England riots (in Debates)


ResistanZ August 10 2011 9:29 AM EDT

If for some reason you're not currently aware, many parts of England are currently experiencing or have experienced within the last few days very violent riots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots for the whole summary of it.

Basically though, it started when police used lethal force on a drug dealer who it turns out may not have been armed.

I am curious to what opinions you guys have on this, as there are conflicting views that the real reason for the riots is deep social injustice while others believe that this is merely opportunistic criminality.

Phrede August 10 2011 9:41 AM EDT

opportunistic criminality is what it is - there was no placards complaining about the "wrongful shooting" which it seems that it may have been. It was just an excuse for mindless thugs to do what they do best.

AdminG Beee August 10 2011 9:53 AM EDT

Police shot a known drug dealer who turns out may not have been armed. Cry me a river... It's not about the fact he may not have been armed, it's about the fact that he _may_ have been armed. He was known to carry weapons so I wouldn't expect a policeman to "wait and see" when arresting him.

Our whole nation (Britain) has turned into a bunch of namby pamby airy fairy spineless numpties. I sat and watched in horror as the complete cretins in our society committed acts of mindless violence whilst the police stood and impotently looked on.
The police should have been energised and engaged immediately. Plastic bullets, water cannon and whatever works to get the job done - zero tolerance.

Ultimately our police force are screwed whatever they do. After criticism (much of it legitimately made) of the over aggressive stance around the G8 summit it's no great surprise to see the kid gloves approach this time.

As for deep social injustice. Really? Do me a favour... That's politic speak...
We're spoiled to the nth degree and as soon as the hand outs stop and our rights to flat screen TV's, drinking, smoking and a Friday night out on the lash are impinged it's someone else's fault and the "social injustice" card is played.

Makes my blood boil...

QBRanger August 10 2011 9:58 AM EDT

Never knew Beee was a Republican. I agree with everything he wrote.

QBPit Spawn [Abyssal Specters] August 10 2011 10:11 AM EDT

Wouldn't he be a Tory then? ;)

ResistanZ August 10 2011 10:26 AM EDT

Cry me a river... It's not about the fact he may not have been armed, it's about the fact that he _may_ have been armed. He was known to carry weapons so I wouldn't expect a policeman to "wait and see" when arresting him.

While you may live in the UK and therefore have more specific information than I have access to, I don't see in any of the articles I've been reading that says he was known to carry weapons. In fact, a lot of the articles state specifically that his friends and family all knew him to be unarmed.

Also, while I do live in the US and not England, I imagine that our justice systems are enough alike that merely "possibly" having a weapon is not enough for an officer to open fire on a suspect. I do feel like the police dropped the ball on this one.

But going onto the topic of the riots themselves, I do think opportunism is the major factor in most of the riots. But that being said, I don't understand how easily you can blow off the idea that there are social injustices especially when there is inherent racial bias and the greatly expanding gap between the rich and the poor.

I quote from a particular Times article:
Racial tensions have fomented much of the anger that's being released, and that informs the deteriorating relationship between officers and the communities they police. In the past five years, the number of black and South Asian people stopped and searched by the police in the country has nearly doubled to 310,000.

AdminTitan August 10 2011 10:32 AM EDT

I don't see in any of the articles I've been reading that says he was known to carry weapons

Police shot a known drug dealer

known drug dealer

drug dealer

Rez, you and I both know that well known large time drug dealers are known to carry weapons. And if there was even a slight chance that they thought their lives (the cops) were in danger, I am 100% okay with them shooting him. Sometimes a second hesitation could cost a cop his life, and it's not something that he or she should have to worry about while in the line of duty.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] August 10 2011 10:36 AM EDT

It is not yet known why police were attempting to arrest Duggan, but the IPCC said that the planned arrest was part of Operation Trident, a unit which investigates gun crime in London. Operation Trident specialises in combating gun crime relating to the illegal drug trade.

that is from the wikipedia article linked in the original post.

AdminG Beee August 10 2011 10:44 AM EDT

I can easily blow of the social injustice aspect because I was in the middle of the Manchester 2008 riots and can assure you that mob mentality and riots have no logic other than a bunch of scumbags taking the opportunity to run amok and loot whatever they can get their greedy little hands on. Any excuse will do...

These riots of toady are no different. It's just very convenient to tag the reason with a sexy label such as "social injustice".

There's no excuse for people wrecking their own communities, making their neighbours unemployed and damning local businesses to further financial loss or at worst closure.

ResistanZ August 10 2011 10:48 AM EDT

If you think that's how it works you have a very unrealistic perception of the law enforcement system. Cops do not shoot first and ask questions later, or else the excuse you used would mean that almost all drug dealers are killed by the police.

This was a preplanned operation which I take to mean they spent at least a little time and money gathering info on this guy and there were multiple officers making the arrest, so there is no reason for him to be all like OH SNAP, BANG BANG then look around stupidly like Uh... whoops?

Trust me, I'm not hating on police officers at all, I'm trying to become one one day, but I'm saying this particular officer who killed him messed up. You're trying to put yourself in his shoes which is a mistake.

Yeah of course if you're a civilian and you might be in a dangerous situation you might use your gun, because you don't know any better. But we're talking about professionals who are specifically trained to handle these types of encounters.

QBPit Spawn [Abyssal Specters] August 10 2011 10:58 AM EDT

It's interesting then that you believe the cop messed up over the idea that the drug dealer pulled a gun. Have you seen/heard video/audio of what happened?

AdminTitan August 10 2011 10:59 AM EDT

This was a preplanned operation which I take to mean they spent at least a little time and money gathering info on this guy and there were multiple officers making the arrest, so there is no reason for him to be all like OH SNAP, BANG BANG then look around stupidly like Uh... whoops?

But, can you tell me for certain, that at some point during the arrest, the man didn't stick his hand in his pocket, or do something that might have made one of the police officers think even for a split second that he might of had a gun. Until you can say that the police officer perceived no threat at all, and just shot the guy, you're a long way from a Social Injustice. Unless you were there, and saw the guy just shot him in cold blood, there is no reason for you to draw conclusions. It's why stuff like this is usually handled by IA. The only real way to figure out if it was a cold blooded killing is to talk to the other cops. And even then, they might not have seen the same movement, or twitch, that the cop that shot him does.

As a final note, even if he just walked up to the guy, and shot him for no reason, that in no way gives people the right to have acted like they have. Two wrongs don't make a right.

QBRanger August 10 2011 11:04 AM EDT

I have a lot of friend who work for the police. Some are actual DEA agents.

They never, to a person, wish to shoot someone.

For numerous reasons but the first and foremost is the sancity of human life. These people are not looking to shoot someone for the thrill of it.

Yes, there are a few scattered bad cops out there. However, in any situation, I would give the police the benefit of any doubt when they have to use lethal force. How about letting an investigation proceed before rioting in the streets and demanding "social justice" and looting?

Here in America, the scumbags are given more rights than the police in some shootings. Therefore here the police are very hesitant to shoot someone.

I personally would believe the police's version of events far more than any scumbag criminal.

ResistanZ August 10 2011 11:08 AM EDT

I am not equating his shooting with social injustice. This thread is about 2 different things really, Mark Duggan's death which started the riot and the riots themselves.

Nor am I saying that his death would ever justify violence and looting. I am just trying to say that his death is an injustice (not a social one in any way). If you look at the police reports it says the officers fired back because they thought he shot at them and a bullet got lodged into a police radio. Turns out that bullet came from a police gun, and that he didn't open fire at all.

ResistanZ August 10 2011 11:10 AM EDT

Uh, just to clarify, the social injustice I was talking about is racism, not the killing of Duggan.

QBRanger August 10 2011 11:24 AM EDT

Racism is a word thrown around too frequently.

Hate Obama's policies-Racism

Want to balance the budget-Racism

etc...

This was not about Racism. This is about a bunch of scum seeing an opportunity to have fun, riot and loot.

Now about the shooting. I do not know the exact events of the evening in question. However, ANYTINE the police would ask me to stop and drop to the ground, I DO IT!

I do not run, I do not make any sudden moves, and I do not act threatening.

You even stated that the police THOUGHT he shot at them. In the heat of the situation, the police have to make split second decisions. I would rather them make one that saves their life opposed to the scumbag who does not simply stop and drop to the ground.

Seriously, would you rather the police sit there and do nothing if they think a suspect is firing a gun at them and wait till he actually kills a policeperson or 2? Really?

It may have been less than optimal judgement on the part of the police, but certainly nothing that sounds criminal. I would rather wait till we have a full investigation into the events before saying the police were wrong.

And certainly nothing to the level of starting these horrible riots and looting.

Lochnivar August 10 2011 11:41 AM EDT

My general rule of thumb:

If you are wearing a mask, breaking into stores, stealing stuff, and vandalizing things then you are not 'protesting' anything. You're a punk...

I say shoot 'em... fine, use rubber bullets (or not) but anyone wearing a mask gets dropped.

I think when you are line-up outside a store waiting for your chance to jump through the broken window to steal things while dressed in your best ski-mask then the presumption of innocence goes out of the equation.

Looks like Vancouver might have some competition in this year's "Most Pathetic riot by human parasites" awards ceremony.

Zenai August 10 2011 1:15 PM EDT

Turns out that bullet came from a police gun, and that he didn't open fire at all.

Still circumstantial at best, it must be proven "Which" police gun it was fired from. If it is none registered to a policeman definitely known to have been on scene then it could have been a rogue gun. Seen it happen before will see it happen again and again I'm sure.

As far as the shooting itself as an injustice....... Let get something straight, at least from my perspective. I have had to shoot in the Military, Security and Special Temporary Status in conjuction with Law Enforcement, it is scary as hell no matter your training.

