…and I thought it was Reagan who cut all the funding to the mental hospitals, forcing them to close, resulting in the maw of crazies that now try and clean my windshield.[/quote]
That is a myth.
I am not sure if it was Carter or if it was a judicial decision but it happened during his term.
It was decided that the mentally ill actually are human beings and have rights. They were not locked up anymore, unless they were deemed violent.
The Reagan budget cuts came after the mental institutions were emptied.
If it was simply a budget thing Clinton could have fixed it during his 8 years.
If it was a budget thing there would be many candidates pushing for increasing the state hospitals budgets to get the homeless off the street. That is not the case because we have no right to put them in those hospitals.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Doesn’t Sweden have one of the highest suicide rates?
I am not sure if it the weather or the socialism. They are both depressing.
True, they DO have high suicide and alcoholism rates, but historically, they always have. It’s the lack of sunlight. In fact, you see nearly identical figures in Alaska, Norway, Denmark, northern Sibera… etc.
…and I thought it was Reagan who cut all the funding to the mental hospitals, forcing them to close, resulting in the maw of crazies that now try and clean my windshield.[/quote]
It was Reagan, not Carter. He also cut funding that helped students attend college, after-school programs and a whole host of other things that were actually helping people get out of the cycle of welfare and poverty. He did it so he could give the money to his rich supporters and to the military (just enough so he could justify the cuts). Reagan single-handedly created the phenomenon of “Homeless Families” because of his cuts. Not all homeless people were mentally ill like some people would like you to believe.
I know that there will be people to argue with me about this, but I was an adult when these things occurred, so I have first hand knowledge of what happened. I didn’t read about it in books many years later like some people. I was actually there.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
…I know that there will be people to argue with me about this, but I was an adult when these things occurred, so I have first hand knowledge of what happened. I didn’t read about it in books many years later like some people. I was actually there.[/quote]
I was there too. I have a family member that suddenly was free to walk out of the hospital because of it and frequently did and occasionally still does.
It happened during the Carter years. It was not funding related. It was because non-violent mentally ill people are just as free to come and go as you and I are. We cannot lock them up simply because we don’t want to see them wandering the streets.
I think it is funny that people actually believe that Reagan singlehandedly against a hostile Congress altered our economy so dramatically that 20 years later we still have whole families living on the street.
I know this is done to point out the evil of Republicans but why couldn’t Clinton singlehandedly against a hostile Congress with the advantage of a pseudo-surplus do anything to fix it?
Poor and homeless people have always been around and always will.
As a society we should provide a minimum safety net to allow them to survive without providing a comfortable lifestyle people may see as an attractive alternatine to work.
Anyone that claims they cannot get the money for college is full of shit. If they are too stupid and incapable of working and getting help they do not belong in college anyway. The world needs ditch diggers too Danny.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
…I know that there will be people to argue with me about this, but I was an adult when these things occurred, so I have first hand knowledge of what happened. I didn’t read about it in books many years later like some people. I was actually there.
I was there too. I have a family member that suddenly was free to walk out of the hospital because of it and frequently did and occasionally still does.
It happened during the Carter years. It was not funding related. It was because non-violent mentally ill people are just as free to come and go as you and I are. We cannot lock them up simply because we don’t want to see them wandering the streets.
[/quote]
I remember this too, and you are right, what you are specifically talking about wasn’t funding related. It was to prevent someone from commiting another person just for the hell of it. However, this didn’t result in the huge glut of homeless people. Knewsome is referring to Reagan’s cuts that actually closed many mental hospitals, and alot of rehab centers as well, around the nation. Many of these people didn’t have any place to go and ended up releasing far more of them onto the streets. They are both to blame, however, Reagan’s cuts were far more damaging to a larger population of people.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Anyone that claims they cannot get the money for college is full of shit. If they are too stupid and incapable of working and getting help they do not belong in college anyway. The world needs ditch diggers too Danny.[/quote]
Oh, I got money for college all right - but it was a LOAN. I have to pay it BACK. I didn’t have stellar grades in High School - why? I don’t know, maybe because I hated being there, maybe because I was young and short-sighted. Young people make mistakes. I worked my way through college, attending a CSU - thankfully, the State of California subsidises our univiersities well, so that state residents can afford to go to school - I suppose you can say I benefited from state “welfare” by going to college. I also WORKED my entire 5 years at Humboldt State, I even started a film and video production company that took me through my final two years there - it wasn’t easy, but hell, that’s life.
