A new Mayor of New York

Politics in the United States and elsewhere

A new Mayor of New York

Postby Gavin » 06 Nov 2013, 04:22

I just heard that Bill de Blasio has been elected the as new Mayor of New York on a ticket of the taxing rich and on a slogan "Go with the 'fro" (because his son has one). I'm not sure that would have been acceptable had it been "Go with the Aryan blond!".

I'd be interested in our American visitors' take on this news.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: A new Mayor of New York

Postby Caleb » 06 Nov 2013, 10:10

Lion of the Blogosphere and Steve Sailer have both written quite a bit about this guy recently. It sounds like he's going to be a complete train wreck.
Caleb
 
Posts: 865
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 04:44

Re: A new Mayor of New York

Postby Connor » 07 Nov 2013, 05:03

Ah, so the world has heard.

First, briefly, a summary of my own actions:

I voted for the Republican candidate Joe Lhota, but I did so almost solely as a means to vote against de Blasio. I knew that this was a futile exercise from the beginning, though, because the latter was always miles ahead in the polls. So, I went in and out of the polling station without any false hopes. Thus concludes my voting experience.

The campaign for de Blasio's candidacy was truly bizarre. Virtually every de Blasio advertisement I encountered revolved around the fact that he is a white man with a black wife and two mixed-race children. In the Age of Obama, I suppose this shouldn't be a surprising tactic (after all, it succeeds marvelously!) and yet this campaign seemed to take things to a new level. The cynical use of race politics and multiculturalism was just so...obvious.

For example, here's a de Blasio commercial that I saw several times on television in the last few weeks:



Can you spot the overriding theme?

There were actually multiple such commercials that were narrated by de Blasio's children, without any word from the man himself. Clearly, that's an odd move from any politician, but I think most forum members can probably already see the logic behind it. When political correctness reigns supreme, it is wise to hide behind the "fro."

That was just the campaign though. The real trouble lies ahead.

As Caleb hinted, this new mayor may bring about disastrous consequences for New York City. My main fear is that crime is going to make a huge comeback and possibly even return to the pre-1990's levels. The stop-and-frisk program will most likely be revoked, and hence a lot more dangerous people will be left to roam the streets. To the city's progressives, however, the potential rise in crime is a worthwhile trade-off. They just want to make sure that the police stop being so "racist."

City Journal - which is probably the best NYC-based conservative magazine - has done an excellent job in defending the stop-and-frisk program for the past decade and a half. This article by Heather MacDonald serves as a good overview of how the New York Police Department has handled crime so successfully since the 1990's, and it also refutes a lot of the typical left-wing objections.

Alas, many of the sensible policies mentioned in City Journal will probably disappear in the near future. That means that the New York of the future will probably look less like Seinfeld and more like Taxi Driver. Sure, I've always liked the movie Taxi Driver, but I don't know if actually living in that environment will be such a delight.

On the bright side, it sounds like someone named Bonnie Greer will be very pleased!
Connor
 
Posts: 113
Joined: 30 Aug 2012, 03:54
Location: New York, NY, USA

Re: A new Mayor of New York

Postby Gavin » 01 Jan 2014, 22:58

Apparently this mayor has announced he's going to begin his "progressive" programme of taxing the rich much more to pay to educate New York's poor.

I can see two problems with this. First - this is a crude way of putting it - but you really "can't fix stupid". You can throw money at the problem as much as you like, but ultimately if the underclass have unlimited children financed by others, this is going to remain a serious problem for your society.

You can give them as many Macs as you like (while the rest of us have to buy them) but they will not (cannot) use them to learn programming. I have seen this tried first-hand in various places. There is a limit to these people's ability (not to mention their will to learn). One in a thousand might become programmers. But they would have found a way before, too. This is a sticking plaster solution.

Second, the rich are going to become fed up with this. They're not going to put up with it. Many will leave and put their money offshore. Then the money to give away will run out.

This is why it is my view that tax should be an even percentage across the board and that the only solution to these problems in the long run is to remove child benefit from the underclass, both here and in America. There should be good schools, of course, but taxing the rich ever more is never going to enable society to reach the socialist utopia of egalitarianism. Only the enforcement of personal responsibility can help in this direction, though it will not fully succeed either.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: A new Mayor of New York

Postby Paul » 01 Jan 2014, 23:56

I think it's time to go even further and disenfranchise people who have no stake (investment) in society. Anyone who doesn't fulfill certain criteria cannot vote, along the lines of:

Minimum age of 25 - binding in all cases.
Ownership of property - or in the process of purchasing
A paying job - or
Ownership of a business.
Currently and temporarily out of the labour market due to child-rearing (which they are financing).