Bad cops yeah there are a few, let IA sort them, but under no circumstances does one worth their salt actually want to pull that trigger life simply means too much. Bottomline though if I think it's me/a partner or him then he's going down period.

In something of this nature you have roughly the blink of an eye to save or take a life, make no mistake it is a life altering decision that adversely affect the person from point on. You can have all the training in the world and at best all it truly does is give a slight and I do mean slight edge for reaction time that is it nothing more.

End of my thought process on this subject.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] August 10 2011 1:32 PM EDT

Social Injustice? Uhhh not sure about that. Cops being bad? Questionable, but probably more likely then not the police had to take down a dangerous dude to make sure he didn't off them.

Either way, I think the issue is that the idiots rioting and stealing crap just because they can are like the kids hanging out in the parking lot at the Fred Meyer, or Walmart, or in the Jack-in-a-box parking lot. They haven't got crap to do, they're full of energy and they'll probably use any hackneyed reason to steal stuff or cause trouble, ESPECIALLY if they can do it under the cloak of anonymity.

The only thing the government is guilty of here, and mind you this is quite a stretch, is not having more ways to keep youths busy. That's why, in a park downtown near the park and ride where I used to live, they made a sweet skateboard park so the kids would have something to do. That's why they put in a movie theater down by the mall.

This is also why they have internship programs in high school/college to keep youths busy learning about responsibility, so they don't get any screwy ideas about wrecking the system we have because they don't wanna work. Gotta show those young people the value of work somehow, don't ask me how.

But either way, can't really give any excuses for breaking up peoples small businesses, it's messed up and evil. I think an effective way to stop things like this is to keep idle unemployed/youth busy doing stuff. They obviously need more work to do.

ResistanZ August 10 2011 1:57 PM EDT

Again, when I talk about social injustices, I'm mainly talking about racism and the growing disparity between the rich and the poor, and other factors that would cause any particular group of people within a society to become angry. I don't understand the misunderstanding (...).

Racial tensions have fomented much of the anger that's being released, and that informs the deteriorating relationship between officers and the communities they police. In the past five years, the number of black and South Asian people stopped and searched by the police in the country has nearly doubled to 310,000.

ResistanZ August 10 2011 2:01 PM EDT

And also, no one is arguing that even if Duggan's death was a mistake, that the riots would be justified.

QBRanger August 10 2011 2:10 PM EDT

Again, when I talk about social injustices, I'm mainly talking about racism and the growing disparity between the rich and the poor, and other factors that would cause any particular group of people within a society to become angry. I don't understand the misunderstanding (...).

I think you misunderstand.

How is racism involved? What policies are preventing people from trying to reach their potential. I personally came from a lower middle class working family and became successful through hard work and education. I went to public schools my entire career. Took out loans to pay for college and post college graduate school.

As far as the growing disparity between rich and poor, pfft. The rich have gotten richer but in civilized countries, so have the poor.

Instead of tring to succeed, the poor just envy the rich and try to take. Via taxes, or theft.

People throw the "RACISM!!" card around all the time in the US and it is now like crying wolf. In fact, you cannot even say anything bad about our president without people from his party crying racism.

Social injustice? I really still have no idea what the hell that means? Does it mean that people want what others have and use every means to take it? Avarice and greed most likely.

Here are some stats:

Todays "poor" in America has:

99% have a refrigerator
81% have a microwave
79% have AC
64% have cable TV
54% have a cell phone
38% have a computer

30 years ago, only the rich has these.

Lord Bob August 10 2011 2:18 PM EDT

Todays "poor" in America has:
And there we have it. He's actually complaining that the under class in America doesn't have a lower standard of living. Unbelievable.

I didn't even expect that from you Ranger.

Lord Bob August 10 2011 2:22 PM EDT

On Obama and accusations of racism:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/05/fox-nation-calls-obama-bi_n_919487.html

Now I am not the kind of guy to cry racism when there is none, and I have defended Ranger from these accusations in the past. But it is undeniable that some conservative outlets have used racial language to target our president.

QBRanger August 10 2011 2:25 PM EDT

And there we have it. He's actually complaining that the under class in America doesn't have a lower standard of living. Unbelievable.

Compared to what?

Compared to the "rich" in America. Sure their "standard" of living is worse.

Compared to the poor in Africa? Their standard of living is miles better.

Compared to the middle classes in India? Much better.

Compared to the "rich" of 30 years ago? Much better.

What is your solution LB? More taxes, more taking from the "rich" who earned it to give to those who are poor? More "sharing the wealth" through forced government donations?

I do not know many truly "poor" people who do not have the essentials of living. Food, shelter and access to healthcare. In addition to luxury items such as cell phones, gaming systems, refrigerators, AC etc...

It is all about wanting what others have.

Lord Bob August 10 2011 2:37 PM EDT

Compared to the "rich" in America. Sure their "standard" of living is worse.
Duh. That's to be expected in the gap between the rich and poor within a single nation. Not my point.

Compared to the poor in Africa? Their standard of living is miles better.
You want the poor in America to be more like that?

Compared to the "rich" of 30 years ago? Much better.
And they were better off than the rich of 100 years ago, who were better off than the rich of 1643, and so on...

Wealth disparity of today has nothing to do with how technology improves standards of living over long periods of time.

What is your solution LB? More taxes,
I have always advocated a progressive tax rate, so yes.

more taking from the "rich" who earned it to give to those who are poor? More "sharing the wealth" through forced government donations?
More making the rich pay their fair share, more programs for the under class to make sure they aren't completely shut out. Less giving John Boehner 98% of what he wants.

I do not know many truly "poor" people who do not have the essentials of living. Food, shelter and access to healthcare.
I do. At least on health care. I also know those who are one paycheck away from losing their food and shelter.

Warchild August 10 2011 2:45 PM EDT

Very simply:

1: Was the killing of Duggan justified or not?
We were not there so we do not have the information needed to accurately answer that question

2: Is the rioting in England justified?
No...the only time that rioting is justified is if there is a "social injustice", NO legal alternative to handle it, & the rioting will affect change..no matter what the situation was with Duggan there are legal alternatives & the rioting will not change anything

Everything else in this thread is just another excuse for highly opinionated people to argue politics.

~WC~

Xenogard [Chaotic Serenity] August 10 2011 2:55 PM EDT

You kidding me ranger? I come from an average middle class family on the verge of being kicked out of our home, our electricity got shut off in the middle of 115 degree weather that was only turned back on after payment on the spot which I would consider a shakedown by the electric company for money, we are barely getting by paycheck to paycheck with multiple income sources pitching in.

My father is the hardest working man I've ever met in my entire life, his main profession was a welder for over 35+ years. He can no longer get a job in that field at all, any other job he goes to he's way over qualified so they wont actually hire him on, so now he's a self employed handyman barely making enough to keep the roof over our heads.

Yeah we have some luxuries that maybe some poor 3rd world countries don't have sure, not denying that at all. But seriously, do you actually know any middle class families right now? Because I know mine is struggling, and I know many other families who are in the same boat as mine. These are hard working people about to get ripped out of their homes they've lived in for over 15-20+ years.

Don't for one second think that just because we have a more advanced technological society, that there are not middle/lower class families struggling to stay the hell afloat.

Xenogard [Chaotic Serenity] August 10 2011 2:57 PM EDT

Oh yeah and the only two people in this house who have healthcare are my dad, my mom, and my youngest brother and here's the kicker and they can barely afford it.

QBRanger August 10 2011 2:57 PM EDT

You want the poor in America to be more like that?

Of course not. But the "poor" in America is not really poor. Less well off, yes. But not poor. They have food, shelter and some luxury items.

Wealth disparity of today has nothing to do with how technology improves standards of living over long periods of time.

You make my point. You are comparing to the wealthy of now. I can say I am poor compared to Trump. However, I have enough to eat, a roof over my head. Conmpared to the Trumps of 30 years ago, I have tons more luxury items, I expect to live longer, and have more choices in my life. It seems you will not be happy until everyone is equal. Should not people who are successful have more? Should not people who sacrificed be rewarded?

I have always advocated a progressive tax rate, so yes.
More making the rich pay their fair share, more programs for the under class to make sure they aren't completely shut out. Less giving John Boehner 98% of what he wants.

And that is one main point we disagree. I think the rich already pay their full share. 47% of the US did not pay any federal income tax. How much more do you want that to be? Should all the taxes be paid by the top 10% of income earners? Would that be enough for you?

The top 10% paid over 65% of all income taxes. How much more do you want? 80% 90% all? When is enough enough for people with your point of view? How much more skin do you want? When almost 1/2 the population has no stake in the game.

Boehner did not get 98% of what he wanted? He did not get Obamacare repealed, he did not get entitlement reforms, he did not get less and smaller government. He finally stood ground of increasing our credit card unless some cuts were made.

I do. At least on health care. I also know those who are one paycheck away from losing their food and shelter.

I know of nobody who comes to the ER where I work that gets turned away. In fact that is illegal. People who are "poor" can get on Medicaid. They can get foodstamps to eat. There are housing available where I live for low income people. There are places to get help when one needs it.

However, if taxes go up, I will lessen my donates to my temple and other charities. I know others will also. An unexpected consequence of more taxes.

And one last thing:

Taxes will go up in Dec 2012 markedly for the "rich".

In Obamacare, taxes go up 1% on all those making 250k or more. The Obama tax hikes kick in, so the effective rate will be even HIGHER than Clinton's.

In addition, anyone who sells a house and makes over 250k profit, has to pay the government 3.8% of the profit. So all the older people who have stayed in their house for 40+ years and sell get hit with a nice extra Obama tax to fund his cost raising healthcare plan. And yes, it has been proven that Obamacare will raise costs, lessen choice and increase wait times for doctors over doing absolutely nothing.

