This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
American States petition for seccession
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
I'm a working man... I do most of that.
I think you're contradicting yourself here a bit, though that depends on how steady your working hours are at the moment, I suppose. I'd beg to differ though, because all of the working parents (both mothers and fathers) that I've had the privilege of knowing and working with all make lunch for the kids, dinner, breakfast, do laundry, do dishes, gardening, and all the other things that come with owning a house and having a family.
My point is that every hour you spend that you're not at work, you are spending looking after the family. It's a very long call to assume that people who are working are going to higher gardeners, maids, babysitters and order takeout every night. Perhaps it's a cultural difference, but my working mother did 8-9 hour days at work and still picked us up from school, made dinner for us, helped us study, did the laundry and cleaning and all the other domestic household chores. My working father did 8-9 hour days at work and still made breakfast for us, worked out our lunches, dropped us at school, ran the garden, and did maintenance on our cars and other machinery.
I agree that running a home isn't included in those stats, however, I think it would be remiss to suggest that people who work aren't also running their home. The words I've quoted above seem to suggest that that is exactly what you do.
I hope nobody is implying that a 10 or 12 hour working day is a good thing for society. 8 hours is a third of your daily life. That leaves 4 hours for family help/playtime etc, and 4 hours for yourself to do what you wish, necessary for mental health.
I spend the 4 hours for myself to work and earn more money. Is that a bad thing, if that's what I wish?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
MyTie
Alright, let me approach it differently: Those who devote their daily life only to homemaking spend significantly more time on homemaking than those who devote a large portion of their daily life to a job. Those statistics do not include those who devote their daily life only to homemaking, and I suspect those statistics would turn in favor of Republicans if they did include all homemaking hours worked.
If both parents have a job, the hours that the parents are at work, the kids must be supervised by others. In the very LEAST, that fact alone means they spend less time being homemakers than those who do nothing else besides homemaking.
My working hours are sporadic, and this being the "off-season", I'm at home much more than at work. When I'm at home and my wife is at work, the 4 year old is at home. When I'm at work and my wife is at home, the 4 year old is at home. When I'm at work and my wife is at work, we hire someone to watch the 4 year old at a daycare center. However, we are no LESS productive the days where one of us stays home than we are when both of us work.
Is this agreeable?
Post by
HiVolt
So, yes, in a way, since I am saying that women who are homemakers aren't included in those statistics,
which would favor Republicans
, women who are working aren't "homemakers" primarily.
This seems to be a pretty definitive statement. Do you have a source you could cite? I'm not making an argument, just curious. I'd be interested in seeing it.
Post by
MyTie
So, yes, in a way, since I am saying that women who are homemakers aren't included in those statistics,
which would favor Republicans
, women who are working aren't "homemakers" primarily.
This seems to be a pretty definitive statement. Do you have a source you could cite? I'm not making an argument, just curious. I'd be interested in seeing it.
Republican women are more likely than Democratic women to say they would ideally want to stay home and care for the home and family: 57% of Republican women vs. 37% of Democratic women.
source
Post by
HiVolt
Ahh, ok. I should have guessed that was the sentiment, what with the right tending to heavily emphasize family values and all. Thanks MyTie! It was an interesting read.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I'm not advocating anarchy, Boronidze. I suspect we hold very differing opinions on where that "line" sets. In fact, that's the what the whole US is experiencing. That's why there is discussion about these two sides in the first place. I think we have too much government regulation. I'm not saying free market should decide everything, but the government isn't the end all answer to problems. For instance, healthcare. I don't know of a lot of quack doctors sewing pig kidneys into people for cash and then skipping town. We have sufficient regulation in place to prevent that. On the other hand, the bureaucratic mess that government has placed on the healthcare industry has rapidly escalated costs while reducing quality. I agree that a balance must be struck, and there is a line, but we, in the US, and especially Europe, have gone way to the left of that line, and are suffering for it.
