Millennial generation
-
@WingCreative said:
Unfortunately, it seems a lot of people on medicaid are against the idea of taxpayers paying for others' healthcare....
I think you got that backwards most people on medicaid are wanting it free. They are the ones that have been getting reduced cost items for years.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@WingCreative said:
Unfortunately, it seems a lot of people on medicaid are against the idea of taxpayers paying for others' healthcare....
I think you got that backwards most people on medicaid are wanting it free. They are the ones that have been getting reduced cost items for years.
Medicaid is for the poor, Medicare is for the retired (generally) - so I'd agree that those on Medicare don't want to see taxpayers paying for other's healthcare - because the believe is that they've paid into Medicare their whole working lives and are now receiving the benefit of their payments.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@WingCreative said:
Unfortunately, it seems a lot of people on medicaid are against the idea of taxpayers paying for others' healthcare....
I think you got that backwards most people on medicaid are wanting it free. They are the ones that have been getting reduced cost items for years.
@Dashrender said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@WingCreative said:
Unfortunately, it seems a lot of people on medicaid are against the idea of taxpayers paying for others' healthcare....
I think you got that backwards most people on medicaid are wanting it free. They are the ones that have been getting reduced cost items for years.
Medicaid is for the poor, Medicare is for the retired (generally) - so I'd agree that those on Medicare don't want to see taxpayers paying for other's healthcare - because the believe is that they've paid into Medicare their whole working lives and are now receiving the benefit of their payments.
Oops - removed the incorrectly assigned snarkiness. Let these quotes stand as a testament to me being the latest one to get them confused
-
The US was better off when the law allowed for landowners to vote (and excluded non-landowners). It weeded out the people who didn't read and write, and those who had made no long-term physical investment in prosperity... and all the whiners who were too lazy to get off their duff and contribute. If we could go back to that model, all the people with their hand out wouldn't need to be bought by the politicians, and the balance of power would move more to the middle of the field.
-
@art_of_shred said:
The US was better off when the law allowed for landowners to vote (and excluded non-landowners).
This was something that it was designed for and planned around. The whole system only works conceptually when the voting pool is limited in this way. The idea of democracy was considered crazy and tantamount to anarchy by the founding fathers. Those who want democracy today either don't like what American was founded on (which is fine, I'm not promoting that as the only opinion) or haven't taken the time to study it at all and just assume that where we are today was what American was built on.
America was built on a very small voting pool of the elite (white, male, landed gentry) and only those tied to the land rather than business could vote (business didn't discount you, it just didn't count on its own.) The people voting were the equivalent of a nobility, they had nobles oblige, they had money, they had responsibilities, they were invested and they were tied to a location.
-
It's funny that democracy is so fundamentally against everything American was built on, yet people always seem to think that being democratic is somehow pro-American.
In Europe there was a vote just last week where Turkey was considering going to a US form of government and the EU was freaking out because they were "leaving democracy behind" and on the verge of "dictatorship."
Perspective.
-
I definitely see the point benefits of moving to a voting based on land ownership - I wonder if that's one of the founding pillars why the push to own your own home instead of renting came about.
How would a situation like that apply to say some place like NYC? How many apartments are owned by the people who live in them? Though maybe it doesn't matter, because the whole point is to give voting rights only to those who care enough to have a stake, i.e. own land.
Oh.. and I agree that businesses should have NO voting rights!
-
@Dashrender said:
I definitely see the point benefits of moving to a voting based on land ownership - I wonder if that's one of the founding pillars why the push to own your own home instead of renting came about.
Most cultures have that. Home ownership has always been a status symbol and a mark of people who look to accumulate wealth rather than investing it (a problem that brought Ireland and Spain to their financial knees in recent years.)
-
@Dashrender said:
How would a situation like that apply to say some place like NYC? How many apartments are owned by the people who live in them? Though maybe it doesn't matter, because the whole point is to give voting rights only to those who care enough to have a stake, i.e. own land.
It effectively doesn't. The move was to placate the agrarian powers that owned the colonies at the start of the American era. Virginia was the powerhouse then, not the backwater that it is today. The people who lives in cities, even in the big ones like NYC, Philly and Boston, were considered mostly poor or undesirables (bankers, tradesman, traders, merchants) and not worth of voting. Only rich land holders were considered valuable enough to vote. No different than traditional European politics up to that time. England was exactly the same before a certain point with only the landed gentry having any input in politics. Landed being the key word, meaning you weren't just a gentlemen, but a land holder.
-
Re instituting voting based on land ownership then begs the question, do you get more votes based on the amount of land you own?
All those fat cats on wallstreet who don't own their apartments, but instead rent them would have to find some land to own so they could vote.
Which also asks - in a highrise, even if you own your residence.. how does that work? is that the same as owning 'land'?