QBRanger August 10 2011 3:01 PM EDT

Don't for one second think that just because we have a more advanced technological society, that there are not middle/lower class families struggling to stay the hell afloat.

I know many middle class people. I treat many, some for free.

However, what is your solution? To tax the rich more and more. Then your dad would never have a job as there would be less money in people pockets but more in the governments pocket.

And we know how frugal the government is with our money.

But really, what is your solution? More taxes? So, how much more would you raise them? 50%, 100%?

Xenogard [Chaotic Serenity] August 10 2011 3:25 PM EDT

Did I say anything about taxes or how I think this problem should be taken care of? No I didn't mention any of that at all. I was merely pointing out that you do not have a full grasp on the actual hardships a family like mine faces every single day.

My dad works hard and has his entire life, he's working 10-12 hour days now 6 days a week, should he not be rewarded for that? He's go no pension, no retirement fund, no back up plan other then his life insurance, so basically he's worth more dead then alive. He works day in and day out just to put food on our table and pay our bills and we cant even do that half the time.

If you honestly want to know though, yeah I agree with LB about a progressive tax rate. What do you think trickle down economics is going to save my family? Don't make me laugh.

QBRanger August 10 2011 3:43 PM EDT

In America we have Social Security for people's retirement.

And yes, my dad is like yours. Middle class to lower middle class. I grew up with my father never making more than 50k a year. Now I help him as much as I can. Since I went to college, graduate school and slaved years to get where I am today through hard work and education. I worked over 90 hours a week for years to get where I am. Sacrified a lot to become successful. But in America, most everyone has that chance. Do not be envious if you did not do the same.

And as far as the progressive tax, how much would you propose we increase rates on the top earners? You raise my rates, I change my habits. Eat out less = less money for restaurants and waiters. Less vacations = less tourism money. Cut back on my cleaning service = less money to them. Cut back on my charity = less money for their services and giving.

A higher tax rate is what? More money for the beaurocrats in Washington to piddle away? Or more money to those who need jobs? I think the former much more than the latter. I prefer my money to be in my hands doing what I want. Opposed to lifetime Washingtonians who never worked a day in their life in the real world.

Or is a progressive tax system really a way to try to punish people for being successful? A way to "redistribute the wealth"?

Duke August 10 2011 3:51 PM EDT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in_France

2005 riot in france

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montr%C3%A9al-Nord

The english version is very short, but its on lesser scale that what happen in UK and much less worse that the several week of riot in france.


Duke August 10 2011 4:08 PM EDT

Ill say that as far that the riot goes they are unprovoke and police should deal with its in a swift manner.

Is police does profiling yes they do and for a reason black community have the highest crime rate. That you disagree or found its racism is actual fact numbers does not lie or have any political moral believe. Is there reason for this yes, lower income is the main contributor to this. Police is here to enforce the law not making political statement or doing social work.

Is the police sometime are arogant and abuse of there power yes they do, ill even add that is mostly the younger officer. A quick search New orleans police on youtube should prove my point very quickly.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sY6iGkrBXk
www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D4N6yP3nwVfw




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
Quote:

Almost all of the nation's wealthiest twenty states, which included northern mid-western and western states such as Wisconsin and California, had crime rates below the national average. In addition to having the country's lowest crime rates, New England states also had the country's highest median household income, while the Southern states have the lowest.

This contrasts starkly to some of the nation's poorer states such as Georgia, Florida or Louisiana. Louisiana had a crime rate 27% and a homicide rate 130.9% above the national average and ranked as the nation's fourth poorest state with a median household income 20% below the national median. While poorer states generally have higher crime rates, several states who fell below the national median for household income such as Maine and Kentucky also had crime rates below the national average, while some wealthier states such as Maryland and Hawaii had crime rates above the national average

Duke August 10 2011 4:11 PM EDT

Ranger how you explain Norway,sweden, finland success ? There economy is great living is better...

IPoop August 10 2011 7:09 PM EDT

-bloke gets shot
-same day (before there can be an investigation which happens everytime a policeman fires) there is a peaceful march for answers (ans that quick?).
-march hijaked and turns into riots
-hijackers just hours into it realise they can rob and loot
-seeing easy gains looting spreads around capital
-spreads to a few other big cites seeing the easy gains
-police go enmass
-political fall out


imo it was maybe a riot for an hour or two after that and since its all been about getting what you can while you can ... they deserve a good slap (including the 9yo's and the women)

*and i normally consider myself a liberal

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] August 10 2011 7:16 PM EDT

Whoa, this is pretty messed up.

QBRanger August 10 2011 7:17 PM EDT

Ranger how you explain Norway,sweden, finland success ? There economy is great living is better...

A more homogenous population on a much smaller scale than the US.

No defense spending to think of.

Lower divorce rate = more family units caring for each other.

However, I would disagree with "living is better".

Why do people call it "The American Dream" and not the "The Swedish Dream"?

Because in America you can start a business, have a unique skill, get lucky and hit it rich. And keep what you make as an incentive to try.

I have read up on these countries and prefer 100% to live in America.

IPoop August 10 2011 9:05 PM EDT

Sorry but the whole american dream comment just annoys me. Smacks of a huge unearnt ego ..... (not your ego but the US's in general if they believe that)

The French definatly dont want to own there own home, the Chinese have more millionaires ... the examples go on life expectancy etc.
The US has a list of issues/problems as big as most other countries if not bigger

and lets face it the American dream is now like most other countries ... well i presume that as i cant picture you lot still wanting to sit of the stoop/porch, the woman knitting/sewing surrounded by your white picket fence.

The US dream was an advertising sales gimic that worked on a huge scale.

If your talking about having your own place to live, food etc i think you will find thats been a basic dream for most living things since year dot with out the label


I agree with and disagree with some of the other bits but thats the only bit that annoyed me enough to type a reply

IPoop August 10 2011 9:12 PM EDT

just incase if that seems out of order sorry - these days i just get a bit fed up of the whole US ego thing.

yes i think the US takes a shed load of flak and puts up with it well (all those US flags burned etc with out mass protest by the US and then one vicar type bloke threatens to burn a book and look what happens ...) but then i seem to stumble across massive US egocentric statements that it just gets right on my tits.

AdminTitan August 10 2011 9:14 PM EDT

The French definatly dont want to own there own home, the Chinese have more millionaires ... the examples go on life expectancy etc.
The US has a list of issues/problems as big as most other countries if not bigger

English isn't your primary language is it? Because of the first sentence is so jumbled, I don't even know how to respond. Also, you might want to get a reality check about what it's like to live in China.

IPoop August 10 2011 9:23 PM EDT

English is my first language im just a bit how do you say ... thick .. what can i say sorry?


yep i know china has its pants side ... so does every country.
Whats so bad about China that the US doesnt do?
Imprison people illegally? .. oh its not on US soil
Human rights?.. oh its not on US soil
Internet control? lol
so it comes down to communism .. and Chinas turning into the worlds biggest capaitlist driven country


Im NOT saying the US is a bad place and please dont think that ... ive been there years ago and loved it!
(well apart from the policemen running into a group of us with his shotgun out chasing some perp .. shat my pants).

but lines that read like the whole of the world want to live 'The American Dream' are just total nonsense and smack of a country based ego

Xenogard [Chaotic Serenity] August 10 2011 9:39 PM EDT

The US dream was an advertising sales gimic that worked on a huge scale.

If your talking about having your own place to live, food etc i think you will find thats been a basic dream for most living things since year dot with out the label

I couldn't agree with you more.


Ok, so originally I had typed out a rather lengthy reply to some of the comments said earlier. Unfortunately as I was in the middle of looking over and revising it my computer restarted itself because of some updates that I wasn't paying attention to, needless to say it never got posted.

Anyway rather then retype the whole thing and continue on with what I already know to be a rather pointless debate/argument, whatever you want to call it, I'm going to politely agree to disagree and back out of this one.

Xenogard [Chaotic Serenity] August 10 2011 11:51 PM EDT

Do not be envious if you did not do the same.

However I do need to address this only because I feel it was direct at me. If it wasn't then I'm sorry ahead of time.

I'm not envious of you, I don't give two flying craps about your money or how successful you are regardless of how long its taken you to get there. That has nothing to do with me nor my family, and on top of that you've got quite a bit of years on me. Even if I were to start now and do the same thing you did, it would not save my family quick enough or any time soon from their situation, the best I can do is just work and pitch in to help.

My dad worked his ass off to provide for his family his entire life, he works harder then anyone I've ever met, suddenly now he can barely do that. Are you sitting here telling me that just because my dad didn't become a doctor, or a lawyer, or some other career making six figures that he shouldn't be able to keep a roof over his own families head, put food on the table for them, or pay his bills on time? Was he not "successful" in life? If not then how do you define "successful" is there a dollar amount to it? Does the "American Dream' have a dollar amount attached to it?

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] August 11 2011 1:28 AM EDT

Ranger argues that rich people should keep more of their money, because they earned it, and so they are entitled to it. Mostly because he is a supply-side conservative. Xeno argues that you should be entitled to gainful employment throughout your life and should be entitled to benefits in retirement since you've been paying into social security and medicare throughout your working life.

Both of you are arguing for entitlements, so which one is better?

I think from Ranger's perspective he probably feels like since the money is being actively taken from him that arguing against taking his money gives him a more "valid" viewpoint. The reality is, if Ranger is anything like any of the other well-off people in this country, he will still be very well off no matter how much you tax him. And if he is anything like any other wealthy people in this country, his offspring will have premium access to education, jobs, and other opportunities that give his family very good chances of future success.