We should tinker around with those ideas for starters. Anyone not paying in a share in some way or increasing the wealth of the nation (eg: proper child-rearing) should not be permitted a say in how things are run.

I would disenfranchise the stupid too, but how are the lines drawn for that one? Imagine the uproar? But why would it be any worse than what we have now? I know people who are too stupid to run their own solitary lives, even with assistance. They can't make basic decisions, day to day, of any worth. Why then are they allowed to vote?
Paul
 
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: A new Mayor of New York

Postby Gavin » 02 Jan 2014, 00:12

I think you're really onto something there. I was thinking about the phrase "stake in society" too recently, and I think that's the "hinge point" here. They should indeed not be allowed to vote. Already prisoners cannot vote - this needs to be extended further. It is probably the only answer, the only solution to the demographic trap in which we are caught: as it stands, an ever-growing underclass who do not even understand anything to do with economics could vote for the collapse of society.

I have been told by council workers before that thousands of people cannot even fill in their own benefits forms. Often I'm doing my own VAT and that kind of thing - which can be quite tricky - and I think "How do all of the thousands of people dimmer than me, and all the third world foreigners in the country, running halal shops, etc., do this?". I imagine they must have accountants doing it for them, and benefits forms are translated. But many of our own natives cannot even read or write (especially in the area where I live). I bet investigations of those places are very rare too, because of the fear of - well you know what, starts with "r".
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: A new Mayor of New York

Postby Paul » 03 Jan 2014, 01:15

Well Gavin, I wouldn't hold your breath on prisoners not being allowed to vote as I'm sure you are aware. More interfering insanity from foreign 'judges'.

I was reading earlier how these whole-life terms (sentences) for the worst murderers might be 'illegal' and so plans might have to be cooked up where we give US style sentences, 100s of years, to circumvent the 'illegality'. Expect the Appeal Court to be busy with that one. We'll pay for it of course.

But yes, there needs to be some disenfranchisement, but now that cat is out of the bag......

I wouldn't have foreigners voting, nor holding political office. A period of self-sufficient residency would have to be 'served' and whilst marriage to a native Briton might seem to strengthen the case, I would still ignore it as a factor. Say twenty-five years residency and contribution after which we could say a stake in society has been earned. Rather neatly, that's how long a non-Roman had to serve in the legions before being awarded citizenship.

As regards the haplessness of the underclass, have a read of this:


I work for the underclass

I also work for a bunch of other people who are in the financial mire – temporarily or permanently – and from which I suspect no amount of health insurance and voluntary pension saving could ever have diverted them; pace my purist libertarian former comrades.

Basically, a major part of my job is to help the unemployed or over-parented to understand and sometimes to do the paperwork and walk them through the process of means testing so they can show The Social and The Housing just how broke they are and hence can they have some more money, please?

For some, injury and illness or the loss of a job is a temporary misfortune that they intend (and actively seek) to escape as soon as possible. My cynical colleagues and I find it hard to begrudge them the taxes we all pay to keep the roof over their heads and the electricity on and food on the table. Dear reader, you may disagree with that, but absent compulsory individual or family-based unemployment, sickness and retirement funding – something likely only in a vibrant, thriving, successful economy supported by well-educated workers and intelligent middle managers (yeah, right) – it just doesn’t seem decent not to pay minimum (or even briefly better than minimum) poor relief to the innocently, accidentally skint.

(Pensioners are a much tougher and bigger problem in that since the Pensions Increase Act generations of workers and housewives (and increasingly cast-adrift fifty-something first wives) have been encouraged and duped to face retirement age without a pension pot of their own above whatever the National Insurance scheme provides.But let us set that Godzilla-class train wreck aside for now and concentrate on what the system has unselfconsciously dubbed Working Age benefits recipients.)

