As Greece riots continue, is it an omen of what to come in the U.S.?

The Democrats aren't worse. The real democrat is someone who respects the crowd and doesn't follow the neo-liberalism no matter what you say. If you want a politician who's worse, then he's called a Righty(Neo-liberalism, high taxes, low pensions and salaries etc). The Lefty doesn't do those monstrosities. Kirchner was a Lefty and saved Argentina from crisis, and guess what... He did the opposite of what E.U. and IMF do these days.

Tanno said:

The Democrats aren't worse. The real democrat is someone who respects the crowd and doesn't follow the neo-liberalism no matter what you say. If you want a politician who's worse, then he's called a Righty(Neo-liberalism, high taxes, low pensions and salaries etc). The Lefty doesn't do those monstrosities. Kirchner was a Lefty and saved Argentina from crisis, and guess what… He did the opposite of what E.U. and IMF do these days.

Click to expand...

Well, the Democrats here are for high taxes and high spending, so that's not so good either.

And Kirchner did some goods things, but Argentina still has a lot of issues. His efforts were not without fault.

zakhal said:

In Finland the problem seems to be that for ruling party the party's needs are more important than the needs of the finnish people and these two things are sometimes in conflict.

Click to expand...

This is inherent in even having political parties. George Washington (first president of the USA) summed it up in his farewell address:

"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
—GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796

blatantninja said:

And Kirchner did some goods things, but Argentina still has a lot of issues. His efforts were not without fault.

Click to expand...

Indeed, but he didn't live enough to save his people from the other problems. I wish he would be alive. Argentinians deserve to live. They did well to ban IMF from their country.

BillSeurer said:

This is inherent in even having political parties. George Washington (first president of the USA) summed it up in his farewell address:

"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
—GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796

Click to expand...

Its none the more true when in news the minister answers to you like in movie "1984 - how many fingers?" . I know the ruling party is wrong but they wont admit it. They just hope the four years until next elections will pass quickly.

Your elder president (I raise my hat for him) was very right just like your other elder in my signature "Those who dont read history are destined to repeat it." Edmund Burke 1729 - 1797.

The thing Im saying is in Finland Im working for new democracy that will correct this. I believe there is an answer. We just have to brainstorm some more and then overcome the ruling parties. There is a chance now that ruling parties are down with support.

But that is just secondary. What is most important is to unify finns. To stop them from fighting against each other. Its bad times. We need to forgive past and concentrate on now. We will either succeed or fail but it will happen together.

The Spirit of Winter War (Finnish: Talvisodan henki) is the national unity which is credited with having saved Finland from disintegrating along class and ideological lines under the Soviet invasion during the Winter War of November 30, 1939 to March 13, 1940.

Click to expand...

All for one and one for all.

Tanno said:

The Democrats aren't worse. The real democrat is someone who respects the crowd and doesn't follow the neo-liberalism no matter what you say. If you want a politician who's worse, then he's called a Righty(Neo-liberalism, high taxes, low pensions and salaries etc). The Lefty doesn't do those monstrosities. Kirchner was a Lefty and saved Argentina from crisis, and guess what… He did the opposite of what E.U. and IMF do these days.

Click to expand...

Huh? I don't ascribe to the left-right spectrum because it is an incredibly faulty representation in itself, but your items in parentheses do not describe what is generally considered a "righty". A "righty" would call for incredibly low taxes, privatization of pensions, supply side economics, and salary based upon merit (which is NOT the same thing as low). Sometimes I get the idea that people argue politics simply because they don't understand what the other side stands for (and I am not directing this comment at the poster I quoted in any way insultingly, I am just trying to correct people from faulty assumptions).

On the topic, as much as I would love to take the streets and riot because of my general distaste for the government, the U.S. is nowhere near the same state as Greece. Regardless, I support the Greeks taking to the streets. Don't let people tell you it is "your" debt simply because your government allowed it. You can't change the world by yourself. Taking to the streets is the best chance you have of individually making a change.

BillSeurer said:

This is inherent in even having political parties. George Washington (first president of the USA) summed it up in his farewell address:

"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
—GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796

Click to expand...

I love the quote! I have been ranting about the political parties for years.

blatantninja said:

Well, the Democrats here are for high taxes and high spending, so that's not so good either.

Click to expand...

