Are our Politicians out of touch??? (1 Viewer)

[Vahl]

Following the end of the cold war - the 'last great epochal war': have our politicians lost their identity?
That is: the traditional view of many strategists and historans has been that the state is created through war, legitimised by law and maintained through grand strategy.

However, the emergence of the market, globalisation and its associated effects: ie an unclearly defined 'enemy' against which to wage war, and the general co-operation of the great states. It seems that the lack of a defined enemy against which to mold military forces and shape the institutions of the state have allowed politicians to get away with; and even require that grand strategy and vision for the future be abandoned.

As evidence of this I take modern politicians focus on the market as the centre of their policies, and the eratic military campaigns that seem to discriminate between 'evil' nations. eg why Iraq but not Iran, Zimbabwe, Sudan, North Korea etc.

Does it seem to you also that politicians are acting simply for and on 'the hour' rather than developing a genuine foundation for a better society for the future. eg Why is it that at a time when we have become the most wealthy, advanced societies on earth, we still have trouble funding health and education, and as we learn more about the universe, why do we become more insular in our thinking, if at all we are?

Interested to read your thoughts.

 

[withoutaface]

Politicians are forced to act in this way because democracy dictates that if they don't produce immediate results then they'll get raped for it at the next election. And we still have difficulties funding health and education because the notion of governments funding such things is inherently flawed. Take America before public education came in, they had an almost 100% attendance rate at private schools, and this rate was possibly even higher than the attendance rate today.

 

[Vahl]

... And we still have difficulties funding health and education because the notion of governments funding such things is inherently flawed....

I disagree. The notion of PRIVATE funding of education and healthcare is inherently flawed.
A system that allows for stratified access to basic services on the basis of wealth is one which reduces opportunities, thereby reducing social mobility and damaging the nations economic potential.
For example, there a large number of factors that will determine whether a child's parents are 'successful' enough to send their children to private institutions. These factors are closely linked with our recent history, some families will have been affected by mental illnesses resulting from and impacting today, from WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam.
Children of these 'less successful' families are, on average, in no where biologically inferior to children of 'successful' families, and thus allowing for different levels of opportunity; that is, investing different levels of resources into such children, results in inefficiency.
That is, the eventual outcome for a person from a 'less successful' family will be lower than that of a child of a 'successful' family, where their opportunities are determined by family wealth, and where they have the same raw potential. Following basic economic theory, ie the law of diminishing returns, it appears that such large differences in the investment of resources into children will result in an overall lower gain than that which would be yielded were resources to be allocated evenly.
Furthermore, an argument for allowing access to education etc based on an individual's background is an argument for a class based society. Every class based society throughout history has had lower levels of research and output than those where control of power and access to opportunity were greater. 'Classes', even transient,fluent and poorly defined ones - place artificial barriers on individuals performance, not to mention incurring greater losses for mental illnesses.

I've more to say but I'll let you respond to this first.

 

[withoutaface]

You've failed to address my point that prior to socialised education, levels of attendance were at close to 100%, as well as ignoring that when the proper customer-seller relationship is circumvented by a third party without specific interest in the wellbeing of any given customer paying for the service, as well as a lack of proper competition in the public school system (if you wish to send your child to a competing private school you end up paying for their education twice). If 99% of parents can afford to send their children to school, why try to acheive a 100% attendance rate at the cost of, say, a 20% diminishment of quality for everyone?

Also I'd like to see your evidence for socialist societies having a higher level of research and output, because it would seem more logical that in a society with incentives such as profit, and issue such as competition, that there is a better reason to take a risk on a new idea, than in a socialist society where those in charge of production have no rivals nipping at their heels, nor is the risk of failure justified by the minimal benefits of success that they would experience, given the lack of a profit margin. But then that's a whole different kettle of fish.

 

[Vahl]

Also I'd like to see your evidence for socialist societies having a higher level of research and output, because it would seem more logical that in a society with incentives such as profit, and issue such as competition, that there is a better reason to take a risk on a new idea, than in a socialist society where those in charge of production have no rivals nipping at their heels

lol true. I agree.
What I don't agree with is whether the IR 'reforms' actually are positive in this respect. ie: because they prevent many people from ever reaching their potential by holding them as virtual slaves. eg people with low skills will be forcesd into low paying occupations, with little job security which will force them on to higher interest loans: thus forcing them further into worse working conditions and preventing them from ever 'rising above' to such a point that they can 'innovate' etc.