A sizeable minority of folk whose reports, letters and emails cross my desk and whose (expensive mobile) phone calls sound in my ears are victims of a generations-long experiment in wishful thinking, unfunded social liabilities, and all-round good intentions and so here we are in the Inferno that the Clever and Decent have unintentionally built: The Bolgia of the Intergenerationally Useless. The ‘Vulnerable.’ Peace be unto them.

Now, I sometimes joke at work with my colleagues about the wide variety of first names with which the latest cohort of the Vulnerable have been branded by their hopeless, clueless, husbandless mothers. All those Ka-s and Sha-s and De-s that unmarried Kylies and Julies choose to imagine raises their offspring to the glamourous level of America’s Great Society black underclass, the poor sods.It really helps you to assess a boy’s life chances when you learn that his first name is Tyson; may his tribe increase. Because nothing quite says ‘aspirational parenting’ as well as naming one’s tiny baby son after a tattooed, bipolar, serially bankrupt, multiple-bastardizing, drug-addicted convicted rapist who publicly lamented the non-lynching of a brown-skinned man found not guilty of murder.

We chortle too at the narrower range of surnames. These are often double-barrelled in memory of Mum’s latest bedwarmer-but-three who stayed around for three entire Christmases and for almost one whole gestation before he flew the nest leaving another cuckoo for your children, dear reader, to support and endure lifelong. Support, that is, assuming that the little hellions will in fact shut up and stop screaming long enough for your kids to acquire what the political class nostalgically refers to as a publicly-funded ‘education’.

The Vulnerable won’t read (even if they can read, kind of,) and their commonest first resort when faced with officialdom’s requests for further information (intended to allow means-tested benefits to be commenced or to continue in payment) is to ignore such requests altogether…until some welfare bureaucrat somewhere is obliged to suspend and eventually to cancel their claim – whether of a principle (subsistence) benefit or a supplementary payments for help with housing, children, illness and injury, etc. Their next resort; rather than reading and responding to the authorities concerned is to go for help to some third party advisor or case officer such as the CAB or a social worker and who, in all probability, will eventually ring us up and discover they don’t have written permission to discuss the ‘customer’s’ private business and who wait another fortnight while written or verbal permission to discuss is obtained and who then learns that, yes, answering the letters and providing pay slips, birth certificates, proof of rent, debts, etc, is exactly what is needed to get the money flowing again as requested three, four, five patient months ago.

Their childlike, untutored minds – infantilized by child-centred ‘progressive’ education and protected culturally from blame, shame or responsibility by the Guardian class of anti-demonizers – simply will not take responsibility for any of their acts at any time. They literally cannot understand why their serial idleness, fecundity and absence of thrift should in any way be mentioned at a time when the debt chickens have finally come home to roost; such as when the repossession of their homes is imminent or enormous Sky TV packages are about to be cancelled despite a months-long series of advice and warning letters.

“How do you expect me to pay my rent when I’m only on Maternity Allowance before my Income Support, Child benefit, Child Tax Credit, free school meals and prescriptions will kick in when I have the baby, and now you tell me I’ve got to pay my poll tax as well? If I kill myself, it’ll all be your fault.” Tomorrow is finally right here, and nothing very much belongs to her.

These are the great grandchildren of the nation of shopkeepers that stood almost alone against the greatest war machine ever devised and that fought it to a standstill while awaiting the nascent superpowers to join the fray.

But they are human beings, and despite Julia’s unceasing evidence of their Hobbesian lives I feel stricken whenever I see their children, snotty-nosed and toyless writhing in primal frustration in our interview room (while an ageing teenaged mother wrestles with the intellectual challenge of understanding that ‘help with rent’ requires proof of rent and thus maybe binning a tenancy agreement provided by an expatriate, incommunicado landlord wasn’t her smartest move ever) when I know with little room for doubt that their ‘home’, though full of broken bikes and computer games, lacks both books and ornaments. What could those poor kids have become with even a little sense and sensitivity? We’re looking at spiritual genocide here.
Paul
 
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: A new Mayor of New York

Postby Yessica » 03 Jan 2014, 08:13

Paul wrote:I think it's time to go even further and disenfranchise people who have no stake (investment) in society. Anyone who doesn't fulfill certain criteria cannot vote, along the lines of:

Minimum age of 25 - binding in all cases.
Ownership of property - or in the process of purchasing
A paying job - or
Ownership of a business.
Currently and temporarily out of the labour market due to child-rearing (which they are financing).


