Smaller Government?

American taxpayers will send approximately $6 trillion to the Pentagon over the next decade, as military costs are projected to hit levels 20 percent higher than their Cold War peak, the Congressional Budget Office says in a new analysis.

That doesn't include the cost of so-called "overseas contingency operations," military slang for the billions of spent off-budget every year to fight the never-ending and open-ended War on Terror.

The current federal budget calls for $575 billion to fund the U.S. military, with another $65 billion in OCO costs. The Trump administration's goals for the military—which included a $54 billion boost in Pentagon spending this year—will result in "steady increases" in annual base budgets for the next decade, with non-war-costs hitting $688 billion by 2027, according to the CBO.

Three policies will drive the military budget higher, the CBO analysis says. An increase in the number of military personnel, perhaps by as much as 10 percent (an increase of about 237,000 people). A 30 percent expansion to 355 ships in the Navy fleet. And the cost of weapons (along with research and development, a.k.a. contracts to defense contractors) and military equipment is expected "to outpace inflation."

If the military budget hits $688 billion, as the CBO expects, it would be about 20 percent higher than Pentagon's peak annual spending, adjusted for inflation, during the final stages of the Cold War in the 1980s. The Trump administration's plans to grow the size and cost of the military will cost taxpayers $683 billion more than projections for the next decade made at the end of the Obama administration.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/12/05/us-military-will-cost-about-6-trillion-o

Nothing remotely "conservative" about that.

Americans voted in the insane orange fascist warmongering homophobic racist sex mad billionaire.
They reap what they sow.
Get him indicted then sent to prison for fraud, rape, amd treason. Guantanamo Bay will do.
Sharing a cell with a gay Muslim terrorist will be karma.

It's because The USA is losing economically to China and can no longer control nations economically.
If the USA is to remain top dog and assert it's policy it needs Military might.

Military spending in the USA is way out of kilter with the actual results that they achieve...

Whether it's seeing a $20 carpenters hammer costing $120 by the time it's delivered to some unit quarter_stores; or the ongoing cost blowouts in the current 'Lead-In Fighter' development programme;  or the Navy buying more ships than they can use..
Since the 1930s US military spending has been gradually and steadily increasing with one leading goal --  for those in guvm'nt to make their corporate/big business friends all that much richer.

With more 'due diligence' and more competent budget 'oversight', they could probably halve their annual spend while maintaining the actual outcomes..      

Same everywhere Wolfie.
Here in the UK, the Civil service, local councils and the NHS still pay stupid for basic items.
A box of 10 Bic biros that cost £1.50 in a supermarket cost 10x that when supplied for public services. Just part of a continuation of rip off Britain to pander to the needs of shareholders of wealthy private companies.
Work out the cost of almost everything that needs centrally purchasing.Eye watering savings could be made.

Maddog wrote:American taxpayers will send approximately $6 trillion to the Pentagon over the next decade, as military costs are projected to hit levels 20 percent higher than their Cold War peak, the Congressional Budget Office says in a new analysis.

Point well taken.  Perhaps it's an argument that supports smaller government, or no government.  

But consider this: that much money could do a world of good, instead of purchasing new toys for generals and admirals.  One-third of that money could completely fund a comprehensive healthcare program, saving lives instead of killing them.

Let's face it...a military exists for ego purposes, not for necessity.  Only in a primitive existence is it more self-gratifying to say I took 15-lives, than to say I saved one.  That is only to say that feelings of rage are of more importance than feelings of compassion and love.  

But a rational person overcomes a surplusage of rage and lack of impulse control, and supplants it with rational thought. Human beings, combining resources for a common good, is the most rational of pursuits.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:American taxpayers will send approximately $6 trillion to the Pentagon over the next decade, as military costs are projected to hit levels 20 percent higher than their Cold War peak, the Congressional Budget Office says in a new analysis.

Point well taken.  Perhaps it's an argument that supports smaller government, or no government.  

But consider this: that much money could do a world of good, instead of purchasing new toys for generals and admirals.  One-third of that money could completely fund a comprehensive healthcare program, saving lives instead of killing them.

Let's face it...a military exists for ego purposes, not for necessity.  Only in a primitive existence is it more self-gratifying to say I took 15-lives, than to say I saved one.  That is only to say that feelings of rage are of more importance than feelings of compassion and love.  

But a rational person overcomes a surplusage of rage and lack of impulse control, and supplants it with rational thought.  Human beings, combining resources for a common good, is the most rational of pursuits.

The money could do a world of good in the hands of the Americans that earned it, instead of confiscated and spent as the politicians deem appropriate.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Point well taken.  Perhaps it's an argument that supports smaller government, or no government.  

But consider this: that much money could do a world of good, instead of purchasing new toys for generals and admirals.  One-third of that money could completely fund a comprehensive healthcare program, saving lives instead of killing them.

Let's face it...a military exists for ego purposes, not for necessity.  Only in a primitive existence is it more self-gratifying to say I took 15-lives, than to say I saved one.  That is only to say that feelings of rage are of more importance than feelings of compassion and love.  

