Unemployed? Tough ѕhit

[Ali G. 37]

Have you seen the US House/Senate on both sides of the aisle?

They don't give a damn about the people. They only thing most of them care about is bringing home the $$$ to their districts so they can get re-elected...

Granted, that's why I'm becoming more and more a fan of term limits....

100% agree on term limits. The thought of a career senator, who many have not worked in 30 years is a joke and out of touch with the real world. Not to mention senators that are nearly 100 years old. They're making decision and won't even be around to feel the impact of them.

The problem is who you vote in. Just consider this senator who made such a pathetic statement, people need to start to pay attention to these guys. Now that I have experienced both types of elections it's quite evident what is going on here. People here like to run on image rather than substance. Just look at John Edwards, who basically portrayed the clean-cut family guy yet was a total douche scum-bag. Furthermore, Cliches and slogans hook the foolish here.

Instead of actually analyzing the candidate, people run on bandwagons. It's why the Repub in Boston was voted in. People didn't even look at him, they simply saw it as an attempt to get to Obama or the government. Rather than actually paying attention to what he says or stands for on various issues, people would have still voted for him. Yes, even if he said I am going to burn down Massachusetts. All he needed to say is that he's 'against big government' and folks like yourself would have froth at the mouth over him.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

100% agree on term limits. The thought of a career senator, who many have not worked in 30 years is a joke and out of touch with the real world. Not to mention senators that are nearly 100 years old. They're making decision and won't even be around to feel the impact of them.

The problem is who you vote in. Just consider this senator who made such a pathetic statement, people need to start to pay attention to these guys. Now that I have experienced both types of elections it's quite evident what is going on here. People here like to run on image rather than substance. Just look at John Edwards, who basically portrayed the clean-cut family guy yet was a total douche scum-bag. Furthermore, Cliches and slogans hook the foolish here.

Instead of actually analyzing the candidate, people run on bandwagons. It's why the Repub in Boston was voted in. People didn't even look at him, they simply saw it as an attempt to get to Obama or the government. Rather than actually paying attention to what he says or stands for on various issues, people would have still voted for him. Yes, even if he said I am going to burn down Massachusetts. All he needed to say is that he's 'against big government' and folks like yourself would have froth at the mouth over him.

This is why I didn't support any of the candidates in the previous election.

I actually take the time to investigate every candidate for what he or she is worth.

Hell, even I was taken in by Obama the first couple of times in 2007 when he announced his candidacy, and then I found out who he was, read his books, and followed his career path...

The same thing with John McCain... Sure, he was a Vietnam vet, but THATS IT. He's been a lifer Senator who sides with whoever is willing to be his friend...

I wasn't about to vote for the 'lesser of two evils' either way. It's BS.

I knew exactly what Obama would do when he became President and he didn't let us down... Liberals call him out and are mad at him, but he's doing exactly what I told people he'd do and be exactly who he's been all along.

Granted it's hard too when there a Mainstream Media (be it CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, Faux News, etc..) doesn't actually focus on who these people are and how they act politically and focuses on how well they speak or don't speak or who they're sleeping with... I mean really?

[Ali G. 37]

The problem isn't the system, the problem is that people are easily corrupted.

Make no mistake, all forms of government are corrupted by those with $$$. That's because human beings are running things.

And in your opinion, the libertarian opinion, the best way to resolve this is to resort to jungle rules - everyone for themselves.

The nations with the lowest level of corruption strongly disprove this approach. As the index illustrates, a government can be ensure fairness and equality or the government can promote corruption. The lack of any functional government tends to also be in the red.

What's the key here? The type of government you establish is what matters.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

And in your opinion, the libertarian opinion, the best way to resolve this is to resort to jungle rules - everyone for themselves.

The nations with the lowest level of corruption strongly disprove this approach. As the index illustrates, a government can be ensure fairness and equality or the government can promote corruption. The lack of any functional government tends to also be in the red.

What's the key here? The type of government you establish is what matters.

I didn't say jungle rules and I understand the need for government and some regulation.

and the chart details 'perception.' and that's a huge key in anything. Just because you may perceieve or not perceive something doesn't mean it's not going on. Illusionists in the media will prove that each and every day. It's hard to find media outlets that are actually there for the people and not their own pocketbooks now days.

Hitler had grand ideas, but just was ###### nuts on some things. The idea of 'socialism' in every way is actually a grand idea. Getting people to 'accept' that idea is a completely different idea. Even with genocide and even with eliminating all opposition to your idea, human nature eventually kicks in and there will be a revolution of some sort. It may not be for decades or even centuries, but it's going to happen eventually.

[Peikko 1,575]

The problem isn't the system, the problem is that people are easily corrupted.

Make no mistake, all forms of government are corrupted by those with $$. That's because human beings are running things.

If people are 'easily corrupted' which actually I don't agree with, then the last thing you want to do is completely abandon governmental controls.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

If people are 'easily corrupted' which actually I don't agree with, then the last thing you want to do is completely abandon governmental controls.

people are poking and prodding you with thousands of dollars, perks, benefits, etc. over and over again and you tell me you wouldn't ever give in? --- maybe you wouldn't, most would eventually cave.

[Ali G. 37]

I didn't say jungle rules and I understand the need for government and some regulation.