I see a lot of problems with that.
The first is that a society like this would be very conservative and static, the rich class could vote for their privileges to increase and increase and tell the poor "no house - not vote, tough luck" and they could pass policies which would end up in the poorer class people never being able to afford homes.

Second it will give people the wrong impression that some life paces such as going to college, moving around a bit while working for different companies, earning a Ph.D. are less valuable as other such as others like starting work right after school and buying a house. It will make a lot of people consider buying houses they cannot afford.

25 is much to old for minimum voting age to my mind. Younger people often make smarter political choices than the old, who just vote for the party they always voted for (or in case of my country, always were governed by while not being allowed to vote).
I am in favour of a voting age of 17 (for my country) because that is the minimum age for serving in the army and I think it is unfair a person can be expected die protecting a country but is not allowed to vote for a government (such as one that does not start a war you will die in). I consider this to be especially important when the draft, which has been stopped in 2011, will be started again, which will most likely happen soon.
Yessica
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Re: A new Mayor of New York

Postby Paul » 07 Jan 2014, 03:31

Well yes, it could be very conservative, but why would that be such a terrible thing? Also, what's the alternative other than what we have now, which in the ways I outlined is the perennially feckless and non-contributory having a say in how things are run?

If matters were more conservative (and conserving) in the way of much less needless spending, handouts, programmes, the funding of inanity, etc and less rampant and needless (not to mention tasteless) consumerism, bread and circuses and sheer trash, would it not be a good thing?

As you say, it could be that those who were advantaged by the situation would vote themselves into power and entrenchment of wealth - and so on and so on. But the opposite could be said to be true and could in fact be happening right now. The growing underclass and non-contributory could vote their providers into power in the hope of keeping their easy lifestyle going. And there's a lot more of them and they cost much more than the idle rich, who at least themselves create wealth. The non-contributory drain wealth. This has in fact been occurring for say fifty years, Now we're broke!

Some further thoughts are that, in the case of the UK (about which is all I am really speaking) in recent general elections, only about a fifth of the electorate turned out to vote at all. In fact the turnout is increasingly shambolic. Local elections are much the same. This is of course no reason in itself to withdraw voting rights, but it's still a point worth noting.

A lot of people are disillusioned entirely with modern politics and many of these are no doubt good, decent people. But the growing underclass will care not at all about the whole business. Their belligerent sense of entitlement will transcend mere politics. It doesn't matter to them who is in power and they won't even try to understand the differences - presuming there actually are any differences! To the underclass, it will be a case of - 'Where is my money? Now!'

A lot of people are severely dumbed-down now, to an incredible degree. Really. The young (and by which I do mean now as old as in their twenties), seem, in many cases I am observing, hapless and vacant. I could seriously predict that they couldn't name three current politicians, nor the structure of gov't, local or national, nor any other detail about politics. Neither would they be interested. They're only interested in their phones, TV and so on.

As TD says - I have seen the future and it is idiocy.

They're only suggestions and of course it will never happen ............... except never say never. There will be some 'interesting' times ahead, to put it mildly.

If voting were curtailed, fantasising for a moment, there is no reason that it would or should revert to a medieval situation of enfranchisement. It would still be the 21st century after all.

Though we may of course, within a decade or three have 'evolved' a political system based on 7th century values instead. I don't see much in the way of voting for all with that one however. :-)

Yes it would be complicated too and require detailed observances for honourable exceptions. But college and PHDs (not in Diversity Studies) is contributing to the wealth of a nation so wouldn't be seen as undeserving.

The ownership of property was just one idea. It was a situation however that pertained in England in times past. Increasingly, the required value or extent or status of a man's property lessened, thus extending the scope of the vote. But in all these times, the prosperity of everyone increased and England became a prominent (even dominant) nation. Not everyone had a say, but the nation was ever-improved. Of course there were a myriad of other factors, an industrial revolution, colonial expansion, etc, which is not to occur again. But given that impasse, it seems all the more logical that less people should have a say in the running of things for the ever-increasing masses.

I don't think 25 is too old to begin voting. Not these days and not in the UK. There will be some politically aware people under 25, as there will indeed be some politically aware 15 year olds but they are increasingly few I would say. The current voting age is 18, but I don't think that 18 year olds know or care about politics. I doubt they did too much (though they did more, at least were more aware), when I was 18. My parents' generation were doubtless aware even more. But look what they did with their votes.....!