But a rational person overcomes a surplusage of rage and lack of impulse control, and supplants it with rational thought.  Human beings, combining resources for a common good, is the most rational of pursuits.

The money could do a world of good in the hands of the Americans that earned it, instead of confiscated and spent as the politicians deem appropriate.

So, you are arguing for disunity?  You would like to disassemble the effort made at amassing the collective resources, and the capacity it creates, and go back to the Hobbesian State of Nature.

Historically, your libertarian argument goes back 18th-century anarchy: if less government is better government, then no government is best of all.  To deny that would put you in the unorthodox position of arguing for government.  I think that anarchy was a utopian idea, born of a reaction to industrialism and collectivism of corporate capitalism.  It was pure reaction, and not of any advancement.

Well, I'm of the opinion that people can do more together, than they can do individually.  I think armies have proved that, as well as endeavors like science and education.  I really believe you are arguing for a less advanced form of Human existence.

Besides, without a social existence, your individual worth would have no meaning.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The money could do a world of good in the hands of the Americans that earned it, instead of confiscated and spent as the politicians deem appropriate.

So, you are arguing for disunity?  You would like to disassemble the effort made at amassing the collective resources, and the capacity it creates, and go back to the Hobbesian State of Nature.

Historically, your libertarian argument goes back 18th-century anarchy: if less government is better government, then no government is best of all.  To deny that would put you in the unorthodox position of arguing for government.  I think that anarchy was a utopian idea, born of a reaction to industrialism and collectivism of corporate capitalism.  It was pure reaction, and not of any advancement.

Well, I'm of the opinion that people can do more together, than they can do individually.  I think armies have proved that, as well as endeavors like science and education.  I really believe you are arguing for a less advanced form of Human existence.

Besides, without a social existence, your individual worth would have no meaning.

I'm for much less government. Call me a minarchist, libertarian or classical liberal, it doesn't really matter to me.

No doubt, people can be improved by force. I could make a fat person more healthy if I threatened them with a beating for eating too much. I'm just OK with letting people make their own minds up for the most part.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So, you are arguing for disunity?  You would like to disassemble the effort made at amassing the collective resources, and the capacity it creates, and go back to the Hobbesian State of Nature.

Historically, your libertarian argument goes back 18th-century anarchy: if less government is better government, then no government is best of all.  To deny that would put you in the unorthodox position of arguing for government.  I think that anarchy was a utopian idea, born of a reaction to industrialism and collectivism of corporate capitalism.  It was pure reaction, and not of any advancement.

Well, I'm of the opinion that people can do more together, than they can do individually.  I think armies have proved that, as well as endeavors like science and education.  I really believe you are arguing for a less advanced form of Human existence.

Besides, without a social existence, your individual worth would have no meaning.

I'm for much less government. Call me a minarchist, libertarian or classical liberal, it doesn't really matter to me.

The point is the same.

Maddog wrote:No doubt, people can be improved by force. I could make a fat person more healthy if I threatened them with a beating for eating too much. I'm just OK with letting people make their own minds up for the most part.

I argue for social intelligence, and you leap to "force". Let's look at it from a third point of view: cooperation.

Admittedly, there is an issue with insistence and collective action. See, Gunner Myrdal, The Political Element in the Development of Economic Theory (1930). But if democracy has any validity at all, the vote of a majority should suffice to legitimize the collective will.

The problem is, how to achieve a genuine self-determination? As Alexis de Toqueville notes, the majority can be a tyranny too. There's where you should be making your argument.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The money could do a world of good in the hands of the Americans that earned it, instead of confiscated and spent as the politicians deem appropriate.

So, you are arguing for disunity?  You would like to disassemble the effort made at amassing the collective resources, and the capacity it creates, and go back to the Hobbesian State of Nature.

Historically, your libertarian argument goes back 18th-century anarchy: if less government is better government, then no government is best of all.  To deny that would put you in the unorthodox position of arguing for government.  I think that anarchy was a utopian idea, born of a reaction to industrialism and collectivism of corporate capitalism.  It was pure reaction, and not of any advancement.

Well, I'm of the opinion that people can do more together, than they can do individually.  I think armies have proved that, as well as endeavors like science and education.  I really believe you are arguing for a less advanced form of Human existence.

Besides, without a social existence, your individual worth would have no meaning.

I'm for much less government. Call me a minarchist, libertarian or classical liberal, it doesn't really matter to me.

No doubt, people can be improved by force. I could make a fat person more healthy if I threatened them with a beating for eating too much. I'm just OK with letting people make their own minds up for the most part.  

I really like this idea too but I'm not sure how it could, or would, work.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm for much less government. Call me a minarchist, libertarian or classical liberal, it doesn't really matter to me.

The point is the same.

Maddog wrote:No doubt, people can be improved by force. I could make a fat person more healthy if I threatened them with a beating for eating too much. I'm just OK with letting people make their own minds up for the most part.

I argue for social intelligence, and you leap to "force".  Let's look at it from a third point of view: cooperation.  

Admittedly, there is an issue with insistence and collective action.  See, Gunner Myrdal, The Political Element in the Development of Economic Theory (1930).  But if democracy has any validity at all, the vote of a majority should suffice to legitimize the collective will.