Ya know, I watched a great documentary (either History Channel or A&E) that followed the rise of communism from the closing of the cold war all the way up to it's fall, and even an epilogue of Bush Sr's years. It took several days to watch it, as it was extensive, but it was a real eye opener. It compared two very different ideas of where that line sits. I know, I know, Socially is
totally not
Communism at all, but it represents an embracing of social and economic reforms that are the same reforms that communism took, absent of flat out nationalizing businesses. Even nationalizing businesses I wouldn't put past the
desire
of some politicians (cough cough auto bailout cough bank bailout).
Post by
gamerunknown
2) How's that European economy doing?
Pretty good on the whole. Lower debt to GDP ratio than the US, higher lifespan outcomes, EUR not quite as high as it against USD as last year, but still coasting above the dollar, far lower proportions of our GDP spent on healthcare. Any other metrics you'd like to discuss?
cough cough auto bailout cough bank bailout
WWReaganD
?
Post by
MyTie
Comparing one bloated over regulated economy to another bloated over regulated economy doesn't exactly paint a rosey picture. Let's try something else, if you want to make a case study. Let's take a look at Estonia! I'll quote, but i encourage you to read the whole article.Labour laws were liberalised, the retirement age increased and public spending cut. But taxes stayed low to encourage business; trendy entrepreneurs were born.
Estonia's GDP grew by 8.5% in the first quarter of the year, the fastest growth of any EU economy. One of the biggest growth areas is technology.concerning their joining the Euro after their boom:"We were invited to the wedding party but it turned out to be a funeral," says Andres Arrak, from the Estonian Entrepreneurship University of Applied Science.
source
By the way, linking what Reagan did liberally doesn't work on me. I consider him to liberal for my blood, and not a stalwart of conservatism.
Post by
Squishalot
@ MyTie: As I mentioned before, when I wasn't at school, I always had at least one parent around in a double income family, without the need for babysitters or other. Same applies for a lot of families I know and grew up with. I don't disagree that the homemaker spends more time homemaking than the worker does, but I don't think you have a good argument that if you add the homemaker time in, it evens up. I would argue that the worker-homemaker works harder than the full-time homemaker.
I can spin the homemaker argument around the other way. My best friend from uni had a mother who was a full-time homemaker, who would persist in changing sheets more regularly than necessary and reshuffling bookshelves and rearranging items in the display cabinet. She would do small batches of laundry 4-5 times a week. In that respect, she created work for herself, and her net productivity was lower than if she did the homemaking work efficiently and had time to relax, shop, or work on other things instead.
Seeing as we agree that the issue isn't about the number of hours worked, but the productivity, how productive is the homemaker for the 6-7 hours that the kid are at school each day? How does that productivity compare to spending 6-7 hours at a workplace?
Anyway, I think we're getting sidetracked from the original topic. Let's drop it here, and happy to pick it up in another thread if you're interested.
As I mentioned before, if we're looking at good examples of big government, try Australia.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
I'm more amused that the various states appear to have annexed Canada in the meantime.
You can poll half of America, and a large majority of them would say that Canada is an American state......
Post by
Magician22773
Obviously, the talks of succession are really just symbolic, at least for most of those that have signed the petitions. It really speaks to just how divided the country is right now, that this many people would actually rather physically split the nation, than be a part of 1 nation divided by such a difference in politics and ideals.
The best I can say, is that this next generation of America is going to be an interesting one. Regardless of which side is in office, something has to be done about the divide in the country. You simply cannot exist with 50% of the population happy, and 48% mad as hell. You cannot exist with a country that has such a large population, and such a close division between two sides that operate at opposite ends of both a political and social spectrum.
It is one thing to just say 48% are unhappy...its another to say 150 million people are unhappy. If 150 million people go from just being "unhappy" to being downright "pissed off", and it could get ugly in a hurry. At that point, succession would be the least of our worries, as the next step would be revolution.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
Obviously, the talks of succession are really just symbolic, at least for most of those that have signed the petitions. It really speaks to just how divided the country is right now, that this many people would actually rather physically split the nation, than be a part of 1 nation divided by such a difference in politics and ideals.
