Interesting use of the word "liberal". Gun toting anti gay liberal? Do you mean "libertarian"?
One of the guys is mainly liberal in the dictionary sense of willing to support ideas other than your own. He supports gun use and hunts and would not support any discussion against that particular area.
The other guy is very anti-gay which is illiberal, he would consider other ideas that weren't his own, but actually thinking about it not as much as the gun guy.
Both, by American standards are liberal although I'm not sure either would use that adjective to describe themselves.
Interesting use of the word "liberal". Gun toting anti gay liberal? Do you mean "libertarian"?
One of the guys is mainly liberal in the dictionary sense of willing to support ideas other than your own. He supports gun use and hunts and would not support any discussion against that particular area.
The other guy is very anti-gay which is illiberal, he would consider other ideas that weren't his own, but actually thinking about it not as much as the gun guy.
Both, by American standards are liberal although I'm not sure either would use that adjective to describe themselves.
In many ways, this makes no sense. And yet I completely understand what you're saying and generally agree with your conclusion. Though I would say that the concept of being "anti-Gay," or anti-gay marriage pretty much removes you from any liberal title, which was certainly not the case a decade, or less, ago.
Welfare is supposed to be a "safety net", not a "lifestyle", which it has become.
For some maybe but not for many. It is a lifeline for many. The mentally ill for example. And, there are many different forms of mental illness and who are we to judge.
Gone are the days of "come on, pull yourself together and get on with it". We've moved forward from that.
Welfare is supposed to be a "safety net", not a "lifestyle", which it has become.
For some maybe but not for many. It is a lifeline for many. The mentally ill for example. And, there are many different forms of mental illness and who are we to judge.
Gone are the days of "come on, pull yourself together and get on with it". We've moved forward from that.
I don't want to dive too deeply into this, as I don't think I can change Limey's mind and having a social safety net is something that is important to me and demonized in this country.
I'll say this, the notion that welfare "is a lifestyle choice" is not new. It's something very common in England and in America. When I was at uni in Norwich, I remember seeing "Report Benefits Fraud" posters on all the buses and around town. I always wondered what the ROI on said campaigns was.
I'd add on to what Rob says by saying that a lot of people who receive benefits or assistance of some kind have jobs (see study from my alma mater). What you see in this study is not that we're subsidizing the unemployed, but rather the underemployed, particularly those who work jobs without a living wage.
The largest example of this in America is the largest employer in America, Walmart. Walmart employees, on average, make roughly $10/hour. Whilst their claim that most of their employees earn above the minimum wage is true, that's an indictment of how outdated our minimum wage laws are. According to the study below (which uses crude math because actual figures are hard to come by), Walmart employees make up $13b of the $76b spent on SNAP, or "Food Stamps." And that is only one social welfare program. So what we as a society end up doing is subsidizing the large profits of large companies (including many fast food chains) who do not pay their workers properly, or provide health benefits (which the Government then pays for as well). Despite the recession, many of America's ten largest employers' stock has continued to rise, as have their profits.
It looks more and more like its going to be a brokered Republican Convention in Cleveland where they will be beating the Shit out of each other, The Donald will get mad and go by himself splitting the Republican vote leaving the Hildabeast to Win in a landslide.
I read this today which I thought explains the Trump phenomenon very well:
ROBERT GOTTLIEBSEN: COULD THERE BE AN AUSTRALIAN DONALD TRUMP?
One of Australia's smartest business columnists takes note at the rising rage of the middle class and asks who is waiting in the wings? Where will this take our nation?
Note: this is not an endorsement of Trump. This is an examination of the rising rage in both America and Australia at where the political elites have taken our nations. And that concerns all of us.
Could there be an Australian Donald Trump?
Business Spectator| March 3, 2016 7:17AM|
Robert GottliebsenI Business Spectator columnist Melbourne
|Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is resonating with disaffected middle class voters and that strategy could also work in Australia. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
Don’t be shocked by the fact that Donald Trump is now the front runner for the Republican nomination for President of the United States of America.
Instead, understand the forces that have led to his rise and be aware that those same forces are building up here in Australia. In a few years, those forces could well cause either of our major political parties to take a radical turn away from the conventional approach to government.
The business community needs to understand that many of the basic assumptions now being embraced, such as globalisation, free-trade agreements, migration and bad behaviour on sharemarkets (start with shorting and legal insider trading), are now being challenged.
The main force driving support for Trump is that the US middle class is being hollowed out and salaries are not rising. Even worse many are losing their jobs and are being forced to take a salary cut to earn an income. And if the middle class is struggling, it makes it even tougher for low-income people.
At the same time, the whole population is watching appalling behaviour on Wall Street and believes that technology, globalisation and free-trade agreements are pushing the profit share of the US economy higher and higher. If you let that happen in a democracy, then expect a voter backlash. In the US it was simply a question of when and whether the backlash would come from the right or the left.
I have always believed that unless the current US hollowing out of the middle class was addressed, the voter backlash would radically change the presidency in either 2020 or 2024 and could usher in an era of US isolationism.
That still might be right, but we are watching Donald Trump brilliantly handle these issues blaming free trade and migration for destroying the American dream. Trump promises to make America great again.
Remember we are talking politics not whether Trump is right or wrong, so saying Trump is wrong or can’t achieve his goals is irrelevant. This is a sales pitch.
