Debt? Whose to blame? What to do, What to do?
From Riches to Rags: Causes of Fiscal Deterioration Since 2001 by Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (Jan 10, 2024) says;
https://www.crfb.org/papers/riches-rags … ation-2001
[Who in the hell are those people. There about page is at the next link.]
https://www.crfb.org/staff-members
“In 2001, the U.S. federal government ran a $128 billion budget surplus and was on course to pay off the national debt by 2009. Since then, the government has borrowed an additional $23 trillion, bringing the national debt held by the public to a near-record 98 percent of GDP and transforming that surplus into a $1.7 trillion deficit.
Some have claimed this fiscal deterioration was entirely caused by tax cuts or was completely due to spending growth. In reality, both spending increases and revenue reductions can explain the growth in deficits and debt.
The growth in deficits and debt can be explained both by the automatic growth in mandatory spending and by the enactment of tax cuts and spending increases. Absent any of these phenomena, debt would be on a far more sustainable path.”
Further along they state:
“Looking at the policy changes enacted since the beginning of 2001, we find:
• Debt is 37 percent of GDP higher due to major tax cuts, 33 percent higher due to major spending increases, and 28 percent higher due to recession responses.
• Most debt – 77 percent of GDP – can be attributed to bipartisan legislation.
• Absent these tax cuts and spending increases, the debt would be fully paid off.
Comparing spending and revenue as a share of the economy over time, we find:
• Rising spending relative to GDP explains about two-thirds of the growth in annual budget deficits since 2001, while declining revenue explains one-third.
• Had revenue remained stable as a share of the economy, the debt would be half its size; had primary spending been stable, it would be nearly paid off.
Under any of these counterfactuals, the deficit would currently be much smaller, and in some scenarios the budget would have been balanced or in surplus.”
Within the conclusion they add:
“These high and rising deficits and debt are caused by the disconnect between spending and revenue. Whether spending is “too high” or revenue is “too low” is a question of values and priorities that cannot be answered objectively. However, it is useful to understand whether changes in spending or revenue can explain our nation’s fiscal deterioration – and the clear answer is that both can. Increases in spending and reductions in revenue are both to blame for the rapid rise in deficits and debt that has occurred since 2001.”
After the conclusion is the methodology further explain their study. Worth a peek.
Relative to ‘now’ . . .
Any thoughts how to solve the problem?Something to think about.....
summery Oxafam report.:
Since 2020, the richest 1% have captured almost two-thirds of all new wealth – nearly twice as much money as the bottom 99% of the world’s population.
• Billionaire fortunes are increasing by $2.7bn a day, even as inflation outpaces the wages of at least 1.7 billion workers, more than the population of India.
• Food and energy companies more than doubled their profits in 2022, paying out $257bn to wealthy shareholders, while over 800 million people went to bed hungry.
• Only 4 cents in every dollar of tax revenue comes from wealth taxes, and half the world’s billionaires live in countries with no inheritance tax on money they give to their children.
• A tax of up to 5% on the world’s multi-millionaires and billionaires could raise $1.7 trillion a year, enough to lift 2 billion people out of poverty, and fund a global plan to end hunger.
Survival of the Richest - OXFAM
Taxes on the richest used to be much higher. In the United States, the top marginal rate of federal income tax was 91% from 1951 to 1963; top inheritance tax rates stood at 77% until 1975; and the corporate tax rate averaged just above 50% during the 1950s and 1960s.
There were similar levels of tax in other rich nations. These high levels of tax were supported across the political spectrum and existed side by side with some of the most successful decades of economic development we have seen.
The last time we had a surplus - we took in more than we spent - was in 2000. It was the result of a large tax increase in President Clinton’s first year in office leveled almost solely on upper-income taxpayers.
Factcheck.org
Easiest way to get out of debt.Certainly the easiest; another "money grab" is always pretty easy for politicians.
On the other hand, is simply taking more of peoples earned income the best way to balance the budget? IMO no. The best way is to cut spending and limit the government to what it should be instead of an entity that finds that it, not the earner, actually owns what everyone has worked for.I saw this post of yours on another thread, from 12 years ago, and just had to share it:
wildernessposted 12 years ago
Are you kidding? My wife and I budget $300 per month for groceries, but that includes toilet paper, paper towels, toothpaste and toothbrushes, soap for dishes, laundry and showers, cat food, soda pop and all the other myriad purchases one makes at a grocery store. I doubt that we spend $100 per person per month for food - a $400 food budget for the two of us would be heaven, with steak and lobster every day.
Try getting by on that amount per month for groceries today, you'd be living on Ramun Noodles and PBJ sandwiches for the whole month.I'm sure Wilderness can answer for himself. Personally, the price rise due to inflation can be summed in one word. "Ouch!" Yes, as Eso, points out I did get increases in Social Security, but a year late. Simply put, those increases follow along inflation and aren't enough to compensate for the loss in savings while waiting for the increase. At least that is what I am experiencing.
I think we all know the reality... no matter what the government tries to tell us the official inflation rate is.
Bottom line... what cost you $100 to buy in the grocery store 5 years ago cost you at least $150 today... and with government spending where it is at, finding money for wars that were avoidable and paying for millions of migrants that are being provided better resources than American Veterans, I expect it to continue in the same direction.
Wilderness: Fiscally Sound America, (believe it or not) is a group of retired congressmen from both major parties. They have suggested that reforming tax expenditures should be the top priority for budget reforms. Tax loopholes or special tax breaks result in more than $1 trillion in lost revenue every year. Those losses were larger than all income taxes paid by individuals in 2022.
“With our national debt rapidly increasing as a share of our total economy and our nation’s economic growth stagnated, we can no longer wait for the next generation to make the tough decisions necessary to resolve our fiscal issues,” said Tom Tauke, U.S. Congress retired (R-IA) co-chair, FSA, and Executive Vice President, Verizon Communications. “We have a moral responsibility to save our country. And we believe that the vast majority of Americans are willing to do what is necessary now to ensure a bright future for themselves and their children. We simply cannot delay these difficult choices anymore.”
Of course the argument could be made that FSA members were the very elected officials who allowed the current fiscal situation to develop on their watch. On the other hand, who better to know where the mistakes lie that need to be fixed? And possibly only those with that kind of knowledge - who are now out of office - can do anything about it.
Today, from the Committee for a Responsible Budget posted a new article. It is; How Much Did President Trump Add to the Debt? (Jan 10, 2024). They stated they will post one on Biden in the near future.
A quote within the article states:
"Of the $8.4 trillion President Trump added to the debt, $3.6 trillion came from COVID relief laws and executive orders, $2.5 trillion from tax cut laws, and $2.3 trillion from spending increases, with the remaining executive orders having costs and savings that largely offset each other."
Their promise of an article with analysis for Biden enticement is:
"To be sure, other Presidents have also added substantially to the debt. In a future analysis, we will estimate how much President Biden has added to the debt – we pegged this figure at $4.8 trillion before the passage of the Fiscal Responsibility Act and other recent actions."
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-did … p-add-debtWell, that was a very disappointing article.
So much so it made me do some digging.
The Com for a Responsible Federal Budget is a non-profit public policy organization. Didn't get much of a feel for their biases, but didn't dig very deep.
Here is the thing... what have we been doing post 2001?
War, war, more war, funding other's wars, and.. paying large contracts out to MIC companies to provide security and services to places we are in, officially or not, like Syria, Iraq, etc.
This is where a very large portion of that debt comes from, and our budget is more than half devoted to the Pentagon and military spending.
America has become a bloviated war machine that is just pissing away money like there is no tomorrow.Thanks for piquing my curiosity of your perspective - War is responsible for a large portion of the debt. So, poking about to explore it I agree it did contribute. How is that to be resolved followed by a solution? Seems complex to me with the knowledge I have, today.
America’s wars and the US debt crisis by the Jordon Times (Updated May 24, 2023)
https://jordantimes.com/opinion/jeffrey … ebt-crisis
And, not as recent . . .
War Debt: America’s Cost of Going to War by Debt.org (Updated Nov 17, 2020)
https://www.debt.org/blog/war-debt-america/
Along with . . .
The “Ghost Budget”: How America Pays for Endless War by Just Security (Jan 3, 2024)
https://www.justsecurity.org/90907/the- … dless-war/
Great reads/info . . .Like the first article pointed out, there would be almost no debt, if not for the overseas 'peace' efforts of the US these past couple of decades.
Trump is the only President in the past quarter century that did not involve America in a new conflict, or overthrow another government.
Tim, it may not be all doom and gloom; and the USA is not alone!
This link shows that compared to some other countries the USA isn’t doing so badly e.g. the national debt as a percentage of GDP is far worse in Japan, Greece, Singapore and Italy.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/govern … economies/
With regards to your question of “what to do”; there is no easy answer and no quick fix.
From when I studied economics at college - knee jerk reactions to economic crises by Governments e.g. making sudden changes, can do more harm than good. The best economic course is usually for a Government to keep its nerve, and to plot a slow and steady course that aims to reduce the national debt slowly over time, rather than taking drastic steps to try to bring down the national debt quickly.Howdy Arthur! Thanks for weighing in with a fresh perspective. The linked article for me is enlightening. Not only the article itself, but the offered links within it. Educational! Just for info purposes the links that piqued my curiosity were:
Animated: Global Debt Projections (2005 - 2027P)
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/global … ions-2027/
Charted: The World’s Aging Population from 1950 to 2100
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/cha … 0-to-2100/
U.S. Debt: Visualizing the $31.4 Trillion Owed in 2023
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/us- … d-in-2023/
Your statement. "With regards to your question of “what to do”; there is no easy answer and no quick fix." I have to agree. As stated elsewhere I am no economics whiz, yet am learning.
The article of the OP places near equal blame on spending, cutting taxes, and recession responses. Okay, the blame game is out of the way from their perspective. Regard how to fix it what caught my attention is; "Rising spending relative to GDP explains about two-thirds of the growth in annual budget deficits since 2001, while declining revenue explains one-third."
From a novice perspective it appears 2/3 of attention should be placed on spending and 1/3 on increasing revenue as a long term solution.
Interestingly, prefacing with I have my priorities as others theirs, The Committee for a Responsible Budget offers an opportunity to develop a budget and see how it works. It is an interactive allowing selection of many different variables. Take a peek.
Fix the National Debt
https://www.crfb.org/debtfixer
If anything I have learned while continuing to do so, yes, there are the easy answers like slash defense. But, this interactive tool allows one to actually do the changes with the elements and see the results.
In other words, one can learn 'How' to slash defense through the offered variables. The same learning opportunity is for:
Investments
as stated, Defense
Social Security
Health Care
Domestic
Income tax
Other taxes
and, finally, see the results.Thanks for all the links; most interesting, and most educational – Particularly your last link, the ‘Fix the National Debt’ link, which I spent over 2 hours slowly, and painfully, working through. The difficulty for the National Debt link for me is that the British tax, benefit and social systems are not comparable to the American systems – So to try to find the nearest option for each question required a lot of cross reference with the UK Government website; for examples:-
• We don’t have health insurance in the UK because all our medical care is 100% free at the point of use, as it’s all 100% paid for from taxes.
• In the UK State Pension is a fixed flat sum which everyone with more than 35 years employment automatically gets, that’s tripled locked to increase each year by whichever is the higher from annual average wage increase, inflation, or 2.5% e.g. it’s not based on your earnings, and is not means tested.
In answering the questions, rather than answering them how I would like to see them answered, I put myself in the shoes (mind-set) of the current UK Conservative Government e.g. to emulate their current economic and social policies; such as:-
• The Conservative Government’s cut in the Defence budget over the past 14 years.
• The Conservative’s Government increase in spending on childcare in recent years.
So on working through the form, as Health is free and social benefits tend to be broader in the UK etc., I was expecting my completion of the form to increase the National Debt, not decrease it – but the final result was surprisingly the reverse (see image below) – If only it could be that easy in reality!
As regards the other links:-
• Yes, as stated in one of the links “Debt sharply increased in both 2020 and 2009 in conjunction with economic downturns”; 2009 being the world financial crisis, and 2020 being the pandemic – but for some reason they failed to include the Ukrainian war, which is having the same general negative impact that the pandemic caused; and for the UK we’ve also had the negative impact of Brexit compounding the economic crisis caused by the pandemic and Ukrainian war.
• But of course, one of the major long term cause of high National Debt as highlighted in your other link is the problem across all wealthy countries of an ageing population; in the UK in 2022 19.7% of the population was over the age of 65, while in the USA it was 17.13%. The ageing population representing lower percentage of the population of working age (paying taxes), with an increasing population of people in retirement and having to be supported by the State (from taxes).
Yep, as stated in another of your links “tackling national debt is simple in theory: raise taxes or reduce spending, or a combination of both.” But, as we know, it’s much more difficult in practice e.g. “which taxes should be raised? Which programs should be cut?”
As stated in your links “national debt rises during recessions because government’s revenue, (primarily composed of taxes) decreases, while at the same time, governments tend to increase spending to help stimulate an economic recovery – A little bit of a “catch 22” situation.
Wow!! I am amazed you spent as much time as you did playing with the learning tool!! I didn't. I am currently playing with it with a step by step approach learning what the elements offered for change are. I see the big picture with my personal values such as I am pro-defense. I spent some time, yesterday, looking into those elements.
Link to Debt Fixer tool to peek at possible defense changes.
https://www.crfb.org/debtfixer
For instance, 'Allow Veterans to See Any Doctor Outside of the VA' would result with a $520 billion increase. I reflect on a neighbor, Jerry (RIP), I used to give rides to the VA hospital in San Diego. That is a forty minute drive. If it were possible for him to see a doctor locally he would not depend on help from someone.
Also, I reflected, looking into VA medical facilities seeing there are 172 serving the nation. So, I looked into if you go outside of network what does that entail. Three considerations I envisioned mirrored myself - age, health issues, and income sources - social security and savings.
Next, I thought of a plot in a TV series, Seal Team. One of the subplots was a younger member of the team was injured by an explosion. He had appointments with VA about that. And, he roomed with a former Seal Team member also having to go to the VA. But, the VA was local to them. What if it were not local to them.
Then, I stopped as it was time for lunch. But, I gained respect for all of our legislators having to make decisions regard the budget while considering the goal of lowering the debt, their ideology, and the constituency they represent.
I say, Hooray for you, for playing with the tool while at the same time doing as best as can be applying the UK structure to see the results.
For now, I will continue my journey one step at a time with defense and see what the results are and then move to one of the other categories. One thing to note, you made progress at the goal of lowering debt. Hooray!Yep, absolutely; when I did economics at college, it wasn’t just the basic microeconomics that most people learn at school, in the 2nd year we switched to macroeconomics (a view of the whole picture), which is a lot more fun, and shows just how complex economics is in the real world: So from that I too, as you stated “I gained respect for all of our legislators having to make decisions regard the budget while considering the goal of lowering the debt, their ideology, and the constituency they represent.”
I found it a worthwhile exercise “Playing with the tool” as it gave me a greater insight into the American tax and benefits system, which is radically different to the UK system in many respects – So it was a very educational exercise – and the fact that I managed to lower the debt in the online model was just by chance.
I too, am pro-Defence; which is why I (like many Brits) were dismayed when one of the first acts the Conservatives made when they came to power in 2010 was to cut the Defence budget by 8% – decommissioning our last aircraft carrier in 2011 (five years ahead of schedule), living the UK without any aircraft carriers for six years, until the new one was commissioned in 2017; and cutting the size of the British armed forces by 20%.
The only cut the Conservative Government that hasn’t made, is the annual recruitment of Gurkhas into the British Army; the Gurkhas make up about 5% of our Armed Forces, and are always deployed as an advanced force in any conflict because the Gurkhas are the world’s toughest soldiers, and therefore a great asset to the British Army.
This documentary shows how Gurkhas are selected for recruitment into the British Army. As you will see from the video, few (if any) American or British born citizen would be capable of doing the physical tests that Gurkhas have to go through, to select the best of the best: https://youtu.be/hbYScADMKa8
WOW – The help Veterans get in America sounds rather complex and a little disjointed, unless I’m not seeing the whole picture? And the potential option you mentioned, to “Allow Veterans to See Any Doctor Outside of the VA” is a little alien to me in that in the UK, as well as the “Veterans-UK” (the UK equivalent to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in America), veterans do have free and full access to the NHS, like everyone else, so the issue of being able to see another doctor is irrelevant in the UK.
In the UK ‘Veterans-UK (which is a part of the Ministry of Defence) work in partnership with other national and local government Authorities, the NHS, and various charities dedicated to veterans - to provide a joined up service.
The 1st link below lists the responsibilities of ‘Veterans-UK’ which includes:-
• Free help with compensation claims for injury in the armed forces.
• Armed Forces Compensation Scheme.
• War Pension Scheme
• Armed Forces Pensions
• Help and welfare for veterans and those leaving the armed forces
• Veterans Welfare Service
• Defence Transition Services
• Help and support to the family when a veteran or service person dies
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisat … s-uk/about
The 2nd link below provides details of the additional free help and support the NHS gives to veterans:
https://www.nhs.uk/nhs-services/armed-f … eservists/
If you follow through on the above links it should help to clarify some of the similarities and differences between help and support veterans receive in America and Britain; and if it does I’d be interested in what you learn.Thanks for the reply! Informative. A little wandering follows . . .
Having never taken economics classes both for micro or macro I do get the jest of it while have done my own 'self' education since became retired. That was motivated by my desire to become more informed on politics as the 'big' picture, though realized there are specifics to it. In other words the maco-politics and micro-politics borrowing from economics.
Before retiring I was colloquially a sheeple just voting Republican a result mainly through socialization supplemented by the biographies I read of those I had an interest gaining admiration as a child developing into an adult.
For instance, I admire Teddy Roosevelt, a former president, from reading two biographies on him. One while in grade school and one while in middle school. Consequently, being embed within me it affects my assessment of beliefs as well as political position.
One element for my voting trend before retired it was easy peasy allowing me to develop other interests with a higher priority. For instance, career. In other words, revenue keeping to the economics of things contrast living expenses and acquired debt. Causes?
Today, being retired, I have the 'luxury' of time to actually assess my beliefs with its system incorporating both emotion and cognition. Fortunately, today, I, as well as others, have the availability of the internet as a tool for that purpose. However, importance to each varies.
Back on track, the tool, as with you, I find it enlightening. I have sought to lower the debt by examining each micro element as a stand alone within the category focusing on defense first Make the changes, then do a compare/contrast with debt as it is today as given by the tool.
For instance, I would like to give those benefits to the vets, but how to balance that cost is the question. Do I do it with cutting an element of defense or elsewhere. Onward the learning experience goes.
I can see an advantage for yourself with the NHS as a given. I can relate to that personally, today, receiving Medicare through Social Security, today, though there is nominal cost for it deducted from my benefit.
Yet, what of those having to pay for health insurance as mandated by our government today. That is the given here. Then comes introspection with my journey with having the availability of provided health care contrast/compare cost. There was more pain associated with that than pleasure economically speaking for myself.
The bottom line to cut debt, sacrifice.
Appreciated the additional info and will give attention to them later today. We are in agreement, it appears, on defense.
That was a long windy road
Yet, with positive results, of which one is clarity for myself.My grandfather was a trade unionist, and my mother (a staunch Labour supporter) had the same dislike of Winston Churchill (Conservative Minister in her day) that I had for Margaret Thatcher, and for similar reasons.
Nevertheless, I didn’t have any firm political views when I left school and started work; but that quickly changed when Margaret Thatcher came to power e.g. Margaret Thatcher had a loathing for socialism and anything related to socialism, she was very open about her dislike of socialism, and it showed in her polices e.g. she made two failed attempts to scrap the civil service pension scheme, being thwarted in the courts each time; and she attempted to scrap the NHS in favour of the American style healthcare system, but fortunately her own political party didn’t support her.
So it was her attacks on socialism that made me a socialist e.g. I quickly learned the import role that socialism plays in a modern British democratic society.
Yes, as you said “The bottom line to cut debt, (what to) sacrifice”.
That’s where the different political ethos’s of the different political parties come into play e.g. in economic terms socialism tends to put greater emphasis on “bottom up economics” (giving greater financial protection to the working classes as they will then generate the wealth in the economy (stimulate economic growth), by spending the extra ‘disposable income’ that then filters up to the upper classes, generating increase ‘demand’ for goods and services, which in turn generates an increase in employment), while capitalism tends to put a greater emphasis on “top down economics” (giving the businesses the tax breaks etc., in the theory that they will then pass some of the financial benefits down to the workers in the form of higher wages etc.”.
I’ve tried to simplify this aspect of economic theory into just a short paragraph, but perhaps this video below might give a clearer picture into the two different economic theories that economists have been arguing about for over two centuries.
Top Down versus Bottom Up Economics: The Obama Administration Plan that Hasn't Been Tried Before https://youtu.be/TMp0Gmag3BAThanks Arthur, for the feedback!!
You brought up not only an interesting point, but an important one. That is where your parents stood in the political world. Having a cursory knowledge of what a trade unionist means, labour party, and conservative I can grasp the influence of those for you.
One thing, to note, I feel, is that the impact of socialism in the UK is much greater than here both economically, politically, and socially. In other words the socialization effect. In support of that I offer from the Fraser Institute; New poll finds strong support for socialism in the U.K. (Mar 25, 2023). A fairly short read.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/n … -in-the-uk
"The poll (commissioned by the Institute of Economic Affairs and Canada’s Fraser Institute) taken in the fall of 2022 shows that the U.K. has the highest level of support for socialism as the ideal economic system (43 per cent) among the four countries involved in the poll (Australia, the United States, Canada and the U.K). The U.S. has the lowest support for socialism at 31 per cent.".
One thing to note is over the last ten years I have explored on and off Sweden's form of government, politics, and economy to understand my Dear Friend's perspectives. Of course, culture too.
As an aside, today, conservatives use socialism and communism as pejoratives while liberals use Trumper or Trumpist and MAGA for them. MAGA = Make American Great Again, Trump's slogan.
Relating to the parents influence my dad was a Republican/Conservative while my mom was a Democrat/Liberal. Arguably how much could be at question as well as being transitory over their lifetime. A consideration is my parents did not discuss politics ever in the family environment. Matter of fact the following topics are hands off at family functions - politics and religion. Privately, yes.
However, they both were staunch on patriotism since my dad was a career Marine for twenty years. Consider the military in essence is socialism. That, as well, as my grandpa, my mom's dad, fought in WWI in France. He fought in the battle of the Argonne Forest experiencing the usage of Mustard Gas.
Is the U.S. Military Socialist? by AllGov (Jan 6, 2016) AllGov is a left leaning organization. Note: A short read.
http://www.allgov.com/news/unusual-news … ews=858082
The reason why I bring up the military as socialism is I lived within that environment for eighteen years before moving out of the family home. After moving out it was full on capitalism investing into myself/career and capitalize on that with opportunities advancing myself and times of failure too.