From Xeno's perspective, he has contributed a fair amount to society, and feels that society should give him something back for his work. Since Xeno has meager assets that have been accumulated over a lifetime of work, his offspring will have it slightly easier then him, but still it will require a great deal of work to get access to premium education, jobs and other opportunities.

I know I'm simplifying this way too much, but it seems like helping Xeno at the expense of Ranger in this situation would overall provide more benefit. And I really doubt that Ranger will stop being successful because they are taxing him more.

Phrede August 11 2011 2:52 AM EDT

maybe ranger should send xeno - say - 2 mill $CB as a gesture of good faith :)

QBRanger August 11 2011 12:47 PM EDT

I know I'm simplifying this way too much, but it seems like helping Xeno at the expense of Ranger in this situation would overall provide more benefit. And I really doubt that Ranger will stop being successful because they are taxing him more.

Actually quite a few small business owners I know are not expanding and not hiring just because of the presidents verbiage of "tax the rich" and his class warfare rhetoric.

Myself? I quit my current job and am going to take one making 2/3 of what I am making now. For numerous reasons including the new taxes going to occur in 2013 and just getting tired of paying into a broken system.

My dad worked his ass off to provide for his family his entire life, he works harder then anyone I've ever met, suddenly now he can barely do that. Are you sitting here telling me that just because my dad didn't become a doctor, or a lawyer, or some other career making six figures that he shouldn't be able to keep a roof over his own families head, put food on the table for them, or pay his bills on time? Was he not "successful" in life? If not then how do you define "successful" is there a dollar amount to it? Does the "American Dream' have a dollar amount attached to it?

Did you dad save money? Or did he spend it all hoping that Social Security would take care of him? My dad saved money and even without SS, he is able to easily make ends meat without my help.

Did he start his own business or just work for someone else? Or do you blame others for his inability to get work?

I heard it best from someone who migrated here from India who said
"I came to America because the poor here are fat, while in my country they starve to death".

The reality is, if Ranger is anything like any of the other well-off people in this country, he will still be very well off no matter how much you tax him. And if he is anything like any other wealthy people in this country, his offspring will have premium access to education, jobs, and other opportunities that give his family very good chances of future success.

But let us completely forget that Ranger was born to a lower middle class family and worked his freaking butt off to get where he is. 13 years of post high school education and training. Years of being up 36 straight hours. Years of working 21+ days in a row. Having over 50k in student loans to pay for college and living during that time.
Let us not even consider that Ranger helped to start a company and took little income during those years to build it. No, of course Ranger was born with a silver spoon and did nothing to become successful.

It is crap like this that just confirms the "take, take, take" mentality of the left. Let others do the dirty work and just tax and take from them.

And if you tax me 60%, 70% or more, yes, I will not be as well off as you suspect. My kids will have access to better schools. Why, because of the teacher's union messing up public schools. And because I worked my ass off to get where I am.

I do not apologize for that, never will.

Xenogard [Chaotic Serenity] August 11 2011 1:23 PM EDT

Did you dad save money? Or did he spend it all hoping that Social Security would take care of him? My dad saved money and even without SS, he is able to easily make ends meat without my help.

Save money? What money is there to save when you have four kids, a mortgage, tons of bills to pay off, and a mound of debt while making roughly 40-50k a year? You honestly think my dad is banking on living off his social security checks? What house will they live in? This one certainly isn't paid for, he'll never be able to retire and live off social security in this house, which both of them want to do, it is the one we've live in for over 15 years now, the same one that the bank is trying to kick us out of. In fact he's more likely to die then he is to retire before this house is finally paid off.

That's a bold accusation to make to a man you've never met in your life. Like you're some genius because you think "Oh well he didn't save money, so he obviously has nothing." What the hell do you know? You don't have the first clue what its like to have your electricity shut off in the middle of the summer in 115 degree heat.

You are living in some sort of fantasy world ranger, and you come off as a delusional arrogant person because of it.

Did he start his own business or just work for someone else? Or do you blame others for his inability to get work?

He started his own business about 2 years ago because he couldn't find work anywhere else doing his trade profession of the last 30 years Why? because no one would hire him, he was an overqualified welder that no one would take on at the pay rate he needed. They all wanted fresh faced kids they could pay half the price to do the same job. Now he's doing basic handy work and random odd jobs just to stay a float.

I won't sit here and have you belittle my father like he hasn't done enough in his life so he shouldn't be entitled to a home over his head, putting food in his kids mouths, while simultaneously paying off mounds of debt and bills.

You sir are exactly the type of person I hate, sure you came from nothing, but now you have money so you think you are superior and have more rights then others. You worked for it and earned it right? Apparently others don't deserve the same basic human needs as you because they didn't choose a profession that makes 6 figures it would seem. Guess all the years my dad slaved his ass off to keep the basics in life and the best for his family don't mean anything, he shouldn't be entitled to any of it.

I'm done with this convo.
ADMIN: Edit, language.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] August 11 2011 1:24 PM EDT

No, Ranger I never said you didn't work for what you have Ranger, and I never implied you had a silver spoon or anything derogatory like that. I'm simply stating that as a result of your current success, you and your offspring will have it much easier now, and will guarantee your future success. Once someone has attained the kind of success you have, you're pretty much set, unless you decide to spend it all foolishly like those instant millionaire sports players or lotto winners. lol

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] August 11 2011 1:29 PM EDT

Xeno, just because you disagree with someone does not mean you can insult them and swear on here.

QBRanger August 11 2011 1:29 PM EDT

You are living in some sort of fantasy world ranger, and you come off as a delusional arrogant person because of it.

Such anger at those who actually succeeding in life. Such resentment!!

I have been in your shoes and decided not to stay there. I went to college, grad school and worked my butt off.

Not to have the government come and take more of my earned money and waste it on useless things.

My dad made no more than 50k a year, had 2 kids and still owns his home and has enough savings to last through retirement. Without my help but I give it to him anyway.

Just because you are wasting you life, do not be envious of those who have not.

I won't sit here and have you belittle my father like he hasn't done enough in his life so he shouldn't be entitled to a home over his head,

NOBODY is entitled to a home. NOBODY!! Housing is not a right. It is something to be earned. I should not have to pay more in taxes to give someone something else.

A right is something that you get that does NOT come from someone else giving something up.

For you to have a house, someone else has to pay for it and build it. Which is NOT a right.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] August 11 2011 1:32 PM EDT

Hey... calm the hell down with the name calling

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] August 11 2011 1:33 PM EDT

I'm on it Nov.

QBRanger August 11 2011 1:36 PM EDT

No, Ranger I never said you didn't work for what you have Ranger, and I never implied you had a silver spoon or anything derogatory like that. I'm simply stating that as a result of your current success, you and your offspring will have it much easier now, and will guarantee your future success. Once someone has attained the kind of success you have, you're pretty much set, unless you decide to spend it all foolishly like those instant millionaire sports players or lotto winners.

Yes, I worked and sacrificed quite hard to get where I am so my family and kids could have it easier. But again, I fought and worked and sacrified to get where I am.

Most people do not want to accept that. They see my success and get resentful wanting to get what I have earned.

Via more taxes. "Just tax the rich more, they can earn it" seems to be the rallying cry of the left.

Well freaking earn it yourself!! Make choices that let you be in a situation where you can succeed. If you love painting and choose to be a painter, do not cry to me when you cannot make ends meat. You have free will in most cases to make a choice.

I paid for my own college and grad school. I worked in college. Lived in a rat hole during my schooling years. But I knew what I wanted and how to get it.

Instead of wanting to take from those who were successful and having the government steal their money, I strived to become a success.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] August 11 2011 1:40 PM EDT

There is a complicated weave of give & take at play that allows people like Ranger to have such success. In that same vein, that complicated weave of give & take sometimes takes too much from some, because the game is stacked against them, or other unfortunate events. Regardless of what Ranger and people who think exactly like him think, housing and other basic human necessities should be a right, and an entitlement, especially if you are willing to work. However, if you can't work, you should still have basic human necessities, subsidized by the majority. I think the percentage of the population who "won't work" is much smaller then Ranger makes it out to be, and those people who won't work don't deserve much.

That being said, I think most success in life is dependent on luck, and to put down others who aren't as lucky is just poor taste.

QBRanger August 11 2011 1:52 PM EDT

Regardless of what Ranger and people who think exactly like him think, housing and other basic human necessities should be a right, and an entitlement, especially if you are willing to work.

I disagree. It is lucky to be born in a free society, of course that is a given.

But what you do once you are free to make choices is your own choice.

Luck has a bit, but a smallish bit compared to all the choices one can make.

Regardless of what Ranger and people who think exactly like him think, housing and other basic human necessities should be a right, and an entitlement, especially if you are willing to work. However, if you can't work, you should still have basic human necessities, subsidized by the majority. I think the percentage of the population who "won't work" is much smaller then Ranger makes it out to be, and those people who won't work don't deserve much.

First we have to adequately define what a "right" is. It is something that one gets that does not impose upon others.

Such as the right of free religion. The right of the persuit of happiness. Neither of these rights requires others to give you something.

Housing, while a noble cause, is nowhere near a right. For someone to get housing, someone else has to provide it. Same with food. For you to get free food as a "right", someone else has to grow it, process it and deliver it to where you can get it. All require other people doing free work for you to get it free.

We disagree on the methods of how people who cannot afford housing and food should get these items.

I see people all the time where I work with cell phones, gold teeth, fully able to work but not working. Due to the free Obama money they get from the government. In food stamps which they resell to get beer and liquor. In unemployment now for 2+ years. In social security payments, child care credits etc...

In my opinion, to ask those who are successful to pony up even more of their money to support obviously broken social programs, including a new entitlement that will increase the debt is just uninformed and greedy.