Just as importantly, Trump has isolated another force that may be just as powerful around the world — ordinary people both in the US, Australia and many other places are sick and tired of the political correctness that has infiltrated so many of government bodies and the media. When incomes and jobs were booming it was tolerated. Trump is probably the most ‘politically incorrect’ political aspirant the world has seen since Ronald Reagan.
He has therefore become a folk hero among a lot of people. That does not mean he will win. The Democrats’ Hillary Clinton is a conventional candidate and she is hot favourite to secure the presidency. However, she is already being drawn to the Trump line on issues like the abuses on Wall Street.
Fascinatingly, the Democrats number two candidate, like Trump, has pitched his campaign to appeal to those in the American middle and lower income levels who are being hit.
But whereas Trump’s remedies come from the right, Bernie Sanders remedies come from the hard left.
In the UK, the Labour Party is being led by the hard left, while in Germany the opposition against migration is coming from the hard right. These events are a perfectly predictable response to what is happening in those communities.
In Australia, both our major parties pursue conventional policies and are united on the refugee issue, although there are internal differences within both parties.
But if by 2019 there is still an Australian income recession and the free-trade agreements have not delivered benefits to the middle- and lower-income levels, then the party that loses the 2016 election might well embrace radical polices, either to the left or right. And the Greens have an eye to the gap.
The problem for the US, Australia and all developed countries is that technology is going to replace vast swathes of middle class jobs. Much of Australia’s posterity has come from migration but if we see the current income recession drag on, then Trump- or Sanders-type policies will become popular.
The Business Council is trying to get the government to lower company tax — an incredibly dangerous political move given the income recession and the fact that Australian corporate tax rates after franking credits are not way out of line. What would have been far more sensible for the Business Council in the current environment would have been to advocate allowing companies to start new ventures that are taxed at a lower rate but not to have the benefits of franking credits for the profits of those ventures.
And we are seeing private health premiums rise, which hits the middle class, because governments are simply lazy or incompetent and will not tackle the duplication and waste in the system. The rise of Trump is an alert to everyone
I read this today which I thought explains the Trump phenomenon very well:
ROBERT GOTTLIEBSEN: COULD THERE BE AN AUSTRALIAN DONALD TRUMP?
One of Australia's smartest business columnists takes note at the rising rage of the middle class and asks who is waiting in the wings? Where will this take our nation?
Note: this is not an endorsement of Trump. This is an examination of the rising rage in both America and Australia at where the political elites have taken our nations. And that concerns all of us.
Could there be an Australian Donald Trump?
Business Spectator| March 3, 2016 7:17AM|
Robert GottliebsenI Business Spectator columnist Melbourne
|Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is resonating with disaffected middle class voters and that strategy could also work in Australia. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
Don’t be shocked by the fact that Donald Trump is now the front runner for the Republican nomination for President of the United States of America.
Instead, understand the forces that have led to his rise and be aware that those same forces are building up here in Australia. In a few years, those forces could well cause either of our major political parties to take a radical turn away from the conventional approach to government.
The business community needs to understand that many of the basic assumptions now being embraced, such as globalisation, free-trade agreements, migration and bad behaviour on sharemarkets (start with shorting and legal insider trading), are now being challenged.
The main force driving support for Trump is that the US middle class is being hollowed out and salaries are not rising. Even worse many are losing their jobs and are being forced to take a salary cut to earn an income. And if the middle class is struggling, it makes it even tougher for low-income people.
At the same time, the whole population is watching appalling behaviour on Wall Street and believes that technology, globalisation and free-trade agreements are pushing the profit share of the US economy higher and higher. If you let that happen in a democracy, then expect a voter backlash. In the US it was simply a question of when and whether the backlash would come from the right or the left.
I have always believed that unless the current US hollowing out of the middle class was addressed, the voter backlash would radically change the presidency in either 2020 or 2024 and could usher in an era of US isolationism.
That still might be right, but we are watching Donald Trump brilliantly handle these issues blaming free trade and migration for destroying the American dream. Trump promises to make America great again.
Remember we are talking politics not whether Trump is right or wrong, so saying Trump is wrong or can’t achieve his goals is irrelevant. This is a sales pitch.
Just as importantly, Trump has isolated another force that may be just as powerful around the world — ordinary people both in the US, Australia and many other places are sick and tired of the political correctness that has infiltrated so many of government bodies and the media. When incomes and jobs were booming it was tolerated. Trump is probably the most ‘politically incorrect’ political aspirant the world has seen since Ronald Reagan.
He has therefore become a folk hero among a lot of people. That does not mean he will win. The Democrats’ Hillary Clinton is a conventional candidate and she is hot favourite to secure the presidency. However, she is already being drawn to the Trump line on issues like the abuses on Wall Street.
Fascinatingly, the Democrats number two candidate, like Trump, has pitched his campaign to appeal to those in the American middle and lower income levels who are being hit.
But whereas Trump’s remedies come from the right, Bernie Sanders remedies come from the hard left.
In the UK, the Labour Party is being led by the hard left, while in Germany the opposition against migration is coming from the hard right. These events are a perfectly predictable response to what is happening in those communities.
In Australia, both our major parties pursue conventional policies and are united on the refugee issue, although there are internal differences within both parties.
But if by 2019 there is still an Australian income recession and the free-trade agreements have not delivered benefits to the middle- and lower-income levels, then the party that loses the 2016 election might well embrace radical polices, either to the left or right. And the Greens have an eye to the gap.
The problem for the US, Australia and all developed countries is that technology is going to replace vast swathes of middle class jobs. Much of Australia’s posterity has come from migration but if we see the current income recession drag on, then Trump- or Sanders-type policies will become popular.