The reason why I say transitory is my dad in his second career drove a bus for the North County Transit District here where I live for almost twenty years. He was in the position of being an old guy. Supporting transitory he was instrumental as an organizer with bringing in union representation for drivers and maintenance workers, which did happen.
So, conservative position → to a liberal one. My mom was supportive of that. Did that affect their voting record, who knows.
Granted, I have a lot to learn on the economics academia. However, from my playing with that tool to lower debt specific to defense I am learning. I say that because it has prompted journeys from here to there to grasp what the elements within means. I suspect that will carry forward to the other categories like taxes, social security, and investments.Thanks for your comprehensive feedback.
One comment that caught my eye was where you said “A consideration is my parents did not discuss politics ever in the family environment. Matter of fact the following topics are hands off at family functions - politics and religion. Privately, yes.”
Yep, politics, religion and sex tend to be taboo subjects in Britain in social circles, unless you’re socialising with friends that you know well enough that you know you’re not going to offend them, or cause an argument or rift with them.
But in private, as a family I, my wife and our son always have a family discussion prior to voting so that we all come to a common agreement on how we are going to vote; which in the General Election is invariably Labour, but in local elections coming up in May this year, we’re currently leaning more towards supporting the Green Party.
Thanks for the link to poll conducted by the Fraser Institute, which confirms the strong support for socialism in Britain (no surprise there); although, the Fraser Institute’s added personal comments does reflect their strongly Right-Centre biased (again, no surprise there).
In reading your comment “The reason why I bring up the military as socialism is I lived within that environment for eighteen years before moving out of the family home. After moving out it was full on capitalism investing into myself/career and capitalize on that with opportunities advancing myself and times of failure too.”
In think in the UK there isn’t such a stark difference (the boundaries are more blurred) because when you leave home it’s not “full on capitalism investing into myself/career” e.g. in the UK there is a lot of support available from the State, such as ‘Social Housing’, Housing Benefit, Social benefits for people on low income etc., and plenty of opportunities to advance oneself, such as free and cheap adult education.
One of many keystones in supporting you in adult life in the UK are Government funded services like the ‘National Careers Service’ (launched in England in 2012 by the UK Conservative Government) https://youtu.be/BN4rdE2HXaw
Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have their own similar Government funded schemes: Such as the Skills Development Scotland (a Scottish Government Department created by the SNP (Socialist) Government in Scotland in 2008): https://youtu.be/rW4tpEBKyUUThanks, Arthur!! I can appreciate your wife and son having discussions when voting time comes around. I don't have that advantage where there is no fear for open discussion. By that I mean, today, I am single living alone and as said it is hands off at family functions.
My social circles are very limited. In the past the most influential social circles was the workplace environment. The last place I worked for 24 years where the last 14 were in the corporate office had a strong conservative/Republican sentiment with corporate leadership. They were good friends as well. No problem for me as I was a sheeple voting that ticket anyway. So, really, not an influence, just having a sense of belonging with likeness.
Yes, I easily can see how the UK social network (Socialism) contrast here has an impact on the individual. Specific to the help for career or training, speaking at a personal level, for California, when unemployed they do offer a similar service. After that I would have to research. With the GI Bill for vets there are services for that. That is big recruitment bonus for the military emphasized by recruiters. Plus, through testing they match the recruit to the best match for career path.
I did ponder that with discussions with my mom and dad. But, I had a mapped out career plan, though fell to the wayside after one year of college majoring in it - Architecture. Long story why.My work experience (as a civil servant) was different in that due to the harsh attacks on the civil service by Margaret Thatcher (UK Conservative Prime Minister during the 1980s) e.g. a relentless attack by her on our pay & conditions, most of my work colleagues were inclined to support Labour: So talking politics in the work place had no risk of causing friction with other workmates.
In fact, it was because of Margaret Thatcher’s political attacks on the civil service that galvanised me into becoming a trade union activist, to the point of getting elected first as Branch Secretary in our local office, then as Section Secretary for the whole country. And as Branch Secretary on the Union, I encouraged a couple of my close work mates to also become committee members on our local union branch – from there they both joined the Labour party, and to this day both are Labour activists in the Labour Party. Both now live within 10 minutes’ walk from where I live, so we regularly socialise.
Another close work mate in one of the jobs I had in the civil service was also a Labour Activist (supporting and campaigning for Labour in Local Government), but was also a Magistrate; so again no fear in talking politics at work.
It’s good to hear that at least in California that there is free help for career and training.
Wow, architecture would have been an interesting career. When I was at school my forte was technical drawing, I got grade ‘A’ in my final exam qualifications; so being a draughtsman appealed to me, but for that I would have had to go to college to get a few more qualifications: So in the meantime, on leaving school, my ‘School Career Officer’ put me in touch with the civil service (and the rest is history); but ironically, on joining the civil service I had day release to college get the extra qualifications that would have enabled me to become draughtsman, but by that time I was more than content with the civil service as a career.
Where I said in my previous reply to this, re relation to your link “….the Fraser Institute’s added personal comments does reflect their strongly Right-Centre biased (again, no surprise there).”, to elaborate for example:-
In the Fraser Institute’s personal comment they said (to quote):
“Apparently, Britons have forgotten their experience with British Steel, British Gas, British Petroleum, British Telecom, British Aerospace and other failed nationalizations.”
The statement above, by the Fraser Institute, is pure ‘misinformation or disinformation’.
Certainly British Steel was a lame duck, along with other British Industries, including British car manufactures; these were nationalised by Labour, rather than bailing them out with government subsidies, or just leaving them to market forces where as Private Industry they would have gone bankrupt. But even as Nationalised Industries they were a burden on the taxpayer.
So in the 1980s Margaret Thatcher reprivatized them to sink or swim, along with every other Nationalised Industry (for Conservative political ideology) including British Gas, British Telecom (mentioned above by the Fraser Institute), and the National Grid, Water, Sewage and British Rail (not mentioned by the Fraser Institute).
But neither British Gas nor British Telecom (mentioned by the Fraser Institute), nor National Grid, Water, Sewage and British Rail were failures as National Industries – They were all profitable.
The result of privatising British Gas and the other Service Industries, including the Railways, was that the new private owners immediately put up prices significantly and creamed off all the profits to their shareholders rather than reinvesting in the service infrastructure.
Prior to being privatised Telecom was at an advanced stage to start upgrading the telephone network from copper wire to optic fibre cable; when it was privatised in the 1980s, the plan to upgrade the infrastructure was abolished – and it’s only been within the last 10 years that the UK Conservative Government has forced British Telecom to commence upgrading its infrastructure from copper wire to optic fibre.
As regards British Rail, when it was privatised in the early 1990s it was split into two private company sectors, the rail network and the trains. The rail network when bankrupt in 2002 and subsequently renationalised; while in 2019 the UK Conservative Government finally admitted that privatisation of the trains was a failure because although the private train operators are making profits, rather than reinvesting the profits they have been creaming off the profits to their shareholders, and were consistently hyping the price of travel to make even bigger profits for their shareholders – So the UK Conservative Government are now in an advanced stage of renationalising the trains to bring down prices and to increase reinvestment in the railway; about 25% of the trains have already been taken back into State (Government) ownership, with the profits going towards Government Revenue rather than into the pockets of shareholders.
As regards the National Grid, that is being renationalised by the UK Conservative Government this year, specifically to give the Conservative Government a tighter control over gas and electricity sector as part of its legal requirement for the UK to be carbon net zero by 2050.
Below is an old video (made before the Conservative finally decided to renationalise the trains), but it does lay out the issues:- https://youtu.be/AJMPM7HOWmsThanks for the considerations that the survey had a slant with a comment. I can see the contrast/compare of the political impact on those you elaborated about. Valuable information.
For info purposes at the article linked next at the bottom of the page is links for the actual study you may like to explore.
Perspectives on Capitalism and Socialism: Polling Results from Canada, the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom by the Fraser Institute (Feb 22, 2023) The article itself I plan to read at a later time.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies … -socialismThanks for the link to the actual study; which I have read – and in conclusion, in my opinion the Fraser Institute is still showing their ‘strong right-centre biased’, plus I don’t think they have a full grasp on what ‘socialism’ in a free democratic country is all about e.g. the concept that those who can most afford it contribute the most to society.
In their report, and summary, the Fraser Institute goes to great lengths to point out that people in the UK, as well as the other countries covered by their study have a greater preference for the wealthy to pay more taxes, while not being so keen on the less wealthy paying more taxes.
And the political spin they put on it in their summary is:
• “Critically, the results suggest that no age group in any of the surveyed countries indicated a general willingness to pay for the costs associated with their favoured definition(s) of socialism.” and
• “The clear implication is that a large proportion of supporters of socialism, defined as higher levels of government for expanded and new programs and/or transfers to provide a guaranteed minimum of income, want someone else to pay for the associated costs.”
In relation to Britain, both of the above statements by the Fraser Institute are inaccurate:
Yeah, sure, Brits generally more in favour of increasing the tax of the top 5% wage earners than seeing their own taxes being increased; and historically, when Labour comes into power that is exactly what they do e.g. increase the top rate tax by 2%, then when the Conservatives come into power they reduce the top tax rate by 2%.
However, that doesn’t mean that Brits are not willing to pay higher taxes themselves if it’s for the right reasons; as demonstrated in these two YouGov surveys below:-
1. YouGov Survey on whether the Government should increase income tax to fund the cost of elderly care – FYI Income tax in the UK is what everyone who’s in employment and paying taxes pays from their wages, so increasing income tax affects everyone.
As you will see from the link below (as at 13th Nov 2023), 61% of Brits would be in favour of paying more tax to fund the cost of elderly care; and only 12% are not in favour of paying more taxes themselves.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/tr … derly-care
2. YouGov Survey (3rd July 2018), where a majority of Brits (54% to 62%) are in favour of paying more taxes themselves to fund the NHS. Only 28% of Brits would not be in favour of paying more taxes to fund the NHS.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/ … come-tax-f
And if you follow the above link through to the source data you will see there is very little difference across the parties’ e.g.
• Conservative voters support for paying more taxes themselves to fund the NHS is from 53% to 64%
• Labour voters support for paying more taxes themselves to fund the NHS is from 61% to 68%, and
• Liberal Democrat voters support for paying more taxes themselves to fund the NHS is from 61% to 66%.Thanks for the time you spent to clarify a position on socialism. I have not read the referenced article I shared yet, so have no opinion to offer. I always read a counter article, so do you have one from the socialist point of view you would recommend?
As to the graphs I became confused with the first one as it's headline was elderly care, but the questions with the data was not. Each statement was a stand alone statement while as I see it at this time none were specific to elder care. I suspect one could presume the goal is elder care. They were proposed policies, however, they would be inclusive of any person, not just the elderly. Did I get that wrong?
The highest is 32% in favor. The policy is"
"A moderate increase in income tax so that subsidized social care is available to most who need it, subject to means test."
From our discussions I was not surprised by the second survey/poll. However, my attention was caught with the generational graphic or age group. Also, I noted the date was for 2018.
"The generations are divided, however, in an inversion of what might normally be expected, with older Britons far more likely to support tax and spend measures than their younger counterparts. For instance, while 70% of those aged 65 or older support raising income tax rates, this falls to just 38% among 18-24 year olds. This may not be so surprising given that older people are greater users of health services, and in any case a plurality of young people still back the two measures."
I don't know about the elderly in GB/UK but myself, I don't pay any income taxes both federal and state. In other words, no skin off my nose if taxes go up for younger generations while I gain greater benefit(s).Where you ask “I always read a counter article, so do you have one from the socialist point of view you would recommend?”; it’s a fair question, but not such a simple answer:-
Socialism in Britain isn’t a doctrine; it’s a set of principles (ideas) to strive for a more equitable society – so there isn’t an article as such (to the best of my knowledge) that clarifies the position on socialism in Britain: To get a better understanding of socialism in Britain you really need to look at the history of socialism in Britain, and what form of socialism the main stream socialist political parties take e.g. by studying their election manifestoes listing their policies how they propose to finance those policies (the social, political and economic policies in the election manifestos).
This Wikipedia article does a good job in explaining the history of socialism in the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o … ed_Kingdom
The details of the Labour Party Manifesto will not be published until sex weeks before the General Election later this year; but this link gives a summary of ‘Labour’s missions for Britain’ which will form the backbone of their election manifesto:- https://labour.org.uk/missions/
The Labour Party isn’t the only mainstream political socialist party in the UK – the socialist parties in power in mainstream politics in the UK are as follows:-
• Northern Ireland: Sinn Féin.
• Scotland: SNP (Scottish National Party).
• Wales: Labour and Plaid Cymru (Welsh National Party).
• England: Labour
• Across the whole of the UK: The Green Party is rapidly gaining popularity.
YOUGOV SURVEY ON GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR ELDERLY CARE IN THE UK
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/tr … derly-care
I can see that you got confused with this YouGov survey (link above).
• The headline isn’t the question; the question is printed in full below the graph.
• Each statements in the graph isn’t a statement, it’s one of the five choices that the respondents have to choose from when they answer the ‘full question’ e.g. multiple choice questionnaire.
• They are not proposed polices, the survey is regularly conducted to gage public opinion for the benefit of political parties when they are formulating their election manifestos.
• And as the full question clearly states, the 5 choices given when answering the survey are all related to just funding elderly care.
So to elaborate:-
This particular survey is called a tracker survey (it’s one of many tracker surveys conducted by YouGov for the benefit of political parties e.g. they monitor public opinion over time, which is useful info for political parties for when they are formulating their election manifestos. This particular survey is carried out once every six months.
If you go back to the above link you will see that the FULL QUESTION that participants are asked is shown below graph.
The FULL QUESTION asked each time is:
“Currently the government will pay for long term care for people who are the least well off, but anyone with savings (more than £23,250) has to pay for some or all of the cost of their care. This will sometimes include having to sell their home. Overall, which of these policies would you prefer regarding the cost of social care for older people who can no longer live independently?”
It’s a multiple choice question with 5 answers to choose from, respondents have to choose one of the five answers below:-
1. A significant increase in income tax, so that social care is available, free, to everyone who needs it.
2. A moderate increase in income tax so that subsidised social care is available to most people who need it, subject to a means test.
3. A small increase in income tax so that subsidised social care is available only to the least well off.
4. No increase in income tax, so that individual and families take responsibility for providing, or paying for, social care.
5. Don’t know
And as you can see from the response; only 12% of Brits are NOT in favour of paying more taxes to help pay for elderly care in the UK – which is the point I was trying to make.
INCOME TAX
Where, in your ultimate paragraph, you say “I don't pay any income taxes both federal and state.”, and you raise the question about what income taxes the elderly pay in the UK – You raise a good point; which I shall try to summarise below:-
In the UK there are two types of income tax:-
• NI (National Insurance) created by the Labour Party in 1948 to pay for their socialist policies, and in theory it covers the cost of the NHS, Welfare State and State Pensions.
• Income Tax, which pays for everything else.
Both NI and Income tax are a tax on wages, deducted at source by your employer before you get paid; the advantage being that in the UK (unlike the USA) employees don’t have annual tax returns to worry about because your employer has already paid your taxes for you under the PAYE (Pay As You Earn) scheme.
What is PAYE? https://youtu.be/_aLt0yOVD3M
How much tax you pay on your income depends on your tax allowance, tax band and working status e.g. pensioners don’t pay any NI.
The tax allowance is the amount you can earn tax free e.g. currently you don’t pay any taxes on the first $16,000.
Income Tax in the UK is a ‘progressive tax’ e.g. the higher your earnings, the greater the percentage of tax (in bands): In the UK the Income Tax rate paid by the working class and lower middle class is currently 20%, while the tax rate for the highest wage earners is currently 45%.
NI tax on income is a ‘regressive tax e.g. a flat rate of 10% for all workers except for the high income workers who only pay 2% NI on their earnings – And retired people pay 0% NI.
In my case, being retired I pay zero NI, but having two good pensions (Works Pension and State Pension), which takes me well beyond the tax allowance threshold means that I pay a little bit on Income Tax.Thanks for elaboration on everything! Appreciated! Thanks for clarifying your point. Sorry for my confusion. Oops!!
We have two income taxes - Federal and state, however 9 of 50 states do not have an income tax. The federal income tax is progressive with the high at 37%. How to determine the tax rate based on income is of course complicated.
Some states income tax are a flat tax, some progressive, and as said some have no income tax. Here where I live in California it is progressive with the highest rate at 13.3% for all states.
Your Guide to State Income Tax Rates by the Balance (Jan 23, 2023)
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/state-i … es-3193320
Also, states rely on sales tax, though some do not. There is no national sales tax, though there are excise taxes like cigarettes and gasoline. The sales tax can be a combination of state and local.
Here where I live in San Diego County of California the sales tax rate is 7.75%. That is California's at 7.25% and local at .5%.
State and Local Sales Tax Rates, Midyear 2023 by the Tax Foundation (July 17, 2023)
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/stat … s-midyear/
Note: In California food is exempt from sales tax. However, some prepared foods are subject to sales tax.
California Food Tax: Is Food Taxable in California? by TaxJar (June 27, 2020)
https://www.taxjar.com/blog/food/califo … california
I have to file federal income tax annually because I collect Social Security and that is considered income by them in an odd way. I don't have to file for California because my income solely is Social Security. Social Security in California is not considered income. I do receive interest on my savings/investments, but they don't reach the threshold of income to file.Hi Tim, a most enlightening feedback; and yep, same in the UK, as you said “How to determine the tax rate based on income is of course complicated.”
STATE INCOME TAX
Essentially, State Government in the USA equates to Local Government (called Councils) in the UK. Compared to the 50 States in the USA, in England alone there are 43 top level Local Governments (County Councils, Metropolitan Councils and Unitary Authorises) – Bristol, where I live is a Unitary Authority.
In the UK we don’t have Local Income Tax; instead Local Governments raises their money from Property Tax (Domestic Home Owners), and Business Rates (Commercial).
Looking at the link you gave me, the property tax in California is 0.74%; property tax for domestic home owners in England is around 1.5% of the market value of the property. Businesses are taxed by their Local Government based on the rentable value of their property.
SALES TAX
We don’t have Sale Tax in the UK; instead we have VAT (Value Added Tax).
VAT in the UK is currently set at 20% for most goods and services, including food, with some exceptions e.g. a few essential items are either exempt from VAT or VAT for those items is just 5% - And all Revenue from VAT goes to the UK Government, none goes to Local Governments.
EXCISE DUTIES
Yep, it’s the same here in the UK; Excise Duties are taxes imposed on certain goods considered harmful to public health or the environment, and include tobacco, alcohol, and petrol (gasoline) e.g. currently, about two thirds of the cost of petrol in the UK is tax.
TAX RETURNS
Yeah, I know from my American friend in New York that you have to do annual tax returns. I’ve never done a tax return in the whole of my life because when I was working all that was sorted out by my employer before I got paid; and now that I am retired a Government Department, called DWP (Department for Work and Pensions) does all that for me.
INTEREST ON SAVINGS AND INVESTMENTS
In the UK Investments tend to be taxed at source, just like wages and pension, and since 1999 personal savings have been tax free anyway e.g. ISA.
ISA (Individual Savings Accounts) was introduced by the Labour (Socialist) Government in 1999, and they are savings accounts (for individuals, not businesses) that are tax free.
In 2017 the Conservative Government introduced the ‘Lifetime ISA’; a Lifetime ISA is a personal tax free savings account that you can only access to buy a house, or when you reach 60 if you don’t use it to buy a house – Unless you die of course, and then the savings become part of your Estate.
However, for every $4 you put into your Lifetime ISA the Government puts $1 into your tax free Lifetime ISA savings account e.g. a 25% bonus given to you by the Government.
So for example if you put £4,000 a year for 20 years into your Lifetime Savings to go towards buying a house; after 20 years your ISA savings will be £4,000 x 20 = £80,000 + 25% bonus from the Government (£20,000) = £100,000 plus tax free interest in total.
Understanding the Lifetime ISA: A Beginner's Guide (UK LISA) https://youtu.be/nKGSioVcqm4
I have just a simple ‘Cash ISA’ with my Bank (no fees & tax free interest) which I can draw upon at any time.Thanks, Arthur for the reply and info! I think it can be summed up things are different between there and here as well as both are different than in Sweden. It is interesting learning what those differences are through our dialogue. Along with my research for Sweden. It would be interesting to be able to listen to the ambassadors between the UK and US having a conversation.
I'm aware of VAT because of sending things to my friend in Sweden from Amazon. I use to use Amazon UK until they opened Amazon SE.
As far as excise taxes go, I'm an addicted smoker, so my cigarettes are subject to both an excise tax from the federal [$1.93 per pack (£1.52)] and California [$2.87 per pack (£2.26)]. It is subject to sales tax too. That would be $0.82 (£0.65). My total cost per pack is $10.43 (£8.21). A reality check that means I am throwing away $0.52 (£0.41) each time I smoke a cigarette. Wow!! A pack is 20 cigarettes.
With gasoline excise taxes federal is $0.184 and state is $0.511. California is the highest of all states. So, a total of $0.695 (£0.55). Plus, it is subject to sales tax.
I don't really drink, but it is complicated for both state and federal. It is based on gallon and type of alcohol.
Those would be the only excise taxes I would be subject to with my lifestyle. There is one other - electricity, but not enough to worry about as I see it. Sales taxes are rare for me these days being retired. As said earlier I don't pay income taxes both state and federal.
I have a mobile home and pay rent on a space. My fee to the state is essentially re-registering the home itself, which isn't much cost. I wouldn't fathom a guess what portion of rent was property tax. For where I live here in Escondido average property tax is 1.3%.
So, a strong conservative would say I'm a mucher or riding on others coat tails. Most likely categorize me as a liberal.
As far as all the different programs for retirement monetarily as said we have social security. Other than it is investment instruments. Too many to mention. Retirement benefits differ by business entity as well as federal and state for civil service. Some public service entities like transportation may participate in a state program or social security or both. It is a matter if you want to pay into both or not.Yep, most definitely, “things are different between there and here”, and I agree, “It is interesting learning what those differences are through our dialogue.”
We use Amazon a lot, depending on whether it’s cheaper or not; before buying from Amazon we always compare prices with our local chain stores, taking into account that as an NHS retiree my wife gets 10% discount in most chain stores in Britain e.g. last week we had to buy a new office chair for our son’s bedroom/home-office, and with the 10% NHS discount it was cheaper to buy it locally rather than from Amazon. My wife also gets generous NHS discounts in most restaurants e.g. the culture in Britain is that many businesses show their appreciation and gratitude of the NHS by giving NHS staff generous discounts.
A packet of 20 cigarettes in Britain at the moment is over £12 ($15), so most people I know who still smoke have gone over to rolling their own, using the cigarette rolling machines (which you can buy for about $10) – https://www.amazon.com/Automatic-Box%EF … mp;sr=8-17 ) rolling your own is a lot cheaper than buying a pack of 20 e.g. 50g of tobacco is around £37, but with 50g you can roll around 160 cigarettes, which works out to about £4.60 ($5.90) for 20.