Lochnivar August 11 2011 1:59 PM EDT

Man Ranger, think how little incentive you would have had to succeed back when the top marginal tax rate was 50% in the 80s... or 70% in the 70s.... forget about the 91% in the 1960s...

The fact is, the very wealthy in the US have faced far less favourable tax situations for the past 60yrs than what they face now. If low taxes really lead to incentive shouldn't the economic growth be spectacular and unemployment at an all time low?

I get that you feel you worked hard and are entitled to 'more' than someone who didn't work as hard... but the 'I'm the victim' song and dance is tiring... I'm pretty sure Xeno would be thrilled to get taxed at 40% on every dollar he made over 250k right now.

Oh, and you're right, homes aren't a right. Let those evicted NY hobos freeze in January.... or relocate to sunny south Florida.

Xenogard [Chaotic Serenity] August 11 2011 2:05 PM EDT

Like I said, I don't care about you, your success, or your money. None of that means anything to me, personally I don't care about money I could live off 20k a year and be happy. But good for you, I'm glad you became a successful person in life. If I were to become just as successful I'd still disagree with you on every front.

But we aren't and never have been talking about myself or what I've done. I've been talking about my father, not talking about me, I'm talking about him.

He's paid for the same house for 15 years, never once had a problem providing for his family, then the economy goes to hell and now suddenly the bank is trying to kick him out of this house, along with a million other issues I wont go into, and now he's barely scraping by. You find nothing wrong with?

With that said, again I agree to disagree. I'm sorry for the mods who had to clean up my language, sorry for the direct personal attacks, and I'm sorry for continuing this silly argument. I felt like my family was directly attacked in a way and I got angry and defensive because of that.

Ranger I don't agree with you, and we will never see eye to eye on this subject. Regardless I still respect your opinion and rights to express them, and I apologize to you for any offense taken.

I can no longer have this discussion.

Demigod August 11 2011 2:06 PM EDT

First we have to adequately define what a "right" is. It is something that one gets that does not impose upon others.

Where did that definition come from?

I see people all the time where I work with cell phones, gold teeth, fully able to work but not working. Due to the free Obama money they get from the government.

Why didn't you say Bush money? Unemployment and food stamps existed back then. It also seems very suspect that you point to the small minority who abuse the system, but then you include the 98.5% who use it properly.

I agree that the problem is entitlement, but I'm referring to the top 1% of earners who feel entitled.

QBRanger August 11 2011 2:11 PM EDT

Man Ranger, think how little incentive you would have had to succeed back when the top marginal tax rate was 50% in the 80s... or 70% in the 70s.... forget about the 91% in the 1960s...

And just look at the economic boom at the time of the Reagan and Bush and even Kennedy tax cuts. Yes, tax cuts work.

If low taxes really lead to incentive shouldn't the economic growth be spectacular and unemployment at an all time low?

Of course we all can think the subprime mortgage problem for our current situation. Combined with an increasing entitlement problem with a brand new yet-undefined entitlement just recently passed.

Nothing to do with high or low taxes. But lower taxes would help. Not a president that adds more taxes in Obamacare and continually uses class warfare rhetoric in every speech. Scaring businesses into hording their money instead of hiring.

I'm pretty sure Xeno would be thrilled to get taxed at 40% on every dollar he made over 250k right now.

Contrary to popular belief, 250k job do not fall off trees. One has to actually work and sacrifice to get there. How about going to college, picking a major where one can do well financially and working 100 hour weeks climbing the ladder to get there.

Or do we all want an easy button? Seems most of us do.

Oh, and you're right, homes aren't a right. Let those evicted NY hobos freeze in January.... or relocate to sunny south Florida.

Again, housing is not a right. It should never be stated as such. But to give people free housing is just wrong. Is your solution to give everyone who wants and needs a house a free one?

And who should pay for it? Of course!! The greedy evil rich people.

It is so easy to spend other peoples money. What happens when it runs out?

Duke August 11 2011 2:12 PM EDT

While we are arguing that would should pay more tax. Microsoft were so proud to annouce that they have pay only 7% tax during last quarter. Someone working at MCdonald pay a higher %.

QBRanger August 11 2011 2:17 PM EDT

He's paid for the same house for 15 years, never once had a problem providing for his family, then the economy goes to hell and now suddenly the bank is trying to kick him out of this house, along with a million other issues I wont go into, and now he's barely scraping by.

If your dad played by the rules, never missed a payment as you state, and the banks are playing unfair, of course, he should have a way to keep his house.

The banks were rubber stamping foreclosures left and right. Illegally quite a lot of the time. Find a lawyer and fight it. My neighbor got a lawyer and stayed in her house for 2 years. Mortgage modification programs were designed for people like your dad. I do not know the exact situation but there should be legal ways vs the banks to correct any injustices.

I agree that the problem is entitlement, but I'm referring to the top 1% of earners who feel entitled.

If you mean entitled to keep the money I earn instead of giving it to the government for waste, darm right I feel entitled.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] August 11 2011 2:17 PM EDT

So you're against laws preventing segregation?
The right to shop and eat regardless of race certainly takes away from the people it's oppressing. They're forced to serve people who they'd otherwise never allow in the door because of the color of their skin.

The idea that something isn't a right unless it has zero impact on others is a strange line to draw.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] August 11 2011 2:21 PM EDT

I'm glad that our actual leaders are not as myopic when making decisions about how to spend our tax dollars.

I would love to see how successful all of us would be if we didn't have food stamps, or housing for the poor. I'm pretty sure that city leaders and other political leaders whose job is to ensure the safety and well-being of everyone, not just wealthy land-owners, would disagree with the idea of letting poor and disadvantaged people fend for themselves.

Mostly because they don't want their nice areas where rich people gather to be all messed up and overrun with poor people.

Lochnivar August 11 2011 3:24 PM EDT

And just look at the economic boom at the time of the Reagan and Bush and even Kennedy tax cuts. Yes, tax cuts work.

With no significant change in the growth rate of per capita GDP and little suggest direct impact on unemployment numbers I don't know that these past 'booms' really would solve all the current problems... any changes they did bring (particularly in unemployment) were temporary.

In fact, I would liken those tax cuts to making your car fast with nitrous rather than tuning the engine... hey, it works for a while... until you run out of NOS... I say tune then engine, invest in education and infrastructure, make yourselves adaptable... of course you kind of have to tax people to do that.

So tell me Ranger... if they cut the taxes this time, say to 30% and then 15yrs later the similar problems occur so they cut them again... and then again... and when it reaches 0.5% and another financial crisis comes up, what then?

Xenogard [Chaotic Serenity] August 11 2011 3:24 PM EDT

Contrary to popular belief, 250k job do not fall off trees. One has to actually work and sacrifice to get there. How about going to college, picking a major where one can do well financially and working 100 hour weeks climbing the ladder to get there.

I agree with you completely 100% if someone wants to make 6 figures by all means they should have to strive for and work for that. But someone still needs to pump your gas, serve your food, fix your plumbing, make home repairs, build the house you live in to begin with, package the food you buy, ring you up when you buy groceries, etc etc. Not everyone can have a 250k a year job obviously, and even if you forced every single child in America to go to school and work hard towards a career that makes 6 figures, what do you think would happen? Assuming each one of them succeeded all the way through school then got to the job market. How would that play out?

I'm on the side of people who do all those things I was talking about, people who do work, who do contribute to society, that are currently struggling and going through hard times. Not everyone cares about making 6 figures (not everyone can to begin with), some of them just want to live a decent comfortable life. There are plenty of them out there, not gaming the system, legitimate working people who are just struggling. People who not that long ago were probably doing fine, they are the people who need some kind of help or a break.

How to go about solving these types of issues, I don't know I'm no expert. I have my opinions and views on things but that is about it. I do know that there is not one thing alone, such as tax rates, that is going to solve the problems this country and its people face, it would be silly to think there was. Isn't this what we are suppose to have government and elected officials for? To make these kinds of decisions that would (or should IMO) help better the lives of all the people in this country.

Duke August 11 2011 3:43 PM EDT

Tax cut does not stimulate economy or like raising minimun wage have no impact on inflation. This is propaganda this is spread for a very long times.

http://currencythoughts.com/2008/08/19/how-the-us-economy-performed-under-democrat-and-republican-presidents/

Ranger you know those thing there tons of study from your own gour and others country that prove my point. So ill ask this what you dislike so much in social program ? 2nd question do you really believe in what you are saying ?

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] August 11 2011 3:46 PM EDT

I wish I had a magical switch to turn on the Libertarian ideologies required for the ideas Ranger's espousing to work.

The notion that the inherent goodness within humans would account for the starving and houseless is beautiful. In fact we're already so good that a democratically elected government is trying to do just that!

The majority has spoken time and time again that the suffering the population endured during the depression isn't ok, and no matter how hard the folks who hate "entitlements" fight there just isn't a way
to go back to hoover towns and soup kitchens.

The system is the only one we have, it's imperfect and flawed. It's also amazing considering how huge it is how functional things are.

How the general population is treated by the powerful is the clearest measure of culture. We have been steadily shifting in my lifetime towards a moral code that amounts to "don't get caught" from a moral code that "don't take what you didn't earn". That shift is directly related to the mindset needed to have these bubble/crash cycles where certain folks make billions, and others lose everything. The idea that as long as you have the money, the how isn't important pervades everything.

