Hamas endorses Obama

[moe.ron]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

To be fair, the UN's reliance on the United States extends far beyond mere financial support.

For example, they were completely unprepared to take significant action on Iraq, despite a decade of Saddam rebuking their authority. (I'm not arguing the war here, just that the UN has no inherent spine).

Look at today, where the IAEA pitched a fit about Syria, and the US told them to go screw themselves. The world's nuclear agency didn't have the information, so they bitched at the US.

The UN is as effective as the permanent 5 will let it be. In another word, the perm 5 does not want an effective UN.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

It isn't a matter of choice, though.

There is no predicting which crime prevention measure will actually make crime decrease. And there's no way of knowing that Option B works unless evaluations are conducted that determine that it was Option B instead of Option A and/or other factors (stronger family units, decreased structural inequalities, better schooling, etc.).

But like I said implementing a number of crime prevention and control measures provides a holistic approach. We just have to get tax payers to understand that these prevention measures are not free. Even holding individuals accountable through punishment and advancing family values and morality aren't free initiatives.

No, what works isn't a matter of choice. Societal attitude toward crime is, however.

Regardless of increased tax revenue, government action will never solve America's crime problem. I hope you don't think the awareness of taxpayers is the biggest obstacle to advances in this arena.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Not guaranteed. But we would be addressing one of the many correlates of crime, plus improving other aspects of this "powerful industrialized, civilized, economically developed, capitalist nation."

We might not have to wait for a prompting event, however, crime rates do respond to economic shifts, imprisonment rates, demographic shifts, and so forth.

No, not guaranteed. I was simplifying the hypothetical to show my line of reasoning.

Sure, lets work to end poverty. So long as we know we're engaging in temporary appeasement when it comes to crime.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by moe.ron

The UN is as effective as the permanent 5 will let it be. In another word, the perm 5 does not want an effective UN.

For the UN to be effective, the perm 5 has to facilitate it, they are not restraining some innately powerful entity.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

So long as we know we're engaging in temporary appeasement when it comes to crime.

Addressing the correlates of crime isn't a temporary adjustment.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Addressing the correlates of crime isn't a temporary adjustment.

No you're right, it will be a incessant process of recognizing or discovering new correlates, addressing those, only to see crime persist despite our efforts. This is very likely a fight worth fighting (depending on what must be sacrificed), but it will never yield a solution to America's crime problem.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

No you're right, it will be a incessant process of recognizing or discovering new correlates, addressing those, only to see crime persist despite our efforts. This is very likely a fight worth fighting (depending on what must be sacrificed), but it will never yield a solution to America's crime problem.

There will always be crime. Period.

What we're striving for as an industrialized nation is to not have such a high crime rate (as compared to other industrialized nations). And we should focus on crimes beyond those committed by the lower socioeconomic status.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

There will always be crime. Period.

What we're striving for as an industrialized nation is to not have such a high crime rate (as compared to other industrialized nations). And we should focus on crimes beyond those committed by the lower socioeconomic status.

You're exactly right we should. And addressing the correlates of that category of crime will be an even more frustrating task, I think.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

It's not something you agree with or don't, it's fact. You're thinking of a stereotype of urban poor.
http://www.secondharvest.org/who_we_...ger_facts.html
This is about elderly people living on fixed incomes, people who cannot support themselves on the wages available, urban and rural.


So the mentally ill don't deserve food? These things are wonderful if you live in a large enough city to support them and have transportation etc. Your perspective is very very focused on one portion of the population. See the links above about people in America who resort to eating clay.

So you're for the social programs run by the government? And if those aren't adequately meeting the needs of the population you'd be for expanding them so they are?




... I cannot follow that sentence. People in the world hate us for different reasons, but you cannot exclude reasons because they don't fit your worldview.



Monetary as well as other promises we make, but you do realize that 25% of our national debt is in the hands of foreign countries right?

We also do owe the UN 1.246 billion dollars because Congress thinks its fun not to pay in order to try and make the UN do what we want. We currently pay 22% of the UN's budget because they have a "ability to pay" scale. This does not make use "basically funding the UN ourselves"

It's not that I don't think people deserve food, but it's that I believe we presently have in place generally adequate levels of funding to provide food and private groups that actually hand out food. (although it would seem like a good idea to me to reevaluation how we pay farm subsidies to tip the scales toward food production if it we can see that the problem is in fact too little food available.) The breakdown, as I see it, occurs getting the food to the people, mainly because the people in need don't seek the aid, rather than because anyone is withholding it or because we just need more government employees out there ready to document the need.