We don’t drink as much as we use to, but I also make my own beer and wine anyway, so we buy even less wine and beer than we drink; although when we do buy beer to stock up at home, in spite of the excise duty on it, it is cheap in supermarkets anyway (as explained further in the next paragraph). Yep, as you said, how much excise duty is on alcohol depends on the type and strength of the alcohol.
But in spite of excise duty on beer, which makes it more expensive in pubs, the supermarkets sell it very cheaply anyway (profit through turnover rather than profit from mark-up), which has caused some controversy with some campaigning pressure groups lobbying the Government to ban cheap beer in supermarkets; which this poorly made video highlights (you don’t need to watch the whole video, you’ll get the message within the first minute): https://youtu.be/dtjvzCpd-ucThanks, Arthur for the info and the idea to roll my own cigarettes. I'll look into it. I don't like the idea of not having a filter, but, hey, at this point after smoking for 48 years and having emphysema/COPD will it really make that much of a difference, I ask. Thus, the question of dollars and health benefits.
In California you have to be 21 to buy tobacco and tobacco products. Socially, smoking in California is pretty much banned.
"California has been referred to as "America's Non-Smoking Section." This reputation came about when California became the first state in the country to ban smoking in nearly every workplace and in indoor public spaces. California's workplace smoking prohibition was enacted by AB 13 and became law in 1995."
California Tobacco Laws that Reduce ETS Exposure by California Air Resources Board
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/program … s-exposure
[Edit: Of course, employers can make their own rules. Cities, college campuses, and etc. too. For instance the community college near me is a non-smoking campus, but you can in the parking lots. Back in 2004 there were smoking areas on campus.]
You may find that we have 'dry' states and counties meaning the manufacturing, distribution, importation, and sale of alcohol is illegal or very restricted interesting. Here in California they allow counties to decided if to be dry or not, though none are.
Thirty-three states of the fifty allow counties to decide if to become dry. Kansas is almost completely dry. Most of the states with a majority of dry counties are in the bible belt of the south.
These 9 States Still Have Dry Counties by 247wallst.com (Dec 12, 2019)
https://247wallst.com/special-report/20 … -counties/
I watched the whole video,which was interesting. More so as a compare/contrast with here in California. I reflected on when I lived in Washington state (1978 - 1979) and alcohol could only be bought at state run stores other than beer and wine. It has changed since then, yet I don't know how.
Today, the big thing is the sale of cannabis and paraphernalia. For instance, recreation use is legal in California by their laws, but it remains illegal by federal law. Cities are who determine if sold within them or not.
For instance, my city, Escondido, forbids it. I would have to go to a neighboring city about a half hour drive away. The push to legalize it nationally is always a constant with Congress.
For a quick map for marijuana legality go to the next link
https://disa.com/marijuana-legality-by-stateActually, you do use filters in the cigarette rolling machines, as this short 30 second video below demonstrates; the filters come in different thicknesses, but the ones for these machines are the ‘thin’ ones – in the UK you buy a box of 165 filters for about $1, about the right number for 50g of tobacco.
Rolling Machine: https://youtu.be/nTVZNpEOlTU
At the moment in the UK you have to be over the age of 18 to buy tobacco and tobacco products; but currently there is legislation going through Parliament, which if and when passed will make it illegal for anyone born after 1st Jan 2009 from ever being able to buy tobacco cigarettes: Thus gradually over a generation, phasing out smoking in the UK.
The current smoking law in the UK is similar to that of California e.g. that it is illegal to smoke in workplace and in indoor public spaces anywhere in the UK – the current smoking laws introduced by the Labour Government in 2007 (12 years after similar laws passed in California).
Looking at the ‘Exemptions to California's Workplace Smoking Restriction’ in your link, the UK law is far stricter e.g. there are no exemptions, not even in the offices or hotels – if you want to smoke in public, you have to go outside - and even using e-cigarettes are banned in most enclosed public places these days.
DRINKING LAWS in the UK
Of course, drinking is a different matter; the laws are far more relaxed, except for when it comes to drinking and driving. Drinking is an integral part of British culture, similar to France, which no doubt is why we do have serious alcohol abuse in Britain e.g. binge drinking.
24% of adults over the age of 16 regularly binge drink. Prior to 2005 pubs had to close at 10:30pm, nightclubs at 2am; so in those days it was common for teenagers to binge drink before closing time at 10:30pm, so in an attempt to curb binge drinking in 2005 the Labour Government abolished closing times, allowing pubs to stay open for as long as they like – the change in law had limited success, but hasn’t made much difference.
But of course, as you may know, in Britain you can:-
• Legally drink at home from the age of 5.
• Legally drink in public from the age of 16 provided it is with a meal, and someone over the age of 18 buys the drink for you, and
• Legally buy alcohol from the age of 18.
Writing this brings back memories of my teenage years:-
I started drinking when I was 16 (things were a bit more relaxed in those days, and pub landlords’ didn’t ask for ID to prove that you were over 18)
On a weekend I would go to the pub with mates (Friday & Saturday) until closing time at 10:30pm, and then we would go onto a nightclub (which closed at 2am).
That was the days of ‘pub lock-ins’; as featured in the British Comedy Series ‘Men Behaving Badly’ Series 4, Episode 5 (the episode was called ‘Drunk’). A pub lock in was when the Landlord, after 10:30 would lock the doors, close all the curtains and turn off any outside lights, so as to give the appearance to the police that the pub was shut; and then allow his regulars to stay to continue drinking for as long as they wanted. When I was a teenager I think I went to about 3 pub lock-ins, and on one occasion not leaving the pub with my mate until 6:30am in the morning – Those were the days.
MARIJUANA
Marijuana is illegal for recreational use in the UK, and the laws on it are very strict e.g. the maximum sentence for possession of cannabis is five years imprisonment and a fine of up to £2,500.
However the UK Government legalised the use of cannabis 'for medical use only' in 2018, but only if you are prescribed it by the NHS e.g. free on prescription from the NHS. Currently the NHS will only prescribe cannabis for the following medical conditions:
• children and adults with rare, severe forms of epilepsy
• adults with vomiting or nausea caused by chemotherapy
• people with muscle stiffness and spasms caused by multiple sclerosis (MS)
And even then, it would only be considered when other treatments were not suitable or had not helped.Interesting! Thanks! Yes, my hey days is a story like yours. But, I drank seldom in bars (Pubs) or nightclubs. It was mainly at home in a small party setting or just with my roommates. The reason why, so to smoke marijuana (Pot) too, which was illegal back then. Also, at keg parties. That is when one or more kegs of beer are available for the attendees. Sometimes there would be a band. Or, when we went to the beach for a bonfire.
Wow, marijuana is one thing I never tried; I think possibly due to the lack of opportunity e.g. as a teenager no one in our circle of friends had access to it, even small parties in friends, of friends’ homes were quite tame e.g. pop music on their hi-fi and a plentiful supply of cans of beer. By the time acid houses (which later became rave parties) arrived from America in the 1980s I was already married anyway.
Back when I was a teenager we had nothing like ‘keg parties’, the nearest the UK has to keg parties was the arrival of acid houses from American in the 1980s - a new cultural movement from American that spread across Britain so that by the early 90s, raves were huge events with thousands of people.
As they got more popular, concerns about anti-social behaviour and drug use followed, leading to heavy policing and new laws. In 1990 the UK passed the Entertainment (increased Penalties) Act, allowing fines of up to £20,000 for hosting illegal raves or parties.
But the party that changed everything took place on Castlemorton Common in Worcestershire in 1992. It became the biggest illegal rave in the UK with over 20,000 people turning up; resulting in a trial costing £4 million ($5 million), and the passing of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act.
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act empowered police to stop a rave in the open air during any period of time, day or night when a hundred or more people are attending, or where two or more are making preparations for a rave.
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-53170021
Not all rave parties in the UK are illegal; the biggest annual legal open air rave party is the ever popular Glastonbury festival with over 200,000 attending, and which hosts all the great music artists from America and Britain, and an opportunity for left-wing political leaders to show their support.
Labour Leader at Glastonbury Festival in 2017: https://youtu.be/eDcEwopyMcs
Elton John at Glastonbury Festival in 2023: https://youtu.be/8u031P-X-FQ
The infamous Woodstock of 1969 is the American version of the Glastonbury Festival (launched in 1970); the only difference is that the Glastonbury Festival has gone from strength to strength, and is held annually to this day; whereas Woodstock didn’t.Interesting! I can understand about marijuana usage in the UK since basically it is not readily available as here in California. I haven't smoked marijuana since 1978 while began in 1973. Back then living on the border with Mexico getting it was easy as it was smuggled across it. But, the quality sometimes was horrible. Still is smuggled all the time. And, there was plenty of home grown available too. Much better quality.
Unsure about access today or history of other states. But, as shared earlier steadily it is becoming legalized for recreational use in states. Many are for medical use already. How hard to get a doctor to approve it I have no idea.
As far as music festivals that are of any size there are plenty in the U.S. I am sure you can imagine that. Plus, naturally there are concerts. One could put Woodstock in a one off category. Link next to music festivals in the U.S.
There are filters to list them for preference at the top of the landing page. One choice is by size. They are:
** 10K or less → 169 festivals
** 11k - 25k → 168 festivals
** 26k - 50k → 45 festivals
** > 50k → 15 festivals
Music Festival Search by Music Festival Wizard for 2024
https://www.musicfestivalwizard.com/fes … festivals/
Here in California Coachella music festival is popular and is an annual event. It sports 125k attendance. Also, Woodstock was not the largest attendance music festival in history. Summerfest is holding the Guinness world record with attendance of approximately 800k.
Summerfest by Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SummerfestCool, thanks for the links.
My American friend in New York loves music, so it’s a topic we’ve talked about many times over the years; he’s talked about Woodstock 1969, but never mentioned Summerfest – so I’ve expanded my knowledge on American culture – much appreciated, and thanks.
And thanks for the ‘Music Festival Search’ link; I used it to compare the USA with Europe and UK, and no surprise that music festivals are popular in our cultures throughout the world.
ALL MUSIC FESTIVALS IN 2024:
• All Music Festivals in USA = 409
• All Music Festivals in Europe = 551
• All Music Festivals in UK = 157
However, although I got the impression that the above database is remarkably accurate, it’s not 100% e.g. it lists Glastonbury Music Festival as ‘Large (up to 50k), whereas in fact with annual attendance at over 200,000 it should be classified as Mega (over 50k).
MY FAVOURITE MUSIC EVENT:
My favourite music event is the Eurovision Song Contest; it’s something I and my family watch every May on TV; 2 x 2 hour semi-finals during the week, and the 4 hour final on the weekend.
The Eurovision Song Contest has been held annually since 1956 (apart from 2020/pandemic), making it the longest-running annual international televised music competition and one of the world's longest-running television programmes.
The Eurovision Song Contest is watched by over 160 million people; so in Europe it’s as popular as Super Bowl is in America e.g. American viewing figures of Super Bowl at 115 million.
The Eurovision Song Contest was one of many experiments set up in the aftermath of World War Two in attempt to bind Europe together, to reduce the risk of future wars in Europe e.g. up until the end of world war two, Europe had always been plagued with constant wars between neighbouring European countries for two millennia.
The underlying principle of the Eurovision Song Contest is ‘Make Love, not War’.
The other experiments Europe tried, in attempt to make Europe a more peaceful place included EFTA (European Free Trade Association), EU (European Union) and Jeux sans frontiers (Games Without Borders).
EFTA (formed in 1960) was a concept of binding European counties together through voluntary trade agreements; whereas the EU (formed in 1957) was set up to bind European countries together through legally binding trade agreements. EFTA failed because voluntary agreements can be broken when the going gets tough; whereas the EU succeeded because its agreements are enforced by law.
Jeux sans frontiers (formed in 1965), which we used to watch every year on TV, and I watched it live once, when it was hosted in Bristol, was run on the same principle as the European Song Contest e.g. ‘Make Love not War’; but it fizzled out in 1999! Unlike the Eurovision Song Contest which has gone from strength to strength.
Irritating a short sponsor’s plug in the middle of this video, which you may wish to skip over:-
A Beginners Guide to the Eurovision Song Contest https://youtu.be/S4RXY_2RnbE
A taster of what Jeux Sans Frontières was like:-
BBC One - Jeux Sans Frontières compilation 1981 https://youtu.be/UX19iWZnUZ8Yes, music is a binding force for humanity as well as can be uniting force for patriotism and nationalism with its good and bad. I know of Eurovision introduced to me by my friend in Sweden.
Last year I could rely on her to keep me posted of Sweden's progress all the way to being crowned the winner. As many to most it is a patriotic thing for her, though she loves music. We exchange YouTube videos frequently for performances.
The video you recommended gave to me a good grasp on the history for Eurovision. Thanks! There really is not anything like that here. But, we didn't have wars between the fifty states. Perhaps, with genres of music one might say there are loyalties having an effect politically while regions come into play too.
For instance country, southern rock, and religious would be people who lean conservative while pretty much all the others lean left or liberal. See link next for genres lean with a quick snapshot graphic. It is by Research Gate (2017). Though dated I doubt it has changed.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Mus … _318330563
The next link is the popularity by states for genres. It surprised me how many red (Conservative or right wing) states are classic rock. Maybe they consider southern rock as classic. So, I ponder its veracity. Its by Wide Open Country (2021).
https://www.wideopencountry.com/most-po … -by-state/
Of course the lean of performers come into play as well. That along with the actual lyrics aimed at the opposing view they represent. There was a country artist, Jason Aldean, released a song recently that was controversial.
It was because it seemed or was racist in tone with an aim at the George Floyd protests with a percentage becoming riots. Those took place in the urban/metro setting.
His defense was it was supporting living in a small town. The title reflects that, 'Try that in a Small Town'. Next, is the link to the lyrics so you can decide for yourself.
https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jasonal … ltown.htmlCool - and it’s great that your Swedish friend keeps you in touch with the Eurovision Song Contest; Yeah, I guess the nearest America has ever come near to the two millennia of wars across Europe was the American civil war, Southern States vs Northern States!
Thanks for the link, the only one that didn’t work was the 2nd link which came up with the message “We appreciate your interest in our content. Unfortunately at this time, we are unable to allow international traffic”
The last link I found the most fascinating:
I read the lyrics, and commentary below them, and your comments about it appearing to be “racist in tone with an aim at the George Floyd protests with a percentage becoming riots”:
Putting the lyrics in British context, they seem to convey a message that in a small close knit community the local community would not tolerate unsocial behaviour such as robbing a local shop, muggings in the streets, or criminal damage to property etc. Filming the video at the Maury Country Courthouse where Henry Choate was lynched and hung by a lynch mob in 1927 suggests to me that Jason Aldean disapproves of lynch mobs; and with the video containing footage from protests, looting and civil unrest in general would support that Jason Aldean doesn’t agree with civil unrest in general – but I couldn’t see anything to suggest that Jason Aldean was anti-BLM protests specifically, that seems to be an association that others have read into it?
Yeah, I am very familiar with the George Floyd protests; they were worldwide, including in Bristol (where I live) where BLM protestors toppled a famous statue of a Bristol slave trader and dumped it into the Bristol docks.
The police were able to identify four Bristolians from video footage who physically pulled down the statue and tried to prosecute them in a Bristol Court for Criminal Damage; but in spite of the fact that the four openly admitted to criminal damage in Court, their fellow 12 Bristolian jurors found them ‘NOT GUILTY’:
A Not Guilty verdict from the jury didn’t come as a great surprise in that a local opinion poll at the time showed that 65% of Bristolians approved of the actions taken by the four defendants – And that is no great surprise in that riots in Bristol historically (going back centuries) and to this day are not uncommon e.g. we Bristolians are quite a militant lot!!! About a dozen major riots in Bristol since 1793, half of them in my lifetime; the 1793 riot was where Bristolians object to the introduction of a toll on Bristol Bridge; in the riots 11 people were killed, and 45 injured.
Another Bristol riot was in 1831 where Bristolians protested to abolish rotten boroughs, 4 rioters were killed, and 86 wounded; but this wasn’t on the scale of the famous ‘Peterloo massacre’ of 1819 in Manchester (which has since been made into a film), rioting for the same cause (to abolish rotten boughs) 18 people (including a pregnant woman) was killed in the Peterloo massacre, and over 650 injured.
Parliament finally abolished Rotten Boroughs in 1832.
PETERLOO massacre Official Trailer (2018) Historic Drama: https://youtu.be/t1Wp37haiG4
This short video clip from the Black Adder comedy series explains quite well what a Rotten Borough was in British politics: https://youtu.be/Tkb9SIe4WWo
This short video shows the Bristol four just after being found ‘not guilty’ by their fellow Bristolian jurors: https://youtu.be/fQOAlDKRQfwThanks for the interesting information, Aruthur! I did a little poking about what a rotten borough is and a bit of history. Interesting! At least it was resolved. The voting rights for the US has its own history beginning with the Constitution itself.
Nowhere in the original constitution does it state who has a right to vote. In other words, qualifiers. So, it was left to the states to establish them. At that time many limited it to property owners and in some cases tax payers, white, and male. Thus, the beginning of voting rights history began. It is a 200+ year history from there. Of importance was the disenfranchisement of women and black voters.
Those two were rectified with amendments to the Constitution.
** Black vote - 15th Amendment (1870) [limited to men]
** Women vote - 19th Amendment (1920)
A peek at the following first link gives a short history of it through 2019. Just reading the bold print headers gives a good idea of it. It is by Carnegie Corporation of New York. (Nov 18, 2019).
It does not speak to today's controversies a result of supposed stolen election from Trump in 2020. The second link is informative about recent years by Guardian (June 25, 2023).
Voting Rights: A Short History by Carnegie Corporation of New York (Nov 18, 2019)
https://www.carnegie.org/our-work/artic … -timeline/
Ten years of a crippled Voting Rights Act: how states make it harder to vote by the Guardian (June 25, 2023)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … rt-georgia
The three top issues is mail-in balloting, election security, and early voting methods. At least that is how I see it. I am sure others can correct me. Personally, I do a mail-in ballot.
I like your perspective of Jason Aldean's song. Personally, I don't have a problem with his lyrics, but the video sucks at making his point. I find it offensive. The back and forth brought Rap music into the conversation as a rebuttal to defend Aldean's song. That is a good point.
The toppling of the statue I have mixed feelings even considering that acts here in the US that was prominent a few years back with Confederate Generals or esteemed men representing the Confederacy. Still is today, yet not seen is the radical means like topping statues.
I understand the point of it, yet for instance I admire General Robert E. Lee the main general for the Confederacy during the Civil War. Not for the position of being pro-slavery, but for his mastery of battle. Just as I do Napoleon.Thanks for the links; most informative, as usual.
All I can say to the 2nd link is ‘wow’; we don’t have anything like that in the UK – the only minor change which could make voting a little bit more of a hassle for a few perhaps, was the introduction by the UK Conservative Government last year for ‘Voter ID’ e.g. driving licence, passport, free bus pass (issued at State Pension age), or ‘Proof of Age ID’ (aka Citizen Card, UK ID Card) issued for example to teenagers to show that they are old enough to buy alcohol, or Biometric immigration document etc. So if you don’t drive, don’t travel abroad, not a teenager or pensioner and not an Immigrant who’s been granted asylum then the only accepted option to prove your ID for voting is to buy an ID Card (which takes about 3 weeks, and costs about $20).
VOTING RIGHTS – TIMELINE
Thanks for the first link; although some of the issues were different e.g. in the UK people were never disenfranchisement because of the colour of their skin, the USA & UK followed broadly a similar timeline towards greater democracy - For comparison, the UK timeline listing key events is shown below:-
Prior to the 1st Reform Act of 1832 only the Upper Class men in the UK had the vote.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACTS (aka REFORM ACTS) IN THE UK
1832: 1st Reform Act:
• Abolition of Rotten Boroughs
• Extended the vote to include Middle Class men
1867: 2nd Reform Act:
Extended the vote to include working class men: All male ‘Heads of Households’ could vote regardless to their wealth; but it wasn’t a ‘one man, one vote’ system, so if you were not the ‘Head of the Household’ you didn’t get the vote e.g. excluded adult sons living at home, lodgers and soldiers returning from war etc.
1884: 3rd Reform Act:
Introduced the principle of ‘one man, one vote’
1918: 4th Reform Act:
• All men over 21 could vote
• All women over 30 could vote
1928: 5th Reform Act:
Lowered the voting age of women to 21
1969: 6th Reform Act:
Lowered the voting age for all from 21 to 18
2015:
Voting age in Scotland reduced to 16
2021:
Voting age in Wales reduced to 16
2023:
UK Conservative Government introduce voter ID as a requirement to vote.
Looking at the issues raised in your 2nd link, a few items that caught my eye include; ballot drop boxes, postal votes‘, register to vote’ and Poll Tax; I’ll briefly comment on each of these points below:
BALLOT DROP BOXES
During the 2020 Election I saw the controversy about the Ballot Drop Boxes on the British TV News Channels, and never really understood what all the fuss was about in that in Britain we don’t use ‘Ballot Drop Boxes’ e.g. in Britain, if you vote by post then all you do is drop your postal vote into any Post Office Letter Box and it will be delivered within 24 to 48 hours, so as long as you don’t leave your postal vote until the last minute it will arrive in time for voting – In Britain, it doesn’t matter where you live, there is always a Post Office Letter Box within 5 to 10 minutes’ walk from your home.
POSTAL VOTES
As with Ballot Drop Boxes, during the 2020 Election I saw the controversy about the Postal Votes on the British TV News Channels, and never really understood why doing postal votes in America is so complex, in that in Britain it’s a simple process, as explained in this short video: https://youtu.be/XYtnrz27oT8
REGISTER TO VOTE
We don’t get the controversies in Britain that you seem to get in America in that In Britain it is a Criminal Offence to refuse to register to vote with a maximum fine of £1,000 ($1,270). Besides your local government is proactive in ensuring that everyone is on the Electoral Register by sending the registration forms to every home in the UK once a year, for the head of the household to complete on behalf of the whole household; and sending a reminder if you don’t return it – and eventually prosecuting you if you don’t respond to the ‘Reminders’.
POLL TAX
There have been two attempts in British history to introduce the Poll Tax, in 1381 and again in 1990, and both attempts failed.
But on reading the fine print of the American literature, the Poll Tax in Britain is different to the Poll Tax in America in that in Britain the Poll Tax was never linked to voting in any way – In Britain the Poll Tax of 1381 was just a flat rate tax on every adult peasant regardless to ability to pay, and in 1990 the Poll Tax was just a flat rate tax on every adult regardless to ability to pay e.g. even the unemployed were expected to pay the same amount of poll tax as a millionaire.
In 1381, when the King tried to introduce the Poll Tax the Peasant’s Revolted and refused to pay - In the rebellion at least 1,500 peasants were killed, but as the result of the Peasant’s revolt the Poll Tax was quickly scrapped.