The problem is, how to achieve a genuine self-determination?  As Alexis de Toqueville notes, the majority can be a tyranny too.  There's where you should be making your argument.

Democracy is simply two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. There needs to be protections for minorities from being harmed by the majorities.

And I too believe in cooperation as it is voluntary. I leap to force, because when someone is forced to do something, force is the appropriate word, not cooperation.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm for much less government. Call me a minarchist, libertarian or classical liberal, it doesn't really matter to me.

No doubt, people can be improved by force. I could make a fat person more healthy if I threatened them with a beating for eating too much. I'm just OK with letting people make their own minds up for the most part.  

I really like this idea too but I'm not sure how it could, or would, work.

If you apply the NAP, or Non Aggression Principle to most circumstances, you can see how it would work.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The point is the same.



I argue for social intelligence, and you leap to "force".  Let's look at it from a third point of view: cooperation.  

Admittedly, there is an issue with insistence and collective action.  See, Gunner Myrdal, The Political Element in the Development of Economic Theory (1930).  But if democracy has any validity at all, the vote of a majority should suffice to legitimize the collective will.

The problem is, how to achieve a genuine self-determination?  As Alexis de Toqueville notes, the majority can be a tyranny too.  There's where you should be making your argument.

Democracy is simply two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. There needs to be protections for minorities from being harmed by the majorities.

And I too believe in cooperation as it is voluntary. I leap to force, because when someone is forced to do something, force is the appropriate word, not cooperation.

So people shouldn’t have forced segregation and civil rights? Because a hell of a lot of people were not cooperating back then.

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Democracy is simply two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. There needs to be protections for minorities from being harmed by the majorities.

And I too believe in cooperation as it is voluntary. I leap to force, because when someone is forced to do something, force is the appropriate word, not cooperation.

So people shouldn’t have forced segregation and civil rights? Because a hell of a lot of people were not cooperating back then.

I think governments should treat everyone equal, because they collectively represent everyone. The individual should be free to be an asshole.

The reason that we now treat each other better is because people decided to force the government to take action, not the other way around. The people influenced the government. Had the government done nothing, the treatment of minorities would have improved anyway.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The point is the same.



I argue for social intelligence, and you leap to "force".  Let's look at it from a third point of view: cooperation.  

Admittedly, there is an issue with insistence and collective action.  See, Gunner Myrdal, The Political Element in the Development of Economic Theory (1930).  But if democracy has any validity at all, the vote of a majority should suffice to legitimize the collective will.

The problem is, how to achieve a genuine self-determination?  As Alexis de Toqueville notes, the majority can be a tyranny too.  There's where you should be making your argument.

Democracy is simply two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. There needs to be protections for minorities from being harmed by the majorities.

This is an improvement: recognition that there is tyranny in democracy is taken directly from Toqueville, Democracy in America (1840), Chapter: Tyranny of the Majority. Toqueville also had a profound effect on John Stuart Mill, in his utilitarian thinking.

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:

So people shouldn’t have forced segregation and civil rights? Because a hell of a lot of people were not cooperating back then.

I think governments should treat everyone equal, because they collectively represent everyone. The individual should be free to be an asshole.

The reason that we now treat each other better is because people decided to force the government to take action, not the other way around. The people influenced the government. [/b]Had the government done nothing, the treatment of minorities would have improved anyway. [/b] 

You’re kidding right?

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:

So people shouldn’t have forced segregation and civil rights? Because a hell of a lot of people were not cooperating back then.

I think governments should treat everyone equal, because they collectively represent everyone. The individual should be free to be an asshole.

The reason that we now treat each other better is because people decided to force the government to take action, not the other way around. The people influenced the government. Had the government done nothing, the treatment of minorities would have improved anyway.  

Where this leads is...people cannot advance collectively. If all advancement is to be individual only, we must back up and assume an individual perspective. We can't cheat and borrow social ideas. We need to do away with language, currency, writing, political and social entities, and any inter-communicative mechanism.

Then we can begin over as individuals. We move forward only by chance, by imitating superior individuals who per chance happen to stumble over certain individual innovations. But of course, those can be stolen, because in an anti-social state, there can be no laws. So power and force become the mainstay, and Hobbes' State of Nature becomes a State of War.

Or we could go back to society. But then we would have to have rules. And enforcement. And all the things anarchists hate.

I think you can see that your theory is a non sequitur. Mankind cannot progress in a totally individualist state.

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Democracy is simply two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. There needs to be protections for minorities from being harmed by the majorities.

And I too believe in cooperation as it is voluntary. I leap to force, because when someone is forced to do something, force is the appropriate word, not cooperation.

So people shouldn’t have forced segregation and civil rights? Because a hell of a lot of people were not cooperating back then.

I think governments should treat everyone equal, because they collectively represent everyone. The individual should be free to be an asshole.

The reason that we now treat each other better is because people decided to force the government to take action, not the other way around. The people influenced the government. Had the government done nothing, the treatment of minorities would have improved anyway.  