Would I have gotten better grades and learned more if I DIDN’T have to work? Possibly… but in the end, I DID end up with real world experience that has gotten me where I am today. I think working while going to college is INVALUABLE, but with the caveat that it should in some way apply to your chosen career path. Funding to attend college is excellent, but I think some work-study should be tied in with it.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I think it is funny that people actually believe that Reagan singlehandedly against a hostile Congress altered our economy so dramatically that 20 years later we still have whole families living on the street.
I know this is done to point out the evil of Republicans but why couldn’t Clinton singlehandedly against a hostile Congress with the advantage of a pseudo-surplus do anything to fix it?
Poor and homeless people have always been around and always will.
As a society we should provide a minimum safety net to allow them to survive without providing a comfortable lifestyle people may see as an attractive alternatine to work.
Anyone that claims they cannot get the money for college is full of shit. If they are too stupid and incapable of working and getting help they do not belong in college anyway. The world needs ditch diggers too Danny.[/quote]
There was also a US Supreme Court case during the Reagan years that made it much harder to institutionalize people. Probably a good thing overall, but definitely contributed to mentally ill persons becoming street people.
Sweden kind of works but it is kind of a mess too and is getting worse by most accounts.
“kind of a mess”!? Dude, have you BEEN to Sweden? In what respect is Sweden “kind of a mess”?
According to the CIA world Factbook, “Sweden’s long-successful economic formula of a capitalist system interlarded with substantial welfare elements was challenged in the 1990s by high unemployment and in 2000-02 by the global economic downturn, but fiscal discipline over the past several years has allowed the country to weather economic vagaries.”
Sweden has only 6% unemployment, one of the HIGHEST qualities of living in the WORLD, EXCELLENT foreign relations, GREAT functional healthcare, a PRISTINE environment, LOW population density, and one of the cleanest human rights records there is.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
knewsom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Doesn’t Sweden have one of the highest suicide rates?
I am not sure if it the weather or the socialism. They are both depressing.
True, they DO have high suicide and alcoholism rates, but historically, they always have. It’s the lack of sunlight. In fact, you see nearly identical figures in Alaska, Norway, Denmark, northern Sibera… etc.
…and I thought it was Reagan who cut all the funding to the mental hospitals, forcing them to close, resulting in the maw of crazies that now try and clean my windshield.
It was Reagan, not Carter. He also cut funding that helped students attend college, after-school programs and a whole host of other things that were actually helping people get out of the cycle of welfare and poverty. He did it so he could give the money to his rich supporters and to the military (just enough so he could justify the cuts). Reagan single-handedly created the phenomenon of “Homeless Families” because of his cuts. Not all homeless people were mentally ill like some people would like you to believe.
I know that there will be people to argue with me about this, but I was an adult when these things occurred, so I have first hand knowledge of what happened. I didn’t read about it in books many years later like some people. I was actually there.[/quote]
I went to college during the Reagan years. Had no problem getting a student loan along with a partial scholarship. In 1984 thanks to him business was booming and I was able to get a job before I graduated which was a stepping stone to a great career.
Reagans supportes actually suffered under high interst rates unitl he nailed the inflation problem. My dad was a carpenter and we followed interest rates and building starts pretty closely. After 84 the economy just exloded for at least 3 years.
Isn’t it interesting how socialists have all this sympathy for everyone EXCEPT the people who make it all possible? Do they realize that their paradise is built upon the backs of the men who produce?
I have all the sympathy in the world for poor children, elderly, and so forth – just not at the point of a gun. When 70% of my income is taken to support those who produce nothing, I want to know the reason why. Must BRUTE FORCE (in this case, taxes) be exercised to obtain worthwhile goals?
How about giving each individual the choice if they want to participate in this system? Sure, I know they vote for it. What if the loafers outnumber the producers? Think they’d vote for free money from the public coffers?
Until each person is free to choose IF THEY WANT TO BE A MICH-COW, its a robber-state. A nice, pretty one, but a robber-state nonetheless.
[/quote]
I know you’ve posted this drivel a million times already, but it still makes me smile.
