Andylusion
Platinum Member
When you say "most other", that really is ambiguous. There are numerous 1st world countries that have big inner city problems. And many of those that don't, don't because they force out the lower-income or unskilled labor.
This is a shanty town, called a bidonville in France. There are hundreds of such shanty towns throughout France, sitting on the outskirts of the cities.
If I could find the BBC link, I'd post pictures of people living in abandoned buildings, taking showers only when enough rain water filled a disabled fountain in the road way.
The reason that the problems 'seem' larger here in the US, is because the leftists, and socialists, want them to be large, in order to justify a move to the left. Most of Europe is no where near a socialist system, but the fact is, many are dominated by the socialist parties. France and Spain are typically dominated politically by socialists.
Now if you are a socialist, and you put in place some policies, you want to minimize problems, to support the idea your socialist policies are working. In America, they try and maximize those problems, to justify the need for socialism.
But if you really boil it down, the poor and impoverished of those countries are not doing any better than the poor and impoverished of our own.... and often, our poor have a higher standard of living than theirs.
Our capitalist based higher education is leading the world right now. People come form all over the world to get higher education at our schools.
Our socialist based primary education, is terrible. We spend more money than any other country in the world, and our kids do worse than most of the rest of the 1st world.
As for skills, and what education students choose, I would suggest there are two reasons for this. First, we tell our kids they deserve X. When someone believes they 'deserve' something, they have no motivation to work for it. Why should I do the really hard work of an engineering degree, if "I deserve a livable wage", when I haven't done jack shit?
The second reason is that we have promoted student loans. A student loan, does not convey the cost and sacrifice required to get an education. If you had to work your butt off, to earn the money to get a degree, you'd make sure that degree had a pay off.
As it is, we have students making the brilliant choice to get a degree in Social Work, for $90,000, to get a job that pays $30K, to $35K tops.
No one would do that, if they were paying the bill. But since government is picking up the tab, and you don't have to work at all, you don't get the sense, and realization that you are paying $90K for a $30K job.
I agree with the first, and disagree with the last.
You are right, politics doesn't solve problems. Politics creates problems. If you just think about the fundamentals of politics, you should be able to grasp that in politicians want you to demand their services. The best way to get people to need government, is by created a problem. If you can figure out how to create a problem, that the public needs *YOU* to fix, then you have a election winning plan.
Just look at the average welfare / food stamp / gov-assistance user, 2/3rds of those who have used any government assistance, vote democrat. Wonder why? You think Democrats don't know this? It's not surprising to me that they want to increase more government giveaways.
That said, I don't see this ubiquitous claim that business demands favors from government. Where does that happen?
Let's say that I support lower taxes (which I do), and I support lower corporate taxes (which I do), and I support less regulation and more free-market (which I do). If I run for office, there are going to be a ton of business people that give me money, because I support policies that they also support.
Did they give me money because they expected a favor in return, or because they wanted to support me, because I believe in something they believe in?
See, when I look around, I don't see specific companies 'buying' stuff from government all that often. More often, it's government demanding protection money. Al Gore was not *BEING CALLED* in the Vice President's office.... Al Gore was *CALLING THEM* to demand they give him 'donations' or else.
See the difference? This is why many of the largest corporations give money to both parties, and both candidates. They are not looking for a favor. They just want to be left alone. Which I support that too. *I* want to be left alone. If I could pay both parties and both candidates a donation, to get their money grubbing hands out of my pocket book, I'd do it for sure.
The problem with that is, if we don't figure out what bad policies have led us to where we are, we'll end up doing them again. If we don't figure out that driving up the minimum wage, is what killed thousands of jobs in 2009, then we'll bump the minimum wage up to $10 or $15 now, and then mindlessly bicker about why even more people are unemployed all over again.
You have to learn from the mistakes of the past, or you'll just end up repeating them.
You know I used to think like that too. But I just finished reading John Adams, about the founding of this country, and honestly, it doesn't seem like much has changed at all. They were appointed friends and relatives in government positions, passing laws to benefit specific groups, in fighting, and bickering, and blaming each other for every problem.
It really hasn't changed that much since then. I think we still even to this day have the best possible system of governing, but I think what has changed is a fundamental view of right and wrong. We have taught for decades, that there is no absolute truth, and that right and wrong is relative.
Well..... if you don't believe in absolutes, and right and wrong is relative.... why do you expect those people with that world view to act like there is right and wrong, and absolute truth, when they get in government? "it depends on how you define 'is'"
They just want to live on that farm and hunt all fucking day long as this modern civilization shit is way to hard for them.