The Business Council is trying to get the government to lower company tax — an incredibly dangerous political move given the income recession and the fact that Australian corporate tax rates after franking credits are not way out of line. What would have been far more sensible for the Business Council in the current environment would have been to advocate allowing companies to start new ventures that are taxed at a lower rate but not to have the benefits of franking credits for the profits of those ventures.
And we are seeing private health premiums rise, which hits the middle class, because governments are simply lazy or incompetent and will not tackle the duplication and waste in the system. The rise of Trump is an alert to everyone
Welfare is supposed to be a "safety net", not a "lifestyle", which it has become.
For some maybe but not for many. It is a lifeline for many. The mentally ill for example. And, there are many different forms of mental illness and who are we to judge.
Gone are the days of "come on, pull yourself together and get on with it". We've moved forward from that.
I don't want to dive too deeply into this, as I don't think I can change Limey's mind and having a social safety net is something that is important to me and demonized in this country.
I'll say this, the notion that welfare "is a lifestyle choice" is not new. It's something very common in England and in America. When I was at uni in Norwich, I remember seeing "Report Benefits Fraud" posters on all the buses and around town. I always wondered what the ROI on said campaigns was.
I'd add on to what Rob says by saying that a lot of people who receive benefits or assistance of some kind have jobs (see study from my alma mater). What you see in this study is not that we're subsidizing the unemployed, but rather the underemployed, particularly those who work jobs without a living wage.
The largest example of this in America is the largest employer in America, Walmart. Walmart employees, on average, make roughly $10/hour. Whilst their claim that most of their employees earn above the minimum wage is true, that's an indictment of how outdated our minimum wage laws are. According to the study below (which uses crude math because actual figures are hard to come by), Walmart employees make up $13b of the $76b spent on SNAP, or "Food Stamps." And that is only one social welfare program. So what we as a society end up doing is subsidizing the large profits of large companies (including many fast food chains) who do not pay their workers properly, or provide health benefits (which the Government then pays for as well). Despite the recession, many of America's ten largest employers' stock has continued to rise, as have their profits.
"Lifestyle choice" is often no choice at all. So, and I choose this place almost at random but also because I know it. Cambeltown on Kintyre. Some (very nice) whisky production not much else. A very depressing place. The only choice, really for females in the town is to get pregnant. They then have a chance of getting a home of some description and, of course, getting benefits including child benefit. What they have no chance of getting is a job unless they move elsewhere and while that would be an option for some it doesn't seem as if it is for them. Really the benefit money (and I include the child benefit money paid to those who dont really need it and my winter fuel allowance) would be better spent being channelled into employment opportunities for them. But, so, so difficult to achieve something like that. Last time I was there, the benefit fraud investigators were also in town and staying in the hotel I was using. Apparently it's common for the young single mothers to have a bloke living with them but not declared. Like shooting fish in a barrel was how one investigator described it to me.
I read this today which I thought explains the Trump phenomenon very well:
ROBERT GOTTLIEBSEN: COULD THERE BE AN AUSTRALIAN DONALD TRUMP?
One of Australia's smartest business columnists takes note at the rising rage of the middle class and asks who is waiting in the wings? Where will this take our nation?
Note: this is not an endorsement of Trump. This is an examination of the rising rage in both America and Australia at where the political elites have taken our nations. And that concerns all of us.
Could there be an Australian Donald Trump?
Business Spectator| March 3, 2016 7:17AM|
Robert GottliebsenI Business Spectator columnist Melbourne
|Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is resonating with disaffected middle class voters and that strategy could also work in Australia. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
Don’t be shocked by the fact that Donald Trump is now the front runner for the Republican nomination for President of the United States of America.
Instead, understand the forces that have led to his rise and be aware that those same forces are building up here in Australia. In a few years, those forces could well cause either of our major political parties to take a radical turn away from the conventional approach to government.
The business community needs to understand that many of the basic assumptions now being embraced, such as globalisation, free-trade agreements, migration and bad behaviour on sharemarkets (start with shorting and legal insider trading), are now being challenged.
The main force driving support for Trump is that the US middle class is being hollowed out and salaries are not rising. Even worse many are losing their jobs and are being forced to take a salary cut to earn an income. And if the middle class is struggling, it makes it even tougher for low-income people.
At the same time, the whole population is watching appalling behaviour on Wall Street and believes that technology, globalisation and free-trade agreements are pushing the profit share of the US economy higher and higher. If you let that happen in a democracy, then expect a voter backlash. In the US it was simply a question of when and whether the backlash would come from the right or the left.
I have always believed that unless the current US hollowing out of the middle class was addressed, the voter backlash would radically change the presidency in either 2020 or 2024 and could usher in an era of US isolationism.
That still might be right, but we are watching Donald Trump brilliantly handle these issues blaming free trade and migration for destroying the American dream. Trump promises to make America great again.
Remember we are talking politics not whether Trump is right or wrong, so saying Trump is wrong or can’t achieve his goals is irrelevant. This is a sales pitch.
Just as importantly, Trump has isolated another force that may be just as powerful around the world — ordinary people both in the US, Australia and many other places are sick and tired of the political correctness that has infiltrated so many of government bodies and the media. When incomes and jobs were booming it was tolerated. Trump is probably the most ‘politically incorrect’ political aspirant the world has seen since Ronald Reagan.