The best I can say, is that this next generation of America is going to be an interesting one. Regardless of which side is in office, something has to be done about the divide in the country. You simply cannot exist with 50% of the population happy, and 48% mad as hell. You cannot exist with a country that has such a large population, and such a close division between two sides that operate at opposite ends of both a political and social spectrum.
It is one thing to just say 48% are unhappy...its another to say 150 million people are unhappy. If 150 million people go from just being "unhappy" to being downright "pissed off", and it could get ugly in a hurry. At that point, succession would be the least of our worries, as the next step would be revolution.
Deep, and I mean it. But is it this generation or gap between generations? How much this would change when people who run the country now (mostly in 50+ age group), and who are still behind on certain topics will go out and younger generation will replace them?
Of all the people here, I am sure you know better than anyone that no country is "too big to fail". I am sure you are well informed of the fall of the Soviet Union.
If you strip away the political aspects(communism), the fall of Russia was eerily similar in some ways to what I feel America is going through right now.
We have severe mismanagement of our economy. We have a seemingly impassable divide in the both the population, and in our government. We have an exponentially growing number of poor people, and massive debt. All of these situations were factors in the fall, and eventual dissolution of the Soviet Union.
While it may seem unfathomable to some, I honestly believe that America could be split up in the foreseeable future. Maybe not in the next 4 years, but if trends continue, I could see it within my lifetime.
As it stands, I can see where the Democrat party could maintain control of the government for several more elections. As the voting demographic shifts, dependency on government assistance increases, and with immigration changes, right now, it would be very difficult to see how a Republican, let alone, a true Conservative, could win a national election.
But regardless of population shifts, there will always be a huge amount of people that still believe in Conservative values and principles of government. I do not think you can suppress that many people, for that long, and not have something very drastic take place. Even if only 10% of the population retains these values, that is still
31 million
people. And I can all but assure you, that if 31 million people decided to rise up against the government, that it
would
fall. Especially considering that I do not believe that
any
president could ever convince the American military to unconditionally retaliate against citizens of their own country.
Post by
gamerunknown
It's worth pointing out that Chicago isn't just the area that gave us Blagojevich, it was also home to the Chicago school of economics (Milton Friedman, stalwart opponent of minimum wage laws!). If anything, the homeland of the Keynsians is probably in the Federal Mint in Fort Worth Texas, while the East Coast Communists would probably aggregate in
New York
.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Just one act each and the government would be wiped out within a day.
Lol riiiight, sure it would.
Edit: Because you know, America is a 'civilized' country; you'd actually be hard pressed to find the people who are screaming for secession who are actually willing to get their hands dirty. Most of them will sign the petitions, join a march etc etc etc, but if it comes to killing, kidnapping, stealing or poisoning, they would draw that line and not cross it....since you know, it's all fun and games till someone ends up facing jail time or the death penalty.
Of course, there are the crazies and the extremists who would do this, but really, would you want someone like that in power for this new government?
Post by
Magician22773
I think you may be both overestimating the civility, and underestimating the power, of the people.
For starters, just look at the gang violence issue in most major cities in America. People will kill each other on a daily basis just over control of a street, or a neighborhood.
Not to mention, just 150 years ago, the same people were willing to kill each other over slavery.
But honestly,
"if"
things should go as bad as they could, I think this would be a much more "civil", Civil War, especially considering the two groups in opposition.
On one side, you have a group that controls a disproportionate amount of the wealth and business in the country, and on the other, you have a group that disproportionately relies on the government for their mere existence. You also have an economy that is already unstable as hell, and a government that has extended their debt to its limits, and beyond.
Now, all the first group has to do, is start removing their money from the system. Sell off stocks, pull their cash from the banks, and start closing up factories. Hell....just stop paying their taxes for a year. They could easily sink the US economy in a matter of months, effectively holding the government "hostage" without drawing a weapon.
If 2008 showed us anything, it was what the failure of just one company could do to our economy. The potential failure of Lehman Brothers, and the domino effect it had, brought the economy to a near standstill in 2007. Just amplify that crisis by 2 or 3 times, and it would be pretty easy to upset the government without ever firing a bullet.
Post by
1000947
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.