In 1990, when Margaret Thatcher tried to introduce the Poll Tax, the people revolted; with Poll Tax demonstrations, riots and civil disobedience across the country – about the third of the adult population refused to pay the poll tax – which led to Margaret Thatcher being forced to resign as Prime Minister, and the Poll Tax being scrapped in 1992.
1990: Chaos, Carnage & Bloodshed in Poll Tax Riots https://youtu.be/I4QQN2aqeKA
As this is a lengthy reply to ‘voting issues’ I’ll cover the Toppling of Statues in separate post.Thanks, Arthur! Yes, the UK or Great Britain doesn't have the history of disenfranchising voters or the controversy of it not only over the years, but present today. I am sure with the article of present day issues you got the main thrust of complaints as your commented on them. One must consider it is a state by state matter since voting laws are by state.
The main arguments you may have picked up from the article of recent controversies is security for red/conservative states. The liberals complaint is that the means to resolve that disenfranchise minority voters particularly the black vote leading to the issue of racism.
In my view since voting is foundational to Democracy every effort should be made to make voting as easy as possible while maintaining reasonable solutions to voting security. I don't have a problem with proper ID at the polls. The link next is Voter ID in California including mail-in. Scrolling past the information on California is by state.
It is by Ballotpedia (Jan 2024). There is a quick map of the states snapshot. That is followed by a table showing; State, summary, details & source link.
https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_ID_in_California
The link next leads to Voting Laws in the United States by Ballotpedia. There is a table where states are listed and there a links to;
Overview & Statues.
https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_laws_in_ … ted_States
For mail-in ballot/absentee ballot the next link lists that by state in a table format.
https://ballotpedia.org/Absentee/mail-in_votingWhere you say “The main arguments you may have picked up from the article of recent controversies is security for red/conservative states. The liberal’s complaint is that the means to resolve that disenfranchise minority voters particularly the black vote leading to the issue of racism.”
Firstly, I still have to stop - and think twice (to get it the right way round in my head) - when Americans talk about Red States; because in the rest of the world ‘red’ stands for communism and socialism, and ‘blue’ stands for royalty and Conservatives e.g. the ‘red’ wall in Northern England is a wall of Parliamentary seats that are traditionally a Labour (socialist) stronghold.
But yeah; following the 2020 Presidential Election (and since then) the strong perceived impression on this side of the pond is that the Republicans are using ‘security’ as a feeble excuse to deliberately try to disenfranchise minority voters particularly the black vote e.g. voters who are less likely to vote Republican.
I totally agree with your statement “In my view since voting is foundational to Democracy every effort should be made to make voting as easy as possible while maintaining reasonable solutions to voting security.”
In that respect, although the security measures in British and European Elections seem far less strict than in America, there is no evidence of any election frauds in Britain or Europe that would have affected the outcome of any election. No democracy is perfect, but what we do have in Europe/Britain does work.
In scanning through you link for accepted voter ID I noticed that in California proof of ID is far more versatile than it now is for the UK, which is good for California e.g. as from 2023 proof of ID in UK Elections is limited to just ‘photo ID’ of the specific government issued photo IDs as listed in my previous post.
But one thing I did pick up from the list in your link is that Photo ID on credit or debit cards is accepted in California? Does that mean that you now have your photo on credit and debit cards in America? - We don’t in the UK.
The final point I’d like to cover is your statement (which I already knew) that “it is a state by state matter since voting laws are by state.”
In The UK, the backbone to voting laws, such as voting age etc. are obviously laws passed by the UK and Nation Governments e.g. voting from the age of 18 in England and Northern Ireland, and voting from the age of 16 in Scotland and Wales.
However, the nitty gritty of how voting is done, it’s security, and auditing etc. is the responsibility of the Electoral Commission (an Independent Government Department).
In the UK an ‘Independent Government Department’ is a Government Department that is NOT answerable to the Government, but only answerable to Parliament; set up in that way specifically to prevent unscrupulous Governments from influencing that Government Department or using that Government Department for the Government’s own personal gain.
Electoral Commission dictates ‘rules and regulations for elections, including the spending limits for politicians and political parties in Elections, and strict rules on ‘donations’ to politicians and political parties. And after an election every candidate and political party has to submit their full accounts to the Electoral Commission for a full audit.
The Electoral Commission can and does prosecute individual candidates and political parties for election fraud, including spending fraud; for examples:-
• In 2017 the Conservative Government was fined £70,000 ($89,000) by the Electoral Commission for trying to hide a £275,000 ($349,000) overspend in their elections.
• In 2021 Boris Johnson (Prime Minister) was fined £17,800 ($22,600) by the Electoral Commission, who ordered him to return a donation of £67,000 ($85,000), which was donated to him to refurbish his Accommodation at 10 Downing Street (HQ of UK Prime Minster), because the donation broke the ‘donation’ rules set by the Electoral Commission.
Under the ‘Code of Practice’ Laws laid out for what a Prime Minister is allowed to spend on refurbishing his accommodation at 10 Downing Street, the legal limit is £30,000 ($38,000) per year, which is paid for by Parliament from the taxes. So not only did the donation itself breach the law because it exceeded the limit allowed for a single donation, but he also beached the law by trying to spend too much on refurbishing his personal accommodation in 10 Downing Street e.g. the UK’s equivalent to the White House.
In the end Boris Johnson had to pay for the fine, and return the donation, and pay the excess on refurbishing his official personal government accommodation at 10 Downing street, out of his own pocket.
What does the Electoral Commission do? https://youtu.be/T5mg5OceG-I
Electoral Commission investigation into Boris Johnson's Downing Street flat refurbishment https://youtu.be/jqbQXiWPzIQThanks for the information, Arthur! It adds to the learning experience.
First, as stated, there is no text in the original Constitution about the right to vote. What I mean by the original Constitution is everything before the amendments to the Constitution. So, voting was left to the states to regulate as you shared you understood. However, there are four amendments regarding voting. They are:
** The 15th Amendment gave African American men the right to vote in 1870. But many weren't able to exercise this right. Some states used literacy tests and other barriers to make it harder to vote.
** The 19th Amendment, ratified in 1920, gave American women the right to vote.
** The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, eliminated poll taxes. The tax had been used in some states to keep African Americans from voting in federal elections.
** The 26th Amendment, ratified in 1971, lowered the voting age for all elections to 18.
As to campaign finance laws, as important as those are, the history speaks volumes. Yes, it is dotted with controversy too. The body of government that oversees federal campaign finances is the Federal Election Commission.
A short blurb followed by a link to it to explore its history. That is followed by a link to a 6 min video they link on the landing page.
"The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is the independent regulatory agency charged with administering and enforcing the federal campaign finance law. The FEC has jurisdiction over the financing of campaigns for the U.S. House, Senate, Presidency and the Vice Presidency."
Federal Election Commission
https://www.fec.gov/about/mission-and-history/
The video, titled The FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance Law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r29pXDe_DMg
To get an overview of federal campaign law the link next is an interesting read. It will familiarize the reader with the terminology. The links are helpful for exploring such things as spending limitations. One thing for sure if they have lawyers making careers on campaign finance it must be complex.
U.S. Federal Campaign Finance Laws by FindLaw (Reviewed Mar 17, 2020.) Note: It was educational for me.
https://www.findlaw.com/voting/how-u-s- … -laws.html
Also, each state, has their own laws.
State-by-state comparison of campaign finance requirements by Ballotpedia. It is for year 2018.
https://ballotpedia.org/State-by-state_ … quirements
The next link is State Campaign Finance Laws by The Campaign Finance Institute
http://www.cfinst.org/law/states.aspx
Regarding today, back in the fall of 2023 there was a lot of media reporting about Trump spending campaign donations on his legal fees. Rather than a particular article I will post a landing page for Google for a slew of articles about it.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi … legal+fees
The supposed amount he spent is varied by article and source. Personally, I see that as a no-no. In an odd way to me it speaks to fiscal responsibility, which I desire in candidate. In other words, he failed.Thanks for the links, especially the YouTube link which was very informative, although I did skim through all the other links.
It is reassuring that America also has an independent body to oversee the Elections, the FEC (similar to the Electoral Commission in the UK’, and that ‘Transparency’ is equally important in America as in the UK; although its role seems to be limited to “Laws designed to limit the influence of special interests.”; but unless I missed something, there seems to be no cap on spending in political campaigns in America e.g. according to one website Donald Trump's and Hillary Clinton's spent between them a whopping $2.4 billion spend in the presidential race.
In the UK, as well as strict limits on ‘donations’ for the same reason as in America e.g. “to limit the influence of special interests”, there is also a strict cap on election campaign spending.
The strict cap on election campaign spending in the UK is specifically designed to ‘level the playing field’ e.g. to make it affordable for the small political parties, and ‘Independent’ candidates, to compete on the same level as the big parties.
In the UK the cap (limit) that any political party can spend in election campaigns is limited to just £30,000 ($38,000) for each constituency they contest in an election, which means that if the big parties contest all 650 seats in the UK then the maximum spend allowed for that political party is just £19.5 million ($24.7 million) in total.
I did note in the video that political parties in America can get Public Funding (Government funding), but I couldn’t find out how much that is; in the UK the Electoral Commission allocates about £2 million ($2.5 million) split between the various political parties to cover their ‘Administrative Costs’ only.
I’ll finish on your note “One thing for sure if they have lawyers making careers on campaign finance it must be complex.” The UK word for Lawyers is Solicitor. In the UK the Electoral Commission provides clear guidance to all candidates standing for Election, so anyone can stand as a candidate for election, for just a modest deposit of just £500 which they only lose if they get less than 5% of the votes. So the need for Solicitors in UK elections is limited.Thanks! Yeah, a cap on spending on campaigning seems reasonable.
There is a cap with spending to receive public funding for the president here. It is $123,595,200 for 2024. (£97,452,961) That applies to the primary races too. That is the candidates running to be the candidate on the ballot for the general election for president. You can see the info at the next link by state for the primaries.
Presidential spending limits by Federal Election Committee
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and … ng-limits/
For congress - senators and house members there are limits too. Too many to list and complicated. If interested go to the link next.
Congressional Campaign Spending Limit and Election Reform Act of 1992
https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-con … ate-bill/3
Public funding is a match of a contribution. For president it is the first $250 (£197). Unsure for senators and house members.
Public funding of presidential elections by Federal Election Commission
https://www.fec.gov/introduction-campai … elections/
[Edit: To give some perspective on spending on elections the link next shares information of 2020 total spending.
Most expensive ever: 2020 election cost $14.4 billion by Open Secrets (Feb11, 2021)
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/0 … ubling-16/
With politics there is an adage, "Follow the money!" Besides campaigning another form of influence of money is lobbying. Lobbying is simple, "seek to influence (a politician or public official) on an issue." It occurs mainly with congress members - Senators and House Members. One must consider with lobbying there is good and bad.
A website I rely on to keep me up to date on that is Open Secrets linked next. They are a nonpartisan organization tracking money in politics. For me on my learning experience over the past recent years it has been valuable.
We Are OpenSecrets
https://www.opensecrets.org/Wow – Using Money to Lobby – So American!
I skimmed through the links (thanks), but the most interesting was your last link, which led me to this link:- https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2024/0 … s-in-2023/
After reading the above link I am quite speechless!
In contrast to America, in UK politics you don’t “follow the money” to lobby – it’s discourage in British politics, following the “Cash for Questions” scandal in 1994, where two Conservative MPs were bribed to ask ‘parliamentary questions’ Parliament has tightened up on the rules considerably; including the UK’s Parliamentary ‘Register of Members’ Financial Interests’ which has been enhanced considerably since the 1994 scandal.
The ‘Register of Members’ Financial Interests’ which all MPs have to complete, gives transparency and helps to avoid ‘conflict of interest’. Parliament takes these matters seriously, and the House of Commons has a range of disciplinary powers in the event of misconduct by an MP. The House may resolve to reprimand or admonish an MP, withhold his or her salary, or suspend or expel him or her.
And since 2015, if an MP is suspended from Parliament for more than two weeks, his own voters then have the power to sack him/her.
Allowing voters to sack their own MP came about because of the ‘2009 Expenses Scandal’ which led to a number of MPs resigning. Following that scandal a cross-party Parliamentary Select Committee published a report recommending various measures, including the option for voters to sack their MPs if those MPs are suspended from Parliament for more than two weeks for misconduct.
In 2015 the Conservative Government accepted the recommendations of the cross party Parliamentary Select Committee and made it LAW (Recall of MPs Act 2015).
For the voters to sack their MP who has been suspended from Parliament for more than two weeks requires just 10% of the voters in his/her seat to sign a petition for him/her to be sacked.
Since the Introduction of the Law in 2015 there have been 5 petitions to sack MPs suspended from Parliament, of which only one was not successful in that only 9.4% of voters in the MPs constituency signed the petition (a Northern Ireland hard-right wing politician).
The other four MPs that were sacked by their voters was 1 Scottish socialist MP (SNP), 1 Labour MP and 2 Conservative MPs.
When Boris Johnson (and another recent Conservative MP) were suspended from Parliament, they resigned as MPs rather than face the embarrassment of being sacked by their voters.
LOBBYING
Yeah, in spite that the adage of "Follow the money" doesn’t work in British politics like it does in American politics; most certainly lobbying is most defiantly a fundamental cornerstone in British politics: It plays a significant role in the formation of legislation.
Members of the public can lobby their MP (Member of Parliament) but most lobbying activity centres on corporate, charity and trade union lobbying, where organisations seek to amend government policy through advocacy.
Sometimes the lobbying is success such as the sugar tax, and sometimes the lobbying falls on deaf ears e.g. British Industry’s forceful lobbying of the Government to relax the immigration laws because of a chronic labour shortage in Britain has fallen on deaf ears.
The Sugar Tax was where members of the public (led by James Oliver) formed a pressure group to campaign for a sugar tax on soft drinks for better health. In response to the lobbing, the Conservative Government introduced the Sugar Tax as law on soft drinks in 2018, badly affecting sales of Coca-Cola in particular for its high sugar content.
This is how successful lobbying is done in the UK: https://youtu.be/y8q48JKHTgQ
This was Coca-Cola's response to the UK's sugar tax: https://youtu.be/6sscRfBNeB4Interesting how the UK/Great Britain has legally fought lobbying. It should be done here, though I have serious doubts it will ever happen. Or, it is happening and I am just unaware of it. I am sure Open Secrets is doing something especially through awareness to the public.
As said earlier, there are bad lobbying and good lobbying. For instance the example of the indigenous tribes in California lobby for their people, which traditionally are an oppressed group. Also, the trade unions lobby. But, at its base, for me, the influence of money should be taken out of the equation.
First, regarding taxing soda drinks right off the bat you will have two factions at each other's throats. And, they are today. The anti-sugar crowd vs. the anti-sweetener crowd both lobbying. Just tossing lobbying into the mix.
There is a push to tax sugar drinks here, but it has only been instituted by some cities, though some states are looking hard at it like the state of Texas. Texas is 10th for obesity. The article next gives a good summary about taxing sugary drinks and is the most recent one I could find.
Taxes on sugary drinks cut consumer sales by 33%, study says by CNN (Jan 6, 2024)
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/06/health/t … index.html
This link gives a good snap shot.
Taxing sugary drinks by Healthy Food America This article is jammed pack full of links leading to additional information. I did some exploring.
https://www.healthyfoodamerica.org/taxing_sugary_drinks
Personally, at one time I use to drink 5 12 ounce diet sodas a day. Today, I drink one. I am diabetic so I am constantly thirsty. Why did I cut back? A combination of cost and they are high in potassium. I have to have minimal potassium daily.
2022 I purchased the house brand for $3.99 for a 12 pack of canned 12 ounce diet sodas. (£3.14). They phased out the house brand so it is name brand now at $8.99 for a 12 pack this year. (£7.07). One reason the cost went up was inflation.
If interested the article next shares about why diet drinks went up with inflation.
Why Diet Coke got so expensive by Vox (Nov 28, 2023)
https://www.vox.com/money/23979340/diet … art-costco
Note: As I am sure you aware cost varies not only by the store selling drinks, but also by state here.Well at least Open Secrets is a first step; but as you said “I (too) have serious doubts it will ever happen” in America.
Most defiantly, as you said “the influence of money should be taken out of the equation” for lobbying to be a better part of American democracy.
LANGUAGE BARRIER
Thanks for all the links; very informative – However, as I started to delve into the links I started to get confused, until I realised that the American word for Soda has a different meaning to the UK word for Soda!
In turns out, apparently, that you call any type of sweet fizzy drink soda; whereas in the UK we don’t.
In the UK:-
• Soda refers to ‘cream soda’
• Coca-Cola is called coke, and
• Pop is lemonade.
Also, while getting all that (above confusion over language differences between USA & UK) I also discovered, not surprisingly, that the recipes for making soda etc. in the UK are different to the American recipes (partly for legal reasons, and partly due to different taste buds)!
Using one of the ‘Compare Supermarket Prices’ website, I did a comparison on soda in the UK with the pricing you gave for the USA (that was before I realised that the USA meaning for Soda is different to the UK meaning).
Anyway, this is what I found:
• You referenced your diet soda being sold in 12 oz. cans (is equal to 355 millilitres)
• In the UK soda and other soft drinks are sold in 330 millilitre cans (slightly smaller than the American cans).
• In the UK there is only soda supplier, called ‘Soda Folk’. Soda Folk was founded in 2013 by a homesick American ex-pat in London, Ken Graham. He longed for a root beer soda, which he couldn't find here, so he made his own. But not just any old root beer - Ken Graham (born and raised in Colorado) started Soda Folk to introduce Britain to America's best soft drink. Each of their labels features a real-life Coloradan whose awesomeness helped inspire their business.
• His Soda Folk (soda) sells for £1 ($1.27) per can, same price as diet coke.
• The only other soda drink on sale in the UK is diet soda, which branded e.g. just the supermarket brand for whichever supermarket is selling it; and that product sales for £0.55 ($0.70) per can.
• Cream Soda, like soda, isn’t a popular drink compared to coco-cola, lemonade etc., so there is only one brand sold in the UK ‘Old Jamaica Cream Soda’ for £0.60 ($0.76) per can, or unbranded at £0.55 ($0.70) per can.
• Although most people buy their fizzy soft drinks not in cans but in 1 litre and 2 litre bottles – because it’s a lot cheaper.
It doesn’t surprise me that prices vary from store and State in America. In the UK supermarket prices are quite standard across the country and between the different supermarkets because of stiff competition e.g. the supermarkets are always competing with each other (price war).
However supermarkets are a lot cheaper than the corner shops (local shops) e.g. you’d only visit a corner shop just to pick up a loaf of bread or a bottle of milk between your weekly or monthly supermarket shops.
Likewise, although I don’t have diabetes or anything like that, I do have to limit potassium in the diet because of the problems I had with my kidneys a few years back; and at the time the NHS recommended soda water and ginger beer.
So these days I drink a lot of soda water on health grounds e.g. it's a healthy alternative to soda and other sugary drinks since there are no carbs or calories in soda water – and it helps to keep you hydrated without any negative side effects.Yeah, English language usage and vocabulary can vary not only internationally, but, here, by region as well. I use soda for carbonated beverages. Another popular term is cola. Also, soft drinks is used. Can't forget coca-cola too.
'Soda,' 'pop,' or 'coke': More than 400,000 Americans weighed in, and a map of their answers is exactly what you'd expect by Business Insider (Oct 5, 2018)
https://www.businessinsider.com/soda-po … ap-2018-10
People here order by name brands name, too, like you suggested with Coke. The three most common are Coke, Pepsi, and 7-Up. But, common today is also diet Coke, Diet Pepsi, and Diet 7-Up. Along with that is Coke Zero, Pepsi Zero, and 7-Up Zero. Zero means zero sugar. Then comes the curve balls. There is RC Cola more popular by region and Dr. Pepper too.
Next is a link to brand name soft drinks by Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_b … k_products
This link by Wikipedia is for Coca-Cola drinks. There are 500 in 200 countries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coca-Cola_brands
Thanks for the tip with soda water. I drink a mix drink these days. The brand I use is Crystal Light. A packet makes a 2 quart pitcher. (.95 liter x 2 I guess) A diet Coke or Coke Zero have 60mg of potassium in a 12 ounce can. Crystal light has 25mg for a about a 16 oz or two cups of the mixed drink.
Interesting about Soda Folk. The entrepreneurial spirit alive and well. I like root beer myself especially as a kid growing up. It is popular for making a float or a root beer float. That is using root beer and adding vanilla ice cream to it. M'm . . . M'mInteresting: Yeah, people in the UK use exclusively generic brands name, so that there is no confusion e.g. asking for a coke or cola means that you want any coke such as Coca-Cola or Pepsi, or if you wanted it with low sugar you’d add the word diet in front. Or if you wanted a fizzy orange drink, in Britain would ask for a brand name like Orangina and be served with whatever brand name they had e.g. Fanta.
It’s fascinating that different regions of America use different words to describe soft drinks. The words we use for food and drinks in the UK are the same everywhere across Britain; but where there are strong regional differences in the UK is accents and dialects e.g. 30 or more distinct regional accents in England alone. For example, London now has three (four if you count cockney):
Accents in London:-
• Estuary English – predominantly in the West-end and middle classes.
• MLE (Multicultural London English) – predominantly in the East-end and working class.
• Cockney (largely displaced by MLE in London), but is becoming more prominent in Kent, partly displacing the Kent accent, as many of the older generation of Londoners have migrated from London to Kent, England.
• Received Pronunciation (Queens English) (variant - BBC English): only used by the upper classes
As a Bristolian born and breed, I and my son speak Bristolian:
For example the title of this song below, by the Wurzels “Thee's Got'n Where Thee Cassn't Back'n, Hassn't” translated from Bristolian to standard English means “You’ve got it where you cannot back it out, haven’t you?” Other words in the song include Bristolian words like ‘Ow bis’ meaning “How are you”, and “o arrh” meaning “Oh Yes” etc.
Song sung in Bristolian: https://youtu.be/AnKjwOLiBTg
And of course apart from accustoming your ears to the Scottish accent if you ever visit Scotland, it also helps if you’re familiar with some of their dialect e.g. Scottish dialect for child is ‘bairn’, and house is ‘hoose’ in Scottish and the Scottish word for young woman is “lassy” etc.
And of course, the official 1st language in Wales is Welsh; even Cornwall has their own language – Below is a TV advert in Cornish: https://youtu.be/Z0usmMfs5IY
ROOT BEER VS GINGER BEER
I’ve never tried root beer. You can get it in Britain, but I’ve never known anyone who drinks it in Britain. Although I do see it a lot in American films, giving the impression that root beer is very common in America.
I actually drink ginger beer.
Ginger beer is mostly ginger, carbonated water and sugar, sometimes some spice, while Root beer uses Sassafras root. In reading up on the subject on the web, apparently root beer and ginger beer “are extremely different beverages - Ginger beer is intensely gingery, where root beer has a more subtle and complex flavour with little to no ginger.”