He has therefore become a folk hero among a lot of people. That does not mean he will win. The Democrats’ Hillary Clinton is a conventional candidate and she is hot favourite to secure the presidency. However, she is already being drawn to the Trump line on issues like the abuses on Wall Street.
Fascinatingly, the Democrats number two candidate, like Trump, has pitched his campaign to appeal to those in the American middle and lower income levels who are being hit.
But whereas Trump’s remedies come from the right, Bernie Sanders remedies come from the hard left.
In the UK, the Labour Party is being led by the hard left, while in Germany the opposition against migration is coming from the hard right. These events are a perfectly predictable response to what is happening in those communities.
In Australia, both our major parties pursue conventional policies and are united on the refugee issue, although there are internal differences within both parties.
But if by 2019 there is still an Australian income recession and the free-trade agreements have not delivered benefits to the middle- and lower-income levels, then the party that loses the 2016 election might well embrace radical polices, either to the left or right. And the Greens have an eye to the gap.
The problem for the US, Australia and all developed countries is that technology is going to replace vast swathes of middle class jobs. Much of Australia’s posterity has come from migration but if we see the current income recession drag on, then Trump- or Sanders-type policies will become popular.
The Business Council is trying to get the government to lower company tax — an incredibly dangerous political move given the income recession and the fact that Australian corporate tax rates after franking credits are not way out of line. What would have been far more sensible for the Business Council in the current environment would have been to advocate allowing companies to start new ventures that are taxed at a lower rate but not to have the benefits of franking credits for the profits of those ventures.
And we are seeing private health premiums rise, which hits the middle class, because governments are simply lazy or incompetent and will not tackle the duplication and waste in the system. The rise of Trump is an alert to everyone
If Tony Abbott got in, anything is possible
Just a pity Europe can't solve it's migrant crisis as quickly and effectively as Tony did for Australia. A pity also for the hundreds of refugees drowning at sea off Greece. What's so unusual about a country voting in a conservative Prime Minister anyway?
I read this today which I thought explains the Trump phenomenon very well:
ROBERT GOTTLIEBSEN: COULD THERE BE AN AUSTRALIAN DONALD TRUMP?
One of Australia's smartest business columnists takes note at the rising rage of the middle class and asks who is waiting in the wings? Where will this take our nation?
Note: this is not an endorsement of Trump. This is an examination of the rising rage in both America and Australia at where the political elites have taken our nations. And that concerns all of us.
Could there be an Australian Donald Trump?
Business Spectator| March 3, 2016 7:17AM|
Robert GottliebsenI Business Spectator columnist Melbourne
|Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is resonating with disaffected middle class voters and that strategy could also work in Australia. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
Don’t be shocked by the fact that Donald Trump is now the front runner for the Republican nomination for President of the United States of America.
Instead, understand the forces that have led to his rise and be aware that those same forces are building up here in Australia. In a few years, those forces could well cause either of our major political parties to take a radical turn away from the conventional approach to government.
The business community needs to understand that many of the basic assumptions now being embraced, such as globalisation, free-trade agreements, migration and bad behaviour on sharemarkets (start with shorting and legal insider trading), are now being challenged.
The main force driving support for Trump is that the US middle class is being hollowed out and salaries are not rising. Even worse many are losing their jobs and are being forced to take a salary cut to earn an income. And if the middle class is struggling, it makes it even tougher for low-income people.
At the same time, the whole population is watching appalling behaviour on Wall Street and believes that technology, globalisation and free-trade agreements are pushing the profit share of the US economy higher and higher. If you let that happen in a democracy, then expect a voter backlash. In the US it was simply a question of when and whether the backlash would come from the right or the left.
I have always believed that unless the current US hollowing out of the middle class was addressed, the voter backlash would radically change the presidency in either 2020 or 2024 and could usher in an era of US isolationism.
That still might be right, but we are watching Donald Trump brilliantly handle these issues blaming free trade and migration for destroying the American dream. Trump promises to make America great again.
Remember we are talking politics not whether Trump is right or wrong, so saying Trump is wrong or can’t achieve his goals is irrelevant. This is a sales pitch.
Just as importantly, Trump has isolated another force that may be just as powerful around the world — ordinary people both in the US, Australia and many other places are sick and tired of the political correctness that has infiltrated so many of government bodies and the media. When incomes and jobs were booming it was tolerated. Trump is probably the most ‘politically incorrect’ political aspirant the world has seen since Ronald Reagan.
He has therefore become a folk hero among a lot of people. That does not mean he will win. The Democrats’ Hillary Clinton is a conventional candidate and she is hot favourite to secure the presidency. However, she is already being drawn to the Trump line on issues like the abuses on Wall Street.
Fascinatingly, the Democrats number two candidate, like Trump, has pitched his campaign to appeal to those in the American middle and lower income levels who are being hit.
But whereas Trump’s remedies come from the right, Bernie Sanders remedies come from the hard left.
In the UK, the Labour Party is being led by the hard left, while in Germany the opposition against migration is coming from the hard right. These events are a perfectly predictable response to what is happening in those communities.
In Australia, both our major parties pursue conventional policies and are united on the refugee issue, although there are internal differences within both parties.
But if by 2019 there is still an Australian income recession and the free-trade agreements have not delivered benefits to the middle- and lower-income levels, then the party that loses the 2016 election might well embrace radical polices, either to the left or right. And the Greens have an eye to the gap.
The problem for the US, Australia and all developed countries is that technology is going to replace vast swathes of middle class jobs. Much of Australia’s posterity has come from migration but if we see the current income recession drag on, then Trump- or Sanders-type policies will become popular.
