The market for software engineers crashed at a particularly inopportune moment career wise; I had tarried too long at a company whose new management ran it into the ground and essentially walked off with most of the comany's cash--which was substantial. I had just gotten caught in a layoff I shoud have realized was coming but didn't.

I had to retool my skills and learn how to market them, while the market reestablished itself. Me and the market met someplace in the middle.

Only those who can. If you can't give, you qualify to receive. Stop whining or I'll spank you with a fish! :D The only reason some of what you earn is taken from you is because you make enough that you can survive without that amount. You can, can't you?

Why didn't you work at McDonalds, or something? Isn't that what you expect of the homeless?

I did say in my earlier post that those in work pay council tax and those not in work do not. I also btw, pay council tax. I would be horrified if after paying such high levels of tax, my borough could not afford to provide for those of its citizens who needed it.

Oh...am I only allowed to keep things that belong to me if I can prove I won't survive without them? Otherwise they're fair game for anybody who wants them...

Because my efforts were better invested in improving my situation. Had *all* my money been used up (and it was close) I would have indeed ended up flipping burgers, and getting a better job would have been that much harder.

So...some in your council pay taxes, some do not, some of the tax money goes for other things, some goes to those who don't pay taxes, and some goes to you.

Also, on a side note. Sometimes when you help the drowning man/woman, they go on to put more back into the system than they took out. Like me for instance. I needed that social safety net for a while. If I'd been left to drown then nobody would have known what my potential was, or whether or not I could contribute meaningfully to my society.

Having been saved from a watery grave I then worked as an adult literacy tutor, and helped some others out of the pool. Granted some of them seemed fairly determined to stay wet......but one or two of them broke free and are now contributing to their society in a way that enriches both them and it.

The trouble with a system that is brutally determined to let people fail, is that it presupposes that only those that can make it in that system are worth keeping. How many great inventors have died poor on streets, never knowing or having a chance to explore their potential? How many great teachers never taught? How many healers were consigned to McDonalds?

One lad that i taught sticks in my mind. He was a few years older than me and had never worked. Never had a job. Never passed an exam. Severely dyslexic, he hated school and school had little time for him. He was labelled at a young age as a troublemaker and took that as his identity. Spent years on and off in prison for various petty crimes.

He was so clever. Possibly one of the brightest minds I have ever come across. With a little help at an earlier point in his life, he could have been anything, done anything, made enormous contributions to the society he lives in. As it is, we'll never know what he could have been or done. I got to him too late and he was with me for only 6mths. Not long enough to undo a lifetime of despair.

Despair largely engendered by Spexxvet's big roulette wheel in the sky.

While you're at it, how many Einsteins have been lost to wanking in a Kleenex?

:::singing::: every sperm is sacred!

If what you were originally asking was do I work for free, then no, the answer is I don't. But do I charge people for the work I do for them? No. I do not. Anyone in my ward gets my assistance by asking for it, regardless of their income. The allowance I am paid is there to cover the costs incurred in carrying out my duties. That's why it's such a low amount. It's essentially a fixed amount to cover expenses, rather than a 'wage' or payment for services.

Would I help and represent people for free? Well, if I had an independant income to keep my roof over my head then yes. My first year of teaching was voluntary. During that time I was called upon to do more than just teach. Many of my students were completely illiterate and suffering various social problems. I helped them interface with various organisations and authorities. I didn't charge.

My point earlier, was that I believe it is fundamentally right for human beings to help other human beings if they are able to. That can take the form of actually, physically helping people by handing out food to the homeless and it can also take the form of willingly parting with a small amount of one's wages in order to fund a society that provides a safety net to those who need it. Does that mean accepting financial ruin on their behalf? No. It just means if you have an income that allows a comfortable life with a little to spare....spare a little.

Well, that was in fact what I asked, since you don't seem to be making the connection: that you have a vested interest in the welfare system you speak so highly of; if you didn't support it I presume you'd not have been elected.

Sepaking of socialism...doesn't your National Health System offer treatment for dyslexia? I'm assuming as a literacy tutor you could diagnose the difference between true dyslexia and illiteracy.

Dyslexia testing is difficult to arrange. There is a shortage of specialists working in the field. It's also not generally given free to adults nor is it paid for by the Benefits system.

As to whether I can diagnose the difference. Sort of :P. It's not a simple as it sounds. You can be illiterate, you can be dyslexic and you can be an illiterate dyslexic or you can be a highly literate dyslexic.

There are indicators which can be highly suggestive of dyslexia. But it requires full testing to be sure. If someone is illiterate (as in totally illiterate) it makes it more difficult to test for dyslexia, dyspraxia, and scotopic sensitivity. You then have to look at other ways of testing. Dyslexia affects a great deal more than just reading/writing and the way it affects each sufferer is highly individualised.