• Ginger beer originated in Yorkshire in England in the mid-18th century.
• Root beer originated in the USA in the mid-18th century.
Apparently, according to the web, the closest common drink to root beer in the UK is Dandelion & Burdock. While I’ve never known anyone in Britain who drinks root beer, Dandelion & Burdock, which originated in medieval Britain is a popular British soft fizzy drink: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandelion_and_burdock
I recently tried a ginger ale to compare it with ginger beer, but to me ginger ale tastes awful, so I’ll not try that again.Further to my last point in my post above, different accents across the UK can cause hilarious communication problems sometimes, as demonstrated in this short (1 minute) video clip of an English politician in Parliament not being able to understand a Scottish politician: https://youtu.be/1jHfY0dDZxA
Do you have similar problems in America?Howdy! Just for clarification, I am sure you know, howdy is a greeting to say hello. I use it a lot, but not all the time. For me it means having the emotion of gladness attached to it. In other words, I feel joy upon meeting the person I am greeting.
Yes, I became aware with our discussion of soda that perhaps I presume you understand 'everything' I say. That is not true. I am aware of that with my friend in Sweden when I write her or talk on the phone. She understands English pretty well having lived in New York for quite a few years when a young adult. But, my slang terms she may not.
For instance this morning I wrote her about a doctor appointment I made. I usually would have said for a gut doctor. In other words, a gastroenterologist or stomach doctor. So, instead I used all three terms. I look at it as she may have known what I would have meant for a gut doctor or maybe not. In the future I can use gut doctor no problem.
"Do you have similar problems in America?"
I wouldn't say to the measure of the video for the Scottish politician. I have no idea whatsoever what he said. Then again, I may not have been exposed to enough to make that conclusion.
Check out the YouTube video next for dialectic and etc. It is presented by a native English person. I can detect his native accent. It is a 13 minute video, but highly recommended. I had never been exposed to them before, so was educational.
7 Difficult American Accents You'll NEVER Guess
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR8a-SG6l0k
Back about 1973 a new term was created; Ebonics. It means; "African American English, especially when regarded as a language in its own right rather than as a dialect of standard English."
This short video by poet Steven Willis about Ebonics.
Steven Willis - Ebonics 101 (3:13 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB8pBiUavtg
If your curiosity wants to dig deep the following three part series of videos is very educational I watched the first one and learned. I will watch the other two later. They have over 8 million views. A little enticement is;
"Dialect coach Erik Singer takes us on a tour of different accents across English-speaking North America. Erik and a host of other linguists and language experts (Nicole Holliday, Megan Figueroa, Sunn m’Cheaux, and Kalina Newmark), take a look at some of the most interesting and distinct accents around the country.
Note: It covers much more than accents. History for one for how they came to be.
Accent Expert Gives a Tour of U.S. Accents - (Part One) | WIRED (21:32 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1KP4ztKK0A
Part two (14:17 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsE_8j5RL3k
Part three (11:07 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw7pL7OkKEE
We both are aware language is both simple and complex covering many aspects. For instance, jargon. I am very familiar with automotive particularly performance/racing car jargon. Over the last few years I have learned a lot of medical jargon too.
An example of automotive jargon is, "She has a good pair of headlights!" The meaning some may presume is breasts, but it means eyes. Another is saying someone doesn't have any top end. Top end meaning can't finish well. We used it with following conversations.
In other words, the speaker failed to make their point. If we said there was a lot of bottom end then it meant a lot of emotion. If we said a lot of bottom end and no top end. We'll I think you know what I mean.
Bottom end is where an engine makes a lot of torque at low RPM and top end is where peak horsepower is reached at high RPM.Cool
- I've got to sign off now to prepare today's evening meal; so I shall delve into all the links you've given tomorrow - and look forward to it - and I'm sure I'll have feedback for you afterwards.
In the meantime this video covers 20 of the British accents in some detail; which is quite informative, and educational, because the chap takes particular care to explain things: https://youtu.be/u_BDG9JtGw8Thanks!! I found the video very informative and enlightening as well gave cause to question myself and my accent(s). I say that because:
My dad was from Texas living his life there growing up until he enlisted in the Marine Corps say about age 18. My mom lived part of her early life in Trenton, New Jersey and later in Carson City, Nevada. So, their formed accents formed mine initially. Consider language development as in trying to sound like the parent as well as say the word.
Age 0 - 3 with my parents & in California
Age 3 - 4 with my mom as dad was overseas and our family was living in Texas, so exposure to extended family with their accents. I played with neighbors and cousins.
Age 4 - 5 With both parents in Virginia, but in base housings, so no specific accent as people would have been from who knows where.
Age 5 - 8 living in South Carolina, but in base housing, however in the south. Lived with both parents
Age 8 - 9 living in California, but not on board base My dad was overseas
Age 9 - 11 living with both parents aboard base in California
Age 11 - 14 living with both parents in West Virginia. Not on board any base as my dad was a recruiter then. I developed a West Virginia accent. It was a slow southern draw kind of thing
Age 14 → lived in California
A little story. When I arrived in California from West Virginia attending my first year of high school at age 14 the girls would walk up to me and ask me to say this or that. They would giggle and ask me to say something else. So, apparently my accent was entertaining.
Another little story. When I first moved to West Virginia in the 6th grade we played a game what I thought was called 'Wooller ball.'It turned out it is actually Roller Ball. For pronunciation of 'oo' it is the second one in the video next. It is one minute long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J26ixySuzI
Listening, just now, for my message on the answer machine I can detect the West Virginia accent still though I have lived in California since 1969. I know when I drink that accent comes out more from friends telling me so.
This video next is entertaining, but kind of long. (12:35 min) I picked it because I may sound similar to the male person from West Virginia. It is comparing an Alabama accent vs. West Virginia along with vocabulary differences. Both can be said to be southern accents.
Alabama Accent Versus West Virginia Accent #3 / accent challenge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c7NdtndyKs
“Howdy”: Yep, I hear it a lot in American films, so I’m quite familiar with it as you describe. The British equivalent is “Alright?”, and in Bristol “”Alrig’t My Luvver” e.g. dropping of the ‘H’ and prolonging the ‘v’ in the pronunciation - so much so that it’s one of the light features in the Bristol annual ‘light festival’, along with “Cheers Drive” (another common Bristolian expression) – as shown in this short (1 minute) video: https://youtu.be/ui2e4PJfDP0
“Cheers” is a British word that means “thanks” and “Cheers Drive” is what people say to drivers in Bristol when they get off the bus.
Yeah, I wouldn’t have understood “gut doctor” either, I would have assumed that it had something to do with “gut feeling”, and missed the point altogether.
When I was studying for my English Language exam qualification at college our lecturer once stated “Never assume people will understand you, always imagine that you are trying to communicate with an alien from outer space, who may understand the English language, but not the culture and slang.” That’s why sometimes in these forums I’ll add an extra paragraph to explain something I’ve said.
I’m not surprised you couldn’t understand what the Scottish politician said, I had to listen to the video of the Scottish politician a couple of times to accustom my ears to the Scottish accent – What he actually said was “Can I ask the honourable gentleman what work is being done to make sure that this place is more accessible, particularly for some of our colleagues who have a disability.”
I’ve only ever been to Scotland once, as a teenager on holiday with a few mates. We spent most of the week exploring the highlands, but ventured into Glasgow one night for a social drink in the pub; and on entering the pub it took us about half hour to accustom our ears to the Glaswegian accent before we could understand the locals and start holding a conversation with them – And being British top of the agenda for discussion was of course the weather.
Wow – I watched your first video link, and was surprised at how for many of the accents I didn’t understand a word of what was being said, and had to concentrate to struggle to understand some of what was being said in the other accents – My ears are just not accustomed to a lot of the American accents and some of the dialects in the video just compounded it.
The Steven Willis video I could follow, but the subtitles were helpful.
Thanks for the ‘Wired’ videos, I’ve watched ‘Wired’ videos before, and they are good. I’ve watched the first of the ‘Wired’ (and when I have a bit more time watch the others), I was fascinated that within just the first couple of minutes into the video he highlights the accents in England, in the West Country (where I come from) and then London.
Yeah, your jargon example “She has a good pair of headlights!” I did misunderstand, until you explained e.g. my first interpretation was “the car had good headlights”. And that’s because in Britain when talking about eyes we say “lights” not “headlights”, and even then only as a mocking (hollow) threat e.g. “I’ll knock your lights out”, meaning I’ll punch you in the face (eyes).
IN ANSWER TO YOUR 2ND POST ON THIS TOPIC
I had a similar experience to you when I was the same age (14) in that my parents moved to Kent, and the school kids in my school were fascinated by my Bristolian (West Country) accent; plus I also had to learn the language differences e.g. in South West England the word for ‘trainers’ is ‘daps’, while in South England they are called ‘plimsolls’ (A trainer is a type of shoe with soft soles designed for running etc.).
Thanks for the videos, interesting how in your last video (Alabama vs West Virginia accent) that the first topic of discussion was on what to call soft fizzy drink – A discussion we’ve just had ourselves in some detail – cool.
Our Australian cousins made a three month tour of the UK & Ireland in 2019, and spent a couple of days with us – And one discussion we had with them was about accents in that during their tour they were fascinated in the diversity of accents across the UK – Whereas in Australia, there are no regional variants, the Australian accent is universal across the whole of Australia.
As I mentioned in a recent post in this forum, being born and breed in Bristol I and my son both speak the Bristolian dialect in a Bristolian accent: One Bristolian sentence I gave in that post was:
“Thee's Got'n Where Thee Cassn't Back'n, Hassn't”
Which translated from Bristolian to standard English means:
“You’ve got it where you cannot back it out, haven’t you?”
This short video gives a few other examples of the Bristol dialect (with some explanation of the origin of the words): https://youtu.be/WYecGY5X06g
There is even a popular Dictionary of the Bristolian dialect on sale, launched in 2003 (see link below); and as you will see from the website, the Bristolian dictionary helped to elevate the Bristolian word ‘lush’ as in 'gert lush', meaning 'really good' or 'really lovely' to be included in the Oxford English Dictionary. https://shop.ssgreatbritain.org/product … 1906477851
Thanks! The videos were helpful. It is apparent to me Bristol is a large place encompassing both the city and surrounding area with historic influence including language.
Cool! We both learned a lesson early in life on language differences. Maybe it made us more aware with a keener ear not only to language with its nuances but empathy?
Yeah, that video of the difficult accents threw me for a loop too. I didn't understand most of them the first go-around listening to them. The Wired videos I found to be intriguing as well as educational. For most people their exposure to accents and dialects is via TV and Movies while they are most usually neutral to market to the greater audience.
Here where I live in San Diego County there is the influence of not only the Spanish language itself, but the genres of it like Mexican, Salvadorian, and even what is known as Spanglish. That is the combining of English and Spanish while particular to my area would be Mexican rather than proper Spanish. They are different. I took a class at a community college for Spanglish just out of curiosity. Spanglish is common in my area.
Ever since I met my friend in Sweden I have been exposed to the Swedish language. Our first Christmas she sent me a CD of carols sung by the Royal Swedish Choir. Beautiful!! And, some were even traditional songs here. But, the bug bit me to try and learn the language.
I subscribed to Babble and gave it a whirl to no avail. Part of the program is saying a sentence via my microphone and they accept it or not. I did okay with that. But, I gave up because I would stop the lessons on purpose to go back three months later to see what I remembered. Fail!! The adage, "Use it or lose it" comes into play.Actually, Bristol is quite small, just 42 square miles, with a population of just 467,099.
The Bristol accent is a variant of the West Country accent (South West England), as often spoken by pirates in pirate films. The West Country accents can be found in the counties of Cornwall, Devonshire, Dorset, Somerset, Wiltshire, Bristol and Gloucestershire – but the Bristol dialect is unique to Bristol.
Contrary to what you might think, Bristol’s influence on the surrounding area (outside of its boundaries) is historically rather limited e.g. prior to the 1850s people didn’t travel much – So the surrounding towns and cities, such as Bath (a city just 11 miles from Bristol) has its own history and character. Bath a small city just 11 miles from the city and county of Bristol, is just 11 square miles, with a population of just 94,092
History of Roman Bath, Somerset (originally Somersetshire), England: https://youtu.be/NPOQ9wLtTME
Bristol’s influence on British history was with ship building (the expression “ship shape and Bristol fashion”), and with the slave trade.
Unequally, Bristol is the only City in the UK to have ‘county status’, making Bristol the smallest county in Britain. Bristol was granted county status by ‘Royal Charter’ in 1373 by King Edward III in his gratitude for Bristol’s contribution to the war effort in ship building during the 100 year war with France.
Bristol’s original name was Brycgstow (pronounced Brigstowe), which in Saxon means ‘place of the bridge’ (bridge place) – brig (bridge) and stowe (place) e.g. the spot where the Saxons built a bridge across the River Avon when they established a small settlement on the river bank, now known as Bristol – Today’s bridge, built on or near the same spot as the original bridge, is called ‘Bristol Bridge’. Avon is the Saxon word for River.
When the Romans invaded England 2,000 years ago they divided England in Administrative Areas (local governments) which they called Shires; and to this day many of those shires still exist, and still serve the function of Administrative Areas (Local Governments).
Most of the Counties in England that date back to the Romans, 2,000 years ago, are easy to spot because they all end in the word ‘shire’ e.g. Somersetshire, Devonshire, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire etc. although a few of those counties are beginning to drop the ‘shire’ on the end e.g. nobody ever says Somersetshire these days, they just say Somerset, and Devonshire often gets abbreviated to just Devon.
It’s just Cornwall and the very Northern England, where the Roman grip was weakest that today’s counties are not of Roman origin, and in the South East of England, where Saxon rule was the strongest, where today’s counties originated from the various Saxon Kingdoms (Domain of the Kings) e.g. Sussex (South Saxons); Wessex (West Saxons); Essex (East Saxons); Norfolk (North Folk) and Suffolk (South Folk) – In more recent times Wessex has been abolished and Susses has been divided into two counties - see map below for more clarity.
I was drawn to this video below because not only does the chap doing the video have the same accent as me, but his views and patriotism as he explains it in the video are identical to mine, word for word!
A Crash Course in Bristol History #1: https://youtu.be/ER_Cp-pIiSQ
A Crash Course in Bristol History #2: https://youtu.be/Jh1ykv1QWSA
OTHER LANGUAGES: SWEDISH/SPANISH ETC.
Yeah, I learnt from my American friend in New York and others on these forums that Spanish is prominent in America. In Britain it’s the Celtic Languages which I love hearing because the Welsh for example is such a musical language. The Celtic languages in the UK include Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Manx (Isle of Man) and Kernewek (Cornwall).
I’ve heard of Babble but wouldn’t have the confidence to try it in that apart from computer languages, language has always been my weak subject, I even struggled to learn English (my native tongue); but I would love to learn Welsh, especially as where I live in Bristol is just a 20 minute drive from the Welsh border – My grandmother could speak Welsh, which I used to enjoy hearing.
Do you know if they have regional accents/dialects in Sweden?
In the map below the counties marked in 'red' are the West Country, and the county of Bristol is tiny in comparison it's hard to spot on the map. The 2nd map below is zoomed in on the West Country to make it easier to spot the County of Bristol
Thanks! Both videos were very informative. The accent of the host I could detect, though wasn't as distinctive as I expected. Though Bristol is small, the video mentioned being the 10th largest. At, The 25 largest cities in the UK (and their investment strengths) by Investment Monitor (Apr 11, 2022) they have Bristol at #5.
https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/featur … s/?cf-view
Thanks for the history. I appreciate how far back it goes and easily can see how it develops a sense of pride in the setting of UK/Great Britain. As far as here in San Diego County the major city being San Diego the history beyond the indigenous tribes is September 28th, 1542. That is when Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo navigated the expedition's flagship San Salvador into San Diego Bay on September 28th, 1542, christening it San Miguel and drawing San Diego into the Spanish empire. That is when one may say civilization arrived.
There were plenty of videos of the history, but ranged between a half hour to an hour or were a series. So, I hesitate for posting them. The video next by Expedia.co.UK is a good tour of the City of San Diego to get a good grasp of it today. It is a six minute video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFMIA1xmAWY
[Edit: I discovered the video next about Escondido where I live. It is a six minute video. It doesn't go into the history dating back to 1776.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcw8LvAPS4c
Also, this article; The Escondido Story gives some history of Escondido. Not a short read and not a long read.
https://sandiegohistory.org/journal/196 … escondido/
The video next shares about the county, It is using maps without any pictorial content. It is a six minute video. Bear in mind I live in Escondido if you watch it. It will appear on the maps and is considered inland.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpYGAV3olJ0
I will ask my friend about accents in Sweden. I am curious too. Seems there may be since they border Finland and Norway. So, I suspect languages get mixed in too such as vocabulary usage.Yeah, if you want a more distinctive Bristolian accent, listen to ‘The Wurzels’ songs (a famous local band). Or listen to me doing a recorded message for our answerphone, which is why I get my wife to do it, because she’s from Essex (Essex accent)).
A couple of their popular songs, the 1st one became a No.1 hit in the music charts in the UK in 1976, the 2nd song below became No.3 in the same year. And The Wurzels are still performing in concerts to this day, except for Adge Cutler (the lead singer) who was killed in a car accident in 1974).
The Wurzels - Combine Harvester: https://youtu.be/tb63PdPweDc
The Wurzels - I Am a Cider Drinker (In the UK cider is an alcohol drink, stronger than beer): https://youtu.be/72U3UbfJG40
You raise an interesting point: How should one define the size of a city, by population, or land area size, or wealth? Plus how does one define what a city is anyway?
I’ll answer the last question first, in that the answer has a bearing on ranking cities by size.
I don’t know what the law is in America, but historically, in the UK cities, towns, villages, and hamlets are officially defined as follows:-
1. A city has to have either a university or cathedral.
2. A town has to have a market place.
3. A village has to have a church and village green.
4. A Hamlet has none of the above.
Consequently there are villages bigger than towns, and also towns bigger than cities.
In the UK there are just 76 cities (55 cities in England)
On reading your link “The 25 largest cities in the UK (and their investment strengths)”, it measures city size by wealth, and it quite rightly puts Bristol as the 5th wealthiest city in the UK; whereas according the Wikipedia Bristol is the 8th largest city population size; I’m not sure how it ranks land area size?
At the other end of the scale, the smallest city based on land area size is naturally the City of London (not to be confused with a city called London); the City of London is just 1 square mile in size, with a population of just 11,000 – While the smallest city based on population size is the city of ‘St Davids’ in Wales, which is 18 square miles, but only has a population of just 1,751 people.
A city within a city: https://youtu.be/LrObZ_HZZUc
THE CITIES OF SAN DIEGO AND ESCONDIDO
Thanks for the links to the videos and article; a most beautiful place, and I envy the weather.
I note from the article that Escondido became a city on 8th October 1888; what makes a place a city, as opposed to a town, in America – I guess it’s a different criteria to how it’s done in the UK (as briefly explained above).
Do you still have “Grape Day”?
Wow – the chap in the last video spoke fast, and couple with his accent, I had to concentrate and focus to keep up with him – I took a long coffee break afterwards to clear my head – But it was well worth the watch. One point of interest I picked up (well actually two) was the weather variants across the region. In contrast, Bristol is in a basin surrounded by hills, which protects it from the worst of the weather e.g. less snow (in the days when it used to snow e.g. prior to the 1990s), warmer, and usually missing the worst of the storms etc., although we do get a lot (an awful lot) of rain in Bristol.
The second point in passing; is that I noted on the map that Escondido is on a main route - Freeway (motorway).
I look forward to your feedback from your Swedish friend about their accents.Thanks! I emailed my friend about accents with no reply yet. She has what is called fibro fog from Fibromyalgia, so she may forget I asked. I will ask again later. She doesn't write as often to me as I do her too.
On how are population areas classified, from the National Center of Education Statistics.(gov) at the next link is definitions for that for federal.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/edge/docs/ … ations.pdf
You will discover basically there are four classifications with subcategories. The main four are:
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
However, with my exploration I see states have their classifications too. Also, without exploring, I see there were definitions offered by other governmental agencies like the Department of Agriculture and the Census Bureau.
Key is being incorporated.
Most of the articles I skimmed were vague saying a town is larger than a village. A city is larger than a town. Go figure.
For me I tend to use metro vs city vs suburban vs rural with my dialogue. For instance San Diego Metro includes the city of San Diego, the city of National City, the city of Chula Vista, the city of Imperial Beach, and etc. I use population as the qualifier.
The population of San Diego metro is 3,345,000 million. The population of San Diego city is 1,382,000. I will continue a hunt on the topic to see if I can garner more info.
Yes, in our San Diego County regions specific to climate are important. For instance our main energy corporation, San Diego Gas & Electric, classifies our billing by climate region. They use it to determine our baseline allowance. Once over that baseline the rate changes.
For instance, where I live is considered 'Inland'. In contrast there is desert, mountain, and coastal. SDG&E services 4,100 square miles. San Diego County is 4,261 square miles.
Yes, Escondido one may say is a hub for an Interstate (I-15) running north - south and a state Highway Hwy-78 going east - west. They intersect at Escondido. So, very busy and at times treacherous. An interstate is a Federal thoroughfare. I-15 goes from Mexico to Canada.Thanks for the link; most informative – And America’s population areas categorisation based on population size and density is far more logical than the British archaic methodology that has hardly changed in over a 1,000 years. But I can see that the difference in definitions between the UK & USA could easily lead to misunderstandings in these forums.
As I covered in a recent post, the Counties (areas of local government) have hardly changed since they were set up by the Romans 2,000 years ago.
The classification of villages and towns in Britain were set in the medieval period (1,000 years ago); in the days when the two most important things in Norman life were the church and the Market.
During the medieval period, any community that was large enough would build themselves a church so that they could go to church on a Sunday without having to walk too far: The village.
For trade the villagers would walk to the nearest town on a Saturday to buy their food (farm produce) and other goods (cloth and pottery etc.); the town being the hub, with the surrounding villages being the spokes in the wheel.
Prior to the Norman invasion in 1066, Saxon life was primitive: https://youtu.be/Rz9CwySfDtw
The creation of defining an urban area as a city because it had a cathedral was established in the early 1540s by King Henry VIII when he abolished England’s link with the Pope in Rome, and established his own Christian church (Church of England); making himself the head of the Church in England.
In the four classifications you list (city, suburban, town and rural) I can see further risk areas of miscommunication, which would explain why there’s been times when there’s been confusion when communicating with my American friend in New York – Namely definitions in relation to Suburban and Rural.
SUBURBAN
If I understand correctly, in America, suburbs tend to have their own political or legal jurisdiction; whereas in the UK a suburb is the outer residential area of the city (as opposed to the city centre). For example I live in the suburbs of Bristol e.g. on the Staple Hill border on the outskirts of Bristol, just 5 miles from the city centre – yet it’s still part of the city of Bristol, and governed by the local government in Bristol.
