Trump and GOP to slash Medicaid just to line pockets of Fat Cats?
In the ongoing war Trump and Republicans wage on the poor, here is the next installment.
After listening to Trump whine endlessly about "Obamacare" saying it needs to be repealed for something better, all we received was a "nothing burger". Now he shows us all what his ideas of national health care programs look like.
-------
"Among the proposals is a plan to reduce access to Medicaid, the government scheme which provides health insurance to low-income Americans, in a move which would cause 600,000 people to lose access to healthcare."
"Trump has touted the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as a key achievement of his first term. The legislation, which reduced the top corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%, is set to expire at the end of 2025, and the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated extending it would add $4.6tn to the deficit."
--------------
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … ding-trump
I cannot stand that guy...."Among the proposals is a plan to reduce access to Medicaid,"
I think this could be a good thing. Medicaid is one of the most abused programs of the federal government. It is overwhelmed with fraud. It is time to put things in place to deal with this fraud costing tax payers billions every year.
"Taxpayers are losing more than $100 billion a year to Medicare and Medicaid fraud, according to estimates from the National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association.
“That’s probably a conservative number,” Pérez Aybar said. “When we think about all lines of business in Medicare and Medicaid, that’s probably a drop in the bucket.”
The proliferation of crime has taxed the inspector general, which has just 450 agents around the country. The amount at stake is staggering: Medicare spends about $901 billion a year on its 65 million beneficiaries, while Medicaid spends $734 billion providing medical coverage to more than 85 million poor and disabled Americans every year, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which falls under HHS. The inspector general describes the fraud as prevalent and inventive, routinely ensnaring full-time criminals as well as legitimate doctors and health-care professionals gone bad, according to its annual reports.
Ripping off Medicare is ‘easy’
“It’s just so easy. It’s unbelievable,” said one Miami man, who admitted that he used to make a living by stealing from Medicare.
inspector general agents in 2021 found $2.5 million in cash wrapped in plastic tucked inside PVC pipes under the home of Jesus Garces. He is serving a 12½-year sentence after he pleaded guilty that year to one count of conspiracy to commit health-care fraud and wire fraud. Garces was operating a fraudulent Medicare company out of a strip mall, Pérez Aybar said. A government informant recorded Garces on a hidden camera smiling as he counted cash he stole from Medicare, according to investigators and a copy of the video obtained by CNBC."
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/09/how-med … he-us.htmlWell, do we use a chain saw or ax to address abuse? I can think of any federal agency that is free of that accusation. Millions rely on Medicare and Medicaid.
Pursuing abuse should be exacting and not have the magnitude of affecting millions that are innocent. But, I cannot expect Trump to be reasonable about anything. Cut out the tumor and leave the rest of the body alone.If people legally qualify for Medicaid they will still get it.
There are so many people collecting Medicaid who don't qualify the numbers are staggering.
There are people who are doing quite well financially yet get Medicaid because they know how to work the system. Too many wealthy people are using money intended for the poor and this has to stop.
This has been in high gear since the Obama administration.
"Unfortunately, several studies show that many older people with significant real estate and financial asset holdings get long-term care from Medicaid for free or at subsidized rates. These findings should not be surprising because, in many states, the rules and administration of the program are loose and porous, and little effort is made to recover assets from the estates of deceased Medicaid users, despite this being required by federal law. By my estimate every year almost $6 billion of Medicaid funds are inappropriately used for the long-term care of individuals with significant asset holdings. Breaking this amount down, almost $3 billion could be recuperated from enhanced estate recoveries and more than $3 billion from retirement assets."Mike, part of Trumps scheme is to change the qualification requirements and that goes beyond ferreting out and exposing fraud. Trump and GOP thugs are trying to suffocate the program while presenting a phony efficiency explanation. Cads all.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/me … g-congress
No one hurt the poor more in my lifetime than the Democrat led government of the previous 4 years.
Between 20-30% inflation on things that are essential, like food, insurance.
Interest rates that took things from 2.5% interest on a new home purchased to 7.5%... do the math on a 200k home, a starter home, today you pay more for the interest than the actual principal.
I could go other places with that as well, like bringing in millions of migrants to compete for those 'low wage' jobs that are kept 'low wage' because of all the migrants shipped in to fill them... rather than American workers...
But hey... what's the point... they did great the last 4 years, right?
Just my bias that sees it any other way.I think Medicare should definitely be investigated for abuses. The problems seem to be piling up, and it’s getting harder to ignore. There’s fraudulent billing happening all over, with providers submitting false claims for services that were never rendered or overbilling for treatments. Kickbacks are another issue, where providers are offering bribes in exchange for patient referrals. Then there’s overutilization, with unnecessary treatments or services being given just to make more money. Some providers aren’t even qualified to offer the services they’re billing for, and others are misrepresenting what they’ve done, submitting claims for services that never actually took place.
On top of that, we’ve seen identity theft where people are using others' Medicaid IDs to gain access to benefits. There are also instances of medically unnecessary prescriptions being written, just to fill quotas or benefit financially. Duplicate billing is common too, with providers charging for the same service multiple times. And let’s not forget about overcharging for services or medications above the allowed Medicaid rates. There’s even patient abuse and neglect happening in some cases, all driven by the financial incentives that come with Medicaid reimbursement.
Do you feel just ignoring these problems is wise? In my view, this is part of our government's problem—they tend to ignore issues and hope they’ll just go away. But it’s clear that the problems with Medicaid aren’t going away, they’re only growing. It’s time for a serious investigation.
If the issues with Medicaid aren’t addressed, there’s definitely a risk that it could collapse or at least become severely compromised. The program is already under immense financial strain, and with the growing number of abuses. Medicaid was designed to provide healthcare for those who are less fortunate, and we need to keep that in mind. It’s crucial that we do everything we can to ensure its solvency and make sure it continues to serve those who depend on it.I have no problem with ferreting out illegality and abuse in the administration of the program. My problem is that as I sent to the link to Mike, Trumps ultimate goal is to destroy the program with changed requirements taking people from the rolls that are not guilty of anything. Making the poor all the more vulnerable is not part of reforming the program, or it shouldn't be. Deftly use the scalpel and put the chain saw aside.
We watch from across the pond in horror as Trump imposes acute economic austerity in America, the likes of which hasn’t been seen in Europe since WWII.
On this side of the pond we do pity those Americans who are not white middle class Christian American; and the discrimination and hardship they face.
I wonder how long it will be before it dawns on those who put Trump into power that they have voted for a fascist leader who wants world domination?
It’s quite a different picture on this side of the pond. For example, the 4-day week is gaining traction in the UK; and some leading UK economists are predicting that it will become the norm by 2030.
In recent years many countries around the world took part in a ‘four-day work week trial’, granting employees 100% pay for working 80% of their normal hours, including Iceland, Belgium, South Africa, Japan, Spain, New Zealand, Portugal, Germany, UK, Ireland, Australia, Canada, Spain, Germany, and Lithuania, France.
The trial took place in the UK from June 2022 to December 2022, with 70 companies participating in the trials. Following the worldwide successful trial, in late 2022 Belgium became the first country in Europe to legislate for a four-day week. Following the successful trial, the Conservatives (when they were in power) quite naturally blocked its introduction into the UK.
However, the incoming Labour Government has given the green light; and just a few days ago in the UK over 200 Companies signed up to making the 4-day work week permanent for all their employees without any loss of pay; thus giving their employees more leisure time to spend their money.
200 UK Companies Permanently Move To 4-Day Work Week: https://youtu.be/x8yVG9wLWlY"On this side of the pond we do pity those Americans who are not white middle class Christian American; and the discrimination and hardship they face."
This is a statement based on nothing more than pure and simple ignorance.
It's ignorance that I find humorous. Maybe you pay too much attention to the stupid, ignorant members of the democrat party and the left. That is quite foolish.
They do not have a grip on reality.
And...The United States has the largest economy in the world. Our country leads in technological innovation and the world of finance. It also is home to most of the wealthiest people in the world.
Keep your four day work week. We'll keep our financial and economic success.We may have the largest economy in the world, but it is important to understand that the pillars... on which that economy is built... have been severed, its only a matter of time for the inevitable economic collapse.
This might have occurred through a natural course of China (and others) getting stronger and America declining...
But what the Biden Administration did, thoroughly and with knowing determination IMO, as they want to transition to a digital currency they can control completely...
You know what, I went and found a video that explains it very well... it is worth the listen, so that you know what is coming in the years ahead (not decades anymore... a few years at best)... go to the seven minute mark on this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2mMASKka0g
It will be interesting to see if Trump can shore up America so that the damage created by Biden's actions are muted to some degree... I believe this is why certain efforts, like the acquirement of Greenland, have taken on a serious urgency that many do not understand.Ken,
I think the comment brings up a solid point. When I look at the broader picture of the challenges the U.S. has faced due to the Biden administration—like inflation, global energy shifts, and strained international relationships—I can see why one would think that Trump's efforts to shore up America might be an attempt to counteract some of these negative impacts. The push for securing assets like Greenland could be part of that strategy. Greenland, with its natural resources and strategic location, could play a key role in strengthening America’s position, especially given the rising tensions with China and Russia. In my view, Trump’s focus on securing such territories seems like a way to make the U.S. more resilient in the long term, responding to vulnerabilities that I feel were created under Biden’s leadership.Greenland is a nice addition IF the Greenlanders agree to it and want it otherwise it reflects on a unwarranted aggression by the United States.
It means America is putting National interests ahead of the desires of a handful of people.
One of the problems when contending with tyrannical regimes intent on dominating the world... in order to compete with them, keep them in check, and protect oneself from their aggression you must act proactively to protect your interests.
If Greenland has become strategically important and it is considered essential to national interests to keep China from gaining dominance over it... then it doesn't matter what the people of Greenland want.
The world is being divvied up, whether you agree with that being right or not... denying that we are in a 'cold war' a 'world war' does not change the fact that we are in one.Well, Ken, you can promote the American "Empire" to the extent you choose, if we take on the values and attitudes and policies of our adversaries, whose threat to our dominance is just a matter of your conjecture, how are we any better?
Think about it Ken, your national interests justified domination schtick has been used to steal and enslave throughout American history. You can rest assured that I and the left in general will make sure that such a move by Trump remains impossible. The only justification for a US military response is if China attacks Greenland and Greenland, Denmark asks for assistance. Otherwise people should be able to decide their destiny. You certainly insist upon that for yourself, but deny it to others. The truly marked brand of a dyed in the wool conservative.Not at all... I recognize that China's influence, if left unchecked, as it HAS been for decades now, will result in it dominating the world, as we flounder around and make their job easier...as we did the past 4 years.
You know, its funny, we stick our nose in Ukraine's business like it is our right to decide their fate... we are sticking our nose in Romania's election right now, their Democratic election chose candidates we do not like, so we are in the process of having that election invalidated so a 'yes man' puppet can be put in control.
If you do not know about Romania's election, this will explain:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DbmgndlEto
So... we have dumped hundreds of billions, at the least, into our efforts in Ukraine. We are involving ourselves in Romania's elections.
But we can't twist arms over Greenland when it is much more vital to our national interests?
We are going to risk nuclear war with Russia over Crimea... or at least that is what we say the reason is... but we are going to let them waltz into Greenland?
Crimeans voted to leave Ukraine... and we risk nuclear war over it because we say Russia forced them to do so...
Maybe we should plant a couple of CIA cells into Greenland to help convince the people that they want to be part of America... then we can all feel good about it being the people of Greenland's choice.
Maybe Romania wouldn't matter to us, if we didn't have a large military presence there...
Maybe Greenland wouldn't matter to us if we didn't see the looming threat that BRICS/China/Russia presents for our future...
How can Ukraine be essential to risk global war over... and Greenland not be?"Not at all... I recognize that China's influence, if left unchecked, as it HAS been for decades now, will result in it dominating the world, as we flounder around and make their job easier...as we did the past 4 years."
-------
What would you have done outside of declare war on China, as its rising "power" has been unchecked over decades? Were you really ready for that?
I should know that there is an alliance that the US has to deter Russian aggression in the region, are we not part of that? I am aware that the Ukraine remains on the cusp of the alliance. So, your arguments may have some credence.
Greenland is an independent country that has the right to self determination as I do not recognize an American empire as being politically or morally justified.
The Danish government and the Greenlanders have been more than accommodating to US defense concerns within the region, do you have to steal its territory and annex it as well?
"Maybe we should plant a couple of CIA cells into Greenland to help convince the people that they want to be part of America... then we can all feel good about it being the people of Greenland's choice"
More dirty pool, Ken? The leader of Greenland said no soap, how is the CIA going to change that?
I will have to check into the situation regarding Romania and get back with you...Do you see the contradiction?
OK... it should be up to the Greenlanders to decide...
Then why is it not OK for the Crimeans to decide...
Oh... one is a recognized state and one is not...
Oh... so because some authority in the past said that Greenland is a independent state... nation... colony... what is it again?
What is the difference between Crimea and Greenland again?
The overwhelming majority of Crimeans voted to secede from Ukraine, applied to become part of Russia... and that is unacceptable?
Why... because American applied overwhelming pressure on its allies to say so in the UN?
Hmmmm...
So... we have to respect the colony... subjects of Denmark was it?
The fifty thousand or so...
Who aren't really a nation of peoples that can relay their history for hundreds... thousands of years... like the history of the Crimean people can... the Russian speaking... Russian heritage... people of Crimea...
The people who fought for independence from Ukraine for long before 2014...
Yeah... I don't see the difference between having to respect what the people of Greenland want... all 50 thousand of them... and what the 2.5 million Crimeans wanted...Well, Ken, there are such things as Civil War. Could the Conferate States Of America decide?
Greenland is geography and politically separated from the United States. Even China and Russia have more compelling reasons concerning Taiwan and the Ukraine, respectively.
There have been accusations of Russia influencing our elections here. So none of this is new. We have no connection with Greenland and its annexation against the will of its residents is pure aggression, nothing less. Neither the US or NATO has threatened to apply concept of annexations in response to irregularities in the Romanian election process. They are allowed to sort this out, without our unwarranted military involvement to attain to a desired outcome. America's incursion is quite different in the face of that.
The differences are that the territorial disputes in Europe are regional and the positions of both sides have merit and the circumstances are more akin to our own civil war rather than bald faced aggression solely on the greed and unwarranted fears of Trump his saber rattlers. And I predict this initiative from Trump will simply have too much political resistance to go anywhere.From that point of perspective... and taking America out of any of those three situations, I can agree.
However, that was not the emphasis I was targeting.
I was targeting America's actions, interference, etc.
Why is it OK for us to NOT respect the will of the voters in Crimea...
Or the voters in Romania...
You expect it to be different for Greenland?
Again... if we are going to intercede in Ukraine because it suits our interests, if we are going to pull strings in Romania because it suits our interests, why would Greenland not follow suit?
The difference really is, that we lie and pretend as to the reasons why we interject ourselves in Ukraine, in Syria, in Libya...
While Trump just comes out and says, we need to ensure Greenland does not fall into China or Russia's sphere of influence, so we are going to proactively interject ourselves and take control of Greenland in some manner...
I prefer the blunt aggression and truthfulness of Trump over the lies and deceit our government has long operated under.Ken,
Interesting paper from the Hoover Institute.