Regarding your last line...I kinda believe that too, but that is all dependent upon how good we perceive the human race to actually be.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I think governments should treat everyone equal, because they collectively represent everyone. The individual should be free to be an asshole.

The reason that we now treat each other better is because people decided to force the government to take action, not the other way around. The people influenced the government. Had the government done nothing, the treatment of minorities would have improved anyway.  

Regarding your last line...I kinda believe that too, but that is all dependent upon how good we perceive the human race to actually be.  

If we cant trust people to treat each other well, how can we trust people that we put in positions of power to treat people well? Has our experience with people in power taught us that these people behave better than the rest of us? That they treat others better than the rest of us?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I think governments should treat everyone equal, because they collectively represent everyone. The individual should be free to be an asshole.

The reason that we now treat each other better is because people decided to force the government to take action, not the other way around. The people influenced the government. Had the government done nothing, the treatment of minorities would have improved anyway.  

Where this leads is...people cannot advance collectively.  If all advancement is to be individual only, we must back up and assume an individual perspective.  We can't cheat and borrow social ideas.  We need to do away with language, currency, writing, political and social entities, and any inter-communicative mechanism.

Then we can begin over as individuals.  We move forward only by chance, by imitating superior individuals who per chance happen to stumble over certain individual innovations.  But of course, those can be stolen, because in an anti-social state, there can be no laws.  So power and force become the mainstay, and Hobbes' State of Nature becomes a State of War.

Or we could go back to society.  But then we would have to have rules.  And enforcement.  And all the things anarchists hate.

I think you can see that your theory is a non sequitur.  Mankind cannot progress in a totally individualist state.

People can advance collectively, and do it all of the time, voluntarily.

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I think governments should treat everyone equal, because they collectively represent everyone. The individual should be free to be an asshole.

The reason that we now treat each other better is because people decided to force the government to take action, not the other way around. The people influenced the government. [/b]Had the government done nothing, the treatment of minorities would have improved anyway. [/b] 

You’re kidding right?

No. I believe society drives government, not the other way around. Government is a lagging indicator, not a leading indicator.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I think governments should treat everyone equal, because they collectively represent everyone. The individual should be free to be an asshole.

The reason that we now treat each other better is because people decided to force the government to take action, not the other way around. The people influenced the government. Had the government done nothing, the treatment of minorities would have improved anyway.  

Regarding your last line...I kinda believe that too, but that is all dependent upon how good we perceive the human race to actually be.  

If we cant trust people to treat each other well, how can we trust people that we put in positions of power to treat people well? Has our experience with people in power taught us that these people behave better than the rest of us? That they treat others better than the rest of us?

That's exactly right.

Actually I was chatting it Ben this evening and we said the same thing. Most MPs / congressmen go into politics with true intentions. Some, or many, just get more corrupt along the way. I can actually see how easily it could happen too.

And isn't that the worry? People are greedy and greed always chases power and money.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

If we cant trust people to treat each other well, how can we trust people that we put in positions of power to treat people well? Has our experience with people in power taught us that these people behave better than the rest of us? That they treat others better than the rest of us?

That's exactly right.

Actually I was chatting it Ben this evening and we said the same thing. Most MPs / congressmen go into politics with true intentions. Some, or many, just get more corrupt along the way. I can actually see how easily it could happen too.

And isn't that the worry? People are greedy and greed always chases power and money.

I think people are generally altruistic, but greed is always right there under the surface. Greed is also difficult to define. Is it greedy to want enough money to buy a Corvette, or should you be happy with a Kia?

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:

You’re kidding right?

No. I believe society drives government, not the other way around. Government is a lagging indicator, not a leading indicator.  

Over reach by government is a lagging indicator. government sometimes has to drive society, otherwise there would be chaos. There will always be corruption in government and society. It’s been that way since the beginning. There is no Utopia.

And I’m sure that those people who 54 years ago were not allowed to marry their partner of choice or sit and be served where they wanted or been allowed to vote would agree with you.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Where this leads is...people cannot advance collectively.  If all advancement is to be individual only, we must back up and assume an individual perspective.  We can't cheat and borrow social ideas.  We need to do away with language, currency, writing, political and social entities, and any inter-communicative mechanism.

Then we can begin over as individuals.  We move forward only by chance, by imitating superior individuals who per chance happen to stumble over certain individual innovations.  But of course, those can be stolen, because in an anti-social state, there can be no laws.  So power and force become the mainstay, and Hobbes' State of Nature becomes a State of War.

Or we could go back to society.  But then we would have to have rules.  And enforcement.  And all the things anarchists hate.

I think you can see that your theory is a non sequitur.  Mankind cannot progress in a totally individualist state.

People can advance collectively, and do it all of the time, voluntarily.

That's my point. And with collectivism comes rules. Rules mean government and laws.

Yet you so adverse to those consequences of collectivism.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The money could do a world of good in the hands of the Americans that earned it, instead of confiscated and spent as the politicians deem appropriate.

So, you are arguing for disunity?  You would like to disassemble the effort made at amassing the collective resources, and the capacity it creates, and go back to the Hobbesian State of Nature.