-
The real issue at the heart of ANY governing body is that is consists of people. People are weak and selfish. That's why "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". At least in an autocratic system, you have a 50/50 shot at the guy in charge being aligned with your personal ideals. In a democratic republic (US), the real rule is by the political class. You can say whatever you want, but that's the real truth. The whole Republican/Democrat struggle is just a ruse, while those in power all smoke cigars and sip brandy together in the back room. I think the best line I've heard quoted (forgive me, I can't credit the originator of the quote properly) is "If voting made any real kind of difference, they would have outlawed it a long time ago." It's the dialectic process in action D/R = thesis/antithesis, while the pre-ordained synthesis happens right under our noses, while everyone bickers about the figureheads representing each side of the aisle. Oh, but "we can vote them out"... if you believe the accuracy of the voting process, the tallying, etcetera. The whole thing is a game, and the populace is at the mercy of the political class. The only way to change that, in all honesty, is through revolution, and those are messy. Nobody wants war, as was so accurately stated previously. Until we get mad enough to DO something about the state of things, the decay will continue.
-
@Dashrender said:
Re instituting voting based on land ownership then begs the question, do you get more votes based on the amount of land you own?
You could, the US never did that. It was about having a ruling class, not tying dollars directly to voting power.
-
@Dashrender said:
All those fat cats on wallstreet who don't own their apartments, but instead rent them would have to find some land to own so they could vote.
Yes, that's how it always was and it was because the even fatter cats on the farms had enough power to shut them out.
Of course, today, buying land is so trivial that this seems like a ridiculously silly requirement.
-
@Dashrender said:
Which also asks - in a highrise, even if you own your residence.. how does that work? is that the same as owning 'land'?
No, it was about owning land and never was tied to having an apartment.
-
@art_of_shred said:
"If voting made any real kind of difference, they would have outlawed it a long time ago."
If you play Tropico long enough, that quote and source will pop up.
-
I'd like to see actual skill be promoted, as well as lack of corruption. I've no clue how such a system would work, but if we reward the people who make positive changes I think that'll help at least a bit.
-
@art_of_shred said:
The real issue at the heart of ANY governing body is that is consists of people. People are weak and selfish. That's why "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". At least in an autocratic system, you have a 50/50 shot at the guy in charge being aligned with your personal ideals. In a democratic republic (US), the real rule is by the political class. You can say whatever you want, but that's the real truth. The whole Republican/Democrat struggle is just a ruse, while those in power all smoke cigars and sip brandy together in the back room. I think the best line I've heard quoted (forgive me, I can't credit the originator of the quote properly) is "If voting made any real kind of difference, they would have outlawed it a long time ago." It's the dialectic process in action D/R = thesis/antithesis, while the pre-ordained synthesis happens right under our noses, while everyone bickers about the figureheads representing each side of the aisle. Oh, but "we can vote them out"... if you believe the accuracy of the voting process, the tallying, etcetera. The whole thing is a game, and the populace is at the mercy of the political class. The only way to change that, in all honesty, is through revolution, and those are messy. Nobody wants war, as was so accurately stated previously. Until we get mad enough to DO something about the state of things, the decay will continue.
That's part of any system that has to maintain the pretense of voting. In an authoritarian system you have an opportunity for common, bloodless revolution.
Example you ask? Morocco. Fifty years ago Morocco was a completely different place. What happened was a change of kings. One got old, his son took over. The current ruler has the good of the country in mind and has turned it around, completely, in a decade. Instead of being a backwater, it is outpacing the US in modern rail infrastructure in half the time the US has been trying to convince Congress to let us try it. It went from a tourist poor to a tourist rich country. Corruption has decreased like crazy while safety has increased. The culture has changed and the whole theme of the country is different.
No one fought a revolution. It's one of the upsides (and downsides) to monarchy - change of rule or a change of ruler's heart can completely change the government.
-
Wow. Let's get rid of universal suffrage cos that will fix all of America's problems. Why don't you bring back slavery whilst you're at it?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Not according to a lot of people, it actually does help the poor. A great book to read that deals with how the poor are kept poor by NGOs is "Dark Star Safari." It's a travelogue but by a guy who hangs out with prime ministers and worked for NGOs and observes NGOs being used to keep corrupt governments rich and the poor really poor.
I love Paul Theroux and that's a great book and makes some great points. But he's a travel writer not an expert. At the moment it seems that a lot of Africa's problems are being solved by Chinese investment, but I'm nervous about how that'll eventually turn out.
-
@art_of_shred said:
And what's wrong with America is all the people who want to rob from the "haves" to give to the "have nots" because they "deserve" everything I have, but shouldn't need to work to get them, since I have done the work and earned enough to have them.
I hate the expression "haves and have nots". Politicians are using it in the UK at the moment and it's not true and is just a classic case of divide and conquer. The reality is that people go through life moving between having and not having as they get jobs, then lose jobs, then get jobs, then get sick, then get better etc etc. The welfare state is just an insurance scheme to smooth out life's ups and downs. So in the same way that I'm not resentful when my neighbour gets an insurance payout after his house has been burgled when I've been paying insurance premiums for years and haven't received a dime, why should I be resentful when my neighbour loses his job or gets sick and needs some help?
I'm really lucky that I've never been unemployed or sick but there but for the grace of God go I.