The American definition of suburb sounds more like the British definition of metropolitan?
In the UK, as defined by the Government, a metropolitan area is classified as “"travel to work areas", where at least 75% of an area's resident workforce works in the area and at least 75% of the people who work in the area also live in the area! In the UK metropolitan areas can and often do cross county boundaries and local government boundaries.
Under the above definition, according to the Government, there are 46 metropolitan areas in the UK; Bristol is ranked as the 12th biggest of the 46 metropolitan areas - the Bristol metropolitan area covers more than 1 million workers, and includes Bristol (city), Weston-super-Mare (town, 23 miles from Bristol), Bath (city, 12 miles from Bristol), and Clevedon (town, 13 miles from Bristol); Weston-super-Mare, Bath and Clevedon all being in the county of Somerset.
RURAL
I haven’t quite got my head around how rural fits in with the classification of ‘population areas’ in America. But in the UK Rural is the opposite of Urban e.g. towns and cities are classified as urban and villages and hamlets are classified as rural.
GREEN BELT
In 1947 the Labour Government introduced the ‘Green Belt’. A green belt is a large strip of land that surrounds urban areas, where new development is prohibited, specifically to prohibit urban sprawl.
Where I live, in the suburb of Bristol (just 5 miles from the city centre), we’re on the edge of the Green Belt, so it’s just a 10 minutes’ walk and I’m in the countryside.
ROADs
Your ultimate paragraph raises question e.g. what are the difference between Interstate (roads), state Highways, and Federal thoroughfares?
In the UK the designation of road definition is quite simple:
• Motorways: Intercity links. Generally 3 lanes in each direction, no pedestrians, and 70mph speed limit. With the exception of Birmingham, motorways don’t generally go through cities; they go around cities (ring roads) e.g. the M25 motorway around the outskirts of London.
• Dual Carriage Ways: Urban ‘A’ Roads, two lanes in each direction, where pedestrians is limited, allowing for speed limit of 60mph through urban areas.
• ‘A’ Roads: Generally two lanes in each direction; speed limit of 60mph in rural areas, 30mph or 20mph in built up (urban) areas.
• ‘B’ Roads: Generally one lane in each direction; speed limit of 60mph in rural areas, 30mph or 20mph in built up (urban) areas.
• Country roads: Single lane for two-way traffic; speed limit of 60mph.
This video is where we had fun on a country road, while on holiday last year: The car stalled on a steep hill, on a blind bend, just below a hamlet, because we were driving too slowly (in case of oncoming traffic); so we had to back up and take the hill on the bend at speed – The car behind us, seeing the challenge had second thoughts and eventually turned around and went back the other way rather than try to attempt the steep hill on the bend: I imagine you don’t have many roads like that in America? https://youtu.be/4vjp9okcXpg?si=Ihje2a0 … amp;t=1407Thanks! I enjoyed your video through the country and the encounter of another vehicle on the narrow road. I have come upon that myself, more so on a dirt road that is not an official roadway. Some in the foothills and a time or two in mountainous areas. I wasn't usually driving being a passenger while out 4x4ering. That is in a four wheel drive vehicle like a truck or jeep out having fun.
In California with uphill/downhill encounters the law states, "California Vehicle Code section 21661 states that the driver traveling downhill must pull over and allow the driver driving uphill to pass. If there is no room for you to pull over, you must back up enough that the driver facing uphill has room to pass."
There is no term federal thoroughfare. The federal interstate system are freeway systems running interstate between states. Intrastate are state highways. Freeway means there is a controlled access. In other words, there is an on-ramp to get on the thoroughfare such as an interstate and some highways and an off-ramp to get off. It also means there is no toll.
Interstates are federally funded through our gas tax. But, the traffic laws on them are enforced by state agencies. For instance, here in California it is the the California Highway Patrol that does that. The speed limits many times are higher than the state highways.
This sixteen minute video explains the interstate system. There is subtitles in case there is challenges with the accent said with jest.
The U.S. Interstate Highway System Explained
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdfwNWiAul8
This link is for types of roads and is the best one I could find, so far.
https://99percentinvisible.org/article/ … pes-roads/
It by no means is as thorough as it should be. For instance, with freeways there are toll roads branching off them in some cases, which as you have guessed means there is a payment involved. They may be much shorter in time to get to the destination.Thanks for the video and article links; I watched the video and then read and contemplated the article: I spent 90 minutes contemplation for it all to sink in, so I think I have a better understanding than ever before; although it’s all so different to the UK:
The American naming conventions are so logical e.g. Avenues running in one direction and Streets the other way in a grid; and interstates being even numbers east/west while interstates north/south are odd numbers.
The naming convention of Avenues and Streets wouldn’t work in the UK because our city and town roads are rarely straight; they bend, twist and turn in all different directions.
In the UK the numbering of motorways, ‘A’ roads and ‘B’ roads, doesn’t follow such strict rules as in America; the image below shows ‘all’ motorways in the UK.
As regards the naming of roads e.g. whether to call them Road, Street or Avenue etc. we don’t follow any strict rules in Britain, as is clearly obvious from this Norfolk Local Government website: It’s a short article, but you can scroll down to the rules for ‘suffixes’ to see when the words, Street, Road, Way, Avenue and Drive etc. can be used for naming roads in Britain. https://www.west-norfolk.gov.uk/info/20 … onventions
The same rule applies in the UK as in California e.g. “with uphill/downhill the ‘Highway Code’ ‘Rule 155’ sates “Give way to vehicles coming uphill whenever you can. If necessary, reverse until you reach a passing place to let the other vehicle pass."
For clarity, are ‘on-ramps’ and ‘off-ramps’ in American the same as or similar to ‘slip roads’ on British Motorways’? Rather than trying to explain slip-roads, I made a short video of slip roads: https://youtu.be/4vsasTm9Tew
In the UK all Motorways and some major ‘A’ roads (called trunk roads), are paid for and maintained by the UK Government. A trunk road is an ‘A’ road that has been designated by the UK Government as a route of strategic importance. Otherwise, all other roads are built and maintained by local governments.
All motorways in the UK are ‘free’ with the exception for a small section of the M6 (just 27 miles long) just north of spaghetti junction, near Birmingham – and even then it’s optional e.g. like the French motorway system where a free motorway runs parallel to a toll motorway – so you can choose which to use. For example if that part of the M6 is busy, and you are in a hurry, you have the option to use the toll route and avoid a lot of the traffic congestion on the free section of that motorway.
Interesting to learn that America started to build motorways (interstate highways) in 1956; while in the UK, we didn’t build our first motorway (The M6) until 1958. I get the impression that in American the Interstate Highways cut through cities; while in the UK, apart from spaghetti junction in Birmingham, our motorways (including the M25 around London) bypass town and cities as ‘ring roads’. A bypass (ring road) is an ‘A’ Road or Motorway that avoids or "bypasses" a built-up area, town, or village, to let through traffic flow without interference from local traffic.
This is spaghetti Junction from above: https://youtu.be/HKA-utioNCU
Unlike France, the UK Conservative Government stopped building Motorways in 1992, and started building railways instead, as a major ‘U’ turn in ‘policy’ direction of encouraging rail traffic rather than road traffic. Consequently, with just 2,300 miles of Motorways in Britain, we have far less motorways that other European countries and certainly a lot less than in the USA.
Another major difference between American roads and European roads is Europe’s love of ‘roundabouts’ rather than ‘junctions’; with the magic roundabout in Swindon being the most complex of all roundabouts in the UK:
The Magic Roundabout Timelapse (Drone Footage) https://youtu.be/HuKWHR5omU8
Above: All the Motorways in UKThanks! Interesting while considering the differences of history with any roadway be it a street, avenue, boulevard, or even a trail. Where I lived in Vista about fourteen miles from where I live now they had a lot of roadways named trails. That was because they were actually old cow trails that meandered from here to there with some going circular around a foothill.
The main street I live on is East Valley Parkway. It runs east-west and becomes West Valley Parkway at the center of town where it crosses Center City Parkway running north-south.
I live in a mobile home park with its own street names. I live on Angelus Avenure running east-west and is perpendicular to Roadliner Ave. That goes from my street/avenue to the main street East Valley Parkway. East Valley Parkway is two lanes going each direction.
Here is link to a Google Map of Escondido. You can use the +/- to change the focus size.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Escon … ?entry=ttu
Oh yeah, a mobile home park is composed of manufactured homes. Some call them trailers. The link next is to my actual home. Note: The interior pictures are not today. They are from before I purchased it in 2006.
https://www.redfin.com/CA/Escondido/10- … /179779023
As far as a 'Spaghetti' interchange, we have those too, yet simply just call them interchanges. With my exploring that is an international term. Most are connectors with two interstates/freeways. A clover leaf design is the most common.
Oh yeah, your slips are the same as our on-off ramps. I had a fun time exploring an interchange video to share. I picked the next one titled America's Weirdest Interchanges.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9KugnsXFLI
We do have roundabouts in my neck of the woods, but usually are used in community areas rather than city areas. However, one may say they are uncommon.Thanks for the clarity; you’re certainly a lot better at explaining American things than my American friend in New York, so I’ve learnt far more from these discussions in recent weeks than I’ve learnt from my American New York friend in years.
The road I live in is Uplands Road; see map link (road highlighted in white) - it runs in a northerly direction, it turns into Hillfields Avenue which a bit further up becomes Acacia Road, where my great-great grandfather was born in 1829. At the top right-hand corner of the map is Seymour Road, where my grandparents lived. And off the map, to the right, just 1.3 miles east of where I live, is Baglyn Avenue (named after Baglin farm, owned by my great-grand parents in the late 19th century) (see 2nd map link below), also, on the 2nd map link, to the right, you’ll see the start of the ‘Green Belt’ which I mentioned previously.
Map 1 (where I live): https://www.google.com/maps/place/Uplan … ?entry=ttu
Map 2 (where my great-grandparents farm (Baglin Farm) was): https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bagly … ?entry=ttu
My favourite road name in Bristol is ‘There and Back Again Lane’, less than ½ mile from the city centre; and if you use the ‘street view’ option in the map link below you’ll see why it’s called ‘There and Back Again Lane’. https://www.google.com/maps/place/There … ?entry=ttu
The one thing that strikes me about your area on your map link, is how regimented the roads are, so square, very much a grid system. If you view my two map links above, you’ll note the road layouts are less organised; and although you’ll see some Avenues and Streets on my map links, they don’t follow the American convention e.g. Avenues and Streets can run in any direction.
I explored your area with the ‘street view’ option, and wow – your roads are wide and spacious, and very straight; nothing like the residential roads in the UK. For a comparison, I’ve set this video link below to run the last 3 minutes of a car journey home, showing the local roads where I live, I’ve also named each road, and the Bristol ‘Districts’ in the video: https://youtu.be/ftKSlSMzK60?si=gNsl9_8 … &t=648
We do actually have mobile home parks in Britain, so I am familiar the concept; the photos are fab, quite similar to the holiday parks we sometime go to for our holidays (vacation). My pride and joy is the Conservatory I built from scratch onto the back of our house in 2015 – see photo below.
With regards to ‘spaghetti’ junction and slip-roads (on-off ramps); it’s good to hear that some things are the same on both sides of the pond.
With your reference to ‘named trails’ in your area, in your first paragraph, where you say: “That was because they were actually old cow trails that meandered from here to there with some going circular around a foothill.”
We have lots of similar trails across Britain, not cow trails, but ancient footpaths that villages used over a 1,000 years ago to get from village to village; and under common law (unwritten medieval law), which has now been reinforced by legislative law, such trails, even if they cross private land (as they often do) are ‘Public Right of Way’ as this video explains: https://youtu.be/mdOpg7sZB4g
Below, our conservatory, with a cedar roof, and clad in cedar, which I built by hand in 2015.
Thanks for video links and maps. They gave meaning to what you shared. I suspect that one contrast specific to Bristol and here while not necessarily everywhere in the US is that your roads and etc have a longer history to them. So, what was the planning at the time?
For instance, as you discovered earlier Escondido first became a settlement in 1864. It became a city in 1888. With a peek I see Bristol became a city in 1542. I know full well the history goes much farther back.
Pretty amazing work you did with your conservatory. Looks quite comfortable. Did you have to go through a process of getting permits to build it? How long did it take?
The only construction type of work I have done is I tore down the washer/dryer shed outside and replaced it with a resin prefab shed. I did that to make the park manager happy. In the picture of my mobile home you can see the old shed at the back of the carport. It was kind of rickety anyway.Good Question: The Hillfields Estate, where I live was a social housing (Council House) Estate build by Bristol City Local Government in the 1920s (just 100 years ago) to provide affordable housing to the unemployed and low paid – these days, half of the housing on the Estate (mine included) is now privately owned housing.
The Hillfields Estate, about 1 mile square, population of the Housing Estate is 13,500.
The map in this link shows the boundary line of the Hillfields Estate, with Uplands Road (where I live) being on the right-hand edge of the boundary line – the map’s interactive e.g. you can use the scroll wheel on your mouse to zoom in and out: https://mapit.mysociety.org/area/148657.html
In answer to your question: Prior to 1920 the area was just fields with the odd scattered cottage. After a bit of searching around on the web I found this rather nifty interactive map that allows you to overlay today’s map on top of olds maps dating from the 1880s to the 1930s; it has a slider which you can move left and right to help compare new with old; and you can use the mouse scroll wheel to zoom in and out. I don’t know if the link will work for you, but if it does its https://maps.bristol.gov.uk/kyp/?edition=# If the link doesn’t work, then see the screen dump of where I live, with the old map prior to 1920s on the left, and the new map of today on the right – and you can see from the screen shot that prior to building the Housing Estate 100 years ago it was nothing but fields in the area – So when the local government was planning the Estate they had a blank sheet to work from.
With the conservatory:
The simple answer is that it is an 'outbuilding' attached to the house, rather than extension of the house; therefore it didn't require planning permission (permits) - as explained below:-
If I had installed interior doors to join the conservatory with our living room, or added a radiator in the conservatory to our central heating, then the conservatory would have been classified as ‘living space’, and I would have had to apply for ‘planning permission’ (which I guess is similar to your permit system?). But by installing an external door between the conservatory and our living room, and not adding a radiator in the conservatory linked to our central heating, then it’s separate to the house and is classified as ‘permitted development’ – Obviously this is a rather over simplified explanation, but to go into details would probably confuse matters.
Under British planning laws I can build as many sheds as I like in our back garden, without informing the Authorities, provided that all ‘outbuildings’, including our conservatory does not exceed 50% of our garden space.
It took me three months to build the Conservatory – below is an image of when it was just a skeleton (timber frame). Although my profession was ‘Admin’ and later in my career ‘ICT’, my hobbies includes DIY e.g. 15 years earlier I built a semi-detached brick shed at the bottom of the garden measuring 10 feet by 21 feet external – divided into two shed internally, one as my DIY workshop, and the other as my wife’s food store – that project also took me 3 months – See photo below.
Left hand side map of where I live pre 1920s, right hand side view, as it is today.
Timber frame of conservatory during construction
Brick semi-detached sheds I built 15 years earlier
Wow! Your quite the builder. I say builder rather than handyman. I fall closer to a handyman, though I studied architecture for two years and pounded nails in construction for a summer. One year of architecture was in high school and one in college.
I know enough of this and that, yet not an expert in any of them except automotive wise. I can do basic wiring, plumbing, and am adept enough with carpentry skills to get accomplished what I need done. Today, with YouTube, almost anyone can at least give a good go at home repair and such.
With the washer/dryer shed I replaced I had to get a permit because I wired it for the receptacle for plugging them in. I had to get a permit just to replace my mobile home water heater. The plumber I hired got it. Permits as I see are warranted and a money maker too.
The map overlay was interesting even with the ability to do it interactively. How far are you from a commercial zone/area. My mobile home park is actually in one. It is only about ten or less minute walk to Burger King a hamburger shop next door to us. In the same complex is a Pizza Hut, a small church renting a commercial space, a hobby shop, a dentist, and a hair salon.
The link next is a map to my neck of the woods. There is a red marker (Hopefully) indicating where I live in the mobile home park. My grocery store is Albertsons. One feature I like is there are ten fast food/small restaurant places within a mile of me. I don't eat as much outside of home, but it is nice they are close.
There is +/- to zoom with. And, you go to satellite view to get a real image view.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/10+An … ?entry=ttuThanks, I did woodwork at school, and electrical circuits at college, but other than that I’ve never had any formal training in construction and building – I’m self-taught. But I do have a technical and analytical mind, and a good imagination (inherited from my mother) which helps e.g. Technical Drawing came easy to me, and I got ‘Grade A’ in it in my exam qualifications at school.
For me, part of the fun is designing the build in my mind (virtually down to the last nut & bolt), looking at the build side and overlaying the build in my mind’s eye and seeing the construction come together as I envisaged.
Where I am hopeless, is with mechanics; I don’t have a clue of what’s under a car’s bonnet.
Wow – I always thought that Britain’s Planning Regulations were stricter than in America, but it would appear from what you say that may not always be the case!
1. We don’t need permits to do electrical wiring in Britain; you can do legally do the wiring your wiring yourself provided you get it checked by a qualified electrician before connecting it to the mains supply. For example I laid the power cable underground from the house to the brick shed at the end of the garden myself.
2. Likewise, we don’t need permits any gas installations (natural gas) e.g. ‘home water heating’ (combi-boiler) for hot water tap and radiators. But in the UK anything to do with gas (natural gas) has to be done by a ‘Registered’ Gas Engineer e.g. to be ‘Registered’ a Gas Engineer has to be fully trained, and fully qualified.
You seem to have a lot of ‘Permits’ in America. We don’t have ‘Permits’ in the UK, the nearest equivalent is ‘Planning Consent’ (where required); and although that can be a long process, its consent given to you by your local government (local authority). If they refuse your application, you can ‘Appeal’; and Appeals are dealt with by the UK Government - Planning Appeals is one job I had for about 7 years of my civil service career.
Out of curiosity I just used the UK Government ‘Planning Portal’ to see how much a Planning Application for an Extension currently costs, and it £322 ($406).
COMMERCIAL ZONES/AREA
In Britain there are four main classifications of ‘Shop Location Areas (Zones), as follows – from the smallest to largest:
1. Corner Shops
2. High Street
3. Shopping Centres
4. Trading Estates
CORNER SHOPS
A Corner Shop is a small local shop that’s just around the corner of where you live, within 5 minutes’ walk. There are six such corner shops within 5 minutes’ walk from where I live, as follows:-
• Chinese chip shop, food shop, and hairdressers in Acacia Road
• Food shop in Hillfields Avenue, and
• Two English chip shops in Soundwell Road.
HIGH STREET SHOPS
A High Street is any main road that runs through the centre of a ‘District’ in a city or the main road running through the centre of a town, where all the shops are.
In my case, our local High Street is in Staple Hill, Bristol, just 10 minutes from where I live, on the road called ‘High Street’ to the left of Soundwell Road, and ‘Broad Street’ to the right of Soundwell Road.
If you use the ‘street view’ on the map link below, starting from where Acacia Road meets the High Street, and work yourself eastward you’ll see that there are about 100 shops in the Staple Hill High Street. If you use the street view on Staple Hill High Street, starting from where Acacia Road joins it, you'll know if you are going in the wrong direction e.g. west instead of east, because you'll just see residential houses rather than just shops.
Fishponds district of Bristol has a similar High Street, about 1 mile to the west of our home, and Kingswood’s district of Bristol has a similar High Street about 1.5 miles south of us.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/High+ … ?entry=ttu
SHOPPING CENTRES
Shopping Centres are invariably in the city centre; and in Bristol the shopping centre (Broadmead Shopping Centre) near the city centre is about 1 square mile of shops, and has about 18.5 million shoppers per year.
Bristol’s city centre shopping centre is just a 30 minute bus ride from where I live.
Broadmead was flattened by bombing in 2nd world war, and rebuilt from scratch in the 1950s.
Broadmead Shopping Centre near Bristol City Centre: https://youtu.be/xOD9ngUytj4
Map of Broadmead Shopping Centre rebuilt in the 1950's (the shopping centre area is marked in white on the map): You can use the street view to explore the shopping centre: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Broad … ?entry=ttu
TRADING ESTATES (Retail Parks)
In the UK Trading Estates, are where you find the superstores; and are dotted around the outskirts of cities; there’s about a dozen scattered around the outskirts of Bristol, the nearest one to us is at Longwell Green, Bristol (4 miles away).
Thanks for the interactive map of your area, the shops are certainly far more spread out than our ‘High Street’ Shops; and using the ‘street view’ I homed in on ‘Black Rock’ Coffee Bar; as I love coffee – but in street view, it wasn’t what I was expecting to see. It’s a ‘drive-through’ – ‘Drive Through’ being something which we don’t generally have in the UK, so I was expecting to see a nice cute little coffee bar, or café, or similar?
Taking a Look at Bristol's TOP Coffee Shops https://youtu.be/RyigzRgMd04I see the differences, yet ponder the different type of shopping (Shops) fall back on the history of the city. Our downtown area is where you will discover shops next door to each other rather than local to me being spread out.
We also have what is called a mall. Not all cities have them it is based on if some entity wanted to make the investment. Our local mall is called Westfield North County Mall. It is located on the outskirts of the south side of Escondido.
It is basically one large building composed of 160 stores, shops, and dining. When I say large I mean huge. The retail floor area of three floors is 1,300,000 square feet (120,774 sq meter)
Here is a link to it. Use the subheadings at the top to explore.
https://northcountymall.com/We have a similar mall here, with 156 stores and another 15-20 in the parking lot. A little over a million square feet.
It is dwarfed by the Mall of America (Minneapolis, Minnesota) with 2.8 million square feet and 550 stores.Thanks for the link to your Mall, browsing your link for North Country Mall, it seems to be on a par with the Mall (Cabot Circus) built in Broadmead in 2008.
We have two Malls in Broadmead Shopping Centre (city centre), one at each end of Broadmead: The Galleries with 100 shops, and Cabot Circus with 120 shops.
When I previously said that Broadmead was destroyed by bombing during WW2, and was rebuilt by the Bristol local government in the 1950s (for simplicity) I omitted to mention that a handful of buildings survived the bombing, and they are today part of the Broadmead Shopping centre – Namely:
• The Victorian Shopping Arcade, built in 1825
• Quakers Friars (now a shopping area within Broadmead), built in 1747
The Galleries Shopping mall (330,000 sq. ft.), built 1991, is located in the south west corner of Broadmead, and Cabot Circus shopping mall (1,500,000 sq. ft.), built 2008, located in the north east corner of Broadmead.
In total there are 450 shops in Broadmead as follows:
• The pedestrianised (traffic free) streets of Broadmead = 230 shops.
• Cabot Circus Shopping Mall = 120 shops, and
• The Galleries Shopping Mall = 100 shops.
Apparently, Broadmead (including Cabot Circus and the Galleries) is the 7th largest shopping complex in Britain. Part of Broadmead’s success is that it is a joint public/private venture.