You meant "fair" taxes surely?

rossrjensen said:

...and salary based upon merit (which is NOT the same thing as low).

Click to expand...

hmmmm maybe in theory. In practice it is very much the same thing as low...

I dont know what is fair about excessivly high taxes on the rich, almost all rich men and women have taken big risks to get them where they are now and we charge them these ludicrous taxes to as if to say "you shoudln't have done that". Most really rich men dont consider passing too much of their wealth to their children a good thing anway and give away their money to charity.

It is probably why hard work ethic has gone out of most countries because of things like this because while really rich men dont care THAT much the average joe doesnt see the point of working hard and raking in the money.


Another thing i dont understand is why tariffs are seen as a bad thing. Now that tariffs are gone for the most part people are sending their work to third world countries for their labour and sending thier finished products to devolped countries. So all those jobs are gone.

One last thing, why do department stores rip us off so much? My friend was telling me how he could buy shoes at about a half of the price of department stores from amazon, granted it is compared ot stores in Australia but i find that it is just wrong.

http://www.amazon.com/ASICS-Mens-Ge...J3RA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318052259&sr=8-1

http://www.rebelsport.com.au/ecom/rebel/product_detail.aspx?id=36613&cat=388

With the qualifier "excessively" your argument is more or less moot. I doubt that anyone is calling for excessive taxes on anyone. It just doesn't seem like a tenable position. The arguments tend to be about what is reasonable and what is excessive.
And I doubt that anyone would choose not to become rich because they'd have to pay to much taxes, as long as your wealth increases in real terms the percentage you have to pay in taxes is secondary.
I'm not sure I understand what your getting at in your second paragraph, who doesn't see the point of raking in money? Now people tend to have a cut-off point where they don't think that more money is worth the extra work but that's true regardless of taxes, all they can do is move that point somewhat (but honestly not all that much). There are other factors that come in to play there, ambition isn't necessarily fueled by the desire for wealth.

And the department stores aren't ripping you off, there are a lot of costs that a department store has that Amazon doesn't, from rent for prime real estate in the centre of cities to distributing goods to several different locations, to employing hundreds of store clerks.

hmmmm maybe in theory. In practice it is very much the same thing as low…

Click to expand...

You might have a point there, but surely there is a way to work towards a more pure state of that theory (something such as regular and consistent work quality checks - keep in mind that I am simply calling for someone to figure out a way, not saying I have the answer) rather than simply bypassing it altogether by forcing certain wages that people may not be worthy of.

peko said:

With the qualifier "excessively" your argument is more or less moot. I doubt that anyone is calling for excessive taxes on anyone. It just doesn't seem like a tenable position. The arguments tend to be about what is reasonable and what is excessive.

Click to expand...

Well that's exactly the argument. To the poster you are responding to, they are excessive, whereas you may not consider them to be. If it wasn't for fundamental differences like this, we would probably have much less political discussion to begin with.

rossrjensen said:

You might have a point there, but surely there is a way to work towards a more pure state of that theory (something such as regular and consistent work quality checks - keep in mind that I am simply calling for someone to figure out a way, not saying I have the answer) rather than simply bypassing it altogether by forcing certain wages that people may not be worthy of.

Click to expand...

I am not saying that I have an answer either RJ But here is the main problem: "fair wages" should mean wages of workers and of their bosses. But who decides what's "fair"? Employer and employee will each have their own opinion. Who referees? Logically (at least IMO) Trade Unions and employer's organisations should. But (to quote Wiki): "In countries with a pluralist or anglo-saxon economic system (such as the United Kingdom and the United States), where there is no institutionalized cooperation between employers' organizations, trade unions and government,…". So who?

Well, the fair wage doesn't depend to the agreement's conclusion of the two parties(bosses and workers). It depends to the same amount of salary for everyone, which means everyone who works there(both bosses and workers) gets to have the same amount of salary, i.e. 1000 euros for the boss and 1000 euros for the worker.

For someone to have 780 euros and another to have 3500 euros, that's really unfair.

Tanno said:

For someone to have 780 euros and another to have 3500 euros, that's really unfair.

Click to expand...

Not really. There are many more unskilled than there are skilled workers qualified for the latter position. And, speaking generally, this same position likely entails far greater responsibility.

If everyone were to get paid the same, sign me up for the easiest job with little to no skill requirements and in which I can clock in, clock out, and be done with my day, rather than taking home the stress that comes with a higher tier job.