I've had a little training in how to recognise and respond to dyslexia in students, but I am in no way expert. There's also a lot of crossover between the way dyslexia can manifest in the reading/writing skills and the way in which other reading disabilities manifest.

OK...so what I'm hearing is the answer to my NHS question is effectively: no. Of course, "dyslexia" is caused by the Great Roulette Wheel of Misfortune and thus makes a more sympathetic story.

Well.....Dyslexia isn't dealt with as a 'health problem' bizarrely enough. It's considered an 'educational' matter. I think some authorities are better on this one than mine is. We are a little on the tight side when it comes to spending in my borough:P

I somewhere missed the part of taxes that was voluntary.

There are reasons these people are homeless. Not everyone is Maggie (thankfully).
6

The 'voluntary' aspect of taxation comes in when we as a country vote not to remove them and to continue providing support where needed.

We all moan about taxes, don't get me wrong. But, whenever a party tries to push for tax cuts, the public want to know what happens to the serviices? Generally speaking, tax cuts are not a popular, winning agenda when it comes to elections. We've been there (under the last conservative government) and whilst people like the idea of lower taxes, they don't like the idea of fewer services and they don't like the idea of Pension cutbacks, NHS cutbacks and loss of social security. They DO however, still gripe about some of the people who claim social security and want more policing of the system to take away benefit fraud.

I didn't mean just you, or just today. ;-)

LoL

You wouldn't voluntarily give tax money for developing the Osprey? For roads? Police protection? Fire Protection? For trying to educated the homeless idiots? To try to motivate the lazy homeless idiots? To medicate the crazy, lazy, homeless idiots? To keep the crazy, lazy, homeless idiots from eating free food in the park down your street? To keep out illegal immigrants?

Just me, today. I have incredibly intelligent sperm. And I like killing them.:eyebrow:

Yes, there's that collectivist first person plural again. Of course there's more than one "we" in this equation...there's at least the "we" that pays taxes, the "we" that doesn't, and the "we" that makes money from the whole transaction.

And the "we" that votes.

All non-identical, but fun to blur together in rhetoric.

So would you entirely remove all taxes in the US?

Also, the 'we' in question all have a ballot paper. That collectivism you keep referring to bears a striking resemblance to the 'democracy' I hear so much about from your side of the pond. The idea that each individual should make their own personal decision as to ho wthey engage in the system (a system which requires some form of funding) bears an equally striking resemblance to certain forms of anarchy......you.....you're not an Anarchist on the sly are you Mags?

Actually, it's the majority of those who represent the "we" of the majority of voters. Unfortunately, majority rules, or "we" wouldn't have a moron in the whitehouse.

There's more than one "we" in question...that was my point.

If you actually don't know the difference between collectivism and democracy, that's too bad. One is a system of government, the other a political philosophy. But if you really do think they're the same thing, that would explain a lot.

Not simple majority. And there's reasons for that, too.

Quite a straw man there.

No, I would not eliminate all taxation...but that doesn't mean I approve of how all of it is currently spent.

Well...let's see....given a normal sperm count and semen volume, six Einsteins per day may actually be below the normal rate per capita. Especially if we're losing some because they're not getting enough welfare money.

You disagree with how it taxes are spent. Do you think that taxes should be paid on a voluntary basis?

My point, was that individuals pay tax according to the collective will of the people as expressed through the democratic system. In your country, taxes are also something that you pay as an individual but decide upon collectively as expressed through the democratic system. Does that mean that evey individual in the country gets to make their own individual decision? No. It does however mean that everyone in the country has an opportunity to express their view through the ballot box. Don't want it? Don't vote for it.

I do...and through other means, such as advocacy in public fora. As I am doing.

But one difference between your advocacy and mine is: yours is supported by taxes. My original point was:
I think that's been firmly established in your case.

Yes, Yes, Yes, Maybe (although educating an adult idiot is a pretty futile endeavor; no matter how many social services functionaries it might employ as a side "benefit"; it's like trying to fill a leaky bucket. Not all uneducated adults are idiots, but those who aren't tend to self-identify)

Where were we? Ah...: No, No, Already answered under police protection, same answer.

"...insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty" is in the constitution. "Promote the general welfare" doesn't mean a dole (now cleverly renamed to "welfare" in an attempt to make it look more like a proper function of government), nor is the right roll into somebody's town to convert the park to a soup kitchen one of "the blessings of liberty".