In the same way Ranger only see's the mythical kings of welfare and not the hungry kids and hard working families, I can't see anyone earning the kind of money we're talking about fairly. There is no mathematical equation possible that can justify the levels of salary discrepancy between a hedge fund manager and a school teacher. The value the hedge fund manager has to society can't even compare. A single teacher can save thousands of children from empty miserable lives, no matter how many billions the other rakes in he can never match that kind of contribution. The market has failed to reflect that, and therefore is in my opinion, imperfect. No matter how hardened your faith in pure capitalism and Libertarian "don't tread on me" ethics at some point you have to acknowledge it's inability to actually solve the problems we face. There is no magic switch to educate the world and make us all loving enough to not require help to keep culture and peace alive... we'd have flipped it long ago if there were.

QBRanger August 11 2011 3:54 PM EDT

Duke,

You are wrong. Every time we cut taxes the economy in America boomed.

Happened under Kennedy, Reagan and yes, Bush.

With the 2001 and 03 tax cuts we had 51 straigh months of economic growth, revenues to the government went UP, and unemployment stayed below 6%.

Until the financial crisis, which was caused primarily by banks giving subprime loans and rating companies giving these mortgages an AAA rating. Both criminal acts that still, to this day, have gone unpunished.

Here are 2 articles that contradict your statement:

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/tax_cuts.asp#axzz1UkdyY6Co

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-and-economy/why-tax-cuts-stimulate-the-economy/

Fact is federal income tax receipts increased after 2003, when the last of the Bush tax cuts started. The % of GDP lowered since government spending increased far faster than receipts.

QBRanger August 11 2011 3:59 PM EDT

There is no mathematical equation possible that can justify the levels of salary discrepancy between a hedge fund manager and a school teacher.

Something we can agree on.

However, teachers are not as underpaid as you suggest. In Fl they make about 45k a year, up north upwards of 80k+ a year. Working only 9 months, all holidays off, no weekends, and unions that ensure high quality medical care and better retirement than 90% of all Americans.

However, a hedge fund manager making 80M a year is excessive.

But then again, what is too much?

I can't see anyone earning the kind of money we're talking about fairly.

What amount of money are you typing about? 250k a year for a family like Obama likes to demonize? 1M a year? 5M? 10+M?

I make over 250k a year and I think I do it very fairly. In fact over 30% of what I do is charity work that I will never get paid from the ER and other "self-pay" patients.

Certainly there are abuses of the system. But where would you, novice, draw the line?

AdminTitan August 11 2011 4:03 PM EDT

Just as an FYI for anyone who thinks I might be loaded, my dad's a welder and my mom's a school teacher. We get by because my dad works his a off 60 hours a week, and my sister and I pay for college by myself.

Duke August 11 2011 4:05 PM EDT

Post 2003 growth was a result of 0% interest rate that have create the housing boom.

AdminTitan August 11 2011 4:09 PM EDT

Not everyone can have a 250k a year job obviously, and even if you forced every single child in America to go to school and work hard towards a career that makes 6 figures, what do you think would happen? Assuming each one of them succeeded all the way through school then got to the job market. How would that play out?

Ever thought of about how significantly increasing the US's GDP would help the people of the US?

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] August 11 2011 4:17 PM EDT

I get that you're required to tow the party line about teachers... but sheesh.

I'm not sure that line can be drawn, I just know that the current situation is indicative of an unhealthy manipulated market doomed to failure. I think the fact it's difficult for someone even in a theoretical situation to draw that line makes it clear how good what we have is.

While I'm not sure I agree with Balzac's "The secret of great fortunes without apparent cause is a crime forgotten, for it was properly done" or it's paraphrased version also attributed to him "behind every great fortune is a great crime" I do believe that criminality in business is as rampant as the fraud you detest.

I think that prosecution of white collar criminals must be completely revamped. The idea that a person who steals someone's life savings is less likely to serve jail time than someone in on a felony possession charge is insane. Companies that are found guilty of fraud and negligence should be criminally prosecuted. As a government employee myself I'm painfully aware that any mistake I make could land me in jail, the same should be true of folks in the private sector.

In a country and world where we've devolved to "don't get caught" as the bottom line morality I'm not sure you can draw a hard and fast line and call it fair. I think that until the consequences of our rampant greed and ignorance actually come to fruition and we pay for our current comfort we're just pretending it's all ok.

I'm looking forward to the mass realization that life needs to make off this rock as fast as possible. Once humanity gets it that it's up to us to do what needs to be done, we'll be a whole lot better off.
Can't do that by yourself...

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] August 11 2011 4:23 PM EDT

However, teachers are not as underpaid as you suggest.

where did you get your figures ranger?

my wife has taught 23 years in texas and gets around 53k a year and is capped out so i thought florida must pay a ton more then. i went and found this:

http://teacherportal.com/teacher-salaries-by-state

which shows florida as being pretty comparable to texas. the average salary listed there is below your stated minimum.

QBRanger August 11 2011 4:35 PM EDT

I was using data my wife gave me from her teaching days, about 2 years old here in Ft Lauderdale.

This is the site for other states.

http://www.employmentspot.com/employment-articles/teacher-salaries-by-state/

Yes, 80K is the higher level but some teachers and teacher admins do make that much.

Just one line from that site: The ranges for teacher salary in Chicago, IL vary from $37,372 to $89,620.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] August 11 2011 4:36 PM EDT

His numbers likely include the cost of benefits and other employee related expenditures. While real world salary is what workers think about, the other side always talks in terms of net cost.

QBRanger August 11 2011 4:39 PM EDT

I think that prosecution of white collar criminals must be completely revamped.

I agree 100%.

I do believe that criminality in business is as rampant as the fraud you detest.

Do you think I have broken the law, considering I am one of the "millionaires and billionaires" that Obama loves to demonize and play the class warfare card against?

Lochnivar August 11 2011 4:45 PM EDT

I could go forever without reading a histrionic claim of class warfare...

QBRanger August 11 2011 4:47 PM EDT

I could go forever without reading a histrionic claim of class warfare...

Then I guess you never listened to our current President.

King of the class warfare rhetoric.

On a side note, people in England have gotten fed up:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024605/UK-riots-Looters-lose-benefits-evicted-say-100k-48hrs-e-petition.html?ITO=1490

I have no idea if this is a rag paper like the Wash Post or a real newspaper.

Duke August 11 2011 4:49 PM EDT

Ranger where is your dad is from suburban, small rural city or a large metropolis ?

sebidach [The Forgehood] August 11 2011 4:53 PM EDT

It's threads like this that let me stay away from this game.

QBRanger August 11 2011 4:55 PM EDT

Ranger where is your dad is from suburban, small rural city or a large metropolis ?

He is from Brooklyn, NY - large city. Moved to Northern NJ when I was 12 suburb of a huge city. Moved to NJ primarily due to the decaying public schools where we lived.

Moved to FL when I was 16 (job)- Orlando area, suburb of medium sized city. Lives there now.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] August 11 2011 4:59 PM EDT

I don't know you, all I really know about you I learned from you and while you certainly didn't intend to convey everything you have about yourself to me, you never said anything that led me to believe you're the sort to steal. You take far too much pride in the things you own to have anything you didn't feel you pulled out of the earth with your own two hands.

People make generalizations about others, they're hurtful and untrue...





AdminTitan August 11 2011 5:01 PM EDT

I think that prosecution of white collar criminals must be completely revamped. The idea that a person who steals someone's life savings is less likely to serve jail time than someone in on a felony possession charge is insane. Companies that are found guilty of fraud and negligence should be criminally prosecuted. As a government employee myself I'm painfully aware that any mistake I make could land me in jail, the same should be true of folks in the private sector.

I am 100% okay with this. Yeah dude, I think rangers numbers are a little off, my mom's worked like 25 years and she makes less than 40k with a masters.

AdminTitan August 11 2011 5:02 PM EDT

It's threads like this that let me stay away from this game.

Funny, for some people threads like this are the only reason they stay.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] August 11 2011 5:09 PM EDT

Would you still be on board with me Titan if I'd proposed my idea of punishing CEO's of companies found to be guilty of massive harm (environmental spills, malicious marketing of harmful products, exploitation of third world nations) by killing everyone they're related to and wiping all trace of them off the earth forever?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] August 11 2011 5:14 PM EDT

what state does your mother teach in titan?

it also seems like teachers have it made with summers and weekends off, but my wife spends about 40 hours per week during the school year in the classroom. she then spends probably another 12 hours per week grading, prepping and dealing with parents. summers are now used, at least in texas, to do much of the training and she has spent most of this week up at school getting things in order before she is required to be there next week.

the insurance that is covered for her is not that great but she can buy up to a fairly good level for an extra $250 bucks a month. the insurance really doesn't work for a family though, as it would cost about $1500 a month to add my daughter and i to it. we actually get cheaper better insurance independently with me being self-employed than we can get on her plan by about a factor of one-fifth.

most people making the kind of salary she gets would also have some kind of matching annuity, some districts in texas offer this, but most of the school districts cannot afford to do so. hers does not do any matching at all.

her retirement is pretty good and the one thing that has kept her in the field. she can actually retire at 52 since she has taught since leaving college. it isn't a great pension but it gives a percentage of the average of her highest 5 years salary.

in texas, when you become a teacher you sign away any rights to social security to join the teacher retirement system. even if you worked most of a lifetime in another field and are fully vested in social security, if you want to participate then you cannot ever get social security benefits.

this tends to keep many people from switching fields or going into teaching as a career change.

oh, and btw...i am hot for teacher! ; )

Lochnivar August 11 2011 5:20 PM EDT

Don't get me started on the council housing in England... that is spectacular mismanagement... and frankly the English welfare entitlement system is punishingly flawed. Almost my entire extended family lives there and they just shake their heads.


It is a very good example of what can be done wrong in trying to provide for your populace.


Anyway... as for the class warfare, well, I guess you have your opinion... but to me, not wishing to extend a previous tax cut is a far cry from seizing assets and jailing the rich people. With the opposition to ending the Bush tax cuts for the top earners I'd actually think that they are disproportionately well represented in Washington.