I do have limits to this personal ideology however, many examples of which can be found in modern day American society with billion dollar hedge fund managers.

I was going to comment that that is very far off-topic, but in actuality, it is not. Part of the our social dogma is a sense of entitlement. Whether you are for or against this on the political spectrum is irrelevant. The fact is that it is not sustainable when respective GDPs cannot cover the costs. And, I say this is all related to the original post because people refuse to believe this or, if they do, they want to push the sacrifices on to others.

Until an economic collapse happens

Drithius said:

Until an economic collapse happens

Click to expand...

And that will happen, if they continue their stupid mnemoniac shit.

Tanno, you're too much the idealist. Equal pay for equal jobs, yes. However, as has been pointed out, not all jobs are equal. Would you pay thousands of your own money to become say a doctor but only get paid the same as someone who leaves school at 15 and becomes a grocery clerk? I'll agree that some people are GROSSLY overpaid, but in general most pay scales are at least reasonable!!

Corwin, maybe I'm an idealist, because I have many very good ideas I want to share with, but I also can see the future with what they're trying to do. If you think it more carefully, they're not going to make Greece like Romania, as they said, but as India. I only want to share what's good for everyone.

I also have the ability to see what's behind to every answer, because I happen to love psychological games, like Mahjong. I'm not deciding anything based to political reasons, like every stupid Greek politician do. I decide anything based to my democratic way, to rightful way and to awareness, because I want everyone's good sake, and not to harm anyone. To make something good from it, you need to decide to agree with someone in a basis, which can lead to the solution of any problem you encounter, unlike what the Greek and the German politicians do.

That applies to everyone here in Greece, and that's why we citizens do know why Greece is the true mother of Democracy.

So now, think it very carefully. Why didn't the stupid politicians use the Kirchner ideas to get us out of this crisis? Instead they're using neo-liberalism, like that Thatcher old hag, which will kill all of us.

Recently I did read that Kirchner deleted Argentina's debt by 75% and privatized her firms, which saved them from the eternal poverty. Since the default, they only had 25 pesos per month, now they do have 450 pesos per month, and I'm really glad that they're OK.

peko said:

With the qualifier "excessively" your argument is more or less moot. I doubt that anyone is calling for excessive taxes on anyone. It just doesn't seem like a tenable position. The arguments tend to be about what is reasonable and what is excessive.
And I doubt that anyone would choose not to become rich because they'd have to pay to much taxes, as long as your wealth increases in real terms the percentage you have to pay in taxes is secondary.
I'm not sure I understand what your getting at in your second paragraph, who doesn't see the point of raking in money? Now people tend to have a cut-off point where they don't think that more money is worth the extra work but that's true regardless of taxes, all they can do is move that point somewhat (but honestly not all that much). There are other factors that come in to play there, ambition isn't necessarily fueled by the desire for wealth.

And the department stores aren't ripping you off, there are a lot of costs that a department store has that Amazon doesn't, from rent for prime real estate in the centre of cities to distributing goods to several different locations, to employing hundreds of store clerks.

Click to expand...

In Australia there is a 45% tax for income earned over 180k. THat is simply too much tax in my opinion. America isnt nearly as bad at 33% at around 400k onwards i believe. It is a huge difference. And that isnt including sales tax, gst, flood tax etc.

As for department stores i can understand how rent would affect it but charging 100% more than online shops is absurd.

zahratustra said:

I am not saying that I have an answer either RJ But here is the main problem: "fair wages" should mean wages of workers and of their bosses. But who decides what's "fair"? Employer and employee will each have their own opinion. Who referees? Logically (at least IMO) Trade Unions and employer's organisations should. But (to quote Wiki): "In countries with a pluralist or anglo-saxon economic system (such as the United Kingdom and the United States), where there is no institutionalized cooperation between employers' organizations, trade unions and government,…". So who?

Click to expand...

How about me and a few hundred of my clones Honestly, that is a major flaw, and as I said, I don't know the solution, I was merely throwing out a poorly thought or fleshed out alternative. Certainly someone much smarter than I (or at least with more expertise) can come up with a solution to your conundrum and bring it to us. If I had more time to dedicate to the problem, I would give it a shot, but honestly I would rather spend what free time I do have playing through Fallout 2 again