Political leanings

[sev7en]

You´re Strummer sign

[manarak]

@pacman

Manarak, I am not keen on debating the merits of every one of your ideas, it can quickly degenerate into a point scoring exercise.

but the postcount goes up !!

discriminatory policies against the immigrants you say should be free to visit

Well, I can't see how the practices are discriminatory.
Since everyone in good standing can come in, there must be a way to bar anyone from sucking the state's wallet dry.

If foreigners get a job, they'll have health insurance, job loss insurance, etc... for a time. and depending for how long they paid the insurance premiums.

The welfare for people who have no job and no income is limited to nationals. Makes sense in my opinion.

If foreigners lose their job, they could have, say, 2 years to live on unemployment insurance payments, before they would lose revenues.
If they can't find a new job in this time, they would have to leave.

Of course some foreigners would be allowed to stay and benefit from the same welfare as nationals, in cases where an international treaty guarantees the same treatment for nationals abroad, this could be the case for EU countries for exemple.

taxation of double income households without children: Isn't that unfair on couples who for one reason or another don't wish to have children?

First, the raise of the tax cap (which is not the same as paying higher taxes) has the effect that this measure will mainly affect high revenues.
In my country, there are a lot of city-dwelling couples with double income, where both work in management/lawyer/architect etc. positions with very good income. Revenues of 300k USD a year and above are not uncommon in such households.
Many of these have no children at all, because of their "careers".
Then the woman wakes up at about 40 and cries all the day and is depressed, when her gynecologist tells her that the chances of getting a healthy baby are diminishing...

Currently these corporate zombies get a bonus over families where the woman (or the man, let's be modern) looks after the children, and who therefore have only one income.

And how does it easen the rents situation?

It is more and more difficult to find big apartments in cities.
Most newly build apartments are 2 and 3 room apartments, families need 4 to 5 rooms.
The 2 and 3 rooms apartments are tailored to the needs of the corporate zombies and cost ridiculous prices. Who wants to have families that use more space and pay less as renters?

The main consequence I see from such a policy is an increase in the numbers of unwanted children. Social engineering designed to force population growth has never been a good idea.

Maybe you're right. Maybe not.
One way would be just to try.
I don't think that people who don't want children would be "pushed" to make some. The incentives would not be strong enough for that.
Also, I think in a country with good infrastructure for children (i.e. where all the space is not used for corporate sweatshops and sleeping factories), parents get attached to their children, even if they were a little "motivated" by incentives.

Anyway, good luck to you on at least thinking about the type of society you want, with modifications it could be one version of Utopia.

LOL, I'll try not to lose too much time thinking, because anyway it will not happen!

I'll try to concentrate on making the move to Thailand instead.

[sev7en]

(manarak @ May 05 2009,18:22) - no adoption for same-sex couples: just because I am against it.

Being a homophobe on a board like this?

[SamplerDoc]

A Conservative Moderate Liberal of the Middle Wing

[alan1chef]

Flat tax is the only fair way to go. Sean Hannity over Alan Colmes all the time. Love Rush's ties....great stuff. Been a Republican for the last 30 years. Reagan rocks. George HW Bush is really a wimp...should have kicked Saddam's ass when he had the chance.

[alan1chef]

..... I'm also a fan of W. Edwards Deming and Tom Peters...

[PigDogg]

(alan1chef @ May 05 2009,20:40) George HW Bush is really a wimp...should have kicked Saddam's ass when he had the chance.

Would it have been easier to do in 1991 than 2003?

[pacman]

    There is an amazing film clip in existence of George W attacking his father over his failure to finish the job & take out Saddam Hussein after the liberation of Kuwait when they had the Iraqis on the run.

I have seen it on documentaries shown on TV, but a quick search of youtube failed to turn it up. What got me was the way he spoke to his father, who just happened to be the President.

To answer Pigdogg's question - IMO, yes, it would have been far quicker & simpler to have followed the "highway to hell" as they dubbed the road leading back to Baghdad where the US pilots had a birthday picking off the Iraqi tanks & troop carriers.

They were a defeated army unprepared to defend their capital. Baghdad would have fallen within a day.

I find it interesting that I have seen it several times, friends here have seen it, but no-one I know in the states knows what I was talking about. A conspiracy? Who knows?

[Snick]

The problem wasn't defeating the Iraq Army, that was easy.
The problem was what to do after !
as Powell said "you break it, you bought it"

Bush Sr. was smart not to "buy" a broken Iraq.
Much better to free Kuwait, and then let Iraq and Iran beat the shit out of each other and leave the rest of us alone.

Now we have spent billions on Iraq trying to put it back together, and at the same time allowed Iran to extend its influence all over the place.
Great Job...asshole !