 

[yy]

personally, i think education should be publicly funded, but health privately funded. because education concerns with escaping the povery cycle for disadvantaged people.
on the other hand, people seems to abhor the idea of paying to see a doctor, after all, they spend, say $30 at a hairdresser or $100 for a plumber, yet a doctor's service should be free??? they also tend to exploit the system where they see doctors for no reason at all.
as for IR reforms, i believe in price mechanism. people have choices, if they think the pay is too low, they can leave to find a better deal. if everyone left at a business, obviously the business cannot continue.
as to your point that people with low skills will be forced into low paying occupations, well, that's the point. why would i want to attend four year university course just to have the same salary as someone who dropped out at year 10? However, if education is free, then they can study to gain more skilled whilst working part time to support themselves.
are our politicians out of touch??? no, they cannot afford to. but the electorate may be too complacent, too many people are apathetic

 

[Terable Spellor]

Vahl3, why is faulkner (sp?) your hero?

 

[davin]

politicians are out of touch, period. i've always felt that a given

with picking which evil nations to do something about....i think that the whole need for selection is just from lack of resources. we can't do something to all those countries, so they have to pick. how they pick, thats its own matter.


and i'd agree with yy about having education taken care of by the govt but not health care

 

[Terable Spellor]

personally, i think education should be publicly funded, but health privately funded. because education concerns with escaping the povery cycle for disadvantaged people.

Both education and health should be free, but people should be able to pay for extra if they want to.

 

[sam04u]

No..
Both should be available... Healthcare and Education...

... Some of you are inhumane.... Honestly....


I agree with Vahl3... he seems to be quite intelligent...

Withoutaface; I honestly don't understand what you're saying... America Has some of the worst international poverty.... And terribly low education... since it's earliest days...

Take for instance in the South in cities like:
Houston, Texas And
San Antonio, Texas ;
theres is about 500,000 uneducated children of hispanic background....

Then look further to the East...
Las Vegas
New York
& California... has millions of african-american people of very low socio-economic status... Alot of them barely have an education... Let alone oppurtunities in life... most resort to crime... (this has been going on since before you were born).

Taking alot funding out of education... is like taking alot of education out of society...
Taking alot funding out of health-care... is like taking alot of live out of society.....
OMG... the implications of that would be astronomical... imagine a poor single mother that is on pension and one of her children falls Ill. She obviously wouldn't be able to afford the medical treatment and the Child would die....
You inhumane sons of bitches..... (those who agreed taking funding out of healthcare....

These and other basic necessities are not only beneficial to people of low socio-economic status; in the "long run". But it inversely effects you! Would you rather be a little richer; but get shot and robbed for the extra money you make?
I wouldn't....

Equal Oppurtunity....!

However, to an extent I agree with the topic starter that politicians are out of touch. They aren't making proper plans for the future and the ones who are attempting to make plans for the future are just guessing. Proper precautions and statistics need to be taken into account when making important political decisions.

Re:
WithoutAFace:
If the politicians made proper decisions and explained what the future implications would be. With statistics and in proper "public service announcements", instead of irregular promises which are broken; or changed the minute after they are elected.
Then they would have nothing to hide from society. Johny Howard introduced GST in that manner; Even though people hated it initially it is now widely "tolerated" to some extent.


Conclusion;
Yes, they are somewhat out of touch.
Healthcare and Education are extremely important to the overall "progression" of the human race at this stage.
One day systems will be invented where Healthcare and Education is controlled by machines.... In your own home... cheaply... with still interacting with students... world-wide... Of your own mental level... and curriculums taught at your own level.
Untill that day... we need to focus on the progression of mankind. <3

 

[davin]

Withoutaface; I honestly don't understand what you're saying... America? Has some of the worst international poverty.... Discrimination too... And terribly low education... since it's earliest days...

Take for instance the south... like houston, texas ; san antonio, texas... theres about 500,000 uneducated children of hispanic background....

Then look further to the East... Vegas... new york... california... has millions of african-american people of very low socio-economic status... they barely have an education... or oppurtunities in life... most resort to crime... (this has been going on since before you were born).

wow.... where to begin.
first of all, you're saying that the worst poverty in the world is in the u.s.? have you even considered at all many asian, african, latin american countries? probably even eastern europe? theres no comparison to be made that poverty in the u.s. is on par with that.

now, with education, according to the 2005 United Nations Development Program report, the U.S. is one of 21 countries listed as having a literacy percentage of 99.9% (though the census, using different standards, does list it as 97% literacy)
85% of the population completes high school and gets a diploma. Of course, if you think thats low, keep in mind that this is with the entire educational system up to that point being government-financed. in fact, it is ILLEGAL for anyone of school-age (up to 18, i believe for the whole nation) to not be attending school, either public, private, or homeschooling. 85% of it is the public, gov't paid, school system.

i'm particularly curious as to where you get your numbers of half a million uneducated hispanic children. given that that is texas, i would speculate, though, that that might be heavily tied to issues relating to illegal immigration, and not children that were poorly served even though they were born and raised in the united states. however, even that doesn't justify that high of a number, considering at present time, illegal immigrant children are guaranteed to a gov't paid-for education as well.

i particularly like your comment that shows just how much you know about the united states when you suggest taking a look to the east and then listing Las Vegas and California, with Vegas definitly being in the western part of the country and California being on the western coast of the country and by no means "east" if you were just talking about texas.


and of course, the best part is that by using the american educational system as an example, and trying to claim that it is horribly broken, is giving an example of where schools that are funded by the gov't have failed, not an example of what would go wrong if the gov't didn't pay for schools

(note: some of the numbers i mentioned are from a few different wikipedia articles, themselves from the U.S. census and the previously mentioned UN report)

 

[sam04u]

Wrong, Wrong... OOh that was wrong.,... and that....