Adjoining Broadmead (on the south west corner, just past The Galleries) is St Nicholas Markets, which has been trading since 1743.
Some links for further info:-
• https://bristolshoppingquarter.co.uk/about-us/
• https://thearcadebristol.com/history
• https://www.bristol.gov.uk/st-nicholas-markets
Cabot Circus Shopping Mall in Broadmead: Before and After Development https://youtu.be/1AORUIDUCr8
The Galleries Shopping Mall in Broadmead, Bristol https://youtu.be/oKla3h6aB-s
Below is a simplified road map of the Broadmead pedestrianised Shopping Centre, showing the two malls, The Galleries (on the left) and Cabot Circus on the right.
Broadmead is just a 5 mile drive from where we live, or a 30 minute bus ride.
Footnote: Broadmead also has a Christmas Market every December; as shown in this video - I assume you have Christmas Markets in your area? https://youtu.be/F5sXWn-Rcb0?si=7J3OuPn … Q&t=12Wow! Broadmead is huge!! It would take how many excursions to explore all of it? As I asked Wilderness has online shopping affected the popularity of malls in general there?
I haven't been to the mall since about 2003. I was in a sociology class and we were to do an experiment with norms and write about our findings. I decided to stand at the top of the escalator coming up a few steps back from the point of arrival and just look at the people on the escalator. It was interesting.
But, eventually the mall security guards arrived then questioned me. I told them the truth, but they didn't really buy it, so I moved along.
I also did another with an elevator. I would stand in the elevator at the door and face in instead of out toward the door. That definitely made people uncomfortable.Wow, that took my breath away; to hear that you haven’t been to a mall in over 20 years. Even now, although retired, I still pop down to Broadmead (shopping centre) monthly during the summer months, and make a special point of visiting Broadmead in December for Christmas shopping.
In answer to your question, although I’ve frequently visited Broadmead ever since I started work (back in the 1970s) I’ve still haven’t explored the whole of it – just spending a couple hours shopping in Broadmead, you only scratch the surface.
I love you sociology experiment; and yeah, I can image the same reaction from people, and the same thing happening here with the security guards, if I tried the same thing – especially with all the CCTVs.
As regards your main question “has online shopping affected the popularity of malls in general there?”-
In answer: The statistics would suggest yes, even Wikipedia paints a bleak picture (see link below); but in reality the physical shopping centres are thriving – a hint of the reason for that is given in the sub-heading ‘Trends’ in the Wikipedia article on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Street
But one thing that does skew the data ‘online vs physical’ shopping; is that these days most physical shops also sale online – so not all online sales are going to companies like Amazon, a high percentage is going back to the physical shops in the High Street.
In the UK over the past 20 years online shopping has gone from near zero to about 25% of sales, but the latest data suggests that it may be peaking, and may flatten out at that share of the Market! Part of the reason being that people don’t just want to buy online, they want to also physically buy in shops, they want to feel, touch and see the goods before buying, and for the physically experience e.g. modern shopping centres aim to make it an enjoyable and relaxed place to visit, to attract customers.
To compete with online shopping, over the last two decades physical shopping centres have had to adapt and evolve: No longer is every shopping centre in every town and city the same (dominated by chain stores) – these days a high percentage of shops in the shopping centres are small independent traders, which is what makes visiting shopping centres more of an exciting experience e.g. of the 450 shops in Broadmead, more than 100 are ‘Independent Local Traders’.
And of course we shouldn’t forget the governments (at local and national level) e.g. a healthy shopping centre creates jobs and wealth and is good for economic growth – So in the UK various government schemes and policies (at local and national level) are geared towards encouraging healthy shopping centres:
For example this link to the subject of ‘High Street’ on the Bristol Local Government website; where as you can see near the top of the page, Bristol Local Government has a £4.725 million ($6 million) recovery package for Broadmead and the 47 High Streets (shopping Streets) throughout Bristol following the devastating impact of the pandemic. https://www.bristol.gov.uk/business/bus … gh-streetsI didn't realize it has been twenty years until I read your comment. Why, I don't know. I was just remembering when I took the class. I did fib, though. Three years ago my friend in Sweden gave be a gift card to the Cheese Cake Factory. It is located at the North County Mall.
I ordered a cheese cake for pickup. It was during Covid. The restaurant was closed to sit down eating and pickup only. Maybe the mall was closed too, I don't know. The Cheese Cake Factory is right at the entrance. So, I was in and out.
I did a cursory poking about with the browser search phrase 'are malls dying 2023'. Link next for the landing page for Google. I see articles going in both directions. A snippet for the worst report is;
"Projections indicate that up to 87% of large shopping malls may close over 10 years. Closed malls are empty for an average of 3 years and 11 months. The number of malls declined 16.7% per year from 2017 to 2022. 2 million square feet of mall space was demolished in 2022."
In contrast there are articles sharing that they are adapting and there is growth in some cases. Pick and choose what piques your interest.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi … +2023#ip=1
Yup, local mom & pop businesses are a growth industry here in San Diego area too. They are promoted on local TV stations. One of several articles about San Diego retail next link.
https://rebusinessonline.com/san-diegos … ositivity/Thanks for the links; in your 1st link, one article by ‘marketplace.org’ caught my eye ““Shopping malls are dying.” While that's a statement you've probably heard before, it turns out we may have pronounced them dead too quickly.”
Other articles in your link about American Malls follow the same sentiment e.g. “Shopping malls across the country are adding lifestyle experiences and off-kilter attractions to draw in consumers in the age of e-commerce.” But it is a complex subject.
And your 2nd link is encouraging; it supports articles in the 1st link that “shopping Malls are not dying”, but as you said, they are ‘adapting’ to a changing world.
I love cheese cake, which I sometimes have as a treat as part of a three course meal when we go to restaurants for a meal out.
Yep, the fact that some projections are bleak, as highlighted in your 4th paragraph, just shows how complex the subject is: Although as I explained in my previous post, it’s not what I see in our shopping centres, so I think such projections are too negative.
I question that 25% of sales is online idea. Not that it isn't true, but that the simple statement is not presenting the true picture. One site I visited showed online purchases ranging from 9% to 31%...with the single largest product line (grocery and beverage) being the 9%. As that is a major portion of most people's purchases it would seem that the statistics are skewed quite badly towards the low side; eg. everything else is far above that 25%.
I also strongly question the idea that physical shopping produces more in the way of GDP and economic growth. Yes, it produces jobs, but so does the massive Amazon distribution center down the road from me, and it pays better than 90% of the jobs in the area. That's not counting the massive transportation field that gets those online products to us.
In addition, cheaper products gives rise to higher demand, which them produces higher production, meaning more jobs. At least if the people are smart enough to buy "local" rather than imports; Americans are not.I’m obviously misunderstanding something? In that you say “….online purchases ranging from 9% to 31%”, and then you go on to say that 25% online sales seem to be “skewed quite badly towards the low side” – yet the 25% is within the range of the 9% and 31% you quote. What is it I’m misunderstanding?
The ONS (Office of National Statistics) actually puts online retail in December 2023 at 27.1% of total retail sales; down 1.7% from Nov, but up 7.7% from the 'cost of living crisis' in 2022 (see chart below)
As regards UK GDP, Economy & Jobs:
1. The UK Retail Sector is 5.2% of GDP
2. 8.6% of the workforce in the UK works in Retail.
In the UK 3.54 million people work in Retail, of which just 75,000 work for Amazon: Therefore just over 2% of people working in Retail in the UK work for Amazon, and 98% don’t.
As regards pay in the retail sector. The national legal minimum wage in the UK is £10.42 ($13.20) per hour; the starting pay in physical retail chain stores is currently between £10.42 and typically £11.40 ($14.44) per hour (dependent on which supermarket you work for); the starting pay for Amazon in the UK is currently £11.80 ($14.95) per hour.
Yep, your last paragraph is a good point; and certainly before buying goods we always cross check the price on Amazon with the price in our local shops e.g. all physical shops these days have their own website, which makes comparisons easy – And sometimes Amazon is cheaper, sometimes it’s not, and sometimes there’s no real difference in price.
But it’s not just the price of goods; it’s also, as least in the UK, the desire to by ‘hand crafted’ goods that (although more expensive) are always in high demand in Britain; and in that respect, many local independent traders offer goods and services that you just can’t buy from Amazon.
This is my reply to your post in respect to the ‘toppling of statues’; above is my post in respect to voting issues.
Yeah, I can understand your mixed feelings; but the resolution with regards to the Colston statue in Bristol is that:-
• Restorers, in doing restoration on the statue after it had been pulled out of Bristol Docks, took great pains to preserve the BLM graffiti on the statue for future generations, so show the full history.
• After restoration the statue is now on permanent display in the Bristol museum, in a laid down position (rather than being erected), symbolic of a fallen statue; along with text blurb to tell the full history of Edward Colston (1636-1721), warts and all, including the history of the BLM protests in Bristol.
Inside the secret facility restoring toppled Edward Colston statue https://youtu.be/d4fBx5X6Fvw
Local opinion poll showed that 80% of Bristolians are happy with this resolution, with only 16% not wanting the statue to be on display in Bristol Museum.
A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND TO THE TOPPLING OF THE STATUE
From the profits of his slave trade (blood money), Edward Colston paid for the building of many public buildings in Bristol, including school, houses for the poor, almshouses, hospitals and Anglican churches.
An Almhouse (of which there are still many standing in Bristol) were charitable housing for the poor, which have existed from since the medieval period, generally built and financed by the various guilds (trades) to provide free shelter and food for the widows and orphans of those trade (guilds).
Years before the BLM protests Bristolians had submitted a petition to the local Bristol Government asking for the statue of Edward Colston to be removed. And although the Bristol Local Government is Labour and thus sympathetic to the call, they gave it a low priority e.g. housing and transport etc. taking a much higher priority – so it was obvious to all that nothing would be done to remove the statue for years, if ever.
Hence, the BLM protests were an opportunity for Bristolians to take matters into their own hands.
The result of the Bristol survey taken just after the statue was toppled is as follows:-
• 53% of Bristolians think that everything named after Colston and other slave traders in Bristol should be renamed.
• 18% of Bristolians think that some of the places bearing his name, but not all, should be renamed.
• 29% of Bristolians think that nothing should be renamed.
• 61% of Bristolians said the protesters were right to pull down the statue.
• 56% of Bristolians feel that throwing the statue in the water was the right thing to do.
• 60% of Bristolians feel that it was not right that Bristol had the statue in the first place, because of Colston's links to the slave trade.
• 27% of Bristolians feel the statue had its place, as it was possible to acknowledge his contribution to the city while condemning his links to the slave trade.
• 12% of Bristolians feel that Colston was an important part of the city's history and that he deserved a statue.
• 3% of Bristolians feel that Colston was not important enough to have a statue.
• 57% of Bristolians feel that they did not think those responsible for toppling the statue should face criminal charges.
Following the toppling of Edward Colston statue, in accordance with the wishes of the people, the Bristol local government has since renamed anything that was named after Colston, for example Colston Tower was rename to Beacon Tower, and the Colston Hall was renamed to Bristol Beacon etc.
Also, following the toppling of Edward Colston, all Bristol Churches including Bristol Cathedral were quick to remove all the stain glass windows that depicted Colston, as explained in this British newspaper article: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/bris … 70736.htmlThanks! We have the same trend here where statues are restored and placed in a museum setting rather than a public setting such as a public municipality or state park. Renaming is an ongoing effort to remove offensive names not only praising Confederate persons of the Civil War, but even here local to me is removing names of person that oppressed the indigenous tribes local to here.
That is inclusive of some of the Friars instrumental to establishing both Spanish control and Catholicism here in California. That can be in the form of removing statues, name changes, and to the extent of petitioning to remove them from history books.
One must not forget the controversies surrounding slave owners of instrumental figures in our national history. For instance Founding Fathers like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and etc. The link next shows a list of prominent founding fathers that were or were not slave holders.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Fo … ry-1269536Thanks for the feedback and link – most enlightening.
Where you say: “….and to the extent of petitioning to remove them from history books.” That in my opinion is ‘a step to far’ e.g. re-writing history. Equally, portraying just the good that prominent people in history is as equally wrong e.g. that’s just ‘whitewashing history’ (an attempt to stop people finding out the true facts about a situation).
Yeah, remove statues from public places and put them in museum, and rename place names and road; but in my view the history books should tell the full story (warts and all) – In that respect, your link that identifies which ‘Founding Fathers’ were slave holders is great.
Howdy, Arthur!
I have given some time to the Veteran Benefits topic focusing on health care. First, it seems I have misspoken about their ability to go outside of network (The VA hospital or a VA medical facility). Going back to the Budget Fixer I see it says;
“A 2014 law temporarily allowed VA-enrolled veterans who lived a certain distance from a VA facility or who had to wait for a certain amount of time to see private doctors outside of the VA system. A subsequent 2018 law made this policy permanent in a similar program. This option (That being what the Budget Fixer offers with a cost of $520 billion to choose or continue as is) would remove restrictions on the current program, allowing any VA enrollee to see private providers outside the VA system.” In other words, no longer any qualifiers as in distance from a facility (40 miles or 64 km) or too long of a wait time (30 days). There is more to it than those two.
The link next explains the program. It is dated July 25, 2017, so before the 2018 law. It is called The Veterans Choice Program.
10 things to know about the Veterans Choice Program (July 25, 2017)
https://news.va.gov/39882/10-things-kno … e-program/
At this time I am reconsidering my position with a strong lean toward choosing the option with its cost. What sticks in my craw is the wait time based on personal experience.
I did explore the links offered on benefits for veterans in the UK.
Regarding benefits in general there are a lot of them to compare/contrast. However there are similarities. Below is links for peeking at them with a skim.
With my exploration of VA benefits, here, it is complicated. For instance benefits differ with 9/11 being where change occurs. I will say of importance for the Vets I know is following. However, note, those friends military service were pre-9/11.
Health care
Education benefits
Home loans
Small business help
Links:
Choose VA
VA offers benefits that can help Veterans buy, retain, or modify a home; earn a degree; start a career; stay healthy; and do much more in life after the military.
https://www.choose.va.gov/?utm_source=g … gLFKfD_BwE
VA benefits for service members
https://www.va.gov/service-member-benefits/
About VA health benefits
https://www.va.gov/health-care/about-va … -benefits/
Footnote: There is sentiment that there are four branches to government here. That being the Constitutional ones - executive, legislative, and judicial. The fourth being bureaucracy. From this learning experience I saw that in action and have empathy for Vets especially those outside of available assistance.Great, that’s good news for VA’s about there no longer being any qualifiers as in distance from a facility. Thanks for all the links, which I did skim through.
Yes, these schemes are often complicated, and we also get a lot of bureaucracy in Britain (which can be a right pain in the backside at times); but having joined-up services e.g. one-stop-shop, which is a methodology the UK Governments have tried to implement across the board since the 1980s does help e.g. the Government’s integrated transport policy.
Waiting lists (wait time), as you mentioned for the VA’s, is also an issue for some parts of the NHS, and a major embarrassment to the UK Government; exasperated by the pandemic, the NHS industrial action (strike action) and underspending by the Government – A failing by the Government for which they are paying dearly in the opinion polls in Election Year.
Fortunately, although I and my wife, and our close friends, who at our age frequently use the NHS, we haven’t been affected by any of the waiting lists reported in the Press; whenever we’ve had a problem or issue, or any concerns, we’ve always been seen without delay, and routine check-ups (which are frequent at our age) have all been carried out without any delays – So the efficiency and dedication of the NHS, in spite of the pressures put upon it in recent years, has given the NHS a good reputation, and it is highly regarded and highly respected by the British Public.
This YouGov link sums it up:
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/ … mic-period
Just an interjection . . .
The first thought of your comparison was a depressing one. Our state of affairs is so bad (even accepting your 'better place than' point) that it fits economic comparisons with Greece and Italy.
The economic levers of governments may be complex to apply but the basic concepts aren't. Continually spending more than you have leads to an inevitable disaster—whether an individual or a government.
GAAgreed.
If you have $100 dollars but are spending $200... you are not going to be able to survive on that system for long. No need to complicate it.
That is essentially what America has been doing since 2001, with escalating increases into how much more the government spends than it is taking in. Deflating the value of the dollar, or causing inflation, however you want to qualify it.Deflating the dollar's value seems the most damaging, and controllable, factor.
There can be many causes for the one cause of inflation, but only one for devaluation — which is recklessly printing more money.
GA
Absolutely - the importance of 'living within your means' is something that was drummed into us when I did economics at college.
Perspective
The Hill offered a compare/contrast for Trump vs. Biden on debt. It is;
"The Biden White House dishonestly blames GOP-led tax cuts under Donald Trump for “90% of the debt increase.” For the record: under the Trump administration, the debt went up significantly only after Congress passed relief measures aimed at keeping the COVID-impaired economy afloat. In his first three years, the debt rose by $3.3 trillion — too much, for sure, but nothing compared to the $6.25 trillion jump in debt during Biden’s first three years. And there has been no emergency to excuse Biden’s spending. "
More can be discovered at the following link.
Joe Biden’s extremist spending is a danger to the US by The Hill (Jan 4, 2024). Consider it is an opinion article. Also, The Hill per Allsides Media bias places them at Center edging 'Lean Left'.
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/438 … to-the-us/One thing the United States can do to save money is to stop paying illegal aliens, have strict border security. Take the funds used for them and begin a massive deportation program. Only let LEGAL immigrants into the United States. This money should be used for American citizens because it was provided by American tax payers.
"At the start of 2023, the net cost of illegal immigration for the United States – at the federal, state, and local levels – was at least $150.7 billion.
At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $182 billion to cover the costs incurred from the presence of more than 15.5 million illegal aliens, and about 5.4 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a cost burden of approximately $8,776 per illegal alien/citizen child. The burden of illegal immigration on U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling, with the gross cost per taxpayer at $1,156 every year."
https://www.fairus.org/issue/publicatio … ayers-2023Thanks for input, Mike!
Agreed the border and illegal immigrant issue is a drain on the economy. I live in San Diego County and it is a drain on our local economy, which I experience.
I see it as far as debt as a trade off at this time considering the cost to deport them and the cost to build the wall. I would support that if wisely spent. According to the Debt Fixer tool shared earlier in the thread it would cost $180 billion to Tighten Border Security and Build a Border Wall.
According to AZ Central back in 2017 it states;
"ICE spent an average of $10,854 per deportee during the fiscal year that ended in September, according to ICE spokeswoman Yasmeen Pitts O'Keefe. "This includes all costs necessary to identify, apprehend, detain, process through immigration court, and remove an alien," she said in an interview."
For 15.5 million at that $10,854 would be a cost of $170.5 Billion. So, combined that is approximately $350 billion. That is at the federal level.
Debt Fixer from the Committee for Responsible Budget
https://www.crfb.org/debtfixer
Note: Building the wall and tighten border security is in the Defense category
How much does it cost to deport one migrant? It depends from AZCentral (Apr 27, 2017)
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/po … /99541736/"It would cost $180 billion to Tighten Border Security and Build a Border Wall."
Well, according to the article I posted the United States is "$182 billion to cover the costs incurred from the presence of more than 15.5 million illegal aliens, and about 5.4 million citizen children of illegal aliens."
So, a wall could be built, border security tightened and still have $2 billion leftover to spend in United States citizens.
Free Webinar on the Debt since 2001 by The Committee for a Responsible Budget. It takes place on Jan 31st at 2 pm ET. It is based on their recent paper; From Riches to Rags: Causes of Fiscal Deterioration Since 2001. (Jan 10, 2024).
Article can be found at link next.
https://www.crfb.org/papers/riches-rags … ation-2001
From Riches to Rags: Causes of Fiscal Deterioration Explained webinar at the next link.
https://lp.constantcontactpages.com/ev/ … 6PC02RmA==
"Committee Senior Vice President and Senior Policy Director Marc Goldwein will give an in-depth and non-partisan look at what is the true cause of the federal debt increase, as well as address the myth that only one party is to blame. Goldwein will cover three major areas of debt increase: increased spending, tax cuts, and recession response."
"The discussion will take place via Zoom on Wednesday, January 31, at 2 pm ET. The presentation will be followed by a Q&A portion, where you will have the opportunity to submit questions."The Debt! 2024 Policy Proposals. Is it worth it?
The Committee of a Responsible Federal Budget offers a look at policy proposals by the Biden administration for 2024. In other words, the nuts & bolts of the spending machine. It spells out each proposal with Annual Cost followed by Per Person. (Note: There is a drop-down menu to see per taxpayer and per household, too) Revealing!! Worth a quick glance at the glaring costs being proposed. For instance;
https://www.crfb.org/interactives/is-it-worth-it
Policy Proposals
** Student Debt → $50 Billion annual cost → $149 per person
** Paid Family Leave → $22.5 Billion annual cost → $67 per person
** Universal Pre-K → $14 Billion annual cost → $42 per person
There is a bonus!! See key areas on:
** 2024 Federal Spending
** 2024 Federal Tax Breaks.
Note: Hoover cursor over the ‘i’ to see the explanation for that item. Also, at the Federal Spending category, click on it for a drop-down of items within the category.One may wonder why governments in the Industrialised economies (regardless to their politics) seem less concerned about growing National Debt than us – The short report on British TV News Channel (a couple of days ago) explains all: https://youtu.be/9SW_JjgoW1I
Debt? Whose to blame? What to do, What to do?
Stop spending money when we don't have to.
The so called Border bill... is really a fund Biden's wars bill.
In it, more than 60 Billion going to Ukraine, which, believe it or not, is not a State of America. It is not even a protectorate of America.
60 billion 'win the war' it will not do anything more than waste money as it extends the inevitable end, this war is a waste of lives and money, always was, there was more than one opportunity to negotiate a peace, Biden chose war... stop paying for Biden's idiocy.I, for one, would like to see a negotiated end to the war in Ukraine. A recent detailed analysis by the New York Times showed that the front line across southern and eastern Ukraine has hardly shifted in the course of this year, and that does not look like it will change. Putin has yet to spell out clear terms for a settlement .
Why have NATO Powers not encouraged negotiations sooner?
The aim may be to bleed Russia white, militarily and economically, and also send a message to China that it shouldn’t challenge the global hegemony of the US and its allies. The GDP of Russia is smaller than the state of Texas.
But for me, there’s also the nagging hypocrisy of the war in Ukraine. So many around the world support Ukraine’s resistance to foreign occupation (and they should) but heartily deny Palestinians any way to resist their occupation. Even non-violent methods of resistance like the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign is vilified. Why the double standard? Even Zelensky has twice voiced unilateral support for Israel saying that “Israel’s right to self-defense is unquestionable”. Zelensky ought to see how his invaded and occupied land is more akin to the situation of the Palestinians than the Israelis. The obfuscations are everywhere.
So are the double standards. We certainly did hear a great deal in the US about the Israeli's killed or abducted by Hamas, as we should, but will those same voices rise to the same volume for Palestinians killed in Gaza? It does not seem so.