Historically, your libertarian argument goes back 18th-century anarchy: if less government is better government, then no government is best of all.  To deny that would put you in the unorthodox position of arguing for government.  I think that anarchy was a utopian idea, born of a reaction to industrialism and collectivism of corporate capitalism.  It was pure reaction, and not of any advancement.

Well, I'm of the opinion that people can do more together, than they can do individually.  I think armies have proved that, as well as endeavors like science and education.  I really believe you are arguing for a less advanced form of Human existence.

Besides, without a social existence, your individual worth would have no meaning.

I'm for much less government. Call me a minarchist, libertarian or classical liberal, it doesn't really matter to me.

No doubt, people can be improved by force. I could make a fat person more healthy if I threatened them with a beating for eating too much. I'm just OK with letting people make their own minds up for the most part.  

I really like this idea too but I'm not sure how it could, or would, work.

Simple, lower taxes and if you 'decided' to be poor and get sick then 'you made up your mind' to be poor and don't deserve health care.

it's a terrible idea because it ignores the fact that disparity in income and economic status defines the choices you even get to "make your mind up" about

As I was reviewing this thread I was reminded of Woody Guthrie's song, This Land is Your Land.  One verse in particular is apropos:

"As I went walking I saw a sign there
And on the sign it said "No Trespassing."
But on the other side it didn't say nothing,
That side was made for you and me."

True freedom is open air, yes.  But when you ask what that means in a political sense, it means the lack of restriction.  True freedom is, everyone can go where they want.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

People can advance collectively, and do it all of the time, voluntarily.

That's my point.  And with collectivism comes rules.  Rules mean government and laws.

Yet you so adverse to those consequences of collectivism.

No it doesn't. Not if it's voluntary. We can form a group that does things for the betterment of the group without force.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's my point.  And with collectivism comes rules.  Rules mean government and laws.

Yet you so adverse to those consequences of collectivism.

No it doesn't. Not if it's voluntary. We can form a group that does things for the betterment of the group without force.  

You're suggesting that there's not one individual who won't drift outside the lines?

Dream on.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No it doesn't. Not if it's voluntary. We can form a group that does things for the betterment of the group without force.  

You're suggesting that there's not one individual who won't drift outside the lines?

Dream on.

Of course they will. They will no longer work towards the goals that others deem valuable.

Let's take welfare. You can voluntarily give to those that help others, or you can choose not to. Both are OK.

There's been a lot of research into this...studies of unions, and other cartels, where the group holds the norm, and the temptation of the individual is to cheat. There were a lot of those studied during the OPEC world market control of oil.

Voluntary cartelism creates the very incentive to cheat. As long as everyone else tows the mark, the individual is rewarded (has every incentive) to cheat. Hell, it happens when it isn't voluntary. Even easier when it's voluntary.

Take a look at The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, by Mancur Olson, Jr.

Original Quill wrote:There's been a lot of research into this...studies of unions, and other cartels, where the group holds the norm, and the temptation of the individual is to cheat.  There were a lot of those studied during the OPEC world market control of oil.

Voluntary cartelism creates the very incentive to cheat.  As long as everyone else tows the mark, the individual is rewarded (has every incentive) to cheat.  Hell, it happens when it isn't voluntary.  Even easier when it's voluntary.  

Take a look at The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, by Mancur Olson, Jr.

So let them cheat.

You do what you think is right for your fellow man, and don't worry about forcing others to act like you.


It really bothers you that others could be allowed to behave in a manner different than you would like them, doesn't it?

If everybody could be proven to always be altruistic and wanting to help one another, small government (and at most extreme no government) could work. But human nature sadly isn't like that.

Eilzel wrote:If everybody could be proven to always be altruistic and wanting to help one another, small government (and at most extreme no government) could work. But human nature sadly isn't like that.

Actually, most people do help each other.

I mean daily people give what little money they have to aid and most of thyat is spunked up the wall.

That is what gets peoples goat, is how it is wasted

The reality is people have become so reliant on the state and forgot to look after their family.

That is wrong on every level, for one main reason. Its allowing people to expect others to care for who we most love, when we should ourselves.

Its like a burden some want to rid of.

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:If everybody could be proven to always be altruistic and wanting to help one another, small government (and at most extreme no government) could work. But human nature sadly isn't like that.

Actually, most people do help each other.

I mean daily people give what little money they have to aid and most of thyat is spunked up the wall.

That is what gets peoples goat, is how it is wasted

The reality is people have become so reliant on the state and forgot to look after their family.

That is wrong on every level, for one main reason. Its allowing people to expect others to care for who we most love, when we should ourselves.

Its like a burden some want to rid of.

I ageee there is a lot of waste in government.

But in terms of things like the NHS, education and pensions, not to mention maintain a substatial military (for a country the size of the UK), we need a fairly large government.

I think most parents, at least those I know, do a decent jib of raising their kids. Our seniors are another thing, many do end up looked after by the state, but when the norm today is both parents in a household have to work full time it makes really being able to look after older loved ones difficult. That's a problem with how society developed to require both adults in a house to work.

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:


Actually, most people do help each other.