Lord Bob August 11 2011 5:24 PM EDT

Wait a minute. Republicans want to:
- Cut Medicare and Medicaid
- Cut social programs
- Cut student aid
- Kill minimum wage
- Squash labor unions
- Give tax cuts to the richest people in the country
- Balance the budget solely on the backs of the working class

...and Obama's the one committing class warfare? What did I miss?

AdminTitan August 11 2011 5:30 PM EDT

Interesting dude, that's pretty similiar to how it was in Missouri. We live in Missouri btw. Retirement is great for teachers here, and my mom will probably draw social security as well as her teachers retirement. Insurance is pretty good for herself, but really bad for the family, I pay for my own insurance, because it's better for the price.

Nov, I don't know how well killing people would really align with my ethics.

AdminTitan August 11 2011 5:32 PM EDT

- Balance the budget solely on the backs of the working class

Whoa, I didn't know republicans wanted to eliminate taxes for the wealthy completely. Awesome opossum!!

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 11 2011 5:36 PM EDT

(I've skimmed the last section of this thread, but want to get back to he Riots).

I live in London. I work in London.

I echo everything G posted at the start of this thread.

What actually happened was this;

To start, a member of the public was shot dead by the Police. There are reports the Police were also injured in the incident. This lead to a peaceful protest by the victims family.

This protest was high-jacked by possibly the same types who high jacked the Student Protests and experiencing Police resistance hesitant to tackle them, when completely mental.

The next day, things calmed down.

Then a new wave of 'protests' were sparked by a routine 'stop and search' in another area of London.

This lead to the full blown Rioting, spreading around London, and other parts of the country.

This isn't protesting. It's just criminals acting in concert, and figuring out that if they co-ordinate themselves, the can run rings around the now depleted (staffing and budget cut by the current government) Police Force.

Not only did our local communities band together to support each other, and tidy up the mess, but you had groups like Siekhs come together to protect their Temples, Muslims band together to protect their Mosques, Football, er supporters (Millwall) and known far-right groups (EDL) all come together to protect their local communities. To name but a small few.

Of the people involved (some opportunistic thieves looting so much as a bag of Basmati Rice...), around 800 have already been arrested, and sentencing is being pushed to the maximum available.

A Mother was captured on camera bringing her 11 year old son to court to face punishment for looting a ᆪ50 bin. A foreign student was captured on camera being mugged by people that looked like they were going to help him after he'd been assaulted. The main perpetrator has been caught, and a facebook page has had hundreds of pounds of donations to help the student.

This is behaviour the country as a whole has found unacceptable, and has come together to stop.

What I find more interesting is reports Iran are pressurising the UN to step in restrain our Police and stop the violence towards the 'oppressed peaceful protesters'.

/sigh

Lord Bob August 11 2011 5:38 PM EDT

Whoa, I didn't know republicans wanted to eliminate taxes for the wealthy completely.
Their position is all spending cuts, absolutely NO revenues. In fact, even lower taxes on the rich. I'm not wrong.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 11 2011 5:40 PM EDT

When interviewed (still wearing a mask) a 14 year old said he was just taking back what he was owed form Taxes.

Like he'd *every* paid taxes in his life.

Still, it must be said that the current government has cut back local authority spending by a *massive* amount, and family credits/benefits (it's ok for them, all their children go to private schools and have loads of money...).

It's not surprising that (just like the Poll Tax riots form the last Tory Government) the common folk are disillusioned with those in power.

Including the Police.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 11 2011 5:42 PM EDT

As for the Riots themselves.

They weren't sanctioned by the families of those supposedly the reason for them.

They targeted the local communities themselves, and did nothing but hurt those local communities.

They were nothing but an excuse for looting.

QBRanger August 11 2011 5:51 PM EDT

- Cut Medicare and Medicaid

Obama cut 500B from Medicare with his new entitlement. Republicans do NOT want to cut Medicare. A typical liberal talking point that if they say it enough, perhaps the uneducated idiots will believe it. The Republicans want to change Medicaid as a block grant to the states for them to use it as they see fit.

- Cut social programs

No, not cut. Just make those that need it be able to get it without the fraud that currently occurs. However, in this time of great financial distress, everyone has to chip in. ANd yes, I am chipping in with the new Obamacare taxes and the increased free services I give in the hosptial with less people having insurance.

- Cut student aid

I have not seen this as a Republican idea. The student aid is now in the hands of the government, thanks to Obamacare. Now the government is the only source for low interest student loans. And I know full well how streamlined the government is when they control something completely. DMV anyone?

- Kill minimum wage

Yeppers!! Minimum wage actually decreases employment. My grandmother-in-law owns a kennel in St. Louis. The min wage is stopping her from hiring more people since she has to pay the people she has, who are untrained laborers, a higher wage than she would. One can argue that is it still a very low wage, but these are supposed to be entry level jobs, not permanent jobs. What is better, more people working for a bit less or less people working for a bit more.

- Squash labor unions

100%++++! We can chat about this for years, but we both disagree on this subject. But in Wisconsin, school districts are now in the black from the red due to the new laws Walker passed. And they do not have to use the WEA trust for their medical and can actually explore the free market.

We can also chat about how tough it is to fire a teach, but that would take a lot of space to go through the 1000 pages of forms and deadlines. Check out "Waiting for Superman". A great movie showing the problems of unions.

- Give tax cuts to the richest people in the country

Letting the economy grow with business owners hiring more people is bad? The Bush tax cuts actually increased revenue to the government and kept unemployment under 6% until the financial crisis.

- Balance the budget solely on the backs of the working class

Another liberal talking point. Right now 47% of the country pays ZERO federal income tax. How much more do you want? 99% of those making less than 50k a year paid 0 federal income tax.

Sure, closing loopholes in the tax code is great. But even if you take 100% of all income over 250k you would only close this years deficit by 50%. The balancing is entitlement reform.

So LB, would you just keep the current system, let the Bush tax cuts expire and see the debt grow and grow?



AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 11 2011 5:53 PM EDT

Don't get me started on the council housing in England... that is spectacular mismanagement... and frankly the English welfare entitlement system is punishingly flawed. Almost my entire extended family lives there and they just shake their heads.

While there are things wrong with it, it's not that flawed. The problem isn't with the system itself, rather the problem is with the people intent on (and able to) cheating and defrauding it.

As always, it's those who really need the welfare that suffer because of it.

QBRanger August 11 2011 5:56 PM EDT

GL,

And that is a huge problem in America as well.

But it is very hard to differentiate the true needy from the slackers.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] August 11 2011 6:00 PM EDT

I'm right there with you on that Titan... but the current system fails to provide a punishment suitable for the crime.

I'm way anti-state sponsored murder, but even with a fundamental issue with anyone taking that much power over another person I'm still unable to concoct a hell fit for someone with no regard for life at all.

Thus the hyperbolic "kill everyone they've ever met or been connected with" theory came into being...

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] August 11 2011 6:03 PM EDT

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/fun-with-deficit-statistics/

stop quoting that 100% of over 250k...

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 11 2011 6:09 PM EDT

Well, more 'genius' moves form our Government.

They have slashed hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs. But that's ok. Because the plan is that the private sector will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs to cover this.

In this global climate, the private sector just laughed nd continued to downsize themselves.

So, there's many, many more on benefits, becuase they no longer have jobs, and there aren't any jobs.

So the Government decides that to stop the benefit payments, they will force those on benefits to do voluntary work. Like cleaning the parks (now the park keepers have all been made redundant...).

So not only could you now be out of a job, you could also be forced to do your old job, for nothing...

What should have happened was all these jobs needing volunteers created as minimum wage jobs. And those on benefits (able to work of course) be made to take these, in employment.

Less paid out in benefits, and more taxes coming in.

But no.

DERPA [Red Permanent Assurance] August 11 2011 6:10 PM EDT

+5 nov, that poem was beautiful.
It is crap like this that just confirms the "take, take, take" mentality of the left. Let others do the dirty work and just tax and take from them.
I'd take that tinfoil off your head if I could. Has completely distorted your view of the vicious cycles in food stamps, daylabor, depression, beer, and green beans in bulk.
Not to have the government come and take more of my earned money and waste it on useless things.
Mind if I twist what you say into a strawman for a sec? Gracias. People and the children with a background like Ranger and Xeno really are useless. ;)
Water, roads, police, libraries, unbaised radio, firefighters, space telescopes, research into the cure for cancer, etc. You love that socialistic stuff without saying, but don't preach like a quarter of your entire bill is handed over to poor darkies in Crenshaw on April 16th.

In this Oblama nation malarkey, I don't see great mention of the murderous percentages the rich are to be taxed so it's hard to accept the sky is falling especially from persons that ignore what they were educated in. Fortunately, we can presently see how much is being lost from not taxing the rich in terms of common man deductive reasoning. Your views and those of the right are very easy to condemn when ignoring major issues for personal greed. This rampaging Darwinism has lead us to a new type of famine, not a lack of food since we have stockpiles of that, but lack of means for some to afford food and basic luxuries. Topped off by the utmost hate from the public for issues they have no control over. Be it single parent, immagrant, or homeless. Adding further insult to often physical injuries do we think those on the gov'ment tit get too much of the pie to live from.

If you can't stand to fork over one dwarf cherry from your ginormous cherry pie once a year so that cherry can be sliced and added to bowls for large groups of children to nibble from. Yet are perfectly fine in taking more cherry than a single kid ate away from one of those children. Well...Your American dream is to kill and eat children. Praise Jesus! Satire aside. Ranger, you are extremely good at trolling, but at some point you have to stop and think about what you lead us to believe.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 11 2011 6:14 PM EDT

Thus the hyperbolic "kill everyone they've ever met or been connected with" theory came into being...

