

[Ikpeip]

That is a question to be answered by greater minds than mine. I'm not a proponent of Anarcho-capitalism although I will mention it here as an example of an attempt at philosophizing a newer, more progressive form of government. However... it seems much too wishy-washy for my tastes. I prefer the concept of centralized rule.

Capitalism would be a lot more functional were it to purge certain elements which have bloated it's inherent principles and made it such a burden upon the society it was intended to nurture. Debt with interest is an unnecessary and evil addition to the financial system. Consumerism based upon products made from renewable, recyclable and/or biodegradable materials would go a long way. Having two parts to an elected government, one elected for a long term, and the other for a shorter term might ensure long-term interests aren't sacrificed for the sake of short-term vote grabbing.

In short, I think capitalism could still work for a long time but changes need to be made for it to survive. Sometimes though I long for a Dictator, one with vision, a dream and the ruthlessness to carry it out. The good thing about Dictators is they can get **** done. The bad thing is they tend be be a little... Mad. Gotta take the good with the bad I suppose...

It doesn't sound like your position is very fleshed out, other than you're sure America is the devil. Why would you dream for a dictator, if you're concerned about the environment? China, despite its central planning, is one of the worst countries into world environmentally. (Also note, Australia is essentially equivalent to the United States in EPI - 56.61 vs 56.59). There's a lot deeper to go on the flaws of central planning, but I'm not really sure where it is you're trying to go here, and don't want to go overboard if this was some random tangent.

The concept of having two parts of an elected government - one short term, one long term, is partially implemented in the U.S. Congress, where Senators are elected for six years, and Congressmen for two. I'm assuming you're not endorsing this system. Are you suggesting a much longer term than 6 years? If so, how much? 10? 20? When you elect officials for overly lengthy terms, you lose your ability to hold them accountable.

You mentioned Anarcho-Capitalism as a "newer, more progressive form of government," but I think you'd be hard-pressed to actually justify it as more progressive than existing democracies. Nor is there any reason to believe a Anarcho-Capitalist society would be any more interested in consuming only goods made from renewable resources.

I'm willing to debate here, but you need to focus and flesh out your concepts. You're flitting about from criticizing democracies, capitalism, and consumerism, but then backtracking and hedging everything. It's easy to spew hate on something, but if you can't offer a better alternative, you don't have much to stand on.

Faithfully,

-Paul the Paymaster

[staxjax]

GG republicans for holding the president hostage. Dude cant even compromise to end the

tragic

government shutdown. I don't really see how anybody can have confidence in a commander-In-chief with such poor leadership abilities.

PS. I cant even log into healthcare.gov, **** is super overloaded or they are constantly down for routine maintenance. I just want to compare the marketplace with insurance that I currently have and see which one would save my family more money.

PSS. I tried calling the IRS to pay some back taxes over the phone, and they were closed due to the shutdown, so I couldn't immediately pay them the amount that I owe in full. Now they have to wait and take it from my next tax refund next year. Retards.

[Claeyt]

GG republicans for holding the country hostage.

As the Republicans fall apart and beat each other to death in front of us, the president has held firm with balls of steel. You guys just wish you could get a guy like him on your side. This only leads to the Republicans losing the House next fall and Obama getting a friendly congress for his last 2 years. Can you imagine what's going to happen then.

[Spazzmaticus]

"Quest completed: The House has gone bust!"

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/01/polit ... index.html

[jorb]

Jesus Christ you communists are thick.

in·sol·vent (n-slvnt)
adj.
1.
a. Unable to meet debts or discharge liabilities; bankrupt.
b. Insufficient to meet all debts, as an estate or fund.
2. Of or relating to bankrupt persons or entities.
n.
A bankrupt.

[Darwoth]

the fact claeyt has spent the entire thread trying to convince those that earn what they have that it is not only acceptable but desireable to give a large portion of their **** over to the dregs of society that do nothing but continue their parasitic way of life is just

pay close attention folks, when the country becomes balkanized and splits (along pretty much the same lines as the civil war) it will be because of people like claeyt.