That's as may be Maggie. But the view I am expressing here has been consistent throughout my adult life. I have not always been in the field I am in. I was just as vehement about this viewpoint when I was selling satellite systems and when I was part of a small design house. I have espousing these same views here on the Cellar for over two years, long before I even thought about standing for office. I have only been an elected member of the council for three months.

The fact that I am now a part of the system is not the cause of my desire to uphold said system. I support/seek to uphold the system because I believe it is right to do so. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a desire for a 'slice of the proceeds'. By choosing to pursue this career instead of nipping down and applying at the local college for another teaching post (where they are crying out for experienced Skills for Life trained teaching staff), I have taken a paycut of approximately 50% whilst significantly increasing the hours I work.

I do what I do because I love it and I believe I can genuinely help people. Not everyone is guided by financial vested interests.

So this isn't a "don't tax me" rant, it's another typically conservative "I want to determine who gets taxed how much, and what the tax money should be used for" rant. Run for office, and stop bitching.

Hopefully that was "ensure".

If promoting the general welfare isn't providing for those who can't provide for themselves, what is it? Notice I siad "can't", not "don't want to" or "choose not to".

We were taliking Einsteins. I didn't mention all the Hawkings, Hubbels, Clintons, Fishers, Gates, Jeffersons, Newtons, etc., that bit the dust.;)

Speaking of straw men...

She said they looked "an awful lot alike". My response is that failure to distinguish between the two is problematic in the extreme; in fact doing so begs the question that democracy is supposed to answer. I don't see a straw man here...which proposition would that be?

No great loss in the case of Gates, Fisher and Clintons. Carry on.

That's not the general welfare. It's the benefit of a particular class of people.

The language derives from Franklin's first draft of the Articles of Confederation:

You're asserting that a dole improves the general welfare. I remain unconvinced by the evidence I've seen; in fact, as an entitlement, I belive a dole even acts to the detriment of the particular class of people it purports to help, much less improving the general welfare.

In this snipped of our conversation you refer to the use of the word 'we' as collectivist. Did you really mean the political ideology of 'collectivism'? Which you later claim I am unable to distinguish from democracy, or did you mean collective decision making which (as I have already stated) bears a striking resemblance to Democracy. If you insist on categorising this as collectivism then I am afraid you are the one who has misunderstood the difference between collectivism and democracy.

I was comparing your apparent definition of collectivism with the definition of democracy.

The definition of collectivism where it pertains a specific political ideology is:

collectivism

noun {U} SPECIALIZED


a theory or political system based on the principle that all of the farms, factories and other places of work in a country should be owned by or for all the people in that country
........................................................................................................

That is not what we were discussing. We were discussing the idea of collective decision making as expressed through an electoral system. ie: Democracy.

I am a socialist, not a collectivist. There is a difference.



Definition of socialism:

socialism

noun {U}

the set of beliefs which states that all people are equal and should share equally in the wealth of the country, or the political systems based on these beliefs


I am a believer in democracy and I am a socialist. I am not a communist or a collectivist. The definitions of these words have changed over time. Where once socialism was seen purely as a stage between capitalism and communism, it is now usually seen as a system in its own right and not a precursor to another. I suppose the most accurate description of my beliefs would be 'democratic socialism'. I do not believe that all production should be nationalised. I do however believe that my country's basic infrastructure and amenities should be. The corner shop should belong to the shopkeeper.....gas supplies, healthcare, electricity, water and public transport should belong to the country. The factory which makes toys should belong to the entrepeneur who started it.....the Universities and schools should belong to the nation.

:)

That's a pretty slick definition...the "wealth of the country", eh? We start off with "everything belongs to the country" and proceed to divide the spoils from there. What's the source of your definition?

This one strikes me as a bit more standard:

Maggie, you posted that whilst I was editing my last post. Read the addition, it covers what you just posted.

The definiton I stated was from a British English dictionary. There are differences in how these words have come to be defined in our two countries. This is because the original definitions have altered over time, but because of the distinctly different political landscapes in our countries, the changes have led to a divergence between what you would term 'socialism' and what we would term 'socialism'. Your definition is closer to the original, it's set in its historical context. Ours has changed a good deal more because it is more relevant to our contempory political landscape.

That would be Bobby, the chess master, and Bill, whose IQ is probably double W's

Or because it's consonant with your political objectives. And "Infrastructure" and "amenities" are subject to definition at your convenience.

Didn't the UK privatize the rail system? Is that not "public transport"? When I used it it seemed to work quite well, compared with the government-subsized Amtrak system..admitedly my UK experience is highly anecdotal.

I know who you meant. Fischer's a nutcase.

As for BillG, we know much more about his bank account than his IQ. He's certainly a skilled marketeer and monopolist.