The Business Council is trying to get the government to lower company tax — an incredibly dangerous political move given the income recession and the fact that Australian corporate tax rates after franking credits are not way out of line. What would have been far more sensible for the Business Council in the current environment would have been to advocate allowing companies to start new ventures that are taxed at a lower rate but not to have the benefits of franking credits for the profits of those ventures.
And we are seeing private health premiums rise, which hits the middle class, because governments are simply lazy or incompetent and will not tackle the duplication and waste in the system. The rise of Trump is an alert to everyone
If Tony Abbott got in, anything is possible
Just a pity Europe can't solve it's migrant crisis as quickly and effectively as Tony did for Australia. A pity also for the hundreds of refugees drowning at sea off Greece. What's so unusual about a country voting in a conservative Prime Minister anyway?
Tony Abbott was the shortest serving Prime Minister in modern Australian history, barely serving two years in the job before his own colleagues turfed him out for being utterly incompetent and about as popular with the public as Jimmy Savile on the night shift at the Barnardo's children's home.
After a pathetic exit speech in which he promised not to undermine his successor he is now leaking classified documents, briefing journalists against the new government and trying to block any legislative reform whatsoever as he seeks revenge against his colleagues for his ousting.
I have no problem with the welfare safety net for those who really need it. I have a personal aquaintance who receives 32K a year in benefits before she lifts a finger. She has a part time job in the afternoons at a fast food restaurant, drives a luxury car, wears designer clothes and declares that she "couldn't possibly date someone who only drives a Ford". Certainly she is an exception, but the system that supports/allows this is wrong, and needs to be fixed. I am also troubled by the constant criticism of retailers who pay minimum wage. Surely working for minimum wage is as much of a lifestyle choice as is living on welfare? If a minimum wage employee who stocks the shelves at the grocery store is the best shelf stocker the store ever had, the employee would not be working for minimum wage for very long? If I had a job opening in my business that I thought was only worth minimum wage, that's what I would offer. Attitude and motivation are the main limiting factors in most peoples lives, and always have been. Personally, I am tired of having my hard-earned money taken to subsidise those too lazy to support themselves.
I have no problem with the welfare safety net for those who really need it. I have a personal aquaintance who receives 32K a year in benefits before she lifts a finger. She has a part time job in the afternoons at a fast food restaurant, drives a luxury car, wears designer clothes and declares that she "couldn't possibly date someone who only drives a Ford". Certainly she is an exception, but the system that supports/allows this is wrong, and needs to be fixed. I am also troubled by the constant criticism of retailers who pay minimum wage. Surely working for minimum wage is as much of a lifestyle choice as is living on welfare? If a minimum wage employee who stocks the shelves at the grocery store is the best shelf stocker the store ever had, the employee would not be working for minimum wage for very long? If I had a job opening in my business that I thought was only worth minimum wage, that's what I would offer. Attitude and motivation are the main limiting factors in most peoples lives, and always have been. Personally, I am tired of having my hard-earned money taken to subsidise those too lazy to support themselves.
But all of these minimum wage jobs need doing, not everyone has the skills to do other jobs, or have personal circumstances that prevent it (caring responsibilities for example). It isn't all down to work ethic. I've worked in several places where they pay minimum wage, including factory, food processing plants... I'm sure the people there would love to be lawyers and doctors, but not everyone gets those grades. They all worked hard though, and were proud of their jobs. So tell me why shouldn't they afford to be able to live off their full day's work? Of course, we could just bring in loads of migrant workers, fill them ten to a bedroom and pay them even less. But then that might cause a few problems as well.
The physically and mentally fit are the ones who can improve their own circumstances. Why should I, and others like me, subsidize them in ever-increasing amounts? So many people come to the U.S. from other countries and prove over and over that hard workers don't need to be supported by others. There is a shortage of skilled workers in the U.S., welders, plumbers, AC techs etc., etc., all jobs they pay above the average income. People don't have to change their home town in order to gain these skills, they just need to want to.
The physically and mentally fit are the ones who can improve their own circumstances. Why should I, and others like me, subsidize them in ever-increasing amounts? So many people come to the U.S. from other countries and prove over and over that hard workers don't need to be supported by others. There is a shortage of skilled workers in the U.S., welders, plumbers, AC techs etc., etc., all jobs they pay above the average income. People don't have to change their home town in order to gain these skills, they just need to want to.
I'm tired of subsidising people who work... They should get paid a living wage. I'd sooner subsidise this through inflated prices than through tax. Even if everyone became a skilled worker, the unskilled jobs would still have to be done.
I have no problem with the welfare safety net for those who really need it. I have a personal aquaintance who receives 32K a year in benefits before she lifts a finger. She has a part time job in the afternoons at a fast food restaurant, drives a luxury car, wears designer clothes and declares that she "couldn't possibly date someone who only drives a Ford". Certainly she is an exception, but the system that supports/allows this is wrong, and needs to be fixed. I am also troubled by the constant criticism of retailers who pay minimum wage. Surely working for minimum wage is as much of a lifestyle choice as is living on welfare? If a minimum wage employee who stocks the shelves at the grocery store is the best shelf stocker the store ever had, the employee would not be working for minimum wage for very long? If I had a job opening in my business that I thought was only worth minimum wage, that's what I would offer. Attitude and motivation are the main limiting factors in most peoples lives, and always have been. Personally, I am tired of having my hard-earned money taken to subsidise those too lazy to support themselves.
