23 Apr 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe UK has a two party system with more than two parties. The current Father of the House of Commons (MP with longest continuous service) is Gerald Kaufman who has been an MP since before I was born - I will be 45 later this year. I don't know if when the longest serving MP is a woman she will be the Father of the House or the Mother, Wikipedia seems to think so, but this isn't automatically what will happen.
Well duh, why would politicians care about something people don't care about?
Out of curiosity I looked up who the longest serving members of parliament (150 seats) in the Dutch Tweede Kamer (comparable to HoR) are (there is no term limit). The longest serving member (age 53) has been in parliament for 17 years, while the 10th longest serving member ...[text shortened]... e the "problem" you identify here - as well, of course, as multiple other, more pressing issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_the_House
23 Apr 16
Originally posted by whodeyParties and candidates win by promising people and parties financial benefits. Who get the promises depends on who the candidate or party needs to be elected.
So your definition of someone who is not a Prog is someone who spends large amounts of money on the military?
But I thought the military was merely an extension of the government and government expansion. How did we get to the place that Progs, whom I consider big government people in general, are merely those who want to spend large amounts of money expa ...[text shortened]... on of government without expanding it all across the spectrum? It seems to me to be impossible.
24 Apr 16
Originally posted by normbenignOh so that explains austerity politics then?
Parties and candidates win by promising people and parties financial benefits. Who get the promises depends on who the candidate or party needs to be elected.
The people getting astonishing financial benefits and the electorate are, in 99% of cases, different people. Statistically, the 1% need hardly bother even voting if you think about it, assuming they would even be entitled to since for tax purposes they typically claim to live on the moon. .
"Vote austerity and abandon your rights and prospects to enrich a tiny plutocracy." Winning formula it seems in the UK and the USA. Hardly supports your ill considered simplistic claim.
24 Apr 16
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganWhere would politicians get their money for themselves and the rest of the country if it were not for the rich folk? Taking the rich folk away would be like taking their food and water away. They would all die.
Oh so that explains austerity politics then?
The people getting astonishing financial benefits and the electorate are, in 99% of cases, different people. Statistically, the 1% need hardly bother even voting if you think about it, assuming they would even be entitled to since for tax purposes they typically claim to live on the moon. .
"Vote austerit ...[text shortened]... g formula it seems in the UK and the USA. Hardly supports your ill considered simplistic claim.
Government does not produce anything. Everything the government gives it must take forcibly take away from someone else. Usually the best targets are people with money that don't send them money.
24 Apr 16
Originally posted by whodeyYes whodey, teachers, construction workers, police officers, doctors etc. etc. etc. all "do not produce anything." Have you considered the possibility of reading your posts before you press the "Post"-button?
Where would politicians get their money for themselves and the rest of the country if it were not for the rich folk? Taking the rich folk away would be like taking their food and water away. They would all die.
Government does not produce anything. Everything the government gives it must take forcibly take away from someone else. Usually the best targets are people with money that don't send them money.
24 Apr 16
Originally posted by whodeyYou really know nothing.
Where would politicians get their money for themselves and the rest of the country if it were not for the rich folk? Taking the rich folk away would be like taking their food and water away. They would all die.
Government does not produce anything. Everything the government gives it must take forcibly take away from someone else. Usually the best targets are people with money that don't send them money.
One reason the American corporations adopted governemnt from the late 19th Century is that only government has the ability to draw together from the multidude of small contributions the immense capital sums required for such investments as, say, a road network. Public investment does not depend on the rich you idiot but on the masses.
The rich are not producing wealth. They consume it.
26 Apr 16
Originally posted by finneganPeople, at least some of them, are able to see through the promise them anything garbage, and realize that if the government puts the corporation that employs them out of business, or out of profitability, they're out of a job.
Oh so that explains austerity politics then?
The people getting astonishing financial benefits and the electorate are, in 99% of cases, different people. Statistically, the 1% need hardly bother even voting if you think about it, assuming they would even be entitled to since for tax purposes they typically claim to live on the moon. .
"Vote austerit ...[text shortened]... g formula it seems in the UK and the USA. Hardly supports your ill considered simplistic claim.
26 Apr 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhodey missed a key word, to describe government "productivity". The word is voluntary. The private sector induces people to consume their products. Entities which rely on government, teachers, construction workers (on public projects), police officers don't offer that option. We pay whether we approve or not.
Yes whodey, teachers, construction workers, police officers, doctors etc. etc. etc. all "do not produce anything." Have you considered the possibility of reading your posts before you press the "Post"-button?
Anything sold in the private sector, you can choose to accept or reject. Try that with the next big government construction project, which you may never enter in your lifetime.
26 Apr 16
Originally posted by finneganThe rich are not producing wealth. They consume it.
You really know nothing.
One reason the American corporations adopted governemnt from the late 19th Century is that only government has the ability to draw together from the multidude of small contributions the immense capital sums required for such investments as, say, a road network. Public investment does not depend on the rich you idiot but on the masses.
The rich are not producing wealth. They consume it.
That may be true of some rich, but all rich are not the same any more than all poor are. In general, most wealth stay in family hands, so a father, grandfather or great grandfather may have earned what the younger generation is squandering. Key is you didn't earn it so it's not your business, and they are no more obliged to support government than you are.
26 Apr 16
Originally posted by normbenignAs Piketty showed, in pre-industrial society the vast majority of wealth was in the value of land. The rich didn't produce land nor did they work it. By and large the land they did own was acquired by force almost invariably force supplied by government armies. And their continued ownership of such land was protected by more force. So it would seem that they owe government more than those who did not receive such largess.
[b]The rich are not producing wealth. They consume it.
That may be true of some rich, but all rich are not the same any more than all poor are. In general, most wealth stay in family hands, so a father, grandfather or great grandfather may have earned what the younger generation is squandering. Key is you didn't earn it so it's not your business, and they are no more obliged to support government than you are.[/b]
The same basic dynamic informs wealth ownership in industrial societies. The rich largely inherited it and the original ownership of their inheritance derived from government force and was maintained by the same. The type of wealth has been transformed over time (much of wealth these days isn't "productive" at all; it is marks on ledgers and pieces of paper that have value only because the government says it does) but still what do the rich actually produce? In the vast majority of cases very little.
26 Apr 16
Originally posted by normbenignActually, you get a chance to influence the existence of these jobs every election. If you don't like publicly paid teachers, police, etc. then convince your fellow man that they aren't necessary.
Whodey missed a key word, to describe government "productivity". The word is voluntary. The private sector induces people to consume their products. Entities which rely on government, teachers, construction workers (on public projects), police officers don't offer that option. We pay whether we approve or not.
Anything sold in the private sector, y ...[text shortened]... t with the next big government construction project, which you may never enter in your lifetime.
26 Apr 16
Originally posted by normbenignIf someone is part of a society, and someone is using a large amount of resources from that society, I feel I legitimately have a say in that esp. if that use of resources is not matched by the production of new resources and services.
[b]The rich are not producing wealth. They consume it.
That may be true of some rich, but all rich are not the same any more than all poor are. In general, most wealth stay in family hands, so a father, grandfather or great grandfather may have earned what the younger generation is squandering. Key is you didn't earn it so it's not your business, and they are no more obliged to support government than you are.[/b]