Libertarian ideals sound a lot like it - survival of the fittest / each to their own.

and the chart details 'perception.' and that's a huge key in anything. Just because you may perceieve or not perceive something doesn't mean it's not going on. Illusionists in the media will prove that each and every day. It's hard to find media outlets that are actually there for the people and not their own pocketbooks now days.

Well the media is a great example, as since it has been left to the private sector, it has transformed itself into an almost natural state of being a corrupt duopoly; with the private sector using its buying power to push their ideas. No different to rich aristocrats in the past, using their wealth to control society to their benefit. After all, we had small governments or no governments in the past and that resulted in Kings and Queens. Hence, the establishment of a government to begin with; to represent all of the people; to be elected by the people.

Hitler had grand ideas, but just was ###### nuts on some things. The idea of 'socialism' in every way is actually a grand idea. Getting people to 'accept' that idea is a completely different idea. Even with genocide and even with eliminating all opposition to your idea, human nature eventually kicks in and there will be a revolution of some sort. It may not be for decades or even centuries, but it's going to happen eventually.

This may be of a surprise to you but not everyone wants US style (anything goes) freedom. Furthermore, the real kicker is going to be the reality that many abroad actually use the US perception of what is considered freedom as a reason to implement the opposite, in order for their country to "not end up a US".

The other point abut the Corruption Index is that all of the countries in green (lowest corruption) have a reasonable level of government involvement in their societies. After all, the government is there to represent the people and what is in the best interest of the people. People in those nations also pay a reasonable amount of tax and are pro-consumer; which means that they have laws and agencies to protect against exploitation from the private sector. Also keep in mind that the majority of them also use the parliamentary system type of government.

Therefore, it is no surprise to me that those with the lowest corruption, also correlate as having the highest standard of living. As can be seen by the following Human Development Index:

Edited February 26, 2010 by Booyah

[Peikko 1,575]

people are poking and prodding you with thousands of dollars, perks, benefits, etc. over and over again and you tell me you wouldn't ever give in? --- maybe you wouldn't, most would eventually cave.

If I had made a commitment to be a servant of government, no I would not 'cave into' corruption. However, what I would personally do is not the point. Regardless of whether people are inherently susceptible to temptation or not, it is true that some people are, that's a given. Abandoning the only way one has to control those in business who cede to corruption simply in order to be able to say that one does not have a corruptible government is mindless.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Keep giving benefits and people won't have any incentive to look for work.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Keep giving benefits and people won't have any incentive to look for work.

UI is never enough to sustain anywhere near the QOL people are generally used to from when they had jobs. I don't know what kind of people you've been talking to, but everyone I've ever known on UI has wanted to get their income back to (or near) previous levels.

[Peikko 1,575]

UI is never enough to sustain anywhere near the QOL people are generally used to from when they had jobs. I don't know what kind of people you've been talking to, but everyone I've ever known on UI has wanted to get their income back to (or near) previous levels.

Correct. This myth that people are happily living on benefits because it's a great life is ridiculous. I know people who have gone through periods of unemployment. All of them have striven hard to get a job while unemployed. No one wants to be on a low income.

[Ali G. 37]

If I had made a commitment to be a servant of government, no I would not 'cave into' corruption. However, what I would personally do is not the point. Regardless of whether people are inherently susceptible to temptation or not, it is true that some people are, that's a given. Abandoning the only way one has to control those in business who cede to corruption simply in order to be able to say that one does not have a corruptible government is mindless.

It's the same reasoning (logic) that by nature the government is inefficient and corrupt, yet the private sector is the opposite. Yet mention Enron, Worldcom etc and these examples are ignored. Mention highly efficient governments and these examples are too ignored. The only example people have is UPS vs USPS. Trying sending a letter to your neighbor let alone across the country for 44 cents with UPS. The cheapest rate I could find using UPS was $9.71, with Fed-ex being $6.66.

Nevertheless, lets look at other international post offices. Auspost in Aus is extremely profitable and efficient. A letter sent by airmail takes the same time to reach here, than a letter sent to Australia using Express Post. Their post offices also sell stationary, prepaid phones, cards etc. Furthermore, allow you to pay your bills there and even allow you to do you banking, of various banks. You can also buy a franchise and setup a mini post office in your own store.

In conclusion, it's evident that the type of government and how it is operated is what matters, not the premise of government. They also don't pay peanuts and don't bash on government workers as people do here; yet expect them to work efficiently.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Booyah

[Ali G. 37]

Here is an example. Located in a mall too might I add.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Booyah

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

UI is never enough to sustain anywhere near the QOL people are generally used to from when they had jobs. I don't know what kind of people you've been talking to, but everyone I've ever known on UI has wanted to get their income back to (or near) previous levels.

I've collected before and it's always been enough. You just have to cut back. I haven't collected in over 10 years but have moved several times for work (cross country).

That's why everyone should have an emergency fund. People would rather waste money on trivial stuff.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I've collected before and it's always been enough. You just have to cut back.

Interesting. I've never collected. Were I to collect, my UI payments alone would leave a significant earnings gap. I'd have to tap into my emergency fund. Sure, I'm glad I have it BUT if I'm tapping it then to me that's the definition of unsustainable. You bet I'd be trying to get my old earnings level back again. This is true for everyone I know on UI. No one's "happy" with it. It's nice to have, but enough? Not by a long shot. Not unless I sold my house and moved in with mom (largest expense is housing and that can't be cut any other way).