"Fascism—an “Ism” of the Left, not the Right
Left liberals have never dared face the fact that Marxism-Leninism and fascism, V. I. Lenin and Mussolini had a common origin.
https://www.hoover.org/research/fascism … -not-right"Oxford Dictionaries 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. 2 (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice. The term fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of ... fascist n. fascistic adj."
Are you going to argue with the Oxford dictionary definition too, Mike?So you are saying that that book contains no mistakes? Which God was the author?
But, Doc, questioning the veracity of both the Websters and Oxford dictionary is pure bullsh!t, in favor of what? Some reinterpretation and revisionist nonsense from a rightwing think tank? You all with have to do much better than this....
So, both the authoritative reference sources are incorrect? I had an argument with my brother who like you dismissed authoritative sources to replace those with their own biases and opinions for which he had no substantive contrary evidence and accused the enclyopedia of being in error over the date of a historical occurrence.I am really surprised by your comment to be honest. Since you are interested in civil rights I would assume that you know the history of books and that they are all biased, based on the bias of the publishers. Arent you familiar with the books that were published about the time that Wilson was president in the US, in which it was a well established fact that blacks were inferior based on their morphology. If you had gone to any university at the time they could have pulled up plenty of published books by respected scientists to prove their cases. Does that mean it is true? We both know the answer to that.
where is the substantial contrary evidence, or is this all just based upon your opinion? That is not good enough.
the interpretation of the English language and a word and its meaning is not what we are talking about and you know better.
I am aware of bias in publications and even encyclopedias in past times. Information changes and corrects with time, but you rightwingers have no leg to stand on. I am surprised that you can take all this seriously, rightwingers are further gone than I had ever thought.
But the definition of cat does not change. You have yet to prove that the term ""fascist" is misapplied. What compelling evidence do you have that fascism has a contrary definition beside your just saying so? This, also, is not good enough.You do know that Google changed their definition of facist and added that "right wing" lie to appease the leftists in power? They will be changing it back soon enough.
As Winston Churchill so aptly pointed out, in the future the facists are going to call themselves anti-facist.all of this stuff is just pure conjecture on your part. I am not talking about Google or even wikipedia. I am talking about reference sources that earn their credibility over centuries. Until it "changes back", I am going to stick with the current dictionary definitions as fascism being a right wing movement. That is good enough for me. Winston Churchill is not a lexicographer source. That is also, not good enough as a counter.
Okay, I do not have a 1930 copy of that book to show you, and even if I did I am not sure whether or not you would accept that things have changed since then.
No, I do have a couple of examples, a three-volume set of the Encyclopedia Britannica dated 1771. I also have a single book from a volume of the Comptons Encyclopedia 1927 edition. So, I know all about that, all the biases and scientific information found within that has since been debunked. Now, I just wait for the change that reidentifies fascism as a left-wing movement. That just might take a while.
Wow, I am jealous. All of my older books, photos, and even my paintings were destroyed by mold when I moved to the beach in Bahia.
Well, I am sorry not to be able to pass some on to you, I have ancient English law books and biographies from books published in the mid 19th century.
An old German friend of mine, who happened to have served in the Wehrmacht during WWII, and is now 98 years old, worked in at the University of Denver library and he picked up many discarded volumes and gave them to me as he had no use for them. But, I did, as fine collectors items.
Yes, BRICS was coming along prior to Biden.
But that video states many of the points well... particularly in regards to how they sanctioned, then stole, Russian assets. Freezing Russia not only out of foreign banks, but their own.
This was a big fluorescent sign to the rest of the world that holding Dollars no longer protected them from risk... trading in the Dollar was now a very big risk... America could turn on any nation, at any time, for any reason.
To say this was just Biden's fault would be silly, to say Biden in 4 years did more harm to American interests and America's reputation than the last 10 Presidents combined would, however, be accurate.
It was almost as if the Biden Administration wanted to make things better for BRICS, for China, and nothing makes Russia look better than taking on America's "best tech weapons" and defeating them on the field of battle.
If everything the Biden Administration did was to hurt American interests and the future of our nation... then they were very successful in their efforts.Ken,
I completely agree with your thoughts. BRICS was already growing before Biden, but his administration’s actions, particularly regarding sanctions and asset seizures, accelerated the global shift away from the dollar. The freezing and outright taking of Russian assets sent a clear message to the rest of the world that relying on the U.S. financial system was no longer a safe bet.
While Biden isn’t solely responsible for this shift, his policies have undoubtedly done more damage to American interests and global standing than any president in recent history. Whether through incompetence or intent, his administration has strengthened BRICS, empowered China, and even given Russia an opportunity to showcase its military resilience. If their goal was to weaken America's position on the world stage, then they have succeeded beyond measure.
In my view, the Biden administration has significantly weakened America’s global position through a series of missteps that have empowered its adversaries and undermined its own influence. By weaponizing the dollar through sanctions and the seizure of Russian assets, the U.S. signaled to the world that it could freeze or take any country’s financial resources at will. This pushed nations like China, India, and Brazil to accelerate efforts to move away from the dollar, making BRICS and alternative financial systems more attractive. As a result, more countries are now trading in local currencies or turning to China’s yuan, reducing the dollar’s dominance. Instead of isolating Russia, sanctions forced it to deepen its ties with China and other BRICS nations, strengthening economic and military cooperation among U.S. rivals. Meanwhile, China has expanded its global influence, brokering peace deals and securing strategic energy partnerships in regions where the U.S. once held dominance.
On the military front, the war in Ukraine was supposed to showcase America’s superior technology, but instead, Russia has withstood NATO-backed efforts, raising questions about the effectiveness of U.S. military aid. America’s stockpiles are being drained, and its adversaries are growing bolder, with China and Russia increasing their military cooperation.
Biden’s energy policies have also backfired. By restricting domestic oil production while pleading with OPEC+ for more supply, the administration weakened U.S. energy independence and allowed China to secure key energy deals with Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran. This not only strengthens America's adversaries but also raises costs for American citizens. At home, unchecked illegal immigration and rising crime have led to instability, eroding confidence in leadership and weakening the nation’s internal foundation.
The world is now watching as America struggles with its own governance, while China and BRICS nations position themselves as stable alternatives. Biden’s policies have not only accelerated America’s decline but have also emboldened its adversaries. If his administration had set out with the intent to weaken America’s global standing, it’s hard to imagine how they could have done a better."BRICS was already growing before Biden, but his administration’s actions, particularly regarding sanctions and asset seizures, accelerated the global shift away from the dollar."
Still stuck on Biden?
And when Trump pisses off those countries who used to be our friends and allies with tariffs, you don't expect them to turn to others and make new friends? That's really sort of common sense...
"China and BRICS nations position themselves as stable alternatives.".
Lol..agreed
"Biden’s energy policies have also backfired. By restricting domestic oil production while pleading with OPEC+ for more supply,
Us oil production hit records under Biden.
Trump posted today --- I am pleased to know he has this in his sights---- Hey Ken, he is a great problem solver.
They will not 'fall back in line'... the world is being separated...
This might have happened in a decade or so...
Or it may have been avoidable all together in the decades ahead, with other leaders and another generation or two gone by... who can say?
But what the Democrats... the Biden Administration... did over the last 4 years was accelerate this issue, put it on steroids.
Their efforts against Russia backfired, their efforts to 'pay-off' Iran to behave backfired, their efforts in the Global Compact on Migration allowed countries like Venezuela to empty out their jails into America, their efforts to strong arm the UAE and Saudi Arabia alienated them enough to dump the dollar and join BRICS...
As I say... China couldn't have had a better partner in Biden than if he was on their payroll...Trump says 25% tariffs hit tomorrow for Canada and Mexico.... A gift to BRICS.
Ken, I completely agree with your point. The Biden administration has certainly accelerated many issues, and it’s clear that China couldn't have asked for a better ally or yes-man than Biden, or whoever may have been pulling the strings behind him. There have been several incidents that highlight this, such as the withdrawal from Afghanistan, which was a strategic victory for China. Not only did it embarrass the U.S., but it also gave China the opportunity to extend its influence over Afghanistan, especially about mining operations and the Belt and Road Initiative.
Another key moment was Biden's hesitancy to confront China over its human rights abuses and actions in Hong Kong, as well as its aggression toward Taiwan. The administration's reluctance to hold China accountable on these fronts allowed Beijing to push its agenda without significant pushback. Additionally, Biden’s soft stance on trade, particularly with regard to tariffs and the ongoing trade war, further enabled China's economic rise while weakening America's negotiating power. All these instances point to a clear pattern of prioritizing China's interests over America’s, often to the detriment of our global standing.
Ken, at this point, I believe Trump may be our best hope for addressing the issues at hand. I have confidence that if anyone can set things right, it will be him. He seems to understand the larger problems, including those related to BRICS, as his morning posts on social media clearly show. He appears to be fully aware of the concerns that both you and I share.
Ken consider---
President Trump's proposed 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico will actually work to harm BRICS nations. These tariffs are designed to protect U.S. industries and reduce reliance on foreign imports, including those from BRICS countries. By imposing higher tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods, the U.S. is encouraging domestic production and decreasing the importation of products from various countries, including BRICS members. This creates a win-win situation for the U.S.
Moreover, President Trump has expressed concerns about BRICS nations potentially replacing the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency. In response, he has even threatened to impose a 100% tariff on BRICS countries if they attempt to undermine the dollar's status. These are strong, decisive moves— and in my view, strong moves are exactly what’s needed to set things right.
No pain no gain.
It's ignorance that I find humorous. Maybe you pay too much attention to the stupid, ignorant members of the democrat party and the left. That is quite foolish.
--------
Funny, I see your crowd in much of the same light, so do we have an impasse?I don’t watch American news channels, so I don’t get to hear much about what the Democrats are saying; what I mostly see is ‘straight from the horse's mouth’ e.g. all the prejudicial remarks, threats, bullying and lies coming out of Trump’s mouth.
LARGEST ECONOMIES IN THE WORLD:
Yes, the USA does have the largest economy in the world, largely due to its large size - as shown below: In 2024, the EU has the 2nd largest GDP, 2nd to only the USA – with Germany 5th and the UK 7th e.g. the UK was 6th before Brexit.
1. USA GDP: $25.4 trillion.
2. EU GDP: $19.4 trillion
3. China: $14.7 trillion.
4. Japan: $4.3 trillion.
5. Germany: $3.9 trillion.
6. India: $3.4 trillion.
7. UK: $2.7 trillion.
8. France: $2.6 trillion.
However, when you factor in population e.g. GDP per Capita, then it’s a different picture; as shown below:
GDP Per Capita:
• Luxembourg = 1st out of 200 counties @ $135,321
• USA = 6th out of 200 countries @ $86,601
• UK = 20th out of 200 countries @ $52,423
• EU = 25th out of 200 counties @ $43,350
• China = 70th out of 200 countries @ 12,969
TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS
Yes, the USA (largely due to its large size) is a world leader in technological innovations (R&D); but it doesn’t have a monopoly; and there are many areas where the USA is not a world leader e.g. China is a world leader in solar panel technology, and the UK is a world leader in off-shore windfarm technology.
R&D (Research & Development) USA vs EU:
• USA annual expenditure on R&D = $761,583
• EU annual expenditure on R&D = $408,322
WORLD FINANCE
FYI the USA doesn’t dominate ‘world finance’:
• USA turnover (New York) on world’s financial markets = 44% of the market.
• UK turnover (London) on world’s financial markets = 38% of the market.
Also, it might surprise you to learn that the USD ($) is not actually the strongest currency in the world:
The top 10 strongest Currencies in 2025 – from strongest to the weakest are as follows: N.B. both the British Pound and the EU’s Euro are stronger than the USA Dollar.
1. Kuwaiti Dinar (KWD)
2. Bahraini Dinar (BHD)
3. Omani Rial (OMR)
4. Jordan Dinar (JOD)
5. British Pound (GBP)
6. Gibraltar Pound (GIP)
7. Cayman Islands Dollar (KYD)
8. Swiss Franc (CHF)
9. Euro (EUR)
10. United States Dollar (USD)
WEALTHIEST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD
Yep, the USA has most billionaires, but it doesn’t have a monopoly on billionaires; and besides, the number of billionaires does not reflect on the wealth of ordinary people; the size of the ‘wealth gap’ between rich and poor is far more important in society e.g. it often reflects the level of poverty.
Number of Billionaires (in USD) by Country (top 10 countries):
1. USA = 813 billionaires
2. China = 406 billionaires
3. India = 200 billionaires
4. Germany = 132 billionaires
5. Russia = 120 billionaires
6. Italy = 73 billionaires
7. Brazil = 69 billionaires
8. Hong Kong & Canada = 67 billionaires each.
10. UK = 55 billionaires.
The EU dug its own grave when it decided to go along with the idiotic plans to topple Russia that the Biden Administration salivated for.
The EU had it great with cheap oil and resources from Russia, they had the Minsk Accord/Agreements in place, they chose to go with Biden's 'no negotiations' stance and now the chickens are coming home to roost...
The EU is screwed, China is moving in and taking over Germany's auto industry, Germany's industrial might will be gutted, as they no longer have access to cheap energy or cheap labor...
I could go on, but hey, I'm just a dumb American... what do I know about what is going on in the EU... or how things like energy and labor costs effect an economy.Your last paragraph sums it up: You don’t know nor understand what is going on in the EU.
Yes, energy costs are something that we have to grapple with in Europe; but we are grappling with it e.g. a more expedient transition from fossil fuels to Renewable Energy. For example, the new Labour Government has brought forward the Conservatives plans of the UK’s electricity being 100% from Renewable Energy by 5 years, from 2035 to 2030.
As regards labour costs; FYI, the USA has the highest labour costs – How does that affect the American economy?
Labour Costs (annual average salary):-
• USA = $66,622
• UK = $46,524
• EU = $39,349
• China = $17,000
• Russia = $6,702
• India = $2,077
FYI = Yes, in the UK one can live very comfortably on $46,000 annual income.
An interesting concept, working 32 hours for 40 hours pay. The most obvious result will be falling production (per month, per year, however you wish to measure it) and increasing prices (the inevitable result when demand remains constant but supply falls).
I have to wonder how the socialists, pretending that these things won't happen, explain how cutting production 20% will not result in a lowering of supply. Will government then import all those things that were not produced, using money it doesn't have? Do they pretend that raising labor costs by 20% will not result in raising product costs (called inflation)?You missed the point – and that was my fault for not explaining it:
The organization that orchestrated the large-scale worldwide 4-day work week trial in 2022 is "4 Day Week Global".
4 Day Week Global is a not-for-profit advocacy group founded in 2019 by Andrew Barnes (an English businessman) and Charlotte Lockhart (a New Zealander businesswoman).
Their goal is to reshape the way we think about work, by moving the conversation away from hours, and onto productivity and output.
The results of the successful extensive worldwide trial in 2022 were:
• 25% increase in revenue.
• 32% decrease in employee resignations.
• 83% of companies found it easier to attract talent.
• 66% of companies reported a reduction in employees ‘burnout’.
• 94% of Companies wanted to continue on a permanent base after the trial.
It’s the same effect as when businesses in the UK switched from the 16 hour workday to the 8 hour workday in the late 19th century e.g. increased productivity because employees were less burnt-out.