People live longer than ever today and yet are conversely more infantilised for longer than ever it seems (this may have to change) and so raising the voting age is not as big a deal as it may seem.

Good point about the military. Maybe they should be given the vote at any age then. Then the police would be agitating and that may require more careful scrutiny...!

You can join the UK military aged 16 (as you can legally marry) but cannot serve in combat situations until aged 18. Indeed such people should then be allowed to vote.

I don't know that young people always make smart (much less smarter) political decisions. Where's the evidence for that? Is it not just a modern perception, driven by a certain amount of youth culture? In my case and in very many others I know (and of what's been said here), the political views of youth now seem wrong and ridiculous.

I'm suspicious of youth. The best wisdom always came from the elders.

"I would that there were no age between that of sixteen and three-and-twenty, or that youth would sleep out the rest...." WS.
Paul
 
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: A new Mayor of New York

Postby Elliott » 07 Jan 2014, 14:24

The thing about joining the military is interesting, but I think it's probably a mistake to equate it with voting. Consider the two different situations:

  • we let a 16 year-old decide to join the military
  • we let a 16 year-old decide how the country should be run
The first pertains to a much smaller circle of risk (you might get killed or maimed, etc.) and it is also a much simpler situation that has to be judged: "am I prepared to run this risk, or not?" It is an entirely different matter to understand politics, how a country should be run, how an economy should be run, the long-term consequences of political decisions, etc.

I'm not hugely comfortable with letting 16 year-olds decide to join the military, but I'm much less comfortable with them having any political influence.
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: A new Mayor of New York

Postby Yessica » 07 Jan 2014, 20:10

Paul, it is interesting what you say. As always.

Paul wrote:Well yes, it could be very conservative, but why would that be such a terrible thing? Also, what's the alternative other than what we have now, which in the ways I outlined is the perennially feckless and non-contributory having a say in how things are run?

If matters were more conservative (and conserving) in the way of much less needless spending, handouts, programmes, the funding of inanity, etc and less rampant and needless (not to mention tasteless) consumerism, bread and circuses and sheer trash, would it not be a good thing?


I chose the wrong word. I ment to say that it would be static, there would be decreased social mobility as the rich would come up with laws which would make them richer and might try to prevent the poor from joining their class.

I do not like consumerism. I think far to many people spend far to much of their energy thiking about brand name clothes, phones and the like / watching stupid TV-Shows featuring rich people shopping or supermodels... but do I really have the right to force my taste on other people? As much as I dislike those things hoping for the state to outlaw them would be the wrong way to my mind. I think the government should offer alternatives to that such as more public libraries, more public theaters, more opportunities to civic engagement and so on.

Paul wrote:The growing underclass and non-contributory could vote their providers into power in the hope of keeping their easy lifestyle going. And there's a lot more of them and they cost much more than the idle rich, who at least themselves create wealth. The non-contributory drain wealth. This has in fact been occurring for say fifty years, Now we're broke!


That might be true in a situation where the majority of the population is underclass... but I do not see this being the case yet. I see the politicians ignoring the voters will as one of the biggest problems of today and think that politics would be more conservative (political conservative) if the people had a direct say.
In my country there is the possibility of referendums under certain conditions. Leftists are always disappointed with their outcome. Always... because it always shows that the people are far less leftist then the politicians governing them.

Elliott wrote:The thing about joining the military is interesting, but I think it's probably a mistake to equate it with voting. Consider the two different situations:

we let a 16 year-old decide to join the military
we let a 16 year-old decide how the country should be run

The first pertains to a much smaller circle of risk (you might get killed or maimed, etc.) and it is also a much simpler situation that has to be judged: "am I prepared to run this risk, or not?" It is an entirely different matter to understand politics, how a country should be run, how an economy should be run, the long-term consequences of political decisions, etc.

I'm not hugely comfortable with letting 16 year-olds decide to join the military, but I'm much less comfortable with them having any political influence.


I am very much opposed to the idea of letting a 16 year old decide how the country should be run... well... I am opposed to the idea of letting every man (or woman) no matter how old, smart and educated letting run a country. The power comes from the people and from all of the people together.

