Hi Graham,
I agree absolutetly.
Mike Freeman
Greedy MPs
-
eroticartist
- Posts: 2941
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Greedy MPs
amazon.com/author/freeman
-
eroticartist
- Posts: 2941
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Greedy MPs
Tony Blair is a war mongering criminal and the bodies are still piling up!
Mike Freeman.
Mike Freeman.
amazon.com/author/freeman
-
beutelwolf
- Posts: 1210
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Difference with Tories
Reggie Perrin wrote:
> No it isn't. If people are doing a job then you pay them the
> going rate for it. Paying them benefits for real work is slave
> labour, something the Nazis went on to develop as theme didn't
> they?
They did, but the distinction between the first form (work for your dole money), and the second (concentration camps, slave labour of pows) is stark. Very stark.
> So you would go out to work for a whole week for your
> dole money would you? Get real.
If the alternative was no money at all and starving then yes I would.
> There were plenty of rich industrialists in Germany in the
> 1930s, all friends and backers of the Nazis, enough money
> around to pay a few road-sweepers.
More road-building than sweeping.
Germany had in excess of 6 million unemployed in 1933, compared to 12 million people in work. Desperate times. Germany was hit much worse by the depression than Britain.
A few rich industrialists would not have made the difference. Anyway, they were by no means initially all friends and backers of the Nazis - the Nazis were after all initially a party of the dispossessed. Some backed the Nazis as an alternative to the communists taking over, and others followed later through a mix of opportunism and fear.
I am not even saying that making people work for dole money was 'the right thing'; all I am saying is that, under the circumstances using dole-money to build some infrastructure was one possible route to economic recovery. Spending your way out of trouble by quantitave easing (which is what seems to be path the UK is taking now) would have not been considered an option: just 10 years earlier, in 1923 Germany was hit by an inflation beyond Zimbabwean proportions, at the end of it the currency was at a rate of 4 trillion Reichsmark to 1 Dollar.
> You speak of 'picking on' something the Nazis did wrong. It
> isn't necessary to 'pick' the whole era was a tragedy, even for
> people who were Nazis.
I have seen this argument many times, and it boils down to 'everything the Nazis did was bad', complete with the deduction rule: the Nazis did X, therefore X was bad. This is too simplistic, and in many trivial instances just wrong. It also goes hand in hand with the Hollywood view of the Nazis as comedy villains from outer space, evil incarnate as that piece of charcoal in Time Bandits.
> They tried the idea under Haider in Austria and had to back
> down mighty fast because it wasn't very popular.
And because it is not popular it is not implementable in a democracy. But that a measure is unpopular does not automatically make it wrong.
> No it isn't. If people are doing a job then you pay them the
> going rate for it. Paying them benefits for real work is slave
> labour, something the Nazis went on to develop as theme didn't
> they?
They did, but the distinction between the first form (work for your dole money), and the second (concentration camps, slave labour of pows) is stark. Very stark.
> So you would go out to work for a whole week for your
> dole money would you? Get real.
If the alternative was no money at all and starving then yes I would.
> There were plenty of rich industrialists in Germany in the
> 1930s, all friends and backers of the Nazis, enough money
> around to pay a few road-sweepers.
More road-building than sweeping.
Germany had in excess of 6 million unemployed in 1933, compared to 12 million people in work. Desperate times. Germany was hit much worse by the depression than Britain.
A few rich industrialists would not have made the difference. Anyway, they were by no means initially all friends and backers of the Nazis - the Nazis were after all initially a party of the dispossessed. Some backed the Nazis as an alternative to the communists taking over, and others followed later through a mix of opportunism and fear.
I am not even saying that making people work for dole money was 'the right thing'; all I am saying is that, under the circumstances using dole-money to build some infrastructure was one possible route to economic recovery. Spending your way out of trouble by quantitave easing (which is what seems to be path the UK is taking now) would have not been considered an option: just 10 years earlier, in 1923 Germany was hit by an inflation beyond Zimbabwean proportions, at the end of it the currency was at a rate of 4 trillion Reichsmark to 1 Dollar.
> You speak of 'picking on' something the Nazis did wrong. It
> isn't necessary to 'pick' the whole era was a tragedy, even for
> people who were Nazis.