The other point you might have missed; is that no government is forcing private (capitalist) companies to participate. Private companies chose to voluntarily participate in the major worldwide trial in 2022; and now, companies across the world are voluntarily opting to change to the 4-day week because they can see the benefits to their company e.g. increased productivity, lower running costs etc., and thus increased profits.
3 benefits (for employers as well as employees) of a 4-day workweek: https://youtu.be/m-Xb0C4vpy8
"On this side of the pond we do pity those Americans who are not white middle class Christian American; and the discrimination and hardship they face."
The irony of it all is they too, will feel the sharp blade of Trumps meat ax. The system is more about money and Oligarchy than anything else, racism and discrimination is just a subset of the above. I will have to send you a photo of a roadside billboards here in Florida where a rather porculent woman boasts how her commercial attorney got her 600K. The attraction for personal injury lawyers is how much money they can get you when they win your lawsuits for you. I get that that does not happen in England?
I think that people already knew what was in the "package" despite the pretty wrapping. Fear of being overtaken by their neighbor or otherwise loss of status would drive Americans to vote for Lucifer. Pretty shallow stuff, but it worked. And they did.... they all felt that Trumps madness was manufactured by the media as if the preponderance of journalists are lying and Trump tells the truth. With his record? Who would have believed it.
Trump is ready to move from Capitalism to feudalism a concept where you owe your very existence to your employer and benefactor. So, why else water down labor protection, and destroy unions, and make it more difficult to challenge management? Feudalism is one step above slavery.
As a former federal employee, civil servant, I thank God that I am retired and outside of his clutches. We turn a profession cadre of expert dedicated to public service into an organization based on a spoils system, fealty and give relative loyalty to a man instead, the like that was abolished in the 1880s. When I refer to Trump as an exhumed 19th century cadaver walking among us, that is reaffirmed from much of his directives and attitudes. Yes, Arthur, we are in trouble. I would not want to work for him.
You can see that the concept of work and its requirements are going in opposite directions from what you are experiencing in the U.K. and Europe.
Like I told you before regarding America today and as you Brits say, "this is a sticky wicket". Beware of Trumps emissary or ambassador, Elon Musk. He is there to create a world far more amenable to the American form of capitalism so he can make just that much more money. When is enough ever enough? He is a troublemaker determined to promote and agitate the rightwing radical fringe in your societies across the pond. Why else would he be there? Trumpism is an epidemic and is thereby contagious, so I suggest that you protect against infection.Yes, you are right; insanely high personal injury compensation doesn’t happen in England. We do from time to time on this side of the pond get to hear of the insanely high personal injury compensation paid in the USA, in the high profile cases.
It was difficult to find a fair comparable from the data, when looking at the subject in general; so I narrowed it down to whiplash as a direct comparison:
In the USA compensation for whiplash is in the range of:-
• Mild whiplash = from $2,500
• Moderate whiplash = up to $10,000
• Severe whiplash = up to £30,000
In contrast in the UK, the compensation for whiplash is in the range of:-
• Mild whiplash = from $300
• Moderate whiplash = up to $1,700
• Severe whiplash = up to $5,200
Well we certainly don’t believe Trump’s lies on this side of the pond. The best indicator of British public opinion on Trump at this time is a YouGov survey done on 4th December. In it 60% of Brits are unhappy with Trump winning, while only 16% of Brits are happy.
The reasons why Brits are unhappy with Trump being President again are many and varied; with the top two being:-
• 26% of Brits are unhappy with Trump being President because Trump is a criminal, and
• 17% of Brits are unhappy with Trump being President because Trump is a misogynist.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/ … dent-again
With reference to the 26% of Brits who said in the YouGov survey last December that Trump should not be President because he is a criminal; in the UK, British politicians have lost their job for far less crimes than Trump has committed.
One example being a Labour MP who was forced to resign from the Labour Party six years ago because she lied to the police over a traffic offence e.g. speeding; and subsequently received a 3 months jail sentence for lying to the police over the traffic offence.
Labour MP told to resign for speeding lies: https://youtu.be/ycDF3pOPLRQ
So morality in the UK is far higher than morality currently is in the USA.
Yep, absolutely, and regrettably; Trump is ready to move from Capitalism to feudalism. Trump orchestrated an attempted insurrection last time, in an attempt to stay in power; so I can imagine that four years from now Trump will orchestrate a reason to impose martial law in America, and use that as an excuse to suspend elections e.g. coup d'état. Very much in the same ways that other democratically elected leaders (like Hitler) turned their democracies into dictatorships in the past.
And yes, it’s very obvious, (as you say) from his ‘Directives’ (which in themselves is an abuse of power) that Trump is imposing 19th century imperialism on America.
Yep, I am fully aware of Elon Musk, and his attempts to undermine (and infect) British politics, in an attempt to foster the hard right-wing radical fringe in Britain. The next test for British politics will be the local government elections in May 2025.
So as I said in my last post:
I wonder how long it will be before it dawns on those who put Trump into power that they have voted for a fascist leader who wants world domination?I wonder how long it will be before it dawns on those idiots in the Uk that voted for the facist left that they have elected a prime minister that only cares about people in other countries? People who cry out for freedom are not his priority, and you and the other citizens of the UK are going to suffer for it.
Really? I don't thinks so: None of what you say fits the reality.
Besides, FYI Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology e.g. politics akin to that of Musk and Trump. The word you are looking for, for the UK democratically elected Government is 'socialism'.Facism is a leftist ideology perfected by facists like the National SOCIALISTs in Germany. You may not accept that they are members of your tribe but they are. The word I am looking for is Socialist, which is another form of the word facist. That is reality.
Why do you think that anything you dream up is reality? Like your fake statistics on what UK people think about the Trump election. I am sure that you understand that the results of a poll can be manipulated by where it was taken and by how the question is asked. For example, if you asked the people at a football match instead of at a Stermer rally the response is going to be very different. A recent poll found that 65 percent of people in the US favored the immigration reforms, but what they actually asked was "Do you favor the expulsion of violent illegal immigrants?"
Your statistics remind me of the poll that said that Harris was going to win the state of Iowa in the US election.You only have to look at Wikipedia to see that fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology; and if you don’t trust Wikipedia then look at the Oxford English Dictionary.
According to Oxford Dictionaries, fascism is a right-wing political system that is authoritarian and nationalistic. It is characterized by:
• Strong central government: Fascism favours a strong central government that does not allow opposition.
• Nationalism: Fascism promotes one's own country or race above others.
• Obedience to a leader: Fascism is characterized by obedience to a powerful leader.
• Demagogic approach: Fascism uses a demagogic approach.
• Contempt for democracy: Fascism is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism.
The term "fascism" was first used to describe the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy from 1922–43. Other examples of fascist regimes include the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain
Your concept of socialism clearly shows that you have no concept of what European democratic socialism is, and what it means. The creation of the NHS and the Welfare State by the Labour Party in 1948, which we enjoy in the UK to this day, is prime examples of what democratic socialism means in Britain.
You don’t like the YouGov survey because it’s not what you want to hear; but YouGov is a respected UK pollster, that has a track record of being accurate with a 2% error margin in elections. And the YouGov polls accurately reflected British public opinion when Trump was last President e.g. it reflected all the anti-Trump petitions and demonstrations across Britain at the time.
So yes; it’s obvious that a majority of Americans love Trump – but that doesn’t mean that the majority, or even a large minority, of Brits love him: Attitudes on this side of the pond are radically different to attitudes in America.
Wide spread anti-Trump protests across the UK when Trump was last in power: Just one of many examples demonstrating how strongly the vast majority of Brits dislike Trump: https://youtu.be/7cHjCy1rbn8
UK: More than a million Brits sign petition for Trump state visit to be cancelled (when Trump was last President): https://youtu.be/bvfrzX35gXUSee Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA
https://www.wired.com/2007/08/wiki-tracker/
That was in the early days of course, of manipulating facts and the flow of Search Engine results, they have become much better at it, and at hiding their efforts...
Except when the occasional rogue billionaire goes off and purchases a social media site and exposes their activities (IE - the Twitter Files).
The Internet is very similar to History... he who wins, those in power, write the history... those who control the Search Engines and Social Media sites, control what the 'facts' are, and what is seen.Ken,
What's interesting is when you write article for a variety of publications such as myself, and you are required to cite your sources, there is not ONE that will accept Wikipedia as a source.
That shows you how much the publishing world thinks of that organization.Yep, that is why I also said:-
"....and if you don’t trust Wikipedia then look at the Oxford English Dictionary.
According to Oxford Dictionaries, fascism is a right-wing political system that is authoritarian and nationalistic. It is characterized by:
• Strong central government: Fascism favours a strong central government that does not allow opposition.
• Nationalism: Fascism promotes one's own country or race above others.
• Obedience to a leader: Fascism is characterized by obedience to a powerful leader.
• Demagogic approach: Fascism uses a demagogic approach.
• Contempt for democracy: Fascism is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism.
All of the above which fits the Trump Regime rather neatly....
The term "fascism" was first used to describe the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy from 1922–43. Other examples of fascist regimes include the Nazis in Germany and Franco in SpainI think this explains a lot of your anger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUzBYvZGKvw
No, not all Brits are facists. Only the socialists.Democratic socialists in Europe are not fascists; that’s just American political right-wing propaganda. And I’m not angry, I’m elated that we have a socialist government with a huge majority in the UK – I feel sorry for Americans who didn’t vote for Trump:
And your video link is nothing more than far-right-wing political propaganda, riddled with lies and disinformation:-
You only have to look at their front page on their YouTube channel to see that e.g. every single one of the 310 videos published on their YouTube channel (all within the last 3 months), without exception, has one or more of just three themes in their video Title’ - specifically:-
• Attack Sir Keir Starmer (UK Labour Government Prime Minister).
• Praise Trump.
• Praise Nigel Farage (Leader of the hard-right political party (UK Reform) in the UK).
To list all the lies in your video link would take too long, and fill up too much space in this post; so I’ll just focus on three lies (disinformation) in the video as examples.
1. The video’s reference to Musk’s attack on Sir Keir Starmer for his handling of the sex grooming gang scandal inquiry.
Last October Musk attacked Sir Keir Starmer, demanding that Sir Keir Starmer should hold a fresh inquiry into the scandal:
• FYI: A detailed and comprehensive Inquiry into the scandal was published in 2020; and the Conservative Government subsequently just shelved the Inquiry (while they were in power).
• When Labour came to power last July they resurrected the Inquiry, and debated it in Parliament in October; so that compensation can be paid to the victims.
• Musk has consistently attacked Sir Keir Starmer over the issue since October, and demands a fresh Inquiry be held. Sir Keir Starmer rightly retorted by pointing out that there was an extensive Inquiry published in 2020, and a further Inquiry would only delay compensation payments to the victims by years.
2. Trump attacked Sir Keir Starmer for increasing the windfall tax on British oil and gas producers.
FYI: Boris Johnson (then Conservative Prime Minister) imposed a 25% windfall tax on British oil and gas producers in May 2022.
So no criticism from Trump when the Conservatives imposed a windfall tax on British oil and gas producers; but plenty of criticism when Labour does the same thing!
3. Trump attacked Sir Keir Starmer for not allowing fracking in the UK.
FYI: In November 2019 it was Boris Johnson (then Conservative Prime Minister) who made fracking illegal in the UK; and obviously an environmentally green political party like Labour isn’t going to reverse that ban imposed by the Conservative Government over 5 years ago.
4. Trump also attacked Sir Keir Starmer (in your video); telling him he should abolish the UK’s ‘carbon net zero by 2050’ policy and instead lower taxes on the British oil companies and introduce extensive fracking across the UK.
FYI: Sir Keir Starmer couldn’t abandon the ‘Carbon Net Zero by 2050’ policy, even if he wanted, without breaking British Law: A law that was put on the statue books by Theresa May (then British Conservative Prime Minister) in the last week of her ‘Office as Prime Minister’ in July 2019.
The reason Theresa May made the carbon net zero by 2050 a legal requirement is because she believed in ‘Climate Change’ and she didn’t trust that Boris Johnson, who was about to take over from her as Prime Minister, would be as dedicated to Climate Change as she was: So by making it law, it tied his hands, and tied the hands of future governments (regardless to their politics): The UK is the only country in the world where net zero by 2050 is a legal requirement rather than just a target.
The consequences of any UK Government not fulfilling its legal requirement to sustain a meaningful policy of not meeting net zero by 2050 is that there are plenty of environmentalist actions groups waiting in the wings, ready to prosecute the UK Government in the Courts if it doesn’t fulfil its legal requirements on climate change.
UK becomes first country in world to make carbon net zero by 2050 a legal requirement: https://youtu.be/jX8Rl4AsL8c
The screen dump from the front page of the YouTube Channel that you linked clearly shows that this YouTube channel is nothing more than a far-right propaganda machine intent on spreading lies and disinformation about the Labour Party, while at the same time singing the praise of Trump and Nigel Farage (Leader of the hard-right political party - UK Reform).
So... it could be said that over much of the last 30 years, America has become more fascist...
The growth of government unanswerable to the people... appointed positions rather than elected, dominate DC today... aka The Swamp.
Increasing regulations, taxations, and disregard for the interests or will of the people, the citizens of the nation...
Entering into wars that last decades without ever declaring war...
Unable to account for, or determine where, trillions of dollars spent over the course of the last 30 years went...
Catering to the interests of international conglomerations and corporations over the interests of the citizens of the nation...
Yes, I can see how the word fascist or fascism could be correlated to the American government, never moreso than in the past few years...
We will have to wait and see how much of that is undone in the coming years.I think you put your finger on it in your reply to Tim’s post:
Where you say:
"If “fascism” is not the right word to use, what is?
And then you go onto say:
"Perhaps we should add a modifier to authoritarianism, and if so, will “right-wing authoritarianism” do the explanatory task we want? One problem is that the expression “right-wing” is taken….to include very different ideologies….each consider themselves right-wing, but for very different reasons."
FYI we too have a wide spectrum of ‘right-wing’ political parties across the EU and in the UK (two in Britain); and each one have their own distinctive political ideology – making them very different from other right-wing political parties.
Most people in Europe (EU & UK) view some of the right-wing political parties (the far extreme right-wing parties) as bad and evil; while most people wouldn’t consider the more moderate right-wing political parties to be evil.
It is exactly the same for the left-wing parties e.g. most people would consider the far extreme left-wing political parties as bad and evil; while most Europeans don’t consider the more moderate left-wing and socialist parties to be evil.
So going back to your original point “the expression “right-wing” is taken….to include very different ideologies”, we already have an “explanatory task” (terminology) to distinguish between the different types of right-wing politics – And it’s quite simple; for example:
• Soft right.
• Moderate right.
• Hard right.
• Far right.
• Extreme right.
In the UK the Conservative Party is a broad church ranging from the hard right to the soft right (with most conservatives being in the middle (moderate right). While in the UK the new UK Reform Party is far more extreme - ranging from hard-right and verging on far-right political ideology.
The same criteria are used in Europe to distinguish between the different flavours of socialism and other left-wing political ideologies.You shifted on me... you note the variance within the Parties...
You note that many fall into the term Right or Left...
I'm noting that while this may be true regarding politics, politicians, and parties... it is not true regarding the American government.
No matter how much a politician has run on "change" on "hope" we... the American people have not received the change WE want...
When we do get change... it is always something the majority does NOT want.