If this was actually serious, I'd have to staunchly oppose it. I wouldn't allow you to punish the innocent for someone else's crime.

But things like chemical castration for rapists. That's something I could get behind.

By the by, I honestly feel that too much emphasis is put on rehabilitation and human rights. And not enough on actual *punishment*.

Bring back hard labour. Make people *dread* to be caught and sent to prison. That would reduce crime.

No more open jails, trips out, playstations or holidays.

Hard grafting grind until you'd repaid your debt.

And a very heartfelt apology to those unfortunate to have been sentenced wrongly.

Lord Bob August 11 2011 6:40 PM EDT

Republicans do NOT want to cut Medicare.
Privatize it, yes.

Just make those that need it be able to get it without the fraud that currently occurs.
Hey, I'm all for cutting out fraud and severely punishing those that engage in. But Republicans including yourself frequently rail against "welfare" and those that need it. Programs for home heating assistance, affordable housing, community health centers. All cut because Boehner got 98% of what he wanted.

The student aid is now in the hands of the government,
Where it belongs.

Yeppers!! Minimum wage actually decreases employment.
And killing it pushes those who are employed further down the economic ladder. As it is now, minimum wage is not anywhere near enough to live on. And you want to reduce that. But hey, if we do cut minimum wage the poor won't be able to afford those refrigerators they're not supposed to have, so good plan, right?

My grandmother-in-law owns a kennel in St. Louis. The min wage is stopping her from hiring more people since she has to pay the people she has, who are untrained laborers, a higher wage than she would.
So she can't afford the cost of doing business? Sounds like she shouldn't be in business!

Also: "a higher wage than she would"??? Seriously? Your grandmother-in-law is lamenting the fact that she can't pay slave wages to the people making her money? What a despicable thing to say. These are exactly the kind of people I DON'T want making economic decisions for this country. "Let them eat cake!" and all.

I made my point on this and the union thing. Moving on to taxes.

Rich people have money. Corporations have money. They are still making profits. They aren't producing or hiring not because they don't have money, but because people aren't buying. Why aren't people buying? I assure you it's not because they're afraid the wealthiest 1% won't be able to buy even finer champagne for their seventh yacht because of taxes.

To stimulate the economy you need more demand. When there is demand, an entrepreneur will fill that niche (and no, a 3% tax difference is not going to dissuade them, especially when there is more money to be had with a stronger middle class buying more). Giving those who have everything even more does not solve the economic crisis. It just allows the richest to do stupid nonsense like build that gold-plated boat on that other thread (yes, I know it was fake, my point stands). Stimulate the economy, create jobs, create demand, build a strong middle class. THAT's how you build an economy. Simply making the rich richer does not work.

So let me say it again unless it isn't clear: yes, I favor higher taxes on the rich. Yes I do. Don't bother accusing me of it. I'm admitting it. Higher taxes on the rich, more stimulus spending to build a strong working class. Do that, and it will pay for everyone in the long term, including the wealthiest.

entitlement reform.
That too. *grin*

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] August 11 2011 7:44 PM EDT

The idea that harsher punishments do anything but keep people locked up longer is as silly as the death penalty keeping people safe.
http://www.google.com/search?q=death+penalty+poor+deterrent

Which is exactly why I used as much exaggeration as I could muster as my solution to really bad folks. Even if they knew they'd be ensuring the death of everyone they'd ever known the people who see their fellow humans as potential profit and loss couldn't stop themselves. Anyone that dedicated to a perspective might as well be blind.

Education and economic reforms are so far the only real solution to crime. Hell just end the drug war and watch the welfare numbers fall!

Lord Bob August 11 2011 7:48 PM EDT

Hell just end the drug war
A perfectly good place to start those spending cuts!

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 12 2011 4:45 AM EDT

The idea that harsher punishments do anything but keep people locked up longer is as silly as the death penalty keeping people safe.

If you can't rehabilitate offenders, then why not keep them locked up longer?

And get them to *do* something while they're locked up.

Phrede August 12 2011 5:29 AM EDT

Many of the looters shouldnt be locked up but should be put on community service helping to rebuild those communities that they have helped to destroy.

QBJohnnywas August 12 2011 7:25 AM EDT

You don't think people held in jails aren't already working?

The use of prison labour, that is using them for nothing, is supposedly not allowed in the UK, however if you pay them a wage then it's allowed. Of course there is no minimum wage for this kind of work, so that wage may just be ᆪ5 sterling a week, not even enough for a packet of cigarettes!

Many private companies use them in this way, here and in many other countries. For instance Dyson used the prison service for a long time. BP in the clean ups after their big spill recently used prison labour by all acounts.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 12 2011 8:07 AM EDT

Pfft. Don't even pay them a fiver a week. ;)

There's also a 100,000 signature petition (the amount necessary by the new system to force the petition to be discussed in parliament) to remove benefits from those convicted of Rioting.

If they destroyed their community, then their community shouldn't be expected to provide them any benefits...

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 12 2011 8:10 AM EDT

Many of the looters shouldn't be locked up but should be put on community service helping to rebuild those communities that they have helped to destroy.

Just make that their labour while in prison.

The amount of goods stolen will never fully be recovered, so those that stole things of worth (rather than packets of crips, basmati rice or Big Macs - reports were some looters broke into MacDonalds restuarants and started cooking their own food!), will still have the 'loot' after their suspended sentance or community service is up.

QBJohnnywas August 12 2011 8:42 AM EDT

I'm fully against the riots/looting etc, but the proposal to take away their benefits, which is being lined up against removing them from social housing is not something I'm particularly happy with.

Here we have hundreds of people who are being sentenced based on them carrying out violent crimes, involving assault, robbery, looting, criminal damage and so on. And the proposal is to make those people homeless and penniless, one politician was talking about confiscating their belongings as part of any punishment. Essentially an eye for an eye.

You don't think it would be a bit stupid to move what was an army of rampaging people onto the streets, with nothing to lose?

You could end up with even worse situations if you do that. At the least further riots, heading down to getting the army in, declaring martial law and then perhaps rounding them up and putting them in camps.

Everytime that kind of thing happens in other countries it has never ended well.


Meanwhile the Daily Telegraph, (a paper that leans to the right of things for those from outside of the UK) has this to say on everything:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100100708/the-moral-decay-of-our-society-is-as-bad-at-the-top-as-the-bottom/

Mikel August 12 2011 9:20 AM EDT

If you are doing something that is highly illegal, then you've already given up the rights of the common man.
Think of the people this guy has probably killed (or had killed) for ripping him off. Or how about the countless lives he's ruined thru supplying people with drugs?

And some people get upset because some scumbag gets shot by the police during his apprehension.

Whether this guy had a gun or not, shouldn't even be an issue. Known drug dealers making money will usually carry a weapon of some kind with them to protect themselves or defend their territory from other poachers/dealers. So he's already a high risk and any fast/false moves on his part will result in his death.

I get so annoyed over things like this, you would think common sense would prevail, but there's always some one out there trying to defend idiots like this guy and use the "what if that was you?" tactics to get the public riled up. Cops don't normally shoot first and ask questions later unless they feel threatened.

As far at the rioting goes? I think it's just a bunch of idiots/lazy people trying to capitalize on the situation and they think they have a free pass to steal/loot or destroy someone else's property. Rioters are usually from the lower class and uneducated.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 12 2011 9:30 AM EDT

with nothing to lose?

Well, that's one of the reasons being bandied around for the cause of the Riots in the first place.

It was somewhat surprising to see that the rioters came from a mixed and diverse background, from Opera performers and Teaching Assistants to 14 year old gang members.

What should we do with them?

Approach them and say "OK, we now need to understand your feelings, and why you started looting, killing and burning peopes homes down. And make sure you feel happy enough to not do that again. What can we give you?" as some 'community leaders' are suggesting?

What sort of punishment fits the crime here?

Recently, laws were passed to allow the police to confescate assests gained from weath accrued illegally. Such as taking away cars bought by money Drugs Barrons got from selling Drugs.

If we can never recover the goods stolen during the riots, should the offenders be made to work in the comunnity until such time as they've repaid the debt and damage they caused? Should we be also supplying them benefits at the same time?

If they were locked away, they get no benefits anyway, don't end up on the streets, and can stay incarcerated until such time the voluntary community labour they provide to the communities they have damage have been repaid.

Best of both worlds?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 12 2011 9:33 AM EDT

If you are doing something that is highly illegal, then you've already given up the rights of the common man.

Utterly agree. ;) And I've felt this way for a long time.

If you break the law, in turn the law should offer you no protection.

(for exmaple, you breka into someone's house to burgle them, and they hit you with a frying pan and injure you, you shouldn't be able to prosecute them becuase of your injures. Self inflicted. You wouldn't have been hurt if you hadn't borken the law by breaking into someones house.)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 12 2011 9:44 AM EDT

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100100708/the-moral-decay-of-our-society-is-as-bad-at-the-top-as-the-bottom/

That artical was very good! ;)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 12 2011 9:45 AM EDT

Oh and just anod towards the right learning, was the MPs in question were all from the Labour Left.

No real mention of the Tory right expenses fiddles, like charging to get your moat cleaned...

QBJohnnywas August 12 2011 10:11 AM EDT

Yes, I noticed that, but still the general attitude of the article is good. We shouldn't forget that tax evasion takes millions of pounds out of the country every day, or that our MPs have lived a pretty fine little life out of the public pocket.

I'm for putting the people involved in the riots to work rebuilding the damage they've done, that's the kind of tit for tat that I believe in, the kind that has a positive outcome.

This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003D1j">England riots</a>