I have seen this argument many times, and it boils down to 'everything the Nazis did was bad', complete with the deduction rule: the Nazis did X, therefore X was bad. This is too simplistic, and in many trivial instances just wrong. It also goes hand in hand with the Hollywood view of the Nazis as comedy villains from outer space, evil incarnate as that piece of charcoal in Time Bandits.
> They tried the idea under Haider in Austria and had to back
> down mighty fast because it wasn't very popular.
And because it is not popular it is not implementable in a democracy. But that a measure is unpopular does not automatically make it wrong.
-
Dave Wells
- Posts: 2717
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Greedy MPs
GET THE MONEY BACK OFF OF THE THIEVING BASTARDS ! Sack them, fine them and charge them interest !
The worst thing about this is the arsehole committee that sanctioned all these claims. These people need to be put in court for treason !
Isn't this just another type of benefit fraud ?
AND ORGANISE A REVOLUTION TO BECOME A REPUBLIC FOR A START !
The worst thing about this is the arsehole committee that sanctioned all these claims. These people need to be put in court for treason !
Isn't this just another type of benefit fraud ?
AND ORGANISE A REVOLUTION TO BECOME A REPUBLIC FOR A START !
Dave Wells
http://www.dave-wells.co.uk
http://www.dave-wells.co.uk
Re: Greedy MPs
Right Dave i agree with you but give it a few more weeks and itll be starting all over again
-
beutelwolf
- Posts: 1210
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Difference with Tories
Reggie Perrin wrote:
> Oh dear you are still one of those people who think there was
> something good about the Nazis.
Strictly speaking, yes - see the last point in my post.
My issue is that not everything (and I do mean everything, including repairing broken cinema seats, etc.) they did was automatically bad just because they did it. That's a line of reasoning I have never accepted.
There are a lot of trivial things governments do, including what the Nazis did.
> All the road building projects and social constuction, projects
> actually thought up by the Weimar Republic, don't balance out
> the oppression which started in 1933.
Yes, but balancing out is not the issue. I am not talking about judging the Nazis in their entirety, I am talking about every single thing they did in isolation. And for that, I don't accept the blanket "the Nazis did it, therfore it was bad". Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarianism is evil. That line of reasoning I am opposing.
> Yes it's true that the Nazis spent their way out of the
> Depression with building projects, there was funding for that.
> Expecting people to work full-time for a benefit handout is and
> was completely wrong and completely cynical particularly when
> you see the way the Nazi leadership lived.
Wrong on what grounds? Morally? Economically? Pragmatically?
BTW in my book, cynicism counts for absolutely nothing.
>The reason for this
> is cynicism and nothing else.
Bollocks. It was pragmatic. Lots of people needed financial support, and the Nazis could exploit that by making them work for benefits on public projects, getting as a result those projects done at a knock-down price. There was an ideological side to this too, along the lines of: you get paid by society, you contribute to society; you do not contribute to society, we get rid of you. Unpleasant, but consistent with their hotchpotch ideology as a whole.
> It dictates that we will force
> you to work at any menial task but we will continue to
> stigmatise you as outside of useful society by not paying you
> the going rate for that work.
That's a very British way of looking at society, not a German one. Stigmatisation was never the issue in Germany. The Nazis were in their origin not upper class bullies that wanted to keep the working class down, they were lower class bullies who wanted to get rich, get rid of democracy, get rid of the people they hated and create a new empire. Their view of their empire was certainly not an egalitarian one, but it was not a you-know-your-place thing either - more a meritocracy of sorts.
> The modern version
> of such exploitative methods are production companies who
> expect new-comers to make the tea and take shit for a year,
> because everybody even the bosses had to do it (not actually
> true in quite a lot of cases in fact) and in some cases work
> for nothing.
And the modern version is indeed indefensible, in a democracy of reasonable wealth anyway. In a poor country it's a different issue, there it might be a sensible way to improve the wealth of the country as a whole. Which was my original point.
> I'm surprised that you don't admire Mussolini more than Hitler,
The only thing I admire about the Nazis are the SS uniforms. Designed to frighten, and doing their job.
> Oh dear you are still one of those people who think there was
> something good about the Nazis.
Strictly speaking, yes - see the last point in my post.