The majority of politicians that STAY in DC, in Congress, sell out...
Then there are those long tenured corporate representatives nestled into the Pentagon, or NSA, or any appointable bureaucratic position...
Things become detached from "Main St. America", ideology increasingly shifts toward global perspectives and international corporatism... until we have a government that considers the American people, their will, a "threat to Democracy"... a threat to those that have the control, those who have siphoned off trillions enriching their financial institutions and families at the expense of America's future.Yep, unlike political parties and public bodies in the EU and UK; the perception from this side of the pond is that both Democrats and Republican politicians are in the pockets of the American corporations who fund their election campaigns; and by inference government bodies’ e.g. FDA. And thus they can’t truly represent the interest of the American people.
The UK equivalent to the FDA is the FSA (Food Standards Agency); an Independent Government Department (non-ministerial government departments). As of 2023 there are 45 such Government Departments, including the ONS (Office for National Statistics).
Non-ministerial Government Departments are not answerable to the Government; they are answerable only to Parliament.
Non-ministerial Government Departments in the UK are Government Departments that deal with matters for which direct political oversight has been judged inappropriate e.g. intended to protect them from political interference – and thus helps to prevent an unscrupulous Government from misusing the Government Department for its own political gain.
The practical implications are that while the FSA (Food Standards Agency) is free to focus on maintaining high health & safety food standards in the UK, without political interference, and without interference from the food industry e.g. processed food manufacturers; the FDA pampers to the interests of the American food manufacturers, at the cost of lower food standards for the American people.
Food Standards Agency: Food we can trust https://youtu.be/rraPA9KA4MgSpeak for yourself, who is “WE”?
You are no where near what I would consider to be “Main Street”.
———————
You note that many fall into the term Right or Left...
I'm noting that while this may be true regarding politics, politicians, and parties... it is not true regarding the American government.
False, You and Trump are proof positive that there are aspects of these attitudes regarding American government
I like to do research that goes beyond the dictionary.
Since you're from the UK you'll like this paper written by the Cambridge University Press. They do provide so rather insightful political articles.
‘Who is a Negator of History?’ Revisiting the Debate over Left Fascism 50 Years after 1968
This paper revisits a debate dating from 1968 over the existence of left fascism and the role of theory and praxis in combating it. I trace the contours of the debate through the philosophy of history as it is delineated by Adorno, Deleuze, Foucault, and Marcuse. This positions the existence of left-wing fascism as a question concerning the role of history and futurity in thought and action. Specifically, the debate is formed by disagreement over the possibility of spontaneous action unconditioned by authoritarian social structures. I argue that Adorno and Foucault both require the use of history in service of liberation, while Deleuze and Marcuse seek to negate history in order to develop a new world in which the subject might be free. Lastly, I provide contemporary context to this unresolved debate, ultimately arguing that both sides of the debate must be considered in irresolvable dialectical tension with the other.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals … ADF74A1EF6
Sorry if you don't want to spend $26 to read the entire article but it isn't the only scholarly paper that defines left wing fascism.It wasn’t written by the ‘Cambridge University Press’ – It was republished by the ‘Cambridge University Press’.
The article is actually a publication from the ‘Journal of the American Philosophical Association’ Volume 5, Issue 1.
The author of the article is Rochelle DuFord, assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Depart of Philosophy and Religion.
And no, I didn’t need to spend the $26 to read the entire article; I just followed the ‘breadcrumbs’ e.g. her article was referenced in an article on the Internet about Antifa, and following that reference link back (following the paper trail) it eventually took me to a source document that covers all aspects of what the article was about, all in one place (and free to read):
You might say ‘all roads leads to Rome’; but all the breadcrumbs and the paper trail led me back to this article, and it covers all the points being discussed in your article link (and you can read it for free): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascismThe article provides more in-depth analyzation of the topic than Wikipedia or saying "It's in the dictionary."
To day that the "Right Wing" doesn't like Wikipedia is false. I've written for editors who are very left wing and don't allow Wikipedia to be used as a source. So, it's not political, it is how anyone under the sun can change it and more.
I believe you and my friend from Wales would have some interesting conversations. He is a proud member of the Welsh Conservative Party. His take on things is quite different from yours.Duh, of course your Welsh friend, as a Conservative, will have different political views to me; and no doubt views that are more in line with your views. He must feel gutted with the way the Conservative vote collapsed in last year’s General Election.
Well at least he’s a Conservative and not a member of the hard-right-wing UK Reform party; a political party which is a bigger threat to the Conservative party survival than Labour.I think in the future when discussing a topic you should not say, "We across the pond"...
Maybe you should say, "We, on the left, across the pond"...
I know your views don't speak for all those in the UK.FYI: Of course my “views don't speak for all those in the UK”; but with few exceptions, when I comment on HP they are a majority (and often a large majority) view of the British Public.
One exception is my view on nuclear power. I strongly oppose nuclear energy, but regrettably far more Brits support nuclear energy than oppose it these days – 41% of Brits support nuclear energy, while just 12% oppose it (with 29% neither supporting or opposing it) (data as at 2023).
FYI, rather than just assuming, I do frequently double-check reliable pollsters e.g. YouGov to gauge current British Public Opinion before commenting on HP; and it’s not unusual for me to quote the percentages and or provide links. For example:
• 87% of Brits are proud of the NHS – so when I speak in defence of the NHS on HP, I am voicing the support of the vast majority of Brits.
93% of Brits (including myself) supported Boris Johnson (then Conservative Prime Minister) when he imposed the lock-down in Britain, in March 2020, as part of his strategy to tackle the pandemic; and 89% of Brits supported the covid-19 vaccine e.g. the UK was the country with the lowest vaccine hesitancy in the world.
So when I participated in the HP debates during the pandemic, I wasn’t speaking on behalf of the “left, across the pond”, I was voicing the views of the vast majority of the British Public, regardless to their political views.
Unlike in the USA, the pandemic (lock-down and the vaccine) in Britain were not political issues. At the time I was speaking in defence of the Conservative Government’s, who also had full cross-party support from all political parties, and the full support from the vast majority of the General Public, regardless to their politics.
That is one sad thing about American politics, and American society, these days is that just about every issue is so partisan; causing deep divisions in American society.
Whereas in contrast; in British politics, there is often a lot of cross-party support on many issues (regardless to who’s in power) e.g. cross-party support in British politics on:-
• Environment.
• Climate Change
• Renewable Energy
• NHS
• Defence
….and so on, etc. etc.
For example it was the Conservatives who made fracking illegal in the UK, and it was the Conservatives who made ‘net zero carbon by 2050’ a legal requirement under state law, rather than just a government target. All these policies, and more, have cross-party support, and support from the vast majority of the British Public, regardless to their politics.
Boris Johnson Tells the British People: You Must Stay Home https://youtu.be/wkABNmd0BYM
Brits clap to thank NHS workers for help during coronavirus outbreak https://youtu.be/AHfHMvH7owo
The "conservative" forum posters on this thread represent a hard line Right that you would have easily relegated to the cellar in Britain, but they are in charge of the asylum here.
Compared with all hard core righties here, ESO is a flower child.
Good One!
I do wonder if some of the individuals on this platform take a moment to reflect on the tone of their remarks. It seems that some often resort to demeaning others, accusing people of spreading misinformation when they’re simply sharing their perspective, or making vague insults. Unfortunately, I’ve also noticed some crossing the line with inappropriate unnecessary comments about the president’s wife. It’s disheartening to see this kind of behavior. I’ve reached a point where I find myself hesitant to respond to certain individuals because I’m discouraged by these kinds of interactions.
Yes; one can't miss the brute force of the American hard-line-right on HP. And as you stated, a problem we don't currently have in the UK. Especially while the two right-wing parties in UK politics are split and in disarray, allowing left-wing parties to have more power.
It was a reverse situation in the 1980s, when the left was split, which helped Margaret Thatcher to stay in power longer than she might have otherwise done if the left-wing (left of centre) politics were more united at the time.
It wasn't until 1988 that the splinter groups left of centre merged to form the newly branded Liberal Democratic Party that left wing politics finally become more of effective opposition to the Conservative Party.
2 March 1988 - ITN News The Liberal Democrats are formed https://youtu.be/UDBZclURVBsMike was making it sound that Britain had its fair share of people comfortable with his ideology and that your political opinion is not as common as you say. But 7 percent of your population radicalized to a right wing agenda similar to Mike’s hardly represents the majority of your residents.
Absolutely
- a small percent of the British population radicalized to a hard-right wing agenda isn't representative of the majority views of the British people. And thankfully, apart from those who pay their subscriptions to become Conservative Party Members e.g. party members tend to be far more radical than ordinary voters; the vast majority of those who vote Conservative in elections tend to be far more moderate than Mike would like to think e.g. in the UK, many who vote Conservative and Labour do share common values on many issues, such as cross-party support for the NHS, Renewable Energy and the Environment etc.
Cross-Party Committees in UK Parliament: https://youtu.be/tICwy6KwNC8The common values and principles that I though the we here in America saw as sacrosanct between both parties, is not that anymore.
Thanks for the look into the machinery of your government.Yes; the deep divisions in American society, and between Democrats and Republicans, are so overtly apparent, and deeply sad, as seen from this side of the pond.
Wikipedia! What a joke. THat is like a leftist using CNN to prove the truth. They are liars.
A strong central government? Oh, you mean a government that heavily taxes its inhabitants and wants industries to be government controlled? That is called socialism, as you already know, and you also know that national socialists are facists.
Oh, and as to your last "proof": Yes, you can find 1,000,000 idiots to sign any petition.Yep, in knowing that the American right-wing doesn’t like Wikipedia, that is why I also said "....and if you don’t trust Wikipedia then look at the Oxford English Dictionary”.
FYI: During the General Election last July the Conservatives campaigned on just two main issues:
• Taxes and
• Immigration
The Conservatives campaign was to reduce taxes significantly (at the expense of cutting public services).
But, in the General Election the British people rejected that in preference to voting Labour into power:
• Labour = won 411 of the 650 seats.
• Conservatives = won just 121 of the 650 seats.
This short extract (1 minute video) from one of the TV ‘All Party’ General Election Debate, sums it up: https://youtu.be/TYklkOX2wiU
Consistently, opinion polls show that the British people are willing to pay more taxes if it is in a good cause, and or a good reason e.g. the latest opinion poll by YouGov shows that only 20% of the British public want lower taxes and less funding for public services.
Both the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party are open and honest in election campaigns that they would increase taxes if they were in power; and in spite of that both Liberal Democrats and the Green Party do extremely well in ‘local government election’ e.g. Bristol local government (where I live) is now run by the Green Party.
Yeah, British Socialism is in favour of Government Ownership (nationalisation) of Essential Public Services, such as rail, water, sewage, electricity etc. And all British governments, Conservatives and Labour alike (certainly since WWII) do heavily ‘Regulate’ private industry in the UK - to the benefit of the people e.g. better working conditions, health & safety at work and in products manufactured, high food standards in the food industry etc. And for you information, it was the Conservatives (not Labour) back in 1988 who decimated the British egg industry over health and safety issues; causing 5,000 chicken farmers in the UK to go bankrupt – and it took the British egg industry 25 years to recover from that.
FYI: The SNP (Scottish National Party), who have been the Government in power in Scotland since 2007 is a ‘national socialist party’ yet they are far from being fascists – So your claim that “national socialists are fascists” is just ‘disinformation’.
Yeah, really: It was a lot more than the 1 million I quoted; the final number of Brits over the age of 18 who signed the petition was 1,863,708 people (almost 2 million) (3.2% of the adult population); which if it was in the USA, 3.2% of the American adult population would be over 9 million. It’s not as easy to get 1 million signatures as you think e.g. under UK rules, any petition getting more than 100,000 signatures will be considered for debate in Parliament; so if petitions were that easy, Parliament would spend most of their time debating petitions rather than running the country.
So now Doc, you are going to argue with the definitions for fascism found in the Oxford or Webster dictionaries? Are they "Woke"? There can be nothing more unprofitable than the Rightwingers insistence of always trying to drive a square peg into a round hole.
The problem with you right wing types is that the truth in not in you, you complain about "statistic data" and its sources only when the data runs contrary to what you desire. Are the statistics provided fake just because you say so and does not play into your right wing narrative?Facism is a leftist ideology. The problem with leftists is that they are afraid to own up to their mistakes.
You cling to the misinterpretation, which is certainly one reason that I don't care for conservatives or their reasoning on things.
I realize you have been brainwashed by the left and are unwilling to accept the truth. The truth is that facism is a leftist ideology.
pardon me if I ignore your musings and choose to rely on current, authoritative reference material
Whatever. Since the left was defeated in the last elections in the US you may find that some of those sources change. You will of course accept those new sources as they are more current and authoritative though, right?
The left's win or loss has nothing to do with the English language definition of a "cat".
Why would the sources change? The "changed sources" have to credible, current, authoritative and free of disgusting rightwing bias. I've yet to see that, and if I do, I will consider a new definition.
You do understand that Mussolini was a socialist, right?
Is it for you to judge the values of the British electorate? Since they are among your "hated" socialists, there is no Prime Minister, past or present, that would receive nothing but your vitriol.
Is it for Nathanville to judge the values of the American electorate? You mat have noticed that my comment was reflection of his own comment on the American choice of president. As far as I know even in a facist state like the UK he can make those comments, although their government has threatened to come to the US to arrest US citizens who dare to comment on their system.
As far as prime ministers, there have been a few good ones in my memory. Like the US, Brazil, and most other countries, the leadership changes however.
There is so much in our civil suits that involve "punitive" damages outside of the purview of restitution for actual injury, that is where all the "big money" is.
Imagine having to step down over lying of a traffic offense while we accommodate the very father of the lie, placing him in our highest office. I say that there is a difference all right.
I tend to think that deep down, psychologically, there are many Americans that live Under delusions of grandeur believing the fables and forklore about America and its past world dominance. They believed that that is being threatened from within and without and only Trump can save them from the consequences of facing the reality that the sun will continue to rise each and every morning. Trumps version of America's greatness is just an illusion. Trump's operates and have his followers believe from a false premise, as well as a extraordinally dated one.I know - it’s awful: I thought it was bad enough under Margaret Thatcher (The Iron Lady); but she was a pussy cat compared to Trump. At least she never lied - other than perhaps a few little fibs like her General Election slogan in 1982 “The NHS is safe in our hands”.
And although I didn’t agree with the vast majority of her policies, she did have some level of decency; although she did pass some anti-LGBT legislation in 1988; which was subsequently repealed by the Labour Government in 2003.
One difference between the British and American political system, which might be some small comfort to you, is that in the USA a person can only be President for 8 years; whereas in the UK there is no time limit for how long a person can be Prime Minister. Consequently, Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister for 13 long years; it would have been 18 years if it wasn’t for the fact that mass civil disobedience by about a third of the British adult population in the early 1990s forced her resignation.
If you had such mass civil disobedience against the President in America, Trump wouldn’t resign, he would impose martial law and use that as an excuse to suspend elections.
1990 (3:30 minute video): Chaos, Carnage & Bloodshed in Poll Tax Riots (which coupled with around a third of the British public refusing to pay the new poll tax cumulated in Margaret Thatcher having to resign as Prime Minister): https://youtu.be/I4QQN2aqeKAI don't know how long the comfort will last, Republicans are still trying for find a way to get Trump another term in direct contradiction to the provisions of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution limited any one candidate to two terms. It was created to avoid the creation and sustaining of demagogues which once in place are difficult to dislodge.