[pacman]

(manarak @ May 06 2009,05:38) Most newly build apartments are 2 and 3 room apartments, families need 4 to 5 rooms.
The 2 and 3 rooms apartments are tailored to the needs of the corporate zombies and cost ridiculous prices. Who wants to have families that use more space and pay less as renters?

I have read this several times in order to understand your point.

2 & 3 room apartments rent for more than a family apartment of 4 to 5 rooms? That seems to be what you are saying. How does that work?

When you say "who wants to have families....", who is the "who"? The developer of the building? The City Council? I don't follow how these small units are more expensive to rent than the bigger ones.

It seems to me your whole premise is based on one place, the city you live in & are most familiar with, because where I live, this makes no sense.

A 2 room apartment here simply wouldn't be built as it would be unsaleable. And I have never even seen a 3 room unit, though there may be some around.

[manarak]

(sev7en @ May 06 2009,06:37)

(manarak @ May 05 2009,18:22) - no adoption for same-sex couples: just because I am against it.

Being a homophobe on a board like this?  

I'm against it because I think children need parents of both sexes to grow up more or less "normally".

I have no idea what "normal" is, but I have an uneasy feeling when I think about children that have two daddies (or two mommies) that kiss each other.

Maybe I'm wrong and it is no problem.
Maybe I am right...

Do you want to do the experiment, or do you know the answer already?

[pacman]

    Anyway, how does disapproving of same sex couples raising children make one a homophobe?

A homophobe hates homosexuals, I doubt we have any of those posting.

I don't object to them being joint parents but to question if it is in the child's best interest doesn't mean I hate the mummy & mummy or daddy & daddy.

I think sev7en is drawing a long bow again - he does love to be controversial.      

[JaiDee]

(Snick @ May 06 2009,17:08) The problem was what to do after !

of course .....and that war is far from "over"

It will be going on for the next 20 years, long after we are gone

Oh.....can any righties please give me the FINAL reason why we went in there?

Since there were no weapons of mass destruction GW and his lackeys had to change the reason every day.... so what was the final one?

[manarak]

(pacman @ May 06 2009,17:45)

(manarak @ May 06 2009,05:38) Most newly build apartments are 2 and 3 room apartments, families need 4 to 5 rooms.
The 2 and 3 rooms apartments are tailored to the needs of the corporate zombies and cost ridiculous prices. Who wants to have families that use more space and pay less as renters?

I have read this several times in order to understand your point.

2 & 3 room apartments rent for more than a family apartment of 4 to 5 rooms? That seems to be what you are saying. How does that work?

When you say "who wants to have families....", who is the "who"? The developer of the building? The City Council? I don't follow how these small units are more expensive to rent than the bigger ones.

It seems to me your whole premise is based on one place, the city you live in & are most familiar with, because where I live, this makes no sense.

A 2 room apartment here simply wouldn't be built as it would be unsaleable. And I have never even seen a 3 room unit, though there may be some around.

My turn to be amazed: you never saw a 3 room unit?
and 2 room units don't get built?

Where do you live?

I can speak about cities in Switzerland, France, Germany, Belgium, and Italy.

Everybody in the real estate business here will tell you the same: the 2 and 3 room units are rented out very easily, and their return per square meter is higher than the return on big apartments.
Say, for example, a 2 1/2 room (yes, around here they are down to counting half rooms) of 65 sqm in Paris would rent out at about 1200 EUR a month, while a 150 sqm 5 room unit would net the landlord about 2500 EUR a month. 2 1/2 rooms = 18.46 EUR per sqm, 5 rooms = 16.66 EUR per sqm.
(plus there are smaller bathrooms and cupboards in smaller apartments, so there is an additional benefit there to smaller units).

[manarak]

(JaiDee @ May 06 2009,22:30)

(Snick @ May 06 2009,17:08) The problem was what to do after !

of  course .....and that war is far from "over"

  It will be going on for the next 20 years, long after we are gone

   Oh.....can any righties please  give me the FINAL reason why we went in there?

Since there were no weapons of mass destruction  GW and his lackeys had to change the reason every day.... so what was the final one?

There is one main reason which declines into a myriad of smaller reasons.

Main goal: the oil & expand us empire

Steps:

- destroy the country
- install a government that could not survive without us support
- offer to rebuild with us companies
- give loans through world bank
- inflate loans to the maximum
- spend ridiculous amounts of money on projects
- have the puppet government approve the astronomical costs of rebuilding everything
- allocate projects to us companies, which get directly paid in the usa from funds of the loan (that money never leaves the us in fact)
- us companies, where a lot of Reps own shares, make big bucks => this also refinances the unofficial influence apparatus
- the us companies get paid by the debt, but the debt remains
- force the country to tap its resources and deliver oil against the loan


recommended reading:
"confessions of an economic hit man" by John Perkins