I mean daily people give what little money they have to aid and most of thyat is spunked up the wall.

That is what gets peoples goat, is how it is wasted

The reality is people have become so reliant on the state and forgot to look after their family.

That is wrong on every level, for one main reason. Its allowing people to expect others to care for who we most love, when we should ourselves.

Its like a burden some want to rid of.

I ageee there is a lot of waste in government.

But in terms of things like the NHS, education and pensions, not to mention maintain a substatial military (for a country the size of the UK), we need a fairly large government.

I think most parents, at least those I know, do a decent jib of raising their kids. Our seniors are another thing, many do end up looked after by the state, but when the norm today is both parents in a household have to work full time it makes really being able to look after older loved ones difficult. That's a problem with how society developed to require both adults in a house to work.

I agree in part mate, but on parents, I think they have failed children in the main in how to raise them into the real world. Many have smothered them and not taught them how to be independent.

Sorry, but I do not buy the argument that when both parents work, that it makes it difficult to look after their elders. When their elders, never even contemplated such an exuse to look after them.

So that is a poor excuse. As children, many do not repay what their parents did for them. They saw the challenge and rose up to it. To say, its harder for children to look after their parents, is a xcopout mate

the reality is...with both parents working AND children to raise most young couples have little time or spare money to "look after" ageing parents, especially those parents who are infirm and ailing.

whats needed is that us seniors look after and look out for each other........as we are doing, more and more in our village. making sure vulnerable elders are fed and cared for, visited and taken shopping, taken to the docs, jobs done and representation made available if needed....

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:


Actually, most people do help each other.

I mean daily people give what little money they have to aid and most of thyat is spunked up the wall.

That is what gets peoples goat, is how it is wasted

The reality is people have become so reliant on the state and forgot to look after their family.

That is wrong on every level, for one main reason. Its allowing people to expect others to care for who we most love, when we should ourselves.

Its like a burden some want to rid of.

I ageee there is a lot of waste in government.

But in terms of things like the NHS, education and pensions, not to mention maintain a substatial military (for a country the size of the UK), we need a fairly large government.

I think most parents, at least those I know, do a decent jib of raising their kids. Our seniors are another thing, many do end up looked after by the state, but when the norm today is both parents in a household have to work full time it makes really being able to look after older loved ones difficult. That's a problem with how society developed to require both adults in a house to work.

I agree in part mate, but on parents, I think they have failed children in the main in how to raise them into the real world. Many have smothered them and not taught them how to be independent.

Sorry, but I do not buy the argument that when both parents work, that it makes it difficult to look after their elders. When their elders, never even contemplated such an exuse to look after them.

So that is a poor excuse. As children, many do not repay what their parents did for them. They saw the challenge and rose up to it. To say, its harder for children to look after their parents, is a xcopout mate

I'm sure most would be happy to look after their elderly parents, didge, if they didn't also have to work full time. In the past it was far more common for one adult in a household not to work, but not in recent decades.

EDIT: pretty much what LF said

As for bad parenting in recent decades, well admittedly there are plenty of examples, probably the same people who slam younger generations all the time lol

Lord Foul wrote:the reality is...with both parents working AND children to raise most young couples have little time or spare money to "look after" ageing parents, especially those parents who are infirm and ailing.

whats needed is that us seniors look after and look out for each other........as we are doing, more and more in our village. making sure vulnerable elders are fed and cared for, visited and taken shopping, taken to the docs, jobs done and representation made available if needed....

My heart bleeds.

You think they have it tough now?

What a snowflake and why is it asians, that still care for thier elders and put us to shame on this?

Litte time to spare?

My dad did two jobs and came home and had time for us

People that make excuses like you are a stain on society and in my opinion an utter snowflake

You know for a fact life was that much harder before when you were young and people managed better and still looked after their elders

I was one of 11 children, and lived in poverty. Yet my parents were there for their parents.

When people come out with crap as you do, you make excuses, for why they are lazy and do not care for relatives

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:


I agree in part mate, but on parents, I think they have failed children in the main in how to raise them into the real world. Many have smothered them and not taught them how to be independent.

Sorry, but I do not buy the argument that when both parents work, that it makes it difficult to look after their elders. When their elders, never even contemplated such an exuse to look after them.

So that is a poor excuse. As children, many do not repay what their parents did for them. They saw the challenge and rose up to it. To say, its harder for children to look after their parents, is a xcopout mate

I'm sure most would be happy to look after their elderly parents, didge, if they didn't also have to work full time. In the past it was far more common for one adult in a household not to work, but not in recent decades.

EDIT: pretty much what LF said

As for bad parenting in recent decades, well admittedly there are plenty of examples, probably the same people who slam younger generations all the time lol

Actually Eilzel, I think the younger generation are a disgrace

Most people in the past worked and looked after their parents and i watch Nepalese families do this daily.

You like Lord Two face offer excuses not to help and claim its to hard today, to do so.

Bollocks

I mean its too hard to get off twitter you mean

Straight back to labels and stereotypes, stop being a didge again.

Eilzel wrote:Straight back to labels and stereotypes, stop being a didge again.