I would have been surprised that in your Parlimantary system where the party with the most seats gets to select the Prime Minister, that Margaret was able to stay in place so long.
Trump would have peaceful protesters shot and cover it up after the fact. Yes, before that, he would impose martial law and use that as an excuse to muzzle all disharmonic voices.
Caught the link, Thanks.....Margaret Thatcher stayed in power for so long (11 years) because the Conservative Party saw her as an asset – that is until she introduced the Poll Tax in 1990 (for the 2nd time in British history); after which the Conservative Party forced her to resign, and quickly repealed the Poll Tax to restore ‘law and order’.
The making of Margaret Thatcher, who became Prime Minister in May 1979, was the Falklands War in April to June 1982; which bolstered her popularity, and which she capitalised on by calling an early General the following year (June 1983), while her popularity was still high; securing her a 2nd term in Office.
She also had the good fortune that following Labour’s defeat in the 1979 the political parties left of centre were split and in disarray e.g. creating an ineffective opposition to the Conservatives; which helped her to win a 3rd term in Office in 1987; after which (in 1988) the parties left of centre become more united and more organised – leading to a more effective opposition to the Conservatives.
For clarity: In Britain, the Poll Tax has nothing to do with voting, or vote registration, or anything like that. In Britain, the Poll Tax is a ‘flat rate’ tax that every adult has to pay regardless to their wealth or lack of it e.g. a person on a low income pays exactly the same sum of money as a billionaire. Thus Poll Taxes are considered grossly unjust in British society.
The first time the British (English) Government introduced the Poll Tax was in 1381, every adult over the age of 15 had to pay a flat rate poll tax of 1 shilling ($0.30) regardless to whether they were rich or poor. This sparked the bloody Peasant’s Revolt of 1381; and although the revolt failed in the end – it also marked the end of Poll Tax in Britain, until Margaret Thatcher tried to re-introduce it in 1990, which led to another ‘peasant’s revolt’ (as per last video).
Peasants Revolt of 1381: https://youtu.be/D3EzLF2rOKYThat was great documentary spot. Imagine, records going back to the 14th century. But, we see that certain things never change, and while Richard was not ready for it the twinkle of a democracy were in the eyes of the peasants not to be realized for centuries later.
It shows that people will only take so much, the feudalism arrangement was inherently unfair. The French Revolution was a prime example of poor people pushed to the limit. All those great documentaries watching the heads roll.
How dumb is it to have discovered Democracy and work toward economic parity all to have it turned upon and denied, the peasants of the 14th century had more going for them. That is America in the 21st Century.In fact records go back much further in English history. The Roman occupation is well documented e.g. the Romans were great at bureaucracy, so they kept meticulous records.
There was a period (part of the Dark Ages), after the Romans left England, from 410AD to 890AD, when England was in disarray, where there is virtually no documented history.
But from 890AD to 1154 were the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, which meticulously, and at great length, recorded current events of the time – and which is a great source of English history of the time.
Then the Normans, following their invasion of England in 1066, kept meticulously records for the next two centuries (11th to 13th century); which includes, but not exclusive to, the Domesday Book of 1086, and the Magna Carta of 1215.
The Domesday Book of 1086 is invaluable, because it was written for the sole purpose of recording every asset and every person (and their social status) in every village and town in England, so that the tax collectors would know how much tax to collect from each village.
For example (below) the entry in the Domesday Book of 1086 in Uley (Uley being a small village where I lived in as kid from 1966 to 1969):
ULEY (Land of King William)
HOUSEHOLDS
Households: 262 villagers. 147 smallholders. 136 slaves. 15 female slaves. 58 other.
LAND AND RESOURCES
Ploughland: 49.5 ploughlands. 5 lord's plough teams. 192 men's plough teams.
OTHER RESOURCES:
10 mills, value 3 pounds, 9 shillings and 5 pence ($4.34)
VALUATION
Annual value to lord: £170 ($212) in 1086.
OWNERS
Tenant-in-chief in 1086: King William.
Lords in 1086: King William; riding men, ten.
Lord in 1066: King Edward.
Additional Information: A "ploughland" (mentioned above) is around 120 acres e.g. it was a unit of land measurement, which represented the area that could be ploughed by a team of eight oxen in a year.
Uley; A short film https://youtu.be/D2Uh-k-6cIk
Another interesting titbit is that the elite introduced the circuit courts in 1166. These were courts that travelled through designated circuits across England to hear cases, which allowed for greater accessibility to justice for people living in rural areas.
However, during the Medieval Feudal system justice was the preserve of the wealthy, because the peasants just couldn’t afford the legal fees; but there is one documented case (around the 13th century) where in one village the peasants did club together to raise enough money to pay for the legal fees to successfully prosecute their landlord.Thanks for the video, compared with the centuries of British/English Hisrory, we are mere babes.
In the film "Yanks" there was a brief discussion of how the time England refined its civilization, showed in stark contrast to the behavior of Americans arriving there during the WWII.Yanks is one film I would like to see; but it’s not something that has been aired on British TV for a long time; but I have seen the trailers for it, and read up on it in Wikipedia. So you’ve just reminded me to add it to my ‘wish lish’ in the TV’s menu, so that if/when it is aired (on any channel) the TV will let me know, and record it for me.
Talking about the English, in contrast to the “stark contrast to the behaviour of Americans arriving (here) during the WWII”, reminded me of the Elizabethan ‘Poor Laws’ in the 16th century - the forerunner to today’s ‘Welfare System’ – It demonstrated that even 500 years ago the English Government cared about the health and wellbeing of it’s poor.
It all stems from King Henry VIII (who died in 1547) dissolution of the monasteries from 1536 and 1541 e.g. the monasteries care for the poor – so once the monasteries were dissolved there was nobody to look after poor.
1. Therefore, in 1536 (as the monasteries were being dissolved) the Government passed the ‘1536 Vagabonds Act’, which required local government officers to ensure the poor in their parish were cared for.
Elizabeth I became Queen of England from 1558 to 1603
2. In 1563 the English Government passed a law that introduced a local tax to pay for the poor.
3. In 1572 the English Government passed the Vagabonds Act of 1572, which legally moved the responsibility for the poor from the church to local governments.
4. In 1576 the English Government passed the ‘1576 Poor Relief Act’; which required local governments (Parishes) to provided (out of local tax payers money) raw materials to the poor so that they could things to sell.
The big change came in the ‘1601 Poor Law, under Elizabethan rule:
The Poor Law of 1601 – Did the following:
• Established a poor rate (tax): And required parishes (local governments) to levy the tax on all households to support the poor.
• Banned begging: Anyone caught begging was whipped and sent back to their place of birth e.g. deported to the Parish (Country) from where they were born.
• Established almshouses: Houses for the poor to stay in - paid for by charity.
• Provided relief: Offered financial support, food, clothing, and other assistance, to the poor.
• Established the role of Overseers: Two Overseers in each parish (local government) who were responsible for collecting the poor rate (tax) and administering relief to the poor.
• Established the role of Justices of the Peace (Judge): Unpaid local officials who were responsible for poverty issues in their parish.
1601 Poor Law https://youtu.be/qqNhzOWIaxA
For clarity, local government (Parishes) were only responsible for the poor born in their Parish (boundary/county) e.g. if a poor person moved to a different part of the country from where they were born, they wouldn’t be entitled to the poor relief.
For me the Elizabethan Poor Law isn’t just ‘dry history’; one of my distant ancestors (related by marriage), Sarah Bradbeare (1664-1719) survived all her life on ‘Poor Relief’; born in the Parish of Pitminster, in Somerset, 50 miles south of Bristol.
Sarah Bradbeare first appears in the local Parish Records in 1686, where the recorded entry states:
“….the overseers of the poor: "Laid out for a guard upon Sarah BRADBEARE and for a horse to carry her to the justice. 3 shillings" ($0.18). The Quarter Sessions (Court hearing) was a "bastardly" hearing relation to her birth of a son William Bradbeare e.g. because if they knew who the father was, and he working, then the father would be responsible for the expense of looking after Sarah, and not the Parish (local government)(taxpayer).
In spite all efforts, Sarah never did say who the father(s) was/were for her children; and over the years the local government (taxpayers) forked out a small fortune to pay for her legal fees and to cover her living costs:
For example the entries in the Parish records for Sarah in 1694, in relation to another "bastardly" hearing (2nd child) are as follows:-
• Paid out for a guard for Sarah Brodbeare, ten days and for bread and beer for her. 14/6d.
• Paid out for a waistcoat and mittimas (summons) 2/- Paid to Richard HERRING's wife for keeping Sarah Brodbeare's two children and make one charge? 6/2d
• Paid for a deliberatum (setting free) for Sarah Brodbeare out of bridwell (lock-up/prison). 1/-
• For her child. 1/6d. For beding. 5/6d. For linen and woolen. 3/6d
• Paid for carage of her bed? and Turne?
• Paid to bridwell keeper (prison) for Sarah Brodbeare's fees. 7/6d
The above total to local taxpayers = $2.62
Other costs to the local taxpayers for looking after Sarah, as recorded in the local Parish Records, includes:-
• 1696 = £3, 3 shillings and 8 pence ($3.97)
• 1697 = £3 and 10 shillings ($4.36)
• 1698 = £2, 4 shillings and 6 pence ($2.26)
• 1699 = £4, 4 shillings ($5.23) for living expenses.
But also in 1699, legal fees for another "bastardly" hearing (her 3rd child, where she refused to name the father) – total cost to the taxpayers = 2 shillings ($0.12).
She finally married in 1715; but her husband was also receiving poor relief; so the Parish (local tax payers) had to continue supporting them, and pay for the cost of their funerals:
Her funeral in 1719 cost the local taxpayers 7 shillings and 6 pence ($0.46)
And her husband’s funeral in 1720 cost the local taxpayers 9 shillings ($0.56).
Unfortunately, the Liberal Government in 1834 had a different attitude towards the poor; they abolished the ‘poor laws’ and replaced them with the infamous Victorian Workhouses; which was in essence not much better than slave labour.
Shocking Truths about Victorian Workhouses Revealed https://youtu.be/7r4MGMD-kfk
Fortunately the National Government abolished Workhouses in 1930. NB. In the UK a ‘National Government’ is a Government made up of ‘all political’ parties; and are only formed during periods of national crisis e.g. a period of national crisis when ‘party politics’ is put to one side for the national interest; which in the 1930s was the ‘great depression’. From 1929 to 1935 the National Government consisted of Labour, Liberal and the Conservatives, all working together (as one party) in the national interest during the ‘great depression’.
Following Labour coming to power in 1945, in 1948 the Labour Government introduced the Welfare State that we enjoy to this day.Looking after the well being of the poor for over 500 years and we could not make that claim 100 years ago.
You’ve had that tradition of civility for so long, how could America hope to match it? After watching “Yanks” one walks away with that conclusion.
Here is how America solved it problems with the poor in the 19th century, and I thought that the term “finding oneself in the poorhouse” was just a figure of speech.
https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/p … arly-amer/
People and communities were closer knit then as the society was fundamentally agricultural. But as the 19th Century was coming to a close, the Industrial Revolution left quite a few casualties. There are many photos from a fellow by the name of Jacob Riis that revealed the squalor of families in New York City tenement houses, victims of exploitation by capitalist bosses who certainly never paid living wages. This, in the late 19th and early 20th century. Conditions outraged people to the point that the “Progressive Era” of the early 20th century began. During the “gay 90s” never could such extreme wealth coexist with crushing poverty in the same geographical areas. I sure that you have heard of the Astors, Vanderbilts, old money obstentatiously displayed. All of this about the time “The Jungle” in 1906 startled people with shocking revelations of the realities of the meat packing industry and what it was that they were actually putting on their dinner tables. The wealthy became all the more indifferent saying that the poor had only themselves to blame due to lack of industry and prudence. Theodore Roosevelt was keen to the pressures of the Era, people began to realize that something had to be done. The introduction of a Federal Income Tax in 1913, may well be the first time that income inequity was seen in negative terms. Strikes were now the purview of exploited workers, Carnegie Steel operations experience a pretty big one during the period that had to be put down with government troops. For the first time, it may have dawned upon those movers and shakers of the period that care for the poor was a mark of a civilized people. So, the true greatness of society was measured by how the least amongst us are treated.
Then there was the War to end all Wars and the Roaring twenties, where there were good times, although illusory before Wall Street laid an egg in 1929. The house of cards the entire system had been based on was not going to work moving forward. The simple and stark difference between rich and poor could not continue and the reckless gamble that laissez Capitalism proved itself to be was a threat to America”s very survival.
FDR and his New Deal may well have saved “America” in the face of rising dictators and discontent during a major economic downturn. Social Security was an answer to the insecurity of so many on Capitalism”s roulette wheel of fortune.
Beginning in 1935, he experienced much resistance from the stodgy conservative crowd that accused him of Marxism, Socialism and all of that. Roosevelt says, I know that “they hate me”, but that is how I know that I am doing a good job and I welcome it.
Republicans and conservatives always resisted the idea. But, even the patrician Republican president Dwight Eisenhower acknowledged by the 1950’s that his colleagues were fools for attacking the program which by this time was quite popular and kept many out from dire poverty. He would not interfere. I believe that threatening the program by this time was the equivalent of touching the eyeball of God.
I believe we followed that with Medicare/Medicaid under LBJ in 1965. There was now some sense of obligation to those less fortunate, even though Republicans and conservatives continue to resist the concepts almost a century after its creation.
Obamacare, 2010-11, the technical name escapes me now, is a move in that tradition of the Great Society Lyndon Johnson spoke of over 40 years before.
What we now have in power are the same people who have always believed that a responsible civilized society “ a definition that I provided earlier” is something to be held in derisionWow – A fascinating read, and very educational.
For example: I didn’t know about the Astor and Vanderbilt families; so I read up on them on Wikipedia.
And your link about “Poor Relief in the Early America” sent me on a trail of discovery as I researched and read up on the subject in greater depth.
What sent me on the ‘trail of discovery’ was a comment in the link that in American, Almshouses and Workhouses/Poorhouses were fundamentally the same thing e.g. both treated the poor with contempt – Which is in contrast to England, where Almshouses and Workhouses are two completely different establishments e.g. in England almshouses care for the poor (providing them with food and shelter), while workhouses treated the poor as slave labour.
The other distinct difference is that in America the almshouses and workhouses/poorhouses were all paid for out of taxes, while in England although the workhouse was paid for by taxes, the almshouses have always been paid for by charity.
Although the first workhouse/poorhouses appeared in England around 1603, they didn’t become prevalent in England until 1834; prior to 1834 almshouses were prevalent.
In England, the first recorded almshouse was founded in York, England c930 AD by King Athelstan (a Saxon King). The oldest still in existence almshouse is the Hospital of St. Cross in Winchester, dating to about 1132.
The first almshouses in England were built and maintained by the Church to care for the poor; but following dissolution of the monasteries between 1536 and 1541 by King Henry VIII, wealthy merchants (the Bill Gates of the day) and the Guilds built and funded the almshouses.