The double standard may be expected considering how the plight of the Palestinians has been discussed in the past, but that doesn’t eliminate its moral darkness. It’s also particularly dangerous and tone-deaf at this moment, when the Neytanyahu government is using unprecedented violence on a largely defenseless and penned-in population.
We want to force Russia and Ukraine to the negotiation table while turning a blind eye to Israel’s relentless bombing, which Biden admitted is “indiscriminate,” has made Gaza an uninhabitable ruin killing nearly 30,000.
Putin and Netanyahu both need to be firmly put in their place.Furthermore, if one does a deep dive into the history and facts and plenty of video evidence from 2009 - 2021 ... one should easily be able to conclude that Crimea was FINE being part of the Russian Republic.
Crimea was not under occupation any more than Moscow is under occupation... it was a tourist destination and site of the most important Russian naval base Russia has. Russia/Putin poured billions into building that bridge and improving its infrastructure.
The people there actually had a VOTE and seceded when Ukraine had a nonfunctional OVERTHROWN government with a puppet regime put in temporary control. The overwhelming majority wanted OUT of Ukraine.
WTF are we doing saying we are "defending Democracy"... Isn't that really democracy?
90% of the people living there are Russian or have Russian family, they speak Russian, do business with Russia... is it really hard to believe that as Ukraine fell into chaos they wanted out?
Of course not.
So why is there war?
Because Ukraine didn't want to negotiate a peace in the Donbas region and wanted to take Crimea back.
And if the Biden Administration hadn't supported Ukraine in this nonsense, there wouldn't be a war. This is our war, we fund it, arm it, train it... and Ukraine pays the price in lives lost and ruined because of it.
I doubt you will ever type a sentence I feel to be more true than this.
I think that also pretty much sums up the Biden Administration's foreign affairs efforts."Crimea was not under occupation any more than Moscow is under occupation... it was a tourist destination and site of the most important Russian naval base Russia has. Russia/Putin poured billions into building that bridge and improving its infrastructure."
Don't start with your russian propaganda. It's obvious you get your talking points from a russian source.
Many of the things you espouse were spoken by putin during the tucker carlson interview.
"Because Ukraine didn't want to negotiate a peace in the Donbas region and wanted to take Crimea back."
That's right. They are Ukrainian territories as they have been for decades.
Those territories were illegally annexed. This is the opinion of Europe and most of the world.Mike, your country is not better off for this war. The people are not better off for this war, things aren't going to get better for Ukraine if this war continues.
The American MIC is better off for this war, BlackRock is better off for this war, maybe other power players are better off for this war that I don't know about.
America's economy, the EU's economy, the citizens of these nations, are not better off because we are fighting this war. Clearly other parts of the world are beginning to unravel, in part, because of this war.
America, the UK and parts of Ukraine, its current leadership, thought they could force their will upon Russia, felt they could overthrow Putin or get the Russian economy to collapse, or whatever the 'think-tank' insight was at that time. They were wrong. It is time to see this reality, it is no longer in question. The war needs to end... if it escalates things only get worse, for the world.Guess who is no better off for having started this war? russia. This conflict was started by russia. Ukraine has every right under international law to defend its sovereignty. This point is agreed upon by the world.
russia thought they could just go into Ukraine and take what territory they wanted without any pushback.
They were wrong.
Ukraine has gone to war with the fourth largest army in the world. They regained over 70% of their territory that was initially overrun by russia.
It is estimated by the Institute for the study of war that russia has lost approximately 1/3 of its army to this conflict. That is soldiers, equipment, tanks, airplanes, air defense, rocket launchers, APC, attack helicopters, etc. That is huge. Their black sea fleet has been decimated by Ukraine using drones in the water and air. russia has lost over 300,000 men in this war. It is estimated at the rate russia is going, they will have lost 400,000 by April. Not wounded, but 400,000 KIA. This past month there was more than one day when russia lost over 1,000 solders, in a day. A single day.
Their tactics have all failed. They are now reduced to using human waves to try and to make progress. Anybody who knows warfare knows history has shown this will work for a period of time, and then you run out of men and equipment. Ever study the Battle of the Bulge?
russia can't keep fighting this war with the losses they are experiencing.
I look at the front lines and the battle maps daily. russia's attack groups are getting smaller. They are using older and less effective equipment in their front lines because that is all they have. Their troops are not motivated. Many run when the shells start to drop. They have troops behind the attack groups with orders to shoot the attack group if they don't go forward.
russia is down to using North Korean ammunition and drones from Iran.
It's just a matter of time before russia's military become so run down they won't be able to hold their positions.That is open to debate, from what I have heard from people that have visited Russia in the last year, they are doing better than ever.
True or not, I don't care.
I care about America. I care about our economy, and by extension the global economy since it is all tied together.
I care about our skyrocketing out of control debt, this war is borrowed money... borrowed money that means higher inflation, borrowed money that means time taken off the clock, the ticking clock to when our fiat dollar collapses, our banking system collapses and all Americans suffer.
I damned sure care about not starting WWIII with the country that has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and is proving themselves to be our equal when it comes to weapon technology... which means their ability to hit America with nukes is a pretty sure thing.
You look at this from a Ukraine perspective, and honestly, I don't give a rats ass about Zelensky, or the Ukraine government, the sooner it folds the sooner this war ends, the sooner Ukraine can recover and its people can stop suffering.
You really should consider America's track record... how is Afghanistan doing? How about Iraq? Libya? Syria?
Is there any nation better off for our military intervention for the last 30 years?
Do you really think Ukraine is going to fair better if they keep this up, if they allow America to continue to use them, until the last drop of Ukraine blood is spilt?"That is open to debate, from what I have heard from people that have visited Russia in the last year, they are doing better than ever."
Who are these people? Are they relatives?
"Do you really think Ukraine is going to fair better if they keep this up, if they allow America to continue to use them, until the last drop of Ukraine blood is spilt?"
You don't understand Ukraine or their history with russia. One only has to start with Holodomor to begin to understand the hatred for those in power in russia. I know Ukrainians, they will fight until the last drop of Ukraine blood is spilt. They will fight this war against russia for generations if necessary. If the United States was to pull it's funding, they would go elsewhere for money and support. Trust me, they will not surrender or quit.
They are that determined and focused.
What is strange is that most Ukrainian people have no problem with russian people. When it come to the relationship between russian and Ukrainian people. Loosely translated it goes "Love the children but hate the parents."
They had freedom.
This is not about freedom.
This is not about Democracy.
This is about Ukraine did not want to negotiate over Donbas and wanted to take Crimea from Russia so Zelensky refused to honor the Minsk Agreement.
In 2019 they were talking peace and end to conflict.
World leaders including Russia's Putin meet with Ukraine leader, aim to end conflict
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAg2deQY-UI
Russia President Putin And Ukraine President Zelensky Sit Down For Peace Talks For First Time | TIME - 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvdmnFQuXQY
Biden gets in Office... and all of a sudden its all about taking Crimea and no compromise, no negotiations.
Zelenskiy Calls For The 'De-Occupation' Of Crimea In UN Speech - 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnAnMxOkKSM
So... prior to all this, Crimea was doing just fine:
Life Inside Putin’s Crimea - 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzO7gIT5GYU
I am not arguing that all nations agree that Crimea had a right to secede or that Russia didn't seize control of aspects (mostly military assets) of Crimea in 2014. For example:
Ukraine crisis - 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNFj5fsEbHA
Taking over a Ukrainian Base - 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBLs_AsBtjg
But it was done, 8 years had passed. Crimea part of Russia. Time to move on. Time to end the conflict in Donbas. Time to negotiate.
Zelensky and Biden refused. Still refuse. Ukrainians pay the price.Yeah; Ukraine ‘had’ freedom and democracy: Russia is not a free democratic country, it’s a dictatorship:
Russia invaded and occupies a large portion of Ukraine; and would be in control of the whole of Ukraine if they hadn’t been pushed back.
It is about Freedom; If Mexico annexed Texas would you have the same attitude?
I’m sorry, but your views are nothing more than Russian propaganda – Unlike you, having lived under the Russian threat in Europe all my life, I do know what the Ukrainians are going through.Nathan,
He does put forth russian talking points as well as propaganda. If you watched Tucker Carlson interview with putin, he espouses many of the same talking points.
Using twisting facts to portray russia as a victim. The country that invaded another sovereign country for no other reason than they could.
Many in Europe realize russia would love nothing better than to rebuild the former soviet union. If they are not stopped in Ukraine, they will try to make it happen.
"This is about Ukraine did not want to negotiate over Donbas and wanted to take Crimea from Russia so Zelensky refused to honor the Minsk Agreement."
I struggle to read anything more detached from reality.
Crimea was illegally annexed by russia. That is something Europe and the rest of the world agree on. It is a fact.
The Donbas is Ukrainian territory. russia shipped its paramilitary groups into the area to take it from Ukraine.
How mentally sick and disturbed to believe a country defending itself against an aggressor led by a leader who could be likened to Hitler is wrong.
This could be over tomorrow if russia would go back behind its borders and stop its aggression.Its funny, what you call 'freedom' in the UK I would call oppression.
I pretty much keep those thoughts to myself as you prattle on about how great the UK is at policing up the internet.
Or how your free medical system can have you waiting, months, years for a procedure... but it is free, relatively speaking.
We all have different perspectives of what "freedom" is. Yours does not match mine.
The point was Ukraine WAS free... of war... of occupation.
But they didn't want to negotiate with Russia, so Russia did exactly what the UK, the Biden Administration, and others wanted it to do... it used a 'special military operation' to force the matter.
And here we are... with Russia NOT collapsing like the brilliant strategists in the Pentagon, DC and the UK thought... with Putin NOT overthrown like those same brilliant minds expected would happen... and, from all we can tell, Russia doing better than ever.
Yeah... it was worth it... not negotiating... we sure showed Russia and the world... you stand up to America and the UK and just look at what happens to you.So you honestly believe the UK is not a free and democratic country?
That says a lot about how little you truly know about politics and society on this side of the pond; for example your views of the NHS is skewed by the distorted news sources you read.
FYI: the NHS deals with over 570 million visits a year – from a population of 67 million (you do the maths). Out of all those visits the majority who need a medical procedure are dealt with within 8.3 weeks, and 95% of those needing non-life threating surgery are dealt with within a year: Any life threating condition is treated without delay in the NHS.
The main reasons why 5% of those needing non-life threatening surgery have to wait for more than 12 months is three fold, as follows:-
1. By Jan 2021 the NHS lost over 6% of its staff (85,000 nurses, and 4,000 doctors) due to Brexit e.g. EU citizens leaving Britain and returning home to the EU because of Brexit.
2. During the height of the pandemic in Jan 2021, 63% of NHS beds were occupied by covid patients, resulting in many non-life threatening surgery being postponed, adding to an already increasing waiting list due to Brexit.
3. Protracted Industrial Action (strike action) by the NHS staff over the past two years has exasperated the position, causing even further delays in non-life threatening surgery for a small percentage of those waiting for the surgery.
But in spite of Brexit, the pandemic and Industrial action by the NHS, I, my family and my friends haven’t been affected by any delays; when we’ve needed medical help (which is increasingly frequent at our age) we’ve always been seen and treated without delay.
• My personal experience being that I was rushed to hospital in Jan 2021 for a potential life threating condition.
• I spent three weeks in hospital being treated, and during that time had just about every test and scan imaginable; then
• Frequently, initially monthly, returning to the hospital for tests, monitoring and check-ups, until I made a near full recovery last summer.
In a separate incident, the year before last, on returning from holiday I had an infection in the leg, I got a doctors appointment the same day I phoned the doctor, who did tests and arranged for scans the following day – It turned out to be nothing serious, but the NHS wasn’t taking any chances.
And on other occasions in the past, whenever I wanted to see my doctor, whether it’s been trivial matters or not, I’ve always have had an appointment and any tests and treatment without delay; and these days (because of my age) my doctor routinely asks to see me for an annual check-up anyway.
As I said at the start, from a population of 67 million, the NHS deals with over 570 million visits a year – So I, like the vast majority of Brits, think they do a marvellous job.
Watch as the UK claps to say thank you to the NHS: https://youtu.be/AHfHMvH7owo
With regards to Ukraine, what is there to negotiate; Russia invaded a Sovereign State, so it’s only natural for a Sovereign State to defend itself against an aggressor. Russia miss judged the situation, because they thought Ukraine would be a pushover and that they could conquer the whole of it within days.
If Mexico invaded Texas would you have the same attitude?"The point was Ukraine WAS free... of war... of occupation."
For those of us in touch with reality this is statement is simply insane.
Prior to the invasion Crimea had been illegally annexed by russia. There was a proxy war being fought with russia in Donetsk.
It may not have been covered this way in Tass or Pravada, but it is reality.
Prior to the invasion russia also had 1/3 larger army and many more ships than is does now.Mike,
If the goal was to take out some Russian ships and military equipment then this effort has been a success, Senator Graham and yourself, many in the Pentagon, seem happy with the results.
If the goal was to avoid the destruction of millions of people's lives, the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, the loss of a quarter of Ukraine, and who knows how much more destruction to come... then so far this has been a horrible failure.
I guess it depends on what goals you have in mind and what you consider a win to be."some Russian ships and military equipment"
Taking out 1/3 of the 4th largest military in the world is a huge success.
russia's military has proven to be ineffective and not modern. They are using World War II tactics. They are being beaten back by Ukraine's superior utilization of drone technology. Things Ukraine is developing on its own. The United States has their "advisors" in the battlefield to observe the success of Ukraine's drone technology.
The war is far from over. russia is utilizing it's resources up at a frightening rate. They can't keep up this level of battle for long. If things keep going at this rate, russia will not have the resources to defend it own borders by the time summer arrives.
russia would do best to go back behind its borders and save what is remaining of its military.
They are no longer a threat to invade any other country. They don't have the resources."I guess it depends on what goals you have in mind and what you consider a win to be." - duh - Freedom.
And today's headline will put this thread right back on track:
SENATE BETRAYS AMERICA, Pre Dawn Vote APPROVES $95B In Ukraine, Israel Funding As US Facing INVASIONYeah but the house wants immigration AGAIN... So Senate funding bill is apparently DOA in the house until they get immigration.
I think addressing our border should come before sending another hundred billion dollars to foreign war efforts.
Back on the subject of our Debt comes a recent report/analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Budget.
Can Donald Trump Eliminate the Debt? published Feb 28, 2024
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/can-donald-t … inate-debt
The opening is:
"In discussing another potential term in office, last month, former President Donald Trump declared, "we’re going to pay off our debt.” President Trump similarly promised to pay off the national debt within eight years during his 2016 presidential campaign.
Although it is impossible to know the future, this claim is almost certainly false. Absent massive revenue increases – which President Trump has never mentioned – it would be literally impossible to pay off the national debt over the four years of the next presidential term, and practically impossible to pay it off over the ten-year budget window.
Over four years, even eliminating all spending would not be enough to pay off the debt, nor would doubling revenue collection. Over ten years, paying off the debt would require cutting all federal spending by about 60 percent or boosting revenue by two-thirds. Assuming Social Security, Medicare, and defense spending are exempt from cuts – consistent with President Trump’s rhetoric – even eliminating all remaining spending would not pay off the debt without trillions of additional revenues."
Note: For learning or curiosity using the link to 'Interactives' at the top of landing page are interesting topics.CRFB Reacts to the President’s FY 2025 Budget (Mar 11, 2024)
CRFB = Committee for a Responsible Budget
https://www.crfb.org/press-releases/crf … 025-budget
The PDF document of the actual 2025 Budget Proposal follows next (188 pages - I use Adobe Acrobat Reader and I have contents links on the left using hyperlinks to jump to the topic)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u … fy2025.pdf
President Biden released his Fiscal Year 2025 budget request today, including a number of tax and spending proposals and a roadmap for the country’s finances over the next decade.
Under the President’s budget, based on its own estimates, the national debt would rise to $45.1 trillion or 105.6 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2034, from $27.4 trillion or about 97 percent of GDP today. The budget would reduce deficits by a net $3.3 trillion over the next decade, relative to its baseline.
Concluding last three paragraphs . . .
"We are entering an inflection point in our nation’s fiscal history. Time is of the essence to get our situation under control. Both the economy and our national security depend on it.
This budget is an important step in the right direction, but it’s still too little. The budget lacks a plan to put the debt on a downward path, to pay for its proposed tax cut extensions, or to prevent the 23 percent across-the-board Social Security benefit cut – the equivalent of a $17,400 cut for a newly retired couple – scheduled to take effect around 2033.
We need presidential leadership to take the bull by the horns and get our fiscal health under control, and we need Congressional leadership as well. With divided government in an election year, we know it won’t be easy – it hardly ever is. Nevertheless, the President and Congress should work together, as they did last year with the Fiscal Responsibility Act, to begin making some serious progress."Released March 11, 2024 is Analysis of the President's FY 2025 Budget by the Committee for a Responsible Budget.
https://www.crfb.org/papers/analysis-pr … 2025budget
Its a deep dive graphics and all. The key highlights are:
** Debt would approach but not breach its previous record as a share of the economy, growing to a high of 106 percent of GDP by 2030 and stabilizing around that level. In nominal dollars, debt would grow by $17.7 trillion, from $27.4 trillion today to $45.1 trillion by the end of 2034.
** Deficits would total $16.3 trillion (4.6 percent of GDP) between FY 2025 and 2034, reaching $1.7 trillion (3.9 percent of GDP) in 2034.
** Spending and revenue would average 24.4 and 19.7 percent of GDP, respectively, over the next decade, with spending totaling 24.2 percent of GDP and revenue 20.3 percent of GDP in 2034. The 50-year historical average is 21.0 percent of GDP for spending and 17.3 percent for revenue.
** The proposals in the President’s budget would reduce projected deficits by $3.3 trillion on net through 2034, including $3.2 trillion of new spending and tax breaks, $5.2 trillion of revenue increases, over $900 billion of spending reductions, and nearly $400 billion of net interest savings.
** The budget irresponsibly punts on tax cut extensions and Social Security solvency by calling to extend expiring tax cuts for those earning below $400,000 with offsets and extend Social Security solvency but failing to specify the policies to accomplish these goals or incorporate the cost of the extensions.
** The budget assumes strong economic growth and stable inflation, with assumptions in line with consensus over the next few years but somewhat more optimistic later in the decade. The budget assumes real GDP growth of 2.1 percent per year, compared to CBO’s 2.0 percent projection. It assumes the ten-year Treasury yield to average 3.8 percent, compared to CBO’s 4.0 percent.
Also, for interest the following article from Newsweek . . .
What a Second Trump Term Means for Taxes (Mar 12, 2024)
https://www.newsweek.com/what-second-tr … m=Bulletin
"In an interview with Newsweek, Oswald said a second Trump term would be unlikely to see America's national debt, which currently stands at $34 trillion, slashed due to the Republican front-runner's support for tax cuts and relatively high spending.
"Gravity is ultimately going to catch up with us and we have to start paying our bills," Oswald said."
"Oswald said that if elected in November, Trump will be under pressure from Republican donors to cut the highest rate of income tax, which currently sits at $609,350+ for singles, and $731,200+ for a married couple filing together."Debt
The White House Claims Borrowing $16 Trillion Over the Next Decade Is Fiscally Responsible by Reason online (Mar 12, 2024)
If you can't even get close to balancing the budget when unemployment is low, tax revenues are near record highs, and the economy is booming, when can you do it?
https://reason.com/2024/03/12/the-white … sponsible/
Is this a formula for debt?
"For fiscal year 2025, which begins on October 1 of this year, Biden is asking Congress to spend $7.3 trillion while the federal government will collect just $5.5 trillion in taxes. That will necessitate borrowing $1.8 trillion to make ends meet. Over the 10-year window covered by the president's budget plan, federal revenues would exceed $70 trillion, but Biden is proposing to spend $86.6 trillion."
What do you think?
Wisdom?
Can Trump fix it? How?Taxes, Taxes, Taxes What is that old adage? "Death and Taxes" stated by Benjamin Franklin way back in 1789.
Large parts of the 2017 Tax Cuts & Jobs Act (TCJA) are set to expire at the end of 2025. Design your own solution below.
Taxes directly affect the nation's Debt, the tax payers pocket book, business owners P&L statements, and revenue to operate the nation.
How to solve the dilemma? Maybe you may want to give a go at it. You can do that with The Committee for a Responsible Budget tool for deciding the varied tax schemes. They provide the ability to forward your solution to policy makers at the option at the bottom of the page.
Build Your Own Tax Extensions
https://www.crfb.org/build-your-own-tax-extensions
Note: Worth a peek just to see what decisions are to be made by our legislators. Have fun and see your results,
If you want to play with the budget to Fix the National Debt go to the next link.
https://www.crfb.org/debtfixer
Also, worth a peek and become informed what is debated, thrown at the wall and see what sticks, or come up with wild A** guess. It can be fun.Debt, Deficit, Taxes, and a Budget
The $6T Gap Between Trump’s and Biden’s Tax Plans | WSJ YouTube video (6:01 min.) Mar 27th, 2024 by Wall Street Journal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSUtQPa4g-8
A short and sweet video explaining the differences between the concepts of Trump and Biden that will affect; Debt, Deficit, Taxes, and the Budget. The goal is to lower the Debt, right?I do not believe there is a single person on Capitol Hill that has a goal of lowering debt.
Possibly (possibly!) lowering the deficit, although I doubt that any are sincere in that, either, but never the debt. Every budget proposed for years now has been deficit spending, meaning the debt goes up.
Related Discussions
- 71
Obama spends less than any other president!
by Sophia Angelique 11 years ago
From Forbes Magazine.http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 … ack-obama/Quote: "So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative? It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal...
- 47
Debt Debate, Why not Balance the Budget?
by American View 12 years ago
OK I give up. Armageddon is coming. President makes threats, talks down to Americans, Dems plan has fake cuts and they refuse to look at Repubs offers, Repubs balking at Dems offers saying no raising the taxes. No wonder Bachmann has a migraine. Forget politics, forget which plan you think is...
- 71
The Freedom Caucus and Its Rich Spoiled Brat Kids.
by Mike Russo 10 months ago
- 30
US national debt hits a record $22 trillion
by IslandBites 5 years ago
This year, the deficit is projected by the Treasury Department to exceed $1 trillion, an increase from $779 billion last year. That comes as the United States’ national debt exceeds $22 trillion.Four years ago, when a slew of Republicans were running for president, then-candidate Donald Trump was...
- 9
Do you think a conservative government would lead us back into a recession?
by seanorjohn 14 years ago
Do you think a conservative government would lead us back into a recession?
- 29
Is There Something Wrong With The Idea About Paying Our National Debt?
by Eugene Hardy 12 years ago
14 Trillion Dollars.That is a lot of debt.If we were a house hold with a $15,000.00 debt that the house must pay, or face bankruptcy, then the house and all it’s members must work to together to do it.It will take more than 20 years probably to pay it off, meaning multiple administrations and...