My issue is that not everything (and I do mean everything, including repairing broken cinema seats, etc.) they did was automatically bad just because they did it. That's a line of reasoning I have never accepted.
There are a lot of trivial things governments do, including what the Nazis did.
> All the road building projects and social constuction, projects
> actually thought up by the Weimar Republic, don't balance out
> the oppression which started in 1933.
Yes, but balancing out is not the issue. I am not talking about judging the Nazis in their entirety, I am talking about every single thing they did in isolation. And for that, I don't accept the blanket "the Nazis did it, therfore it was bad". Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarianism is evil. That line of reasoning I am opposing.
> Yes it's true that the Nazis spent their way out of the
> Depression with building projects, there was funding for that.
> Expecting people to work full-time for a benefit handout is and
> was completely wrong and completely cynical particularly when
> you see the way the Nazi leadership lived.
Wrong on what grounds? Morally? Economically? Pragmatically?
BTW in my book, cynicism counts for absolutely nothing.
>The reason for this
> is cynicism and nothing else.
Bollocks. It was pragmatic. Lots of people needed financial support, and the Nazis could exploit that by making them work for benefits on public projects, getting as a result those projects done at a knock-down price. There was an ideological side to this too, along the lines of: you get paid by society, you contribute to society; you do not contribute to society, we get rid of you. Unpleasant, but consistent with their hotchpotch ideology as a whole.
> It dictates that we will force
> you to work at any menial task but we will continue to
> stigmatise you as outside of useful society by not paying you
> the going rate for that work.
That's a very British way of looking at society, not a German one. Stigmatisation was never the issue in Germany. The Nazis were in their origin not upper class bullies that wanted to keep the working class down, they were lower class bullies who wanted to get rich, get rid of democracy, get rid of the people they hated and create a new empire. Their view of their empire was certainly not an egalitarian one, but it was not a you-know-your-place thing either - more a meritocracy of sorts.
> The modern version
> of such exploitative methods are production companies who
> expect new-comers to make the tea and take shit for a year,
> because everybody even the bosses had to do it (not actually
> true in quite a lot of cases in fact) and in some cases work
> for nothing.
And the modern version is indeed indefensible, in a democracy of reasonable wealth anyway. In a poor country it's a different issue, there it might be a sensible way to improve the wealth of the country as a whole. Which was my original point.
> I'm surprised that you don't admire Mussolini more than Hitler,
The only thing I admire about the Nazis are the SS uniforms. Designed to frighten, and doing their job.
Re: Greedy MPs
A few people on this forum (not you Dave) often malign 'Chavs' and what they see as a benefit dependent underclass. They're like the old 'he looks down on him, and he looks down on him' sketch about the class system. They're deferential to those whom they perceive to be their social betters which is a great cover for people to fiddle; their good moral standing is taken as a given and they're above suspicion, which is evident nonsense.
There is a theory in sociology called 'stratified diffusion' which contends that values trickle down the class system. If you find merit in this then you would argue that some people at the bottom are dishonest and rotten because they take their cue from some people at the top. I think it's more a case of 'some people are rotten' and this is true of all strata of society.
My complaint is that some people are very selective about where they see it. There is a bigger picture (doubtless unpalatable to some) and whether you're living in a council house on benefits or a house with a swimming pool, moat and chandeliers there are opportunities to fiddle and choices to be made.
There is a theory in sociology called 'stratified diffusion' which contends that values trickle down the class system. If you find merit in this then you would argue that some people at the bottom are dishonest and rotten because they take their cue from some people at the top. I think it's more a case of 'some people are rotten' and this is true of all strata of society.
My complaint is that some people are very selective about where they see it. There is a bigger picture (doubtless unpalatable to some) and whether you're living in a council house on benefits or a house with a swimming pool, moat and chandeliers there are opportunities to fiddle and choices to be made.
-
JonnyHungwell
- Posts: 1230
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Greedy MPs
Only a civil uprising on a grand scale could achieve the changes we need - but it will never happen in the UK, a country where 30% of the population would probably volunteer to be tagged, trotting out the clich? 'if you've got nothing to hide .....'. We have a population of cunts and they deserve to be shagged over, so in a way, good luck to the MPs for shagging us over,