Not exactly, in that the people who fall into the "particular class" change. Listen, if you begrudge the folks that get welfare, just become disabled, or lose all of your assets, become "involuntarily unemployed", and you can be one of them. It's just that simple.

The country is only as strong as its weakest link. Do you think we would be better or worse prepared for world domination with a poverty-stricken homeless class to deal with. Don't get me wrong - my solution is not a government dole. I think I stated before that wealth gluttons should accept a lower income so that jobs can be created which have incomes high enough to support a family. See, I'm all about "the family".:earth:

Bill Clinton - Rhodes Scholar - now tell me how stupid he is.

That's true even if the "particular class" is "alive".

If you want to assert that what the Constitution calls "the general welfare" is served by what you might refer to as "welfare payments", you'll have to offer more by way of evdence. Decades of welfare stateishness has not abolished poverty or homelessness, and in many ways actually encourages it.

I don't buy the argument that money should be taken from me for redistribution according to some do-gooder's criteria of worthiness or neediness. That's bullshit. Who the hell gave you the right to regulate somebody else's income because you think they're a "glutton"?

If you want to assert that what decades of welfare stateishness has encouraged poverty or homelessness, you'll have to offer more by way of evdence.

Who gave you the right to determine that these folks should be left on their own, to deal with their problems by themselves? Obviously, the majority elected a congress that disagrees with you. I think you might be out of step.

Yes we did and yes it is. England is not a socialist country. I have never claimed it to be such. We are not a socialist country, we are a capitalist democracy. As per our democratic will, our capitalist democracy has been fitted with some social safeguards as a direct response to the detrimental effects that deep seated poverty was having on our country.

The rail service was privatised by the previous conservative government, who had a great deal in common with mainstream republicans and despised all forms of 'socialism'. The current Labour government allowed that change to continue rather than dragging the whole system back into public hands. The current government is also (despite its roots in a socialist leaning party) not socialist.

In the years since the rail service was privatised, it has been beset with problems; the level of service has significantly reduced; the prices have been hiked far more than anybody expected; the government has had to throw tax-payers money at the project time and time again, so as to retain some sort of service in the face of mis-management. It is widely recognised on both sides of the House that this was a mistake. The left believe it should never have happened and the right believe it was done in entirely the wrong way.

What the answer is i don't know. I would like to see the rail service back in public hands. Right now, we have different companies responsible for each little facet of your journey....consequently there are many times when those don't link up properly. Things slip between different spheres of influence and responsibility (this had led to some fairly severe safety concerns over the years) and the system is unwieldy and unnecessarily complicated, particularly if you are travelling between regions and making changes along the way.

There are those on the right who argue that some sort of private-public joint governance might be a good idea, as long as the system gets linked up rather than remaining in its current fragmented state.

Right now, some people have a very good experience of train travel, but many have very bad experiences of it. It can vary not just region to region but change to change as well.

Not really, countries dont give important jobs to it's weakest groups. If you look at the world as one large conglomerate we can point to evolution as the greatest example of how, by allowing those who fail to adapt and thrive to fade away, the entire group is strengthened. Socialism goes against basic evolutionary principle, once we get schools up to speed so kids can actually understand it teaching evolution will be a great boost to humanity's progress. Thrive or die, that's nature.

I have the evidence of my own experience, but you made the first claim: that "welfare payments" enhance the "general welfare" as intended by the Constitution; the burden is on you.
The Constitution, again. Asking a silly parallel question isn't an answer. What principle entitles you to decide someone has "too much money" and thus should be subject to the redistribution of wealth?
Bread and circuses. It's not as bad as it could be, nor is it worse than it has ever been. But it certainly could be better. I'm not even sure it's all that "obvious" that the majority agrees with you; weren't you just whining about the President (and presumably his tax cuts)?

Given your narrative, it's difficult to beleive it was done in the right way. I can only compare my expereince travelling a few trips between Heathrow/Paddington/Swansea/King's Cross with what comparable travel on Amtrak would have entailed. Yet when I admired the service everyone rolled their eyes and complained about how awful it was.

I can well imagine that constant injections of government money were necessary if the operators wern't permitted to terminate unprofitable service. That's pretty much the Amtrak story too.

Now the president is part of congress? Check the constitution: they're in seperate branches of government.

Where?
None. I think people should decide for themselves that they have enough, and compensate their employees better, improve their benefits, or lower the price of their product or service. Instead, they tend to be wealth gluttons.

By the way, you can't feed the homeless in Orlando or Dallas, either. :bolt:

More money being brought in by a company usually does result in higher wages or better benefits for employees above a certain point on the company ladder. The lower you go, the less you see the effects.