Firstly NO WHERE NEAR 85% complete high school.
NO WHERE near 99.9% of americans are literate NO WHERE im saying its around.. 90% and when i say literate... I mean even alot of those 90% would have problems effectively contributing to this discussion. (Also I'm only talking about those Born in the U.S.A) here are some statistics... which are... "closer" to the truth.

What percentage of students graduate from high school and college?

Seventy percent of school students graduate on time, and less than half of these students are qualified to attend four-year colleges or universities. Roughly half of black and Hispanic students graduate on time.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/wm478.cfm

Wikipedia = biased.
People edit it;(usually American's) you should know that.


BARE IN MIND! THE U.S.A IS THE RICHEST NATION IN THE WORLD!
And it has difficulty educating its kids EVEN WITH the extra funding in education... which they are ineffectively DISTRIBUTING.

Therefore I WAS CRITICSING; his choice of stating that when the U.S didn't fund public schools there could be NO WAY that there would be more educated children.

Now back to the POINT.. government funded public education.. is VERY benefficial... Because UNEDUCATED people have little or no hope for a future and end up in prisons or as criminals' which is more costly to society.

OVERALL: benefits would be "greater" to the WIDER society; if these two things remained government funded.
If public education and healtcare wasn't available; right now I would be either.. robbing you... or selling you drugs... or both...
And running around with infectious diseases... and infecting you with them... Lol....

Think of it that way.

 

[lysistrata*]

politicians are only out of touch in fuckwit Western nations like australia and the united states because they suck and population is awake but the politicians are asleep comatosed and decomposed and must be reposessed for all eternity in the dark bark woodlands of fiery hell

 

[withoutaface]

politicians are only out of touch in fuckwit Western nations like australia and the united states because they suck and population is awake but the politicians are asleep comatosed and decomposed and must be reposessed for all eternity in the dark bark woodlands of fiery hell

Care to elaborate?

 

[lysistrata*]

Care to elaborate?

no


sup wit..

hey..

wsup..

 

[Comrade nathan]

Then look further to the East...
Las Vegas
New York
& California... has millions of african-american people of very low socio-economic status... Alot of them barely have an education... Let alone oppurtunities in life... most resort to crime... (this has been going on since before you were born).

Las Vegas and California are in the West of the USA.

Also when talking about African Americans, if you want to talk about poverty you should talk about the Black Belt region before talking about other places.

 

[lysistrata*]

black people are poor because of imperialist ambition and self-delightastic arrogance

nothing ever changes

 

[malkin86]

personally, i think education should be publicly funded, but health privately funded. because education concerns with escaping the povery cycle for disadvantaged people.
on the other hand, people seems to abhor the idea of paying to see a doctor, after all, they spend, say $30 at a hairdresser or $100 for a plumber, yet a doctor's service should be free???

Some of the things that one sees a doctor, or most of the things that one goes into hospital for for can be lifethreatening - having to find the money, or worrying about finding the money can be prohibitive (this is notable in the US system - even blood must be paid for!)

Although this attitude is quite prevalent, too...

 

[sam04u]

Hahaha, Its funny how i manipulate you guys to make a point...

Notice NO ONE said anything about the HUGE generalisation i made that;

"...Because UNEDUCATED people have little or no hope for a future and end up in prisons or as criminals' which is more costly to society..."

So, it means it didn't even strike you to be incorrect.
Because I placed it in my argument logically; no ones little contradictive receptor picked it up.

That means that unconsciously alot of you agree.... (even though.. that is no where near true.... alot of uneducated people "work" or stay "unemployed" without being criminals)

ROFL! AHAHA!

Yet, some agree to taking funding out of education?

Point is... HealthCare and Education are important; Lol......
In order for society to operate more effectively...

Haha... hilarious...

 

[GoodSirLancelot]

Politicians are forced to act in this way because democracy dictates that if they don't produce immediate results then they'll get raped for it at the next election. And we still have difficulties funding health and education because the notion of governments funding such things is inherently flawed. Take America before public education came in, they had an almost 100% attendance rate at private schools, and this rate was possibly even higher than the attendance rate today.

There is no way you can justify non-government funding of primary and secondary education.