How would you feel about removal of all benefits and a universal basic income instead?
Tony Abbott was the shortest serving Prime Minister in modern Australian history, barely serving two years in the job before his own colleagues turfed him out for being utterly incompetent and about as popular with the public as Jimmy Savile on the night shift at the Barnardo's children's home.
After a pathetic exit speech in which he promised not to undermine his successor he is now leaking classified documents, briefing journalists against the new government and trying to block any legislative reform whatsoever as he seeks revenge against his colleagues for his ousting.
An utter embarrassment to his party and country.
QA said:
Not as big an embarrassment as the fraudster Gillard or narcissist Rudd who left the country with 3/4 of a trillion in debt and and interest bill of 1 billion every month having been handed a healthy surplus of 37billion by Howard and Costello. Not to mention the 700 odd illegal boat arrivals, 1200 people drowned at sea, and 50 odd thousand illegal arrivals that they let into the country. Abbott was destroyed by the ABC and the leftist media in favour of their lefty lovie Turdball who has since done sweet bugger all, something that the party and the electorate are now waking up to, hence his polling is collapsing. Abbott tried to do exactly what he was elected to do in a landslide election win, namely, stop the boats, repeal the carbon/mining taxes and cut the debt. He did the first three, but the feral senate prevented him from addressing the debt problem. He achieved far more in his short rein than Turdball is ever likely to. The journo Greg Sheridan has categorically denied that the leak came from Abbott. Anyway the Libs have nothing on Labor when it comes to leaking and stabbing their leaders in the back, following the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd pantomime. What an embarrassment that period was for our country after years of stability and sound economic management under Howard that made Australia the envy of the world. Anyway this thread is not supposed to be about Abbott, it's about Trump, that other hate figure of the rabid left.
I have no problem with the welfare safety net for those who really need it. I have a personal aquaintance who receives 32K a year in benefits before she lifts a finger. She has a part time job in the afternoons at a fast food restaurant, drives a luxury car, wears designer clothes and declares that she "couldn't possibly date someone who only drives a Ford". Certainly she is an exception, but the system that supports/allows this is wrong, and needs to be fixed. I am also troubled by the constant criticism of retailers who pay minimum wage. Surely working for minimum wage is as much of a lifestyle choice as is living on welfare? If a minimum wage employee who stocks the shelves at the grocery store is the best shelf stocker the store ever had, the employee would not be working for minimum wage for very long? If I had a job opening in my business that I thought was only worth minimum wage, that's what I would offer. Attitude and motivation are the main limiting factors in most peoples lives, and always have been. Personally, I am tired of having my hard-earned money taken to subsidise those too lazy to support themselves.
How would you feel about removal of all benefits and a universal basic income instead?
That wouldn't work would it. Might as well have stayed in Ashford.
I have no problem with the welfare safety net for those who really need it. I have a personal aquaintance who receives 32K a year in benefits before she lifts a finger. She has a part time job in the afternoons at a fast food restaurant, drives a luxury car, wears designer clothes and declares that she "couldn't possibly date someone who only drives a Ford". Certainly she is an exception, but the system that supports/allows this is wrong, and needs to be fixed. I am also troubled by the constant criticism of retailers who pay minimum wage. Surely working for minimum wage is as much of a lifestyle choice as is living on welfare? If a minimum wage employee who stocks the shelves at the grocery store is the best shelf stocker the store ever had, the employee would not be working for minimum wage for very long? If I had a job opening in my business that I thought was only worth minimum wage, that's what I would offer. Attitude and motivation are the main limiting factors in most peoples lives, and always have been. Personally, I am tired of having my hard-earned money taken to subsidise those too lazy to support themselves.
How would you feel about removal of all benefits and a universal basic income instead?
That wouldn't work would it.
How so? It would be far cheaper to administer than the current benefits system, everyone has a basic income. Those that work hard get to keep more and those who don't will presumably actually get a smaller income than they currently do on benefits. It also keeps things like the rental market etc in check.
I'm probably more right leaning in the centre and the more time goes on the more appealing I think universal basic income is.
I have no problem with the welfare safety net for those who really need it. I have a personal aquaintance who receives 32K a year in benefits before she lifts a finger. She has a part time job in the afternoons at a fast food restaurant, drives a luxury car, wears designer clothes and declares that she "couldn't possibly date someone who only drives a Ford". Certainly she is an exception, but the system that supports/allows this is wrong, and needs to be fixed. I am also troubled by the constant criticism of retailers who pay minimum wage. Surely working for minimum wage is as much of a lifestyle choice as is living on welfare? If a minimum wage employee who stocks the shelves at the grocery store is the best shelf stocker the store ever had, the employee would not be working for minimum wage for very long? If I had a job opening in my business that I thought was only worth minimum wage, that's what I would offer. Attitude and motivation are the main limiting factors in most peoples lives, and always have been. Personally, I am tired of having my hard-earned money taken to subsidise those too lazy to support themselves.
How would you feel about removal of all benefits and a universal basic income instead?
That wouldn't work would it.
How so? It would be far cheaper to administer than the current benefits system, everyone has a basic income. Those that work hard get to keep more and those who don't will presumably actually get a smaller income than they currently do on benefits. It also keeps things like the rental market etc in check.
I'm probably more right leaning in the centre and the more time goes on the more appealing I think universal basic income is.