They do not need to be very smart or educated or whatever but should just be able to answer one question "What do I want. What would be right for my life?".

The ones who believed themselves to be so smart that they knew what the people needed - knew better than the people themselves - ended up creating dystopias.

Back to the soldiers. There are two types of countries, those which have a draft and those which don't.
Let me talk about the first group first. If the young do not have the vote old people could sent young people to combat against their will, they could send them to fight for political ideals the younger ones do not even believe in. That would not only be dead wrong but it would also have political societal consequenzes such as hatred for older people, hatred for the state. An example would be the Vietnam War:

Barry McGuire - Eve of destruction wrote:You're old enough to kill but not for votin'
You don't believe in war, what's that gun you're totin'?


Then there are the countries without a draft. Serving in the military is a young man's decision - but he should still have a say in which military intervention he sees as necessary and which not.

A person who is smart enough to understand that he is serving in the military and the consequences should also be trusted to say he wants to take risk for this but not for that - as part of a democratic vote. A person who is to stupid to comprehend that should not serve anyway.
Yessica
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Re: A new Mayor of New York

Postby Paul » 11 Jan 2014, 00:56

Thanks Yessica

I chose the wrong word. I ment to say that it would be static, there would be decreased social mobility as the rich would come up with laws which would make them richer and might try to prevent the poor from joining their class.


You may well be correct there and no doubt this has happened in the past.

But it would depend on what you mean by 'rich'. If franchise was restricted back to property ownership (or acquisition) for instance, that doesn't necessarily mean 'rich' as in the upper classes and aristocracy alone. It would in fact include the entire middle class and the aspiring working class who were prepared to exhibit the virtues necessary for upward class motion. That is in fact surely the point at which England (and others I suspect) began to rise in standards and affluence, eventually for all citizens - by the development of a middle-class that had self-reliance (home-owning) and a degree of wealth and assets - not necessarily astronomical but somewhat above dirt poor. These people would tend to be the wisdom class too - it's necessary of course that they have the vote.

I do not like consumerism. I think far to many people spend far to much of their energy thiking about brand name clothes, phones and the like / watching stupid TV-Shows featuring rich people shopping or supermodels... but do I really have the right to force my taste on other people? As much as I dislike those things hoping for the state to outlaw them would be the wrong way to my mind. I think the government should offer alternatives to that such as more public libraries, more public theaters, more opportunities to civic engagement and so on.


I agree with the first part of what you say and would also agree that government should not interfere at all with such private trade and business (where it isn't immoral or criminally harmful). I wasn't proposing a reduction of the franchise solely on the basis that the 'rich', or educated would then embark upon a programme of banning things. Thinking a little cynically it would be businessmen of the middle class and above who own the businesses that make and sell these things. Anyway, TVs and phones aren't bad things in themselves, it's how they are used by the consumers that counts.

What we're talking about regarding the pursuits of the underclass (the poor if you like - though they aren't) is a state of mind as much as anything else. You could say such people will always be downwardly aspirational. You could also then say they are stupid. You may also then ask - why are they given the vote?

As I've said, a lot of these people can't even make basic good decisions in the day-to-day humdrum of their own lives, which are in fact anything but difficult. Why they are then entrusted with political decisions is an interesting question.

Of course not everyone with little money or assets or not in home ownership will be like this, but it would simply be unfortunate if such people were excluded by any such restriction. There could be other methods of qualification though - educational achievements, public service, simply a working taxpayer. A contributor.

I think you are right that there should be other (good) pursuits available to all, which would be a means to greater cultural enrichment - libraries, museums, local sports even, social clubs, and etc. But there are these things and always have been and yet you can't force people to attend. The main thing is that all these type of facilities, as administered by the government, are built and maintained at public expense. That is, by everyone who is paying a contribution, yet towards facilities for all. There's only so much the government (ie the taxpayer) should be providing in order that the allocation of taxes they collect be seen to be fair and just.

Remember this, which is how I see it: The government have no money of their own. They are merely temporary appointees (by us) who collect our money and apportion it fairly and sensibly (so we hope).

A call for the gov't to spend ever more money on facilities is a call to spend everyone else's money. When it involves spending primarily and continually towards a non-contributory, wasteful and resentful (and so un-deserving) class of people, this is unfair. It's also foolish and eventually could be bankrupting.