Is that why you cannot respond to my points?

Stop hiding behind what you think of me and answer my points.

Lord Foul wrote:the reality is...with both parents working AND children to raise most young couples have little time or spare money to "look after" ageing parents, especially those parents who are infirm and ailing.

whats needed is that us seniors look after and look out for each other........as we are doing, more and more in our village. making sure vulnerable elders are fed and cared for, visited and taken shopping, taken to the docs, jobs done and representation made available if needed....

Well said.

Mum, who is 69, enjoys volunteering for a car ride system that takes disabled and elderly people to the shops/doctors etc...she loves it. She gets some gas money occasionally but she loves helping out. She’s met so many interesting people, some of whom have become close friends. She’s also very active in her Unitarian Church outreach groups who visit the Home bound/shuts ins and homeless.

I miss doing the library homebound service so much. Mind you I was always in a rush because I enjoyed chatting with everyone.

Junior junior went to Zanzibar this summer with a travel with purpose organization. They finished building some more classrooms at the village school, repaired a vital bridge into the village and helped start building a chicken house for a women’s cooperative.

Senior junior is almost finished with physical therapy school. He’s currently at his last rotation at a rehab facility that specializes in older patients with Alzheimer’s. He is enjoying it so much.

We also enjoy hanging out with their friends and are glad that they tolerate us old foggies and all of them are good, nice and giving young adults. Do my boys act like idiots sometimes? Hell yes but then so do Mr. C and I. I know that I raised my kids right and I know that the future in their generation’s hands will be perfectly fine if different to what I grew up with. As it always has been.

Cass wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:the reality is...with both parents working AND children to raise most young couples have little time or spare money to "look after" ageing parents, especially those parents who are infirm and ailing.

whats needed is that us seniors look after and look out for each other........as we are doing, more and more in our village. making sure vulnerable elders are fed and cared for, visited and taken shopping, taken to the docs, jobs done and representation made available if needed....

Well said.

Mum, who is 69, enjoys volunteering for a car ride system that takes disabled and elderly people to the shops/doctors etc...she loves it. She gets some gas money occasionally but she loves helping out. She’s met so many interesting people, some of whom have become close friends. She’s also very active in her Unitarian Church outreach groups who visit the Home bound/shuts ins and homeless.

I miss doing the library homebound service so much. Mind you I was always in a rush because I enjoyed chatting with everyone.

Junior junior went to Zanzibar this summer with a travel with purpose organization. They finished building some more classrooms at the village school, repaired a vital bridge into the village and helped start building a chicken house for a women’s cooperative.

Senior junior is almost finished with physical therapy school. He’s currently at his last rotation at a rehab facility that specializes in older patients with Alzheimer’s. He is enjoying it so much.

We also enjoy hanging out with their friends and are glad that they tolerate us old foggies and all of them are good, nice and giving young adults. Do my boys act like idiots sometimes? Hell yes but then so do Mr. C and I.  I know that I raised my kids right and I know that the future in their generation’s hands will be perfectly fine if different to what I grew up with. As it always has been.

How is it well said when countless people no longer care for their parents and offer excuses as Lord Foul Does?

Granted you are an angel, but how is what he said nothing more than excuses not to help, those who raise us.

The reality is people now expect society to look after them, and not do nothing for those whi raised them.

Only good parents who never mollycoddle their children, have them want to look after them

Why do you think that is Cass?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:There's been a lot of research into this...studies of unions, and other cartels, where the group holds the norm, and the temptation of the individual is to cheat.  There were a lot of those studied during the OPEC world market control of oil.

Voluntary cartelism creates the very incentive to cheat.  As long as everyone else tows the mark, the individual is rewarded (has every incentive) to cheat.  Hell, it happens when it isn't voluntary.  Even easier when it's voluntary.  

Take a look at The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, by Mancur Olson, Jr.

So let them cheat.

You do what you think is right for your fellow man, and don't worry about forcing others to act like you.


It really bothers you that others could be allowed to behave in a manner different than you would like them, doesn't it?

That's a rather pollyannish approach, wouldn't you say? As OPEC cartelism showed, if you are going to have collective action you got to have mechanisms to ensure it is adhered to. Or, perhaps you are actually saying that there should be no collective action. That is what we call anarchy, and we have come full circle.

Yes, I would like to believe that the princess kisses the frog and he turns into a prince. But it ain't gonna happen. Trust me.

Didge wrote:

Cass wrote:

Well said.

Mum, who is 69, enjoys volunteering for a car ride system that takes disabled and elderly people to the shops/doctors etc...she loves it. She gets some gas money occasionally but she loves helping out. She’s met so many interesting people, some of whom have become close friends. She’s also very active in her Unitarian Church outreach groups who visit the Home bound/shuts ins and homeless.

I miss doing the library homebound service so much. Mind you I was always in a rush because I enjoyed chatting with everyone.

Junior junior went to Zanzibar this summer with a travel with purpose organization. They finished building some more classrooms at the village school, repaired a vital bridge into the village and helped start building a chicken house for a women’s cooperative.