It wasn’t uncommon from the 16th to 18th century for wealthy merchants (the Bill Gates of the day) to build almshouses for the poor as a legacy of ‘good dead’ (charitable work) to their local community.
But more common, was for the Guilds to build and maintain their own almshouses to care for the health and welfare of dependents of deceased Guild members e.g. children, widows and elderly of deceased Guild members.
A couple of interesting facts is that:-
To this day there are still 1,600 almshouses in the UK (all funded by charities), who provide homes for over 36,000 people (which was a big surprise to me – but we live and learn); while in contrast there are now no almshouses in the USA (no surprise there).
Guilds arrived in England during the Norman Invasion of 1066; a Guild is where ‘craftsmen unite to protect their common interests’ e.g. a medieval equivalent to a trade union, and included 100s of Guilds, some dating back to the 11th century; Guilds such as the Bakers Guild, Butchers Guild, Merchant Guild, Saddlers Guild, Shipwright Guild etc., etc.
Obviously most of these medieval Guilds have died out, but to this day there are still over 300 Guilds in existence (110 of them in London) albeit these days they are called ‘Livery Companies’ rather than by the medieval name of ‘Guild’–
And these London Guilds (Livery Companies) actually play an active role in politics in the financial centre of London to this day – as highlighted in this short video: https://youtu.be/z1ROpIKZe-c
One such Almshouse that is still in active use today is Charterhouse, London; founded in 1611 by the wealthiest man in England at the time: https://youtu.be/T7zalgZGBpM
Bristol has at least 10 almshouse (none of them are used as almshouses anymore of course), but the one that I regularly pass when I nip into the city centre for shopping is the Merchant Taylors Guild Almshouse, built in 1701 to care for the widows and children of deceased Merchant Taylors. The Merchant Taylors Almshouse in Bristol was financed by the members of the Merchant Taylors Guild of Bristol.
Below: Image of the Merchant Taylors Guild Almshouse, Bristol (dating back to 1701); nestled in front of the Shopping Gallery in the city centre of Bristol.
I am surprised that there is so much charity going around that the institutions designed for indigent stay on their feet. There is too much poverty here for charity to be an all encompassing solution. I am curious as what happened to your workhouses.
Poverty can happen so quickly here, people like to think that they are above such a fate. But, you could lose your job, can't pay the mortgage so you are kicked out of your house. A medical emergency and associated expenses could find you living in a tent on a highway offramp. There is a great deal at risk when your employer can determine that you are expendable at any time. The companies can and do file for Bankrupcy, the managers get great severance packages while the worker finds out that these companies have gone to court to complain that there is no money to pay pensions that workers have contributed to over many years. Or they could just decide to outsource to another country with lower labor costs, you never know. It is one hell of a highwire act. The companies always come out clean with no unions or obligations. Welcome to America.
Blacks in the late 19th century in the South were charged with vagrancy for not being gainfully employed, as if jobs for them were plentiful, and sentenced to prison chain gangs who could be "farmed out" to those wanting labor on the outside with no compensation for the men or prisoners. Exploitation to the max, only in America can greed and avarice get that clever.
Sorry to digress.
Workhouses? Sounds kind of rough. I guess I have to research and find out that you have had to phase those outlIt surprises me too, on how much charity there is, and always has been in Britain; apparently, the British people are among some of the most generous when it comes to giving to charity – philanthropy seems to be part of the British make-up that goes back over millennia.
Yes, I know how vulnerable Americans are to change in fortune e.g. being sacked for no good reason, losing your pension fund if a Company goes bankrupt, landing in heavy debt and losing your house because of crippling medical bills etc., and ending up homeless.
All though it’s not a bed of roses in Britain, we do have poor people who struggle to pay their bills during hard times; it is a lot more secure:
1. Under British Law, if you’ve been in a job for more than 2 years it’s almost impossible to be sacked (Labour protection laws).
And if an employer tries to sack you without good cause, and or don’t follow the proper procedures e.g. 2 verbal warnings and a written warning; then the employee has a strong case in an Industrial Tribunal – and in the UK Industrial Tribunals (State owned) is a free service (no legal costs).
2. Under EU Law (TUPE)( Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment), which is still law in the UK; in the event that a Company sells out to another Company e.g. to save Labour costs – there is a legal obligation on the new Company taking over the business to also take on the employees of the old Company, and to give the employees of the old Company the same rates of pay, same working conditions, and the same pension that they had with the Old Company, if those pay and conditions were better in the old Company.
What is TUPE and How Does it Work? https://youtu.be/NA2mxBc6L2A
3. Under British Law, works pensions are ring fenced e.g. the Employer has to put the pensions funds into a different account which is protected in the event of the Company going Bankrupt.
4. And of course in the UK the NHS is free at the point of use, and that includes Ambulances and hospitals; so in the UK we don’t have the worry of crippling medical bills.
5. And although we do have homeless people in Britain, most are in temporary accommodation (rather than on the Streets), waiting for permanent social housing.
The two main types of social housing in the UK IS:
• Council Houses (State owned by local government), and
• Housing Associations (not for profit charitable organisations).
Obviously Council Houses are cheaper to rent than Housing Association Housing; but even then, Association Housing is a lot cheaper to rent than renting a property in the private sector (Private Landlord).
And if you are unemployed in the UK the Local Government will pay your rent anyway.
This short video is of a typical Council House (State owned); and the couple in this video are paying only £448.54 ($554) per month in rent to their local government. https://youtu.be/jOoMlLVS758
WORKHOUSES
In Britain, unlike the medieval and Elizabethan almshouse, which provided accommodation for those in need; Workhouse were designed to discourage people from being poor and destitute.
In Britain, prior to 1834 Workhouses were uncommon; but due to the effects of the Industrial Revolution e.g. the wealthy businesses exploiting the poor, local governments could no longer afford to meet their legal obligations under the 16th century Poor Laws – So rather than seek a more compassionate solution the Liberal Government treated the poor as a disease on society, and in 1834 established the Workhouse as a place of ‘hell’ in an attempt to discourage people from being poor – It wasn’t until the latter part of the 19th century that attitudes started to change, and more compassionate social policies started to be introduced by Government to try to help the poor.
The Victorian Workhouse (5 minute video) https://youtu.be/blyYxpNbgeU
In the UK the Workhouses were finally abolished by the ‘National Government’ in 1930; because they were inhuman, and Britain was fast becoming a more passionate and carrying society.
NB. In the UK a ‘National Government’ is a name given to the national government when it is formed by ‘all’ political parties who put party politics to one side, and share power, in a period of national crisis; in the interest of the nation rather than party politics – Something I would find hard to imagine would never happen in America.
In Britain National Governments, consisting of Labour, Conservatives and Liberals power sharing, governed the nation from 1930 to 1945 (covering the periods of the great depression and WWII).
Short (2 minute) video of British Prime Minister of the National Government in 1935 https://youtu.be/RXasUe9F7F4
It was the National Government who in the 1930s built the house that I own, as a Council House for the unemployed and low paid. In the 1980s Margaret Thatcher, allowing sitting tenants in Council Houses to buy the house on generous discount – so the house I live in was subsequently sold into the private sector, and we snapped it up when we were looking to move from a two bedroom terraced house to a three bedroom semi-detached house.Well, Arthur, it looks as if the average English worker is in good hands.
This TUPE provides a lot of iron clad guarantees, something that cannot be even be imagin d here.
I had a look at the video regarding "temporary accommodation", it certainly was a very nice place. You couldn't rent a doghouse here for $500 a month.
I made a road trip through Eastern Canada back in 1985, I was told by locals that the "rough patch of Toronto" was to be found at a particular part of town. I had to see for myself. I was just astounded that their idea of indigent housing were nice condos, kids on swing sets etc. this was nothing like the squalor and crime that you would see in say, the South side of Chicago.i did not find a ghetto anywhere similar to how that is defined in America in Canada, could I have missed it? I have travelled from British Colombia all the way to Nova Scotia. Looks pretty much the same for your society as well.
While it is a bit long 14 minutes and somewhat technical, it explains the Section 8 housing program for the indigent poor, here.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gefR_Z49q3U
The moderator was talking about ideal conditions in the administratIon of the Section 8 program. Oftentimes the reality is different. Being poor in America is a psychological and sociological detriment that you are never allowed to forget. As such, you are always on the bottom and subject oftentimes to the caprice of the governing agency and the landlord. My sister had a rough patch some 20 years ago and was in the program and paid only a fraction of the actual rent for a Denver apartment. One day a sewer line from the loo upstairs broke, and soaked, and I mean soaked her carpet with all sortS of unpleasantries. She complained to the authorities that the unit was basically uninhabitable. The landlord in concert with the county that ran the program agreed to let the landlord just shampoo the carpet instead of remove and replace it as sanitation would demand. Working with my sis on this issue, anyone paying full rent would never have been treated this way. When you are poor here, you are not in a position to demand anything.
As for the workhouses, I made note that they were a form of punishment for just being poor, you all dispensed with that by 1930, it is still a driving force here.
We had chain gangs that probably did a lot of rock breaking and the rope and twine reminded me of picking cotton as a monotonous task.
At one time America was willing to roll up sleeves and put aside partisan considerations, that was World War II. Once Pearl Harbor was hit, there was a long queue of those who could not wait to enlist. Afterward, Korea was a bit more contentious, 1950-53. By the time Vietnam was in the headlines, 1965-1973, the country was divided over the purpose of the war, as the draft made things more complicated. And we never really have seen anything in unison, since. I was just a shade too young for the war and luckily I missed it.For clarity: The video of the Council House wasn’t for "temporary accommodation"; the Council (State Owned) house is permanent accommodation for those in need e.g. the unemployed and low paid.
Under British Law, ever since 1977, Local Governments have a legal obligation to provide permanent housing to the homeless.
Obviously, there is never enough housing for the homeless, so under the 1977 Act (Introduced by the Labour Government) priority is given to: Pregnant women; dependent children; someone vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness, handicap or physical disability or other special reason; as well as those made homeless or threatened with homelessness as a result of an emergency, such as flood, fire or other disaster.
Anyone else would have to go on a waiting list e.g. an adult child living with his parents in an overcrowded house would have a low priority, and may have to wait years to get a Council House; while anyone else who finds themselves homeless would be given ‘temporary accommodation’ until such time as a Council House became available.
One caveat, is that Local Governments are only responsible for housing local residents e.g. if you suddenly found yourself homeless, it’s the local government where you live who are responsible for you; so you wouldn’t be able travel to a different part of the country and expect help from a different local government to where you come from.
However, if you do suddenly find yourself homeless, you best course of action is to visit your local government office, and present yourself to them; so that at the very least they can find you temporary accommodation for you straightaway, until such time as a Council House or Housing Association house becomes available.
A day in the life of Temporary Accommodation in UK: https://youtu.be/yzW6eyusngY
It’s not all a bed of roses; after 14 years of Conservative rule, there is a housing crisis in Britain – as highlighted by this short video below:
Homelessness and time spent in temporary accommodation rises: https://youtu.be/qNziJzj8TWc
However, earlier this week, the new Labour Government announced additional spending to build 1.5 million new social housing (Council Houses) in Britain over the next 5 years e.g. an increase in housing in the UK by about 7%.
Yes you are right; we don’t have ghettos in Europe.
Wow – I did watch the entire 14 minute video, captivated because it strikes a strong similarity to what we call ‘Housing Benefit’ in the UK.
But there is one fundamental BIG difference between ‘Section 8’ in the USA, and ‘Housing Benefit’ in the UK e.g. in the UK, when granting ‘Housing Benefit’ the Government is NOT interested in the state or suitability of the private rented accommodation (that is covered by different unrelated laws in the UK).
Therefore, in the UK the Housing Benefit (which is means tested) is far less bureaucratic, far less labour intensive, and far less costly to implement e.g. no annual inspection by the Government.
With Housing Benefit, in Bristol for example, if you are unemployed you are generally entitled to 100% of your rent being paid for you by the Government, up to a maximum rent of £1,300 ($1,600 per month). In Bristol if your private rent is more than $1,600 per month, then you just pay the difference.
Housing Benefit Eligibility in UK Explained: https://youtu.be/id4mxt3wB24
Your sister’s situation is an interesting case:
In the UK, if under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for the carpets, whether the landlord obliges larger depends on whether they are a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ landlord. For bad landlords, there are legal obligations they have to meet, and if they don’t there is always courses of actions the tenant can take against the landlord; most options are free, and your first port of call would often be to seek help and advice from Citizens Advice. Obviously, if you have to take them to court (as a last resort) then that can be costly, if you lose your case.
But in summary, in the UK, in a similar scenario to what your sister faced; the correct course of action should be:
If a landlord in the UK refuses to replace a carpet damaged by flooding, a tenant can seek redress by:
1. Contacting the landlord directly to request repairs,
2. Complaining to the local council's (local government) private renting team,
3. Escalating the issue to the Housing Ombudsman (Government),
4. Or, as a last resort; taking legal action in court to force the landlord to repair the damage and potentially claim compensation for inconvenience; this should be done after providing the landlord with reasonable time to address the issue.
At any stage above, it’s always advisable to contact Citizens Advice for help and advice; preferably earlier rather than later.
This link is what Citizens Advice says about “Going to court if your landlord won't do repairs”: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/housi … o-repairs/
NB: Citizen Advice is FREE. Citizen Advice is a charity founded in the UK in 1939: https://youtu.be/Ny4fLAePvTQ
I too was too young for the war, and luckily I too missed it e.g. part of the baby boomer generation born after the war.Thanks for the info Arthur, I focused on the 5 factors that determined the amount of your housing allowance.
Like I said earlier, you seem to have a charitable society, where here there is always the idea of rugged individualism people are ashamed to acknowledge that they need help.
Most of the time, it does not pay for Section 8 participants to stir up too much trouble as they are vulnerable. In our tight housing, market people may wait well over a year to find an available space. My sis currently lives in a boarding house situation which is quite uncomfortable. It is cheap, but the landlady is eccentric and is negligent about fire and CO detectors. Because it is not a normal apartment subject to inspection for habitability, she gets away with a great deal. Who,is going to tell her to have the furnace and chimney properly cleaned and inspected? I told my sis to get a CO detector for her own protection.
The Trump regime would like to do away with agencies that help consumers against powerful intersts, so the little guy does not have to take issue with these guys having deep pockets and can afford to litigate indefinitely. This is making us all more vulnerable.
Yes, when I was speaking "too young", I was referring to Vietnam.Yes, that is the scary thing; Trump is, and will, systematically dismantle “agencies that help consumers against powerful interests” – that is already very apparent from this side of the pond.
Yes, good sound advice to your sister to invest in a CO detector. It’s also a legal requirement in the UK for landlords to install CO detectors in rooms where there is risk e.g. gas boilers.
Although, in the UK the Fire Service (which is State owned) do offer ‘free’ home safety visit to those who need it e.g. the elderly, people with disabilities, and low-income families. And as part of the free visit the Fire Service will give you free smoke alarms, and carbon monoxide alarms if needed.
As regards legal rights and protection for both renters and landlords in the UK; UK law is heavily weighted in favour of the tenant, which I understand is the reverse of the USA, where I guess the Landlord has the upper hand. In the UK, tenants have several protections against landlords, including protection from unfair eviction, harassment, and unsafe living conditions.