Yes, I think the non-contributory get just about enough provided for them as it is. Getting the vote as well (to maintain the status-quo as we see) is maybe a luxury too far.

And if people were that bothered about enfranchisement, they would attempt to better themselves to achieve it.

That might be true in a situation where the majority of the population is underclass... but I do not see this being the case yet. I see the politicians ignoring the voters will as one of the biggest problems of today and think that politics would be more conservative (political conservative) if the people had a direct say.
In my country there is the possibility of referendums under certain conditions. Leftists are always disappointed with their outcome. Always... because it always shows that the people are far less leftist then the politicians governing them.


I'm talking about Britain remember. The underclass is large and growing. Very large and growing in fact. For example, read TDs accounts, which is how after all, we all ended up here on this forum. Have you any idea how large the welfare bill is for Britain and for how long this astronomical sum has been endured? And we are in fact only a small country and always have been. And now we are also full to the brim with people.

I agree about inherently conservative (by nature). I think almost all people are that way. There are the crazy and the danger-junkies and the mavericks but I would think over 90% of people in this world are inherently conservative. Most people want a settled home, a warm hearth and a stocked larder. They don't want upset and change. They wish for security and a continuance of opportunity for their children. They are comfortable with a continuance of their own solid culture (as we are seeing) and don't wish for it to alter.

I think the problem, in Britain at least, is that very many people fail to see this (even about themselves - see?) and so cannot or will not acknowledge it. They've also been brainwashed by the left and so have default mechanisms that kick in and actually prevent them from acknowledging basic facts about their own nature and that of mankind in general.

Very few of the left and the perennially aggrieved, if any at all, really understand money, finance or the economy. Except that they (very conservatively) understand the economics of their own pockets or household. They aren't for giving their own money away any time and understand well enough the desire for obtaining more. They will deny it of course, attempting thus to deny their own nature. They will at the same time be aggrieved at anyone else who possesses wealth, for displaying similar traits to their very own.

So - people who don't even understand themselves or society. Are they wise people? Should they be having a say in how things are run?
Paul
 
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: A new Mayor of New York

Postby Paul » 22 Jan 2014, 22:30

Have UKIP candidates been reading this forum and appropriating my ideas?

I came across a copy of The Daily Mirror today (inane I know) wherein there was another scathing (but childish) article about UKIP. Here it is.

You will see that it contains a quiz. How pleased I was to see question 5 and find that someone on the political scene agrees with me.

It's a silly quiz of course but just about fitting for readers of the Mirror, I will make so bold as to say. If you can be bothered - observe the inanity of the questions that turn out NOT to be true (statements by UKIP personnel). But of course they will probably be the last word in humour by most of the readers. In fact the incorrect questions are not-so-cunningly inserted so as to suggest that they may as well be UKIP pronouncements because the general thrust of the article is that it's a party for the stupid. That's how I saw it.

Just to further ram home my point I found out this week of the situation regarding a local youth (aged 21) who, despite 11 years or more of compulsory school placement (I was about to say attendance), that I've paid for in a roundabout way, still cannot read and write. He isn't mentally retarded in any way. Needless to say he isn't working, though I hear (rumour but well-founded) that he's doing 'quite well' at petty (street level) cocaine dealing. Hmm.

This is the 'best' bit - he's considered 'disabled' by the benefits agency and so qualifies for DLA (disabled living allowance) in addition to normal unemployment benefit. His disablement is being unable to read and write. So he needs extra money - right?

The DLA amounts to an extra £240 per 28 day period. He also gets his housing costs paid, though he might be 'disadvantaged' and 'oppressed' by having to pay the 'hated bedroom tax' .... that isn't a tax at all, not whatsoever (though even politicians now refer to it as so).

This is the scariest bit - he's eligible to vote! The only saving grace is that he's unlikely to do so, will consider the practise derisory and not for him and probably won't know how to in the unlikely event he somehow appears in a polling station.

Sorry this isn't really the correct thread but it follows on from my earlier posts here.
Paul
 
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.


Return to Global Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron

User Menu

Login Form

This site costs £100 per year to run and makes no money.

If you would like to make a small contribution to help pay for the web hosting, you can do so here.

Who is online

In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 175 on 12 Jan 2015, 18:23

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
Copyright © Western Defence. All Rights Reserved.