Senior junior is almost finished with physical therapy school. He’s currently at his last rotation at a rehab facility that specializes in older patients with Alzheimer’s. He is enjoying it so much.

We also enjoy hanging out with their friends and are glad that they tolerate us old foggies and all of them are good, nice and giving young adults. Do my boys act like idiots sometimes? Hell yes but then so do Mr. C and I.  I know that I raised my kids right and I know that the future in their generation’s hands will be perfectly fine if different to what I grew up with. As it always has been.

How is it well said when countless people no longer care for their parents and offer excuses as Lord Foul Does?

Granted you are an angel, but how is what he said nothing more than excuses not to help, those who raise us.

The reality is people now expect society to look after them, and not do nothing for those whi raised them.

Only good parents who never mollycoddle their children, have them want to look after them

Why do you think that is Cass?

Ha. I’m no angel. Far from it.

Because Didge it’s exactly as Vic said.

I worked in nursing homes back in the 80s. It’s not new.

Mr. C’s Father has just recently moved into a Assisted Living facility in Scotland. One brother in law is nearby (the other iscway down south in England and of course we are here) and bro in law gets by to see him hopefully once a week to take him shopping or out to the pub. It was FIL’s decision after some medical emergencies to move. He’s happy as a clam. BIL has a one bedroom flat and works 50+hours a week as does his partner plus commuting time. FIL does not expect them to take care of him. He tried with Granny for a little while but he was working then. It’s just not always possible. My mum has made it quite clear, despite our joking of turning our garage into a flat for her, that she does not want to be a burden to us if something happens.

Part of my housebound delivery was to nursing facilities- from independent living to full time care. Nobody was being neglected or uncared for. They all had full social programs and outings and activities. It’s just a part of modern life. It’s changing in the Asian and South American cultures as well.

I wouldn’t want my kids to have to take care of me either. That’s not why I had them.

Cass wrote:

Didge wrote:

How is it well said when countless people no longer care for their parents and offer excuses as Lord Foul Does?

Granted you are an angel, but how is what he said nothing more than excuses not to help, those who raise us.

The reality is people now expect society to look after them, and not do nothing for those whi raised them.

Only good parents who never mollycoddle their children, have them want to look after them

Why do you think that is Cass?

Ha. I’m no angel. Far from it.

Because Didge it’s exactly as Vic said.

I worked in nursing homes back in the 80s. It’s not new.

Mr. C’s Father has just recently moved into a Assisted Living facility in Scotland. One brother in law is nearby (the other iscway down south in England and of course we are here) and bro in law gets by to see him hopefully once a week to take him shopping or out to the pub. It was FIL’s decision after some medical emergencies to move. He’s happy as a clam. BIL has a one bedroom flat and works 50+hours a week as does his partner plus commuting time. FIL does not expect them to take care of him. He tried with Granny for a little while but he was working then. It’s just not always possible. My mum has made it quite clear, despite our joking of turning our garage into a flat for her, that she does not want to be a burden to us if something happens.

Part of my housebound delivery was to nursing facilities- from independent living to full time care. Nobody was being neglected or uncared for. They all had full social programs and outings and activities. It’s just a part of modern life. It’s changing in the Asian and South American cultures as well.

I wouldn’t want my kids to have to take care of me either. That’s not why I had them.

So what you are saying is that you care for those older and do the right thing, but do not want kids to pay back what you did for them.

Sorry, but you are giving me poor excuses and no elderly should even have to go in a home when they have family.

End of

Its not about being neglected but a duty of care.

You see countless people from the Asian community care for their elders.No matter how distant their relationship is.

I am not discounting you are an angel Cass, you are, but so many people would rather ship their relatives into homes, because its less of a burden and yet countless die before their time with poor care. As the reality is, most carers have little knowledge of health care and most actually want to be close to their families.

There is nothing worse how so many people ship off their parents to care homes. When they gave up a mass part of their lives to raise their children. Only to see their children not replay that love in kind and care for them. As once happened in this country and others.


Sadly, society, sees them as a burden and you know this to be true

Well I don’t think they’re poor excuses, but you’re entitled to your own opinion. I’m just relating my own experiences.

I’m getting the feeling from this and other threads that you want an argument. If I misread then I apologize.

I’m off anyways. It’s wine and hot tub time. It’s bloody freezing here and the sky is clear as anything. Hope to see some shooting stars.

Goodnight x

Cass wrote:Well I don’t think they’re poor excuses, but you’re entitled to your own opinion. I’m just relating my own experiences.

I’m getting the feeling from this and other threads that you want an argument. If I misread then I apologize.

I’m off anyways. It’s wine and hot tub time. It’s bloody freezing here and the sky is clear as anything. Hope to see some shooting stars.


Goodnight x

Why is it that anyone cannot take criticism when they are left leaning?

So you are saying that because i disagree, that i want an argument?

I give up

How is it, that when I defend people and groups I am compared to scrat and now when i defend the NHS, i am cast as looking for an argument.

I mean, is it wrong for me to have any opinion?

Good night cass, I wont bother anyone any more tonight. For fuck sake, as it seems, hard questions makes snowflakes out of people