For example, in the UK, if the landlord wants to get rid of a tenant, under current laws the landlord has to give written notice of eviction e.g. 2 months; and if the tenant ignores the eviction notice the landlord can only recover possession of his property through the courts – I don’t know if that is similar to the USA?
To make it even harder for the landlord, a landlord can only evict a tenant for a “specified reason”; but one loophole in the current law that landlords often use is the “no-fault eviction” –
However, the new Labour Government is currently in the process of passing the “Renter’s Rights Bill” through Parliament; which will amongst other things, close the loophole in the “no-fault eviction” to further protect tenants. For clarity, it’s not just Labour being socialists; when they were in power, the Conservatives also introduced the “Renter’s Rights Bill” back in 2019, which was also designed to abolish the “no-fault eviction” to protect tenants, but not surprisingly the Conservatives dragged it out, and it never became law because we had the General Election before the Bill could make it through Parliament – so it is an issue that is not partisan in the UK, although Labour is more enthusiastic about the Bill than the Conservatives ever were.
This short video provides an overview of this, and the current housing crises in the UK (warts and all): https://youtu.be/K5zwnYtwCXMActual eviction in the US may be harder than the UK - it often takes months and months to get rid of a tenant that is not paying or causing harm to the property.
But. Most renters live under a contract of a specified time period, usually one year. After that year is up they have no more right to live there and must either sign a new contract (often with a rent increase) or move. That is the first (and often only) opportunity to get rid of a tenant that simply isn't working out - isn't destroying anything and pays but you still don't want them. Perhaps they don't get along with the rest of the tenants, perhaps their repair demands are out of line, whatever the reason, the landlord just doesn't want to rent to them any more.Same here in the UK; “it often takes months and months to get rid of a tenant that is not paying or causing harm to the property.” E.g. the landlord has to give at least a minimum of two weeks’ notice on a written notice of eviction; and if the tenant ignores the eviction notice a court eviction takes at least six months, minimum.
Yep, same here in the UK; tenancy agreements are a contract of a specified time period, typically one year. So it has the same pros and cons as you mention for America.
However, the Conservative government reluctantly in 2019 introduced a ‘Renter’s Rights Bill’ into Parliament, with the aim of giving tenants greater protection (as appeasement to their voters); but the Bill got shelved during the General Election last year.
However; the new Labour Government reintroduced the ‘Renter’s Rights Bill’ in September last year (just two months after winning the General Election); and the Bill is expected to become law this summer.
Included in the new ‘Renter’s Rights Bill’ is:
• Banning ‘no-fault’ evictions.
• Replacing fixed-term tenancies with periodic tenancies, and
• Capping the annual rent rises.
1. BANNING ‘NO-FAULT’ EVICTIONS
Under the current law, a landlord can only evict a tenant for a “specified reason”, unless the landlord uses the appropriate ‘no-fault’ evictions forms. A no-fault eviction allows an unscrupulous landlord to evict a tenant without giving a reason; and therefore makes it harder for the tenant to contest the conviction in the courts.
So under the new law, the landlord will have to give a “specified reason”, in all cases; which can then be contested in the courts.
2. REPLACING FIXED-TERM TENANCIES WITH PERIODIC TENANCIES
A ‘periodic tenancy’ in the UK is rolling tenancy with no fixed end date e.g. the landlord cannot kick the tenant out because the tenancy agreement has expired, because it never expires. And it also benefits the tenant in that in future a tenant only needs to give two months’ notice to leave, whereas under the current law (fixed-term tenancy agreement), giving such a short notice may be in breach of the tenancy agreement.
3. CAPPING THE ANNUAL RENT RISES.
In future, under the new law: The local government will cap annual rent rises for their area, to prevent unscrupulous landlords from hiking the rent up, for sitting tenants, beyond what is reasonable for the rented market in the area.
Your mention of a CO detector reminds me of my own home. A few years ago the electric company was here, looking for heat loss problems that might be increasing my bill. They realized that there was no CO monitor and installed one as a requirement for a certificate of occupancy. It seems it is a legal requirement for every home.
Now, I have no gas, no oil, no propane in the home. Nothing with any kind of flame at all - mine is a totally electric home with no other source of energy.
CO comes from burning material; it does not spontaneously generate from the air. I have no fires...but still had to have a CO monitor. When the time comes to replace it I will simply remove it.Wow – that seems a bit OTT.
Under current UK law; a carbon monoxide alarm only needs to be installed in any room which is used wholly or partly as living accommodation and contains a fixed combustion appliance (except gas cookers).
So therefore, under UK law, in a situation like yours, where you only have electricity, then a CO detector is not required.Yeah, I think that one slipped through the cracks. Almost everyone (in the metropolitan area) around me has gas, so needs one. But my home was built when it was very, very rural (the middle of a farm of perhaps 500 acres) and has no gas.
Cool
For a few years, when I was a kid, we lived in a very rural area; a cottage in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by hills (photo below) - and our water was pumped up from a local spring - So I can sense what your home must have felt like when it was built.
I just had a peek on Google Earth, and it's just as rural now as it was when I lived there.
LOL My home used to have no neighbors for at least a half kilometer in every direction (I have a birds eye photo, but don't know how to get it on the forums). Now it looks like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6135824 … FQAw%3D%3D
(And that's pretty old; all the empty space is gone now)Wow – that is a big expansion; a bit like the outskirts of Bristol, which used to be quite rural when I was young, is all now urban. North Common, Warmley, Bristol (where I lived from the age of 5 to the age of 10) was just a few dozen houses (was 20 minutes’ walk to the built-up area of Bristol), now is all houses instead of fields – but beyond North Common is still countryside because of the Green Belt policy e.g. Green Belt policy (introduced in 1947) prevents urban sprawl.
The home I previously referred to is a small village of Uley, 2 miles from Dursley (the only town in the area), which is 25 miles from Bristol. We lived on the outskirts of Uley from 1966 to 1969 (from the age of 10). Uley is quite easy to get to from Bristol by public transport; the bus from Bristol to Dursley runs once an hour; and the bus from Dursley to Uley, and other surrounding villages, also runs once an hour.
I found this aerial view of Uley on YouTube, which shows that even today its maintained its rural setting; and below is a street view snapshot of the lane (on the left) that leads down to the cottage in my last posting (where we lived).
AERIAL video of Uley https://youtu.be/dX9tkYvHCSQ
NB. You can upload your photo (birds eye view) into these posts by clicking on the camera icon on the bottom left of the reply box.
Lane on left leads to where we use to live in Uley.
Yep, promise folks to change things that really matter to them like grocery costs to get their vote and then when you win... Not only do you run away from your promise, you try and cut those very folks healthcare... To fund your real agenda
For reading seeking perspective or entertainment value(s) take a peek at . . .
The Philosophy of Facism by Jason Stanley
https://www.thephilosopher1923.org/post … of-fascism
And/or,
Facism by The Basics of Philosophy
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_fascism.htmlInteresting... "What is the case that fascism is not an historically loaded concept?"
The argument whether or not it is stuck in the past is nonsensical to me, what difference does the term or definition really make?
Tyranny is tyranny regardless how it dresses itself up... Socialist, Communist, Fascist, different in terminology or ideology, it is the same, resulting abuse of power in its extremes.
However it then delves into today's more relevant circumstance...
"If “fascism” is not the right word to use, what is? One of the attractions of the ideology to its supporters is that it promises to provide a strong leader whose decisions will not be filtered through the mechanisms of democracy, discussion and deliberation, but imposed by strength and will and even cruelty. In other words, this ideology involves an element of authoritarianism. "
"Perhaps we should add a modifier to authoritarianism, and if so, will “right-wing authoritarianism” do the explanatory task we want? One problem is that the expression “right-wing” is taken, in the United States at least, to include very different ideologies. An economic libertarian and a social conservative may each consider themselves right-wing, but for very different reasons."
So... one should ask, why are we here, with Trump as President?
One has to consider that the Blob... the Government... has run amuck.
Our government no longer serves the needs of its Citizens first and foremost. Some would argue that... but I believe that is at the heart, the core of the reason why Trump has been elected not once, but twice now.
I think the majority of Americans dislike our involvement in Ukraine...
I think the majority of Americans dislike our bringing in millions of migrants
I think the majority of Americans realize their government stole from them, and the resulting 20-30% inflation during Biden's term is all the proof they need... the additional interest an extra goose to the arse for good measure.
The trend of destroying other nations over the last 30+ years...
The continued devaluation of the dollar...
The majority of Americans don't support it... they want change... they believe a belligerent braggart who acts more authoritarian than anyone we have seen in living memory is the way to fix it...
And they are probably right... when a business is failing, or a military campaign, or a nation... you don't fix things be keeping the same people and same policies in place, and asking nicely... you go in there, fire all the dirtballs and non-producers, you re-write the rules, you take control and you don't ask for permission from the people who messed things up.
The People voted Trump in there to Drain the Swamp and trim the fat...
We will see if that happens.In the English language "fascism" has a distinct definition. Why muddle things up by diverting away from a direct inquiry and direct response?
-----
"If “fascism” is not the right word to use, what is? One of the attractions of the ideology to its supporters is that it promises to provide a strong leader whose decisions will not be filtered through the mechanisms of democracy, discussion and deliberation, but imposed by strength and will and even cruelty. In other words, this ideology involves an element of authoritarianism. "
And you think that that is good?
-----------
"Our government no longer serves the needs of its Citizens first and foremost"
By The introduction of fascism and authoritarianism, we insure that the needs of the citizens are all the mor certain to be ignored.
------
And they are probably right... when a business is failing, or a military campaign, or a nation... you don't fix things be keeping the same people and same policies in place, and asking nicely... you go in there, fire all the dirtballs and non-producers, you re-write the rules, you take control and you don't ask for permission from the people who messed things
There will be Helter Skelter across the land about changing our rules of governance undemocratically and you can bet on that...
-------------Lets focus on what is actually attempted, implemented and acted on.
Not the hysterics of what may be done, what could be done IF...
Greenland is a nice example... rather than worry about it being taken by military force... let it play out and then when an action is attempted or implemented, we will all have that to work off of.
Then we can sit in judgement.
Until I see it attempted, I find it highly unlikely we will use military force on Greenland, therefore, I don't concern myself much with statements suggesting that it might occur.
"We will see if that happens"
Yup. It will be fun to witness. As I have said for months now . . .
I am kicking back watching chaos theory unfold while entropy seeks to predict the future.
No, Bad One!
I have had it up to here with double standards and double talk.
I don't care anything about what a Rightwinger type may say because they will unleash all sort of insults and denigration toward the other side and pretend that it is all just reasoned discourse.
There has not ever been a First Lady of America who has ever been involved in nude photography for public consumption, while Trump defends how he and she could break the rules of immigration because Trump buys his way into and out of everything. That might be a plus for conservatives, but I don't respect that.
The truth is the truth and I don't mince words. I call it as I see and after all the loathsome DEI accusations that Trump used as an excuse for the tragic air accident last week, I couldn't care less what he or his cabal think. It is as I always say, if the shoe fits WEAR IT!
Undermine and neutralize: Helter Skelter......I agree - if the shoe fits wear it. Don't stretch it out of shape to fit what you want it to, wear it as is. Don't cut holes in it so it can be forced on; wear it as is. Don't even change the cosmetic appearance to fit what you want it to be - wear it without change.
And if you cannot do that then carefully set it down and leave it alone. One example is "march peacefully" does NOT mean "go and riot".I think you are misdirecting your anger...
You are angry at Trump... why... because he won? ...again?
He won because the Party you defend and embrace... that you excuse when they shoe in Clinton for Sanders... or when they shove in Harris after they deliberately had a sham primary and handed the nomination to the most unpopular President in my lifetime...
The Party that craps all over "your people"... the Party that lives outside the rules... while adding more and more rules for you to follow...:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ev9c9p71WxwI get pissed when when the Rightwinger on this forum always gives Trump a free pass, while I am castigated for identifying him as the sordid, hypocritical, racist porker that he is. But, all of that is a matter of opinion and when it comes to Trump, unless he has a "Jesus moment", my opinion of him remains entirely negative.
In the face of all this schmash over the 2 weeks that he has held office, he has confirmed by his behavior to be the jerk that I have always known him to be.
Trump is the very worse, Clinton and Harris are no issue in comparison to him. In the banter at the barber shop, I need to bring up some of these of discussion points with the guys when we talk politics.
There can be no accommodation with such a man, only resistance is appropriate and to the extent that the law will allow that is what he and his administration will receive.Trump won because he has given people permission to be as "nasty" as he is - and they love having the excuse to let their worst instincts out.
Make America Kind AgainDo you honestly (honestly!) think that's why those millions of people voted for Trump? So they can be nasty and cruel? Not to protect our borders, not to reign in govt. spending, not to stop fraud...none of those mattered. Just having an excuse to be nasty?
Thanks! Here is a photo (of a photo) of my home, shortly after it was built in 1972. When we bought in 1977 it was much the same, just minor changes in the house itself.
It was pretty neat; the children of the builder of my home came by one day and ask if they could take a cutting of a plant in the front. Then asked if I would like this photo, as they no longer had a use for it. It is about 18"X 24", in a nice frame.
Cool; thanks for sharing
It looks really nice.Well, the surrounding are has certainly changed, as seen in that earlier google map picture. But the house fits me, and I absolutely love the separate workshop - the only one I've ever had and it's great!
I assume your workshop is the building to the bottom right? It certainly looks cool
.
Prior to the 1920s, when our house was paid for and built by the Government for the unemployed and low paid (Social Housing), the area where I live was previously a coal slag heap that belonged to the local coal industry. So within just a few short years (from 1919 to 1929) the area (Hillfields Estate) was transformed from an industrial area (coalmining) to a housing estate for the unemployed and low paid.
Your workshop looks cool; what do you use it for?
I built our workshop by hand from breeze blocks (concrete bricks) in 1998, and it’s where I do all my DIY – and like you “I absolutely love (having) the separate workshop” – see photos below:
My workshop on righthand side; food store on left hand side of shed
The door on the left is to the separate room for our 'food storage'
Below: View of the Road where I live:
It's about 6X8 meters; I keep a small trailer in it plus all my tools and woodworking stuff. Walls are covered with pegboard and lots of countertops to work on (and collect junk, LOL). After decades of collecting tools I have about anything I would every want - it doesn't matter much what the job is I have the tools right at hand. For big projects I simply wheel the trailer out and have all the room I need.
I have AC in the shop, but no real heat. Just a couple of portable heaters I can turn on to take the winter chill off. The AC is a killer machine; a giant window unit requiring a dedicated 20 amp, 110 volt outlet. My parents bought it in about 1965 and I ended up with it. Still works great!I too collect junk (LOL)
in my workshop - and have to periodically have a clear-out; but I always keep a stock of scrap wood at the back of the shed and longer pieces on the ceiling joists e.g. no ceiling in the shed, just the joists – which are handy for extra (overhead) storage.
Cool : Your workshop is about the same length as our shed, but twice the width; about two thirds of the shed is my workshop, and one third is our food store, complete with kitchen units, and two freezers.
Like you, I keep “all my tools and woodworking stuff” in my workshop, and like you, “After decades of collecting tools I have about anything I would every want - it doesn't matter much what the job is I have the tools right at hand”:
I do have a proper woodworker’s workbench, and another bench on the opposite side; although I only have one pegboard on one wall; the other walls are covered with cupboards and shelving.
