Quote:
Originally Posted by Civicsman
There's a fair bit of venting taking place in this thread about a wide range of stuff. In my book, having the paint damaged on one's car by vandals doesn't really fall into the same category as a crowd of thousands rioting in the street.
I agree that rioting doesn't solve anything directly, but it certainly has a way of focusing attention. Sometimes, attention is focused on morons, such as those who riot after their local sports team loses, or wins, an event. Food riots, on the other hand, focus attention on desperate people trying to find a way to survive. Race riots focus attention on racial injustice.
Let's use the example of the state of Wisconsin to see how serious (non-sports) riots could easily develop right here in the USA.
1. Deregulation of the financial industry causes everyday hard-working people to lose a big chunk of their savings.
2. Deregulation of the financial industry causes everyday hard-working people to lose their homes, as loans dry up and they can not find refinancing.
3. State government rescinds existing taxes and does not replace that source of income.
4. Then, having put themselves into the situation by their own actions, state government then claims "we are broke".
5. State government uses "we are broke" claim to slash contributions to school systems. School systems are forced to fire teachers and administrators by the thousands.
6. Claiming "we are broke", state government slashes "pass down" contributions to cities and counties, putting tens of thousands more (formerly) everyday hard-working Americans on the street.
7. Social radicals elements within the US government refuse to impose reasonable taxes on the wealthiest individuals and obscenely wealthy corporations, focusing instead on placing the load directly on middle and lower income people.
Now then, here's the formerly hard-working person (and neither race, nor gender, nor country of origin are of any importance, unless one is a bigot...), still looking for work after a year, and still not finding it. Rent is due. Cupboard is bare. Kids are hungry. Though he has worked hard all his life and is willing to continue to do so, he finds himself fully screwed.
Then, still claiming "we are broke!" radical elements within the US government cut the length of unemployment insurance payments, knowing full well that millions nationwide are out of their homes and out of work.
The out of work turn to their elected officials for help, but they get a recorded message saying "Your Congressman is busy right now, making sure he gets through the primary elections by kow-towing to Grover Norquist."
In other words: "Eat cake".
As difficult as it may be, try to picture yourself in that position. You go to the state (or federal) capital to try protest the lack of jobs, lack of food, etc. Now there are 50,000 people; all of them angry. The power keg is there. The match is lit.
|
Nice rant. Some of it even had a fact or two in it, but most was supposition, and not particularly accurate, unless you figure that people are not responsible for themselves. Some of us do not think the answer is that someone else is responsible for our lives and well being.
Of the points you raised. Yes, damaging the paint on a car is hardly in the same league, but that point was made to example my inability to understand damage for the sake of damage. Looting came into the thread later.
1. deregulation did less damage than the government thru fanny and freddy requiring banks to make loans that could not be repaid. Banks would not do no doc loans, and risky loans, so federal regulations made them do it.
Then, those loans were packaged, never having been any good, but backed supposedly by the federal laws that mandated them, but did not fund them.
Deregulation came in when greedy people tried to make profits over profits on the bad assets that would not have existed without federal medling to begin with.
2. deregulation did not cause hard working people to lose their homes. Overly easy money cause them to be able to buy homes they could not afford in the first place, and then since they were dancing on the edge, and that edge fell apart, they lost. Some others got thrown out with the bath water, but most prudent loans did not fail from deregulation. (Some did from other factors)
3. State governments exist on a percentage of the GDP of that state. IF they overspend, that is because they were not responsible.
Across the board, we have a spending problem. Not a under taxed problem.
4. the states are broke, because they paid for constituencies, instead of being good stewards of the public funds. They paid crazy wages and benifits to public unions, far above the fair market values, and hired every brother in law to every minor politician, for very lucrative positions on our dime. Sometimes they also hire a real worker or two, but they get lost in the shuffle.
5. THe states are broke, and the school systems are failing under their own bloated weight. They do not educate the children in those systems but cost more and more each year. We rank in the 30s behind other nations that spend far less per student in science and math.
While lots of liberals think otherwise, the answer to all problems is not to throw money at it. The answer to most is to solve the problem. Solving the problem requires hard work, not more money if that last increase did not fix it, why would the next one?
6. We are broke, because we as a government spend money foolishly, and now must be smarter. The governments still collect a higher percentage of the GDP than at most any other time in our history, but we spend it even faster. Again, this is not a revenue problem, but an over spending one.
Spending less, and having less lay abouts is not the problem, it is the solution.
Some time, the politically entrenched get to keep their political jobs, and the workers they accidentally hired get fired instead. Then those who are less, who did not work when there were more of them, say that now there are less so the job they did not do in the past will not get done even worse now.
7. The lower 50% wage earners in the country pay no income taxes.
Corporations now, like GE, have lots of money, and that is why The PResident has GE's CEO on his advisory board. THat kind of political connection is valuable.
Also, since the tax and other regulations are so messed up at a federal level, and new taxes and surcharges are constantly being threatened, many corporations are afraid to hire new employees. THe behind the scene cost is becoming too much to bear. Easier to hire overseas.
There is too much more and I do not have time.
The riots in England were about spoiled young people looting and expecting to get away with it, because that society has been too permissive to them. The older brittans are not doing it because they have a different value system.