Have the rich vote on whether they should be taxed, hilarious!
…
Without even being aware of it, they cast themselves into a state of psuedoserfdom, a state where they must work for the wealthy landowners (government), and in return they are cared for by said lord of the land.
[/quote]
Does this not describe about 90% of the American population? Of course, you would need to substitute business for government.
But, I suppose there are differences. A government needs to fear the power of it’s population, a business holds a much firmer grasp on it’s employees, so I guess it can get away with more. Unless, God forbid, a union gets involved.
We can’t all be the best player on the team. We can’t all be the most productive person in society. Every single group activity has some element of one person carrying the weight of another.
What philosophy are you really talking about if you eliminate all aspects of collective society?
The traditional definition of neoconservatism (as articulated by Goldwater) was at one point a wariness of all big overarching entitiies in domestic affairs, including government and labor unions but also corporations and churches. Think about the traditional organization of Protestant churches, as opposed to now where there is more and more coordination of churches as an instrument for social policy.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I don’t know. Is teamwork such a bad thing?
We can’t all be the best player on the team. We can’t all be the most productive person in society. Every single group activity has some element of one person carrying the weight of another.
What philosophy are you really talking about if you eliminate all aspects of collective society?[/quote]
[quote]zarathus wrote:
The traditional definition of neoconservatism (as articulated by Goldwater) was at one point a wariness of all big overarching entitiies in domestic affairs, including government and labor unions but also corporations and churches. Think about the traditional organization of Protestant churches, as opposed to now where there is more and more coordination of churches as an instrument for social policy. [/quote]
Indeed - this is a large part of why neo-psuedo-conservativism is exceptionally dangerous.
I think “Rage” said it best: “They rally 'round the family, with a pocket full of shells.”
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
miniross wrote:
Capitalism and socialism can live together, its just bloody difficult. Socialist ideals can aid in capitalism (morale, job security etc)but this has to be tempered against outright abuse by unions etc.
I myself am a member of a union, and i know if the shit hit the fan, i was being bullied at work, or the like, then i could get some apprpriate representation. I am also a capitalist, and have no doubts that the world needs to operate in that environmet.
France have it all wrong, and need a rocket up their arse. The “people” want want want, yet fail to comprimise. There needs to be a 2 way street in all of this. Their problem is that its so ingrained that a mini counter revolution of fiscial and social ideals will have to occur.
In the US today with all the labor laws and worker protections there is little need for Unions anymore. In the beginning they did help bring about a lot of good and needed changes. Now they only exist to maintain their own existence. Now instead of helping to raise the bar in terms of quality and productivity they support the opposite. Unions now are just a drain on society and provide little positive benefit to it’s members and society in general.
For example, who produces a better car, Toyota or Chevy? Both are made in the USA. The Chevy plants have Union employees and the Toyota plants don’t. Which have better quality and which last longer?
[/quote]
Obviously Toyota do
The USA don’t make good cars
And you know it because you all drive japaneese & european imports: Toyota, mitsubishi, bmw.
Norway - 59.7
Luxembourg - 58.1
Belgium - 51.6
Ireland - 48.0
France - 47.0
Netherlands - 46.9
United States - 46.3
So, chumps, it seems that “in spite” of their much higher job security and other social-democratic policies, Norway, Luxembourg, Belgium, Ireland, FRANCE and The Netherlands ALL have higher productivity numbers than the US.
Apparently, our mistake was that we stopped TOO short in the path to a welfare state. Countries that went FURTHER had MORE success.
Several studies have shown that job security decreases stress levels, i.e., cortisol and adrenaline. People in countries with strong labor laws are happier, healthier and more productive.
I can share with you the quality of life indexes, that put the US much below most “Socialist” countries.
How about you stopped worrying about how much money the government “steals” from you and started worrying about making this country a better place for your kids to live in.
Ah, but whether we give a fuck or not is another matter. Labour is a commodity like any other. If companies can set up associations like the CBI to look after their interests, it should work both ways. In the local abbatoir, they get away with all kinds of deeply unpleasant shit like locking everybody in after the shift was over and fucking over the portugese arabs and poles. Trades unions exist for a reason. All right, they’ve had their bollocks bitten off by thatcher and they’re basically a bunch of workshy bastards who were passed over for promotion, but watch what happens if you remove them.