Simply cutting benefits doesn't work. You have 3 choices:
1)Pay more taxes to provide benefits to support those at the lower income levels 2)Pay more for goods and services to allow companies to pay a living wage (thus saving benefits) 3)Pay more taxes to pay for more police and prisons as you create more criminals as it becomes more difficult to live properly by legal means.
I'll help you out, option 2 is the cheapest, but require companies to make smaller profits for the good of society, and the citizens to have the foresight that paying a little extra at Walmart to save taxes is a good deal.
Option 1 is the next cheapest.
Option 3 is by far the most expensive, but what most right wing voters seems to want (i.e. tough on crime and tax/benefit cuts)
I have no problem with the welfare safety net for those who really need it. I have a personal aquaintance who receives 32K a year in benefits before she lifts a finger. She has a part time job in the afternoons at a fast food restaurant, drives a luxury car, wears designer clothes and declares that she "couldn't possibly date someone who only drives a Ford". Certainly she is an exception, but the system that supports/allows this is wrong, and needs to be fixed. I am also troubled by the constant criticism of retailers who pay minimum wage. Surely working for minimum wage is as much of a lifestyle choice as is living on welfare? If a minimum wage employee who stocks the shelves at the grocery store is the best shelf stocker the store ever had, the employee would not be working for minimum wage for very long? If I had a job opening in my business that I thought was only worth minimum wage, that's what I would offer. Attitude and motivation are the main limiting factors in most peoples lives, and always have been. Personally, I am tired of having my hard-earned money taken to subsidise those too lazy to support themselves.
How would you feel about removal of all benefits and a universal basic income instead?
That wouldn't work would it.
How so? It would be far cheaper to administer than the current benefits system, everyone has a basic income. Those that work hard get to keep more and those who don't will presumably actually get a smaller income than they currently do on benefits. It also keeps things like the rental market etc in check.
I'm probably more right leaning in the centre and the more time goes on the more appealing I think universal basic income is.
Comments
Also, who is the bigger cnut in that conversation is also up for grabs. Both absolutely despicable human beings.
The other guy is very anti-gay which is illiberal, he would consider other ideas that weren't his own, but actually thinking about it not as much as the gun guy.
Both, by American standards are liberal although I'm not sure either would use that adjective to describe themselves.
Gone are the days of "come on, pull yourself together and get on with it". We've moved forward from that.
I'll say this, the notion that welfare "is a lifestyle choice" is not new. It's something very common in England and in America. When I was at uni in Norwich, I remember seeing "Report Benefits Fraud" posters on all the buses and around town. I always wondered what the ROI on said campaigns was.
I'd add on to what Rob says by saying that a lot of people who receive benefits or assistance of some kind have jobs (see study from my alma mater). What you see in this study is not that we're subsidizing the unemployed, but rather the underemployed, particularly those who work jobs without a living wage.
http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/the-high-public-cost-of-low-wages/
The largest example of this in America is the largest employer in America, Walmart. Walmart employees, on average, make roughly $10/hour. Whilst their claim that most of their employees earn above the minimum wage is true, that's an indictment of how outdated our minimum wage laws are. According to the study below (which uses crude math because actual figures are hard to come by), Walmart employees make up $13b of the $76b spent on SNAP, or "Food Stamps." And that is only one social welfare program. So what we as a society end up doing is subsidizing the large profits of large companies (including many fast food chains) who do not pay their workers properly, or provide health benefits (which the Government then pays for as well). Despite the recession, many of America's ten largest employers' stock has continued to rise, as have their profits.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#381a0b717cd8
Top ten American employers (with 2013/14 comparative stock prices)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/08/22/ten-largest-employers/2680249/
ROBERT GOTTLIEBSEN: COULD THERE BE AN AUSTRALIAN DONALD TRUMP?
One of Australia's smartest business columnists takes note at the rising rage of the middle class and asks who is waiting in the wings? Where will this take our nation?
Note: this is not an endorsement of Trump. This is an examination of the rising rage in both America and Australia at where the political elites have taken our nations. And that concerns all of us.
Could there be an Australian Donald Trump?
Business Spectator|
March 3, 2016 7:17AM|
Robert GottliebsenI
Business Spectator columnist
Melbourne
|Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is resonating with disaffected middle class voters and that strategy could also work in Australia. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
Don’t be shocked by the fact that Donald Trump is now the front runner for the Republican nomination for President of the United States of America.
Instead, understand the forces that have led to his rise and be aware that those same forces are building up here in Australia. In a few years, those forces could well cause either of our major political parties to take a radical turn away from the conventional approach to government.
The business community needs to understand that many of the basic assumptions now being embraced, such as globalisation, free-trade agreements, migration and bad behaviour on sharemarkets (start with shorting and legal insider trading), are now being challenged.
The main force driving support for Trump is that the US middle class is being hollowed out and salaries are not rising. Even worse many are losing their jobs and are being forced to take a salary cut to earn an income. And if the middle class is struggling, it makes it even tougher for low-income people.
At the same time, the whole population is watching appalling behaviour on Wall Street and believes that technology, globalisation and free-trade agreements are pushing the profit share of the US economy higher and higher. If you let that happen in a democracy, then expect a voter backlash. In the US it was simply a question of when and whether the backlash would come from the right or the left.
I have always believed that unless the current US hollowing out of the middle class was addressed, the voter backlash would radically change the presidency in either 2020 or 2024 and could usher in an era of US isolationism.
That still might be right, but we are watching Donald Trump brilliantly handle these issues blaming free trade and migration for destroying the American dream. Trump promises to make America great again.