For the big jobs I use the picnic table on the patio, just outside the workshop; as the workshop is too small for the really large jobs.
I don’t have AC in the shed; we just open the windows for ventilation and cooling, during hot days in the summer months; although, like you, I do have a small portable heater to take the winter chill off, when necessary.
The reason we have a food store is because my wife buys food in bulk when it’s on offer e.g. the ‘lost leaders’ in supermarkets; and the freezers for the surplus crops from our garden harvest. So we normally have around 6 months’ supply of food in our shed; and 12 months’ supply of veg in the freezers from our garden.
Our Food Store in the shed at the bottom of our garden:
Absolutely one MUST have a stock of scrap wood. And metal and maybe even plastic. And more stock of unused screws, nuts and bolts. Rafters make a great start, don't they?
I don't have a proper workbench, but do have saw horses and a folding workbench; between the two it works out pretty well. It helps that I have a shopsmith - a 5 in one tool for woodworking so the floor isn't taken up with bench tools.I’d never heard of a shopsmith - so I had to look it up on the Web; and wow, what a wonderful multifunctional tool. It doesn’t appear to be on the British market, other than 2nd hand ones on eBay; so perhaps there’s isn’t such an appeal for it in Britain than America?
Fortunately, I do have all the tools that’s built into the shopsmith, as separates,– including a lathe; although my lathe isn’t as big as the shopsmith one, I still find it useful for small projects.
My favourite tool is the Sonicrafter, an electric saw that reaches places other saws can’t reach, and gives a precision cut e.g. to neatly remove a section of skirting board without damaging the wall or floor. This is a short (1 minute 23 second) video I made of using the Sonicrafter on one of my DIY Projects: https://youtu.be/ul6kkqmlpKE
Most defiantly, a stock of scrap wood is invaluable; and its surprising how much of it I get through in a year, on small projects – The images below are of a couple of display stands I made last year for my son’s market stall, made from an old headboard, so it didn’t cost me a penny.
Yes, I agree, I to keep some metal and plastic scraps, which do come in handy from time to time; although I’m not so much into metalwork; woodwork is more my forte .
And most defiantly, I do have a very large stock of new screws, of all sizes - it would be foolish not to, with the amount of screws I use in a year; but a much more modest (small) selection of nuts and bolts.
Display stands I made from scrap wood for my son's market stall.
The "sonicrafter" - an "oscillating tool" to me - was a great addition when added a few years ago. It can do what nothing else can, and make it look easy. I love mine and just bought another pack of the blades in your video for it. I had one, then bought another, cordless, one. I far prefer the cordless as I never use it for long periods of time.
Cool: I too have a large collection of blades - mine isn’t cordless; the only cordless tool I have at the moment is my 18v DeWalt drill. Although my close friend, who’s also an ardent DIY enthusiast, loves cordless tools, so he has a good selection of them; and we share a lot of DIY projects together e.g. I’ll be off to Portsmouth next week, to spend a week with him, to work on some DIY projects together – which is always fun and relaxing – plenty of coffee breaks (British style) where we can relax and chat.
Do you have a DIY buddy that you share project with?No buddy - no one in my family or friend circle is the home repairman I am. No one builds furniture, either, and I love doing that. I may try breaking in my grandson, though - he is taking construction in high school with an eye towards running job sites as a general contractor. He likes working with his hands, and it would likely help him to understand tools better than he does.
When I retired a few years ago (was an electrician) my cordless tools were about gone. They were all Dewalt and I decided I couldn't justify the cost of replacing them for home use. I ended up buying a 8 piece set of Porter Cable tools - circular saw, oscillating tool, flashlight, drill, impact driver, jig saw, peanut grinder, sawzall, - for about $250. Couldn't turn that down and the set has worked well for years now.It would be good if you could encourage your grandson to learn your skills with tools; it would be such a useful asset to him.
Yep, I remember that you were an electrician; a much respected profession to be proud of.
I’ve never heard of ‘Porter Cable’ tools, so having an interest in tools, I had a look on the Web to learn about them. Yes $250 for an 8 piece set of cordless tools is definitely a good bargain. My DIY buddy is a fan of Makita, so he has a similar cordless tool set to yours from Makita – and like you with your tool set, he loves his. I don’t know how much he paid for his set, but looking on the web, a similar set to yours, from Makita in the UK, is currently around $1,000 (not much cheaper than DeWalt).
I too, love building furniture; my two pieces that I’m most proud of is a solid oak cupboard in our living room, and a sewing cabinet I built as a Christmas present for my wife a few years ago.
The oak cupboard in our dining room was made from a full size oak cross, for the top and frame; and recycled oak floorboards for the panelling, doors and drawer. I designed it to fit a gap between our solid oak TV stand and the chimney breast, and to closely match the existing, to blend in.
I made the sewing cabinet from a hardwood similar to teak; and I designed to give easy storage access to the sewing machine, to life it out easily when needed, and put it back in storage when not needed. My wife also wanted it on wheels, with maximum drawer storage space; so to maximise on storage, I also designed and built a plinth drawer to fit in between the wheels – It was a most fun build.
The solid oak cabinet I made is the one on the right:
Now this is getting comical. Long ago, before I had anything but a circular saw and a router, I built a solid oak cabinet for my wife's movie collection. It's over 40 years old now, and showing it's age some, but still solid and still in use.
Then, when remodeling a deck that had been converted into semi-living area, I built in a large set of bookshelves...with a sewing table built into it for my wife! As you say, the machine is heavy for her, so it stores on a slide out shelf, making it easier to pick up, and with a sliding board mounted vertically that holds thread. The other end is simply 3 drawers for whatever. During the process, electrical outlets were added both above and below the table top for her use.
That room, 4X10 meters, was quite a project. It was a concrete deck, walled and roofed in, but done very poorly. It had 12 windows that were so cheap they would bow in when the wind blew, with curtains billowing into the room. I removed all the windows and put in 4 new decent ones. A new exterior door and all new paneling on the walls. New sheetrock ceiling. Carpet salvaged from a job site but still new. All new wiring of outlets and lights, including baseboard heat. It had a sliding glass door plus a second door from the kitchen area, with a 1.5X1.5 m concrete stoop. Rather than remove the stoop, I built a small pantry over it, opening into the main house. Has worked out even better than hoped for, and the added pantry space has been wonderful. One window into the kitchen was removed and a sunken display area for artwork, with hidden lighting, put in instead. Before the walls were covered, everything was insulated as it had never been done.
A LOT of work, but we have an space that has turned out to be the main living area for my wife, and it's large enough to hold a second dining table that I use to work puzzles on, plus a 2X3 m area that I use for my painting.
Thanks for sharing your photos, you’ve done a superb job there; and I love your sliding board mounted vertically that holds thread, a fantastic idea.
It is getting comical: Where you remodelled your deck “converted into semi-living area”, and incorporated a built-in sewing table into the new build; 10 years ago I built a conservatory over part of our patio, and shortly afterwards my wife commandeered it as her sewing room.
The conservatory build is about 5x3 metres; so about half the size of your build.
1. I started off by digging the foundation trenches, and filled them with concrete for laying the required 6 inches (two bricks high) DPC (Damp Proof Course) brick course, as required by Building Regulations – and laid DPC and concrete sub-floor.
2. I then constructed a timber frame, which is clad with cedar wood on the outside, and with insulation in the walls, plastered board on the inside.
3. And likewise, a timber frame roof tiled with cedar wood tiles, with lots of insulation, and plasterboard on the ceiling.
4. I laid a solid oak floor over a layer of floor insulation.
• I got the 7 leaded stained glass windows on the back wall of the conservatory (as shown in the photos below) for just $6 each from a reclamation shop.
• I got the red bricks used for the foundation wall cheaply from a local reclamation yard.
• The cedar tiles were imported from Canada.
• All the other building materials were British made, except the floor vent.
I needed a floor vent because the Conservatory was built in-front of a sub-floor air vent to the house; which under Building Regulations can’t be blocked. So I made a well in the concreate floor, with the intention to cover the hole with an air vent.
The only problem is that all the air vents on the British and European market are only thin metal, that easily bends e.g. they are designed to fit to the wall.
But what I needed was an air vent that’s strong enough to stand on, and put furniture on (such as a chair leg), without it bending or breaking.
The only such vent I could find that was strong and sturdy was one in America, called a ‘Register’? Apparently they are used in America for fitting in the walls as part of AC?
It took six weeks to arrive from America, largely due to being held up in Customs for a month; but when it did eventually arrive it was perfect for the job e.g. strong, and during the winter months I can close the vent to stop the flow of cold air from under the house; and during the summer months, open the vent up to help with air flow, to help keep the conservatory cooler.
It took me three months to do the build - Photos below:
At the far end of the floor, just to the right of the door, you might just be able to make out the air-vent (Register) that we imported from America.
What a neat little addition! You did very well here - it looks really nice.
Yes, that is a register for the heating system in America. Most homes have a forced air type of heat/AC, and most are through the floor. Some on ceilings - my son has his AC in the attic, so most of his vents are through the ceiling.
I've redone many of my floors with engineered hardwood (and one bamboo floor) and was able to buy wooden registers that come close to matching the flooring material. Strong enough to walk on, but I don't know about putting a chair or table leg on it.Thanks, and thanks for the clarification for Registers. The one I bought from America is very thick solid metal, very strong, and very heavy; and consequently not cheap, but well worth every penny. And obviously, from what you say, the one I bought is designed for the floor, and to take heavy traffic.
Similar to you, as well as the conservatory, I’ve also laid solid oak floorboards in our dining room and landing. We had a choice between engineered hardwood and solid oak floorboards; but we opted for the solid oak, even though it’s a lot more expensive than the engineered hardwood – just a personal choice.
Our front porch and kitchen are tiled, and our shower room and our en-suit bathroom both have vinyl floors; and in our home office it’s just a wood laminated floor.
The only rooms where we have carpets are just the living room and the bedrooms; all the carpets being Axminster: Axminster Carpets, made in England from 100% wool (British wool), Axminster carpets being the highest quality, and most expensive carpets you can buy in Britain.
Axminster carpets were established by Thomas Whitty in Axminster, Devon, England in 1755; when Thomas Whitty was inspired by the quality of carpets imported from Turkey.
Axminster Carpets Introduction: https://youtu.be/ZpeEhgKCCzI
Having carpets in just the living room and bedrooms does cut down on the labour of hoovering the carpets with a vacuum cleaner. But even there we do cheat in that we don’t actually hoover the carpets ourselves; we let our robotic vacuum cleaner do that for us - the same as we let our robotic lawn mower cut our lawn.
Trump won because who-ever was running the Biden Administration spent Trillions more than the Nation took in...
and gave us 25% inflation...
and started a war with Russia and refused to allow negotiations...
and opened the borders wide open and gave billions of our taxpayer dollars to fund the influx of migrants, to get them here, to care for them...
and told us Men are now Women and allowed Men to compete against Women in sports...
and told parents they had no right to protect their children from doing irreparable harm because they are convinced they are a woman trapped in a mans body...
Then there was the mandatory vaccinations or lose your job stuff...
I don't think ANY administration in America's history did a worse job or did more to annoy the majority of Americans than the Dems and Biden.Trump won because who-ever was running the Biden Administration spent Trillions more than the Nation took in...
Not really, polls showed that it was the economy.
Anyone want to address how Republicans plan to pay for a 4.8 trillion dollar tax cut to the wealthy? This administration's plans bring in even less revenue than Biden
Elon and Trump's agenda calls for adding trillions of dollars to U.S. debt..Make a case then...how does the proposed Republican budget with its huge tax cuts for the wealthy benefit this country?
An interesting bit of News from Bristol:
Last year, Princess Anne (sister to King Charles) spent a week in Southmead NHS hospital last year, following a horse riding accident – The same NHS hospital where I spent three weeks back in 2021.
I’m sure that it would seem strange to the likes of people like Mike on HP that Royalty uses the NHS as well as us commoners. But my view is that , if the NHS is good enough for Royalty then it’s certainly good enough for me.
Princess Anne Thanks Staff at Southmead NHS Hospital after Horse Accident: https://youtu.be/8u_JzYByx2IUnder the circumstances, I would be hard pressed to find fault with NHS. Mike seeks to find a disadvantage in in Socialized medicine for which he is ideologically opposed. In the face of our system which is more costly and virtually full of holes for its citizens, while Mike and others like him are seeking to make even bigger ones, I don't see that he has a leg to stand on.
America is full of THIS now and that is the eminent danger...Yeah, I know that America is full it (as you said), and as you say, "....that is the eminent danger..." - very scary, especially with Musk and Trump acting like Dictators
Arthur, have you ever seen the trilogy of "Back to the Future" comedies?
In, Back to the Future 2, there was a character, a villain named Biff Tannon, Trump is the spitting image
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5LnPaD-jHdI
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GhHQ-LIKtcoYep, I and my family are avid fans of the "Back to the Future" trilogy; we have it on DVD, so that we can re-watch it back in the future, from time to time.
And yes, now you mention it (although I'd never thought about it before) - Trump is the spitting image of Biff, even down to self obsession with power and control. And, Biff's world in the 2nd film is very much a mirror image of Trump's world. Scary stuff.....
Thanks for sharing this Biff/Trump comparison.
Scrap wood? It's a male thing.
*sound on
I'm guilty too ;-)
GA
Related Discussions
- 197
Americans are happy - media concealing it to 'slow support' for Trump
by Readmikenow 23 minutes ago
Americans are happier with their government than they been for a really, really, long time but that fact is being suppressed by the "liberal media" because members of that industry hope "to slow the support for President Donald Trump and his second-term agenda."That's the...
- 1071
Thinking about how to vote in 2024? I Am!
by Tim Mitchell 7 months ago
We all know it will be party-line loyalty for most voters. According to Pew Research, six percent of voters for the 2022 elections crossed party lines. For the mythical independent voter, it is a binary choice for the President. We are fortunate to be able to assess two Presidents based on criteria...
- 7
Food for thought. Does the President Matter?
by Tim Mitchell 8 months ago
A thought provoking article from Reason online magazine comes along withHow Much Does the President Matter? published at Reason (July 5, 2024)We've now had two consecutive presidential administrations deploy versions of this same argument in response to questions about the fitness of the man...
- 102
Tarriffs:Trump, a father of a new Golden Age or is it a Golden Shower?
by Credence2 2 days ago
Once again, the great stone head is now calling himself a scholar of economics. He tells us now that the economic turnaround would now "take time", while on the campaign trail he was telling us that it would occur overnight. On March 13th, there will be an assessment of the inflation...
- 82
The Medical Community And Religious Beliefs
by Sharlee 2 years ago
FEDERAL COURTS Published December 10, 2022, 1:10 pm ESTFederal appeals court bars Biden administration from forcing Catholic groups to provide transgender care.This is the second federal appeals court to block the Department of Health and Human Services from using Obamacare to mandate transgender...
- 30
Republican Socialism: Trump’s Budget SLASHES Medicare/Social Security
by JAKE Earthshine 5 years ago
Everyone knew this atrocious scheme by Donald Trump was coming sooner or later, and we must Thank the Good LORD “Powerhouse” Nancy Pelosi and her new Progressive Democratic House of Representatives were voted in during the last midterm election and can now OBSTRUCT & Halt Trump’s and his...