What are your political tendencies?

Post Reply New Topic

Now you are starting to see things more clearly. As long as politicians are spending the money, the money will be wasted in red tape and inefficiency and corruption. FUnds meant to help the poor will inevitably be diverted to some useless program to build an indoor rainforest in Alaska, or prop up dictators in other countries, or spend it on wars, or on space.

But if taxes were reduced and people could control where there money is spent then they can give to help the poor. They can give to the salvation army or the red cross, or whatever. It is their money, they earned it, and they should get to choose how the money is spent/invested/donated... not by bureaucrats. And I do believe that you'd see the poor helped more this way than the way the poor is being helped under the current government programs.

You might think that I am wrong, but if I am it is just that I have alot of faith in people to do the right things if they are free to do so.

I dont share you're faith atall. I think taxation is a much more reliable method of helping the poor survive. Do you think we should do away with Disability Allowance etc and rely on rich people to give handouts?

Just picked up the latest story on NASA and they reaveled a 104 billion plan to land a man on the moon by 2018 and possibly expand it as a permanent outpost. Dont worry, the 104 billion is spread out over 15 years and will stay within the confines of NASA's budget. Its being redirected from the Shuttle program (which costs 4 billion a year in upkeep) once its phased out. Whether you like it or not, we are headed back to the moon! Along with China, Russia... and Europe if they can ever create reliable equipment.

There's a HUGE difference between the X-1 and the Space Shuttle. The X-1 only reached a suborbital 60 miles above the Earth for a very short period of time. The Space Shuttle stays in Earth's orbit for weeks, and it can dock with the ISS as well.

Helium 3 is what you end up with when Tritium decays. It has two protons and one neutron in it's nucleus. Since it is short on neutrons, it absorbs neutrons in a reaction and can ret*d or even stop the reaction.

I think, if we are going to be helping the poor and disabled, then we should be helping ONLY the poor and disabled. A big problem in this country is the government is giving out welfare to people that don't need it... the welfare programs have been expanded to include nearly everyone, including major corporations like McDonalds. I think we should start by ending welfare for those who don't need it. We are also giving billions to prop up dictatorships in the middle east and elsewhere.

I would also like to reduce the red tape by ending the federal government's handling of welfare and letting the states handle it. The USA is a very large country and it can't be handled efficiently at the federal level, so I think decentralization is the way to go. Look at FEMA and how it has mishandled the disaster relief efforts from the hurricane and you will see what I mean about red tape being a major problem.

Once we have done these two things then we can see where we stand and consider what needs to be done next.

I'm not too sure about that. I think welfare should be raised and expanded. There is too many people working that are still living under the poverty line.





I dont agree with this either, Bush is hiring incopetent cronies of his to handle jobs that they arent cut out for like the FEMA director, the answer is to vote Bush out of power, the local politicians mishandled the New Orleans disaster as well. Also, i fear overly Conservative states in the midwest would lower state benefits to an absolute minimum and make things harder for claimants because they dont like poor people. I think there is something to be said for decentralisation but i dont think this is the right instance.

None on the Poll

I am who I am

No nothing fits on this poll

No parties at all

You think McDonalds needs to be on welfare? You think Foreign dictators need to be on welfare? I am for cutting welfare to these groups and instead focusing only on those who need it and no one else.




The beauty of it is that you can pack up and move to another state if you don't like your state's policies. Also, your vote counts more at the state levels as it is against fewer people... AND there is less corporate and special interest lobbying at the state levels, so the politics are more in the hands of people than in those.

Psychlone, I agree with you about corporate welfare, but I don't think that was what Eamonn was suggesting.

I live in the UK, and we too have ridiculous State subsidies for rich farmers, certain corporations, and the Royal Family. These should stop at once!! ! It is a perversion of justice that Lord such-and-such should be payed £1 Million per year simply because he has loads of land that he grows nothing on!! !! !! !!

I say, grow stuff on that land, and export it to the Third World free of charge, THEN he might just qualify for some subsidies.

Market Capitalism is so wasteful. You have rich farmers over here growing nothing on their land, and getting payed for it, whilst people in Africa are dying for want of food.

Doesn't the EU have something to do with that? Hasn't subsidising inefficient industry, generally speaking, been the hallmark of socialist style government?


So their population can expand to another critical threshold that precipitates yet more famine and starvation?

I'm feeling rather cynical this afternoon.

Oh, and the large companies you despise: granted, they're not perfect, but most of those of us who work have our pension money tied up in them. So, workers do directly benefit. In fact, any one can directly benefit — very egalitarian — it's called the stock market, RobertN.

Ascan, get a life.

No, i think McMonopolies like McDonanlds shouldnt get to McMilk any more money out of welfare but maybe some of their employees should as they tend to pay minimum wage. Another way around this is to raise the minimum wage to a respectable level. I was talking about giving a better living standard to those who are living under the poverty line so they are at least moved above it. That has been done in other countries so we know it is more than possible.




I agree that there should be as much local control as possible if there is quality local politicians (often lacking and filled with petiness) and the structures in place is adequate enough as sometimes it isnt adequate to deal with issues on a professional level.

I have seen other small countries in Europe like Ireland, Norway and Switzerland thrive since their independance and i think it could work here because decisions like interest rates are made in London for the south east so the poorer north of England and Scotland dont seem to be taken into account with its industrial reliance and the fact that manufacturing has been a bigger employer up here.

It helps the likes of Norway and the Republic of Ireland that everybody seems to be singing from the same hymn sheet as there isnt the race, religion and class divisions right now that Scotland, Britain and the US has and the corrupt protestant and the northern Irish government before the British took back central control for the first time, was a lesson in the dangers of handing local control to one side of a divided area power and i hope the lesson is learned for Iraq and elsewhere but i believe that Scotland could become more united and thrive like other small countries if it became independant.

It is embaressing that we have to rely on the London parliament to make many of our decisions for us, particularly the big ones and we have to sit through 12 minutes of English cricket celebrations over them winning an event in which there was ONE other team, before we can see any other international news which even then is from an English perspective. We arent really a nation at the moment, just a small part of one.

And then, the captains of industry just have to remain inefficient and redirect more money into the politicians personal accounts to keep more subsidies coming.


The problem with sending food to the third world is that procreation is their national pastime- it's all they have to do. So by sending them food, you increase their life expectancy, thus giving them more time to make more mouths to feed and ultimatly ending up with a bigger crisis than you started with. By all means, grow food on that land, but use it to lower prices and eradicate starvation locally- where something can actually be accomplished.

i can't believe my eyes. extermination is not an appropriate cure for starvation / poverty. what you are preaching is outrageous and disgusting.

Exterminatnion would involve going someplace and killing people off. What I'm talking about is ignonring the problem and letting nature take it' course, and helping people more locally, that are in a better position to be helped, instead. An example of what I'm talking about is that I would like to see the US stop funding UNICEF and other aid programs, stop sending AIDS drugs and other medical supplies around the world (except in countries of military significance such as Afghanistan), and use them for the homeless and impoverished in the US (creating a food program is probably the only really liberal idea I've ever had). This is all still loosely based upon a left wing, socialist principle since you are still helping the poor with tax dollars. No matter what you do, 60% of the world will go hungry and will most likely die prematurelyas a result, and you what just be changing which 60% will starve. Even if you grow alot more food, distributing food evenly around the world would cause everyone to starve, or at least be badly malnourished to the point of being unable to work.