Remember we are talking politics not whether Trump is right or wrong, so saying Trump is wrong or can’t achieve his goals is irrelevant. This is a sales pitch.
Just as importantly, Trump has isolated another force that may be just as powerful around the world — ordinary people both in the US, Australia and many other places are sick and tired of the political correctness that has infiltrated so many of government bodies and the media. When incomes and jobs were booming it was tolerated. Trump is probably the most ‘politically incorrect’ political aspirant the world has seen since Ronald Reagan.
He has therefore become a folk hero among a lot of people. That does not mean he will win. The Democrats’ Hillary Clinton is a conventional candidate and she is hot favourite to secure the presidency. However, she is already being drawn to the Trump line on issues like the abuses on Wall Street.
Fascinatingly, the Democrats number two candidate, like Trump, has pitched his campaign to appeal to those in the American middle and lower income levels who are being hit.
But whereas Trump’s remedies come from the right, Bernie Sanders remedies come from the hard left.
In the UK, the Labour Party is being led by the hard left, while in Germany the opposition against migration is coming from the hard right. These events are a perfectly predictable response to what is happening in those communities.
In Australia, both our major parties pursue conventional policies and are united on the refugee issue, although there are internal differences within both parties.
But if by 2019 there is still an Australian income recession and the free-trade agreements have not delivered benefits to the middle- and lower-income levels, then the party that loses the 2016 election might well embrace radical polices, either to the left or right. And the Greens have an eye to the gap.
The problem for the US, Australia and all developed countries is that technology is going to replace vast swathes of middle class jobs. Much of Australia’s posterity has come from migration but if we see the current income recession drag on, then Trump- or Sanders-type policies will become popular.
The Business Council is trying to get the government to lower company tax — an incredibly dangerous political move given the income recession and the fact that Australian corporate tax rates after franking credits are not way out of line. What would have been far more sensible for the Business Council in the current environment would have been to advocate allowing companies to start new ventures that are taxed at a lower rate but not to have the benefits of franking credits for the profits of those ventures.
And we are seeing private health premiums rise, which hits the middle class, because governments are simply lazy or incompetent and will not tackle the duplication and waste in the system.
The rise of Trump is an alert to everyone
After a pathetic exit speech in which he promised not to undermine his successor he is now leaking classified documents, briefing journalists against the new government and trying to block any legislative reform whatsoever as he seeks revenge against his colleagues for his ousting.
An utter embarrassment to his party and country.
Certainly she is an exception, but the system that supports/allows this is wrong, and needs to be fixed.
I am also troubled by the constant criticism of retailers who pay minimum wage. Surely working for minimum wage is as much of a lifestyle choice as is living on welfare? If a minimum wage employee who stocks the shelves at the grocery store is the best shelf stocker the store ever had, the employee would not be working for minimum wage for very long? If I had a job opening in my business that I thought was only worth minimum wage, that's what I would offer. Attitude and motivation are the main limiting factors in most peoples lives, and always have been. Personally, I am tired of having my hard-earned money taken to subsidise those too lazy to support themselves.
Tony Abbott was the shortest serving Prime Minister in modern Australian history, barely serving two years in the job before his own colleagues turfed him out for being utterly incompetent and about as popular with the public as Jimmy Savile on the night shift at the Barnardo's children's home.
After a pathetic exit speech in which he promised not to undermine his successor he is now leaking classified documents, briefing journalists against the new government and trying to block any legislative reform whatsoever as he seeks revenge against his colleagues for his ousting.
An utter embarrassment to his party and country.
QA said:
Not as big an embarrassment as the fraudster Gillard or narcissist Rudd who left the country with 3/4 of a trillion in debt and and interest bill of 1 billion every month having been handed a healthy surplus of 37billion by Howard and Costello.
Not to mention the 700 odd illegal boat arrivals, 1200 people drowned at sea, and 50 odd thousand illegal arrivals that they let into the country.
Abbott was destroyed by the ABC and the leftist media in favour of their lefty lovie Turdball who has since done sweet bugger all, something that the party and the electorate are now waking up to, hence his polling is collapsing. Abbott tried to do exactly what he was elected to do in a landslide election win, namely, stop the boats, repeal the carbon/mining taxes and cut the debt. He did the first three, but the feral senate prevented him from addressing the debt problem. He achieved far more in his short rein than Turdball is ever likely to. The journo Greg Sheridan has categorically denied that the leak came from Abbott.
Anyway the Libs have nothing on Labor when it comes to leaking and stabbing their leaders in the back, following the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd pantomime. What an embarrassment that period was for our country after years of stability and sound economic management under Howard that made Australia the envy of the world. Anyway this thread is not supposed to be about Abbott, it's about Trump, that other hate figure of the rabid left.
I'm probably more right leaning in the centre and the more time goes on the more appealing I think universal basic income is.
1)Pay more taxes to provide benefits to support those at the lower income levels
2)Pay more for goods and services to allow companies to pay a living wage (thus saving benefits)
3)Pay more taxes to pay for more police and prisons as you create more criminals as it becomes more difficult to live properly by legal means.
I'll help you out, option 2 is the cheapest, but require companies to make smaller profits for the good of society, and the citizens to have the foresight that paying a little extra at Walmart to save taxes is a good deal.
Option 1 is the next cheapest.
Option 3 is by far the most expensive, but what most right wing voters seems to want (i.e. tough on crime and tax/benefit cuts)