I think when you really look at who might be going hungry, they are going to be a hard group to serve better, largely because of their own behavior. Since I'm not someone who thinks it's the government's job to force itself on people who don't seek it's help, it's a problematic issue for me. If additional efforts need to me made, I'd rather handle them with tax incentives and private aid to groups who can document delivery of food to people in need.

Paying almost a 1/4 of the UN's bills seems about right to you? Not even getting in to the costs of other support to UN programs? It doesn't to me. In additions to the 22% figure, where do you think most of the private support for UN programs is coming from? I think, even leaving out the military support Shinerbock mentioned, I think if you broke down UNICEF funding or other UN charities, you'd still be looking at way more US support than would seem proportional.

I'm also not bothered by owning debt to other countries as long as we are meeting the terms of the debt repayment. Are we defaulting? If we need to assume government debt, I'd prefer to get the lowest terms or go with a lender who provides some other benefit. If it's international, I think it's okay, but I'll freely admit I haven't studied the issue.

My point about why people hate us is that our perception about why they hate us is really too subjective to let it drive our domestic decision making. They hate us, and we should avoid it when we can, but deciding how we want to conduct our own government based on why we imagine they hate is isn't a particularly good plan.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

It's not that I don't think people deserve food, but it's that I believe we presently have in place generally adequate levels of funding to provide food and private groups that actually hand out food. (although it would seem like a good idea to me to reevaluation how we pay farm subsidies to tip the scales toward food production if it we can see that the problem is in fact too little food available.) The breakdown, as I see it, occurs getting the food to the people, mainly because the people in need don't seek the aid, rather than because anyone is withholding it or because we just need more government employees out there ready to document the need.

Here you seem to be advocating more government support,

I think when you really look at who might be going hungry, they are going to be a hard group to serve better, largely because of their own behavior. Since I'm not someone who thinks it's the government's job to force itself on people who don't seek it's help, it's a problematic issue for me. If additional efforts need to me made, I'd rather handle them with tax incentives and private aid to groups who can document delivery of food to people in need.

Here you're saying it's not the government's job to go further than it has.

Paying almost a 1/4 of the UN's bills seems about right to you? Not even getting in to the costs of other support to UN programs? It doesn't to me. In additions to the 22% figure, where do you think most of the private support for UN programs is coming from? I think, even leaving out the military support Shinerbock mentioned, I think if you broke down UNICEF funding or other UN charities, you'd still be looking at way more US support than would seem proportional.

I didn't give a value judgement on the funding. 1/5 of the cost, based on an ability to pay, is not "basically funding the UN ourselves."

UNICEF and the like are not part of the UN and don't have an effect on the functioning of the UN.

I'm also not bothered by owning debt to other countries as long as we are meeting the terms of the debt repayment. Are we defaulting? If we need to assume government debt, I'd prefer to get the lowest terms or go with a lender who provides some other benefit. If it's international, I think it's okay, but I'll freely admit I haven't studied the issue.

Fair enough, as long as you're comfortable with other countries owning that debt. We do not "have" to assume government debt.

My point about why people hate us is that our perception about why they hate us is really too subjective to let it drive our domestic decision making. They hate us, and we should avoid it when we can, but deciding how we want to conduct our own government based on why we imagine they hate is isn't a particularly good plan.

And as I said, we shouldn't change our policies because Belgium is really pissed off, but we should give a damn that we are pissing off even those countries considered our allies. We should change our policies when they're bad ones.

[shinerbock]

To clarify from earlier about foreign perception...

I do think we should care what other countries think. I think we should take it under consideration and engage in some self-analysis.

But, if we conclude, which I suspect we will in many cases, that those countries have different interests from us, different national ideologies, a different history of achievement, etc...then we should continue doing what we think is best, despite the dissent.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Here you seem to be advocating more government support,
Here you're saying it's not the government's job to go further than it has.

I didn't give a value judgement on the funding. 1/5 of the cost, based on an ability to pay, is not "basically funding the UN ourselves."

UNICEF and the like are not part of the UN and don't have an effect on the functioning of the UN.
Fair enough, as long as you're comfortable with other countries owning that debt. We do not "have" to assume government debt.

And as I said, we shouldn't change our policies because Belgium is really pissed off, but we should give a damn that we are pissing off even those countries considered our allies. We should change our policies when they're bad ones.

I'm not advocating more government support, other than possibly tax credits for private companies or revising farm subsidies that pay people not to grow (ETA: or to grow for the sake of ethanol, just to make the subsidies talk fresh. We currently pay money to people to do things with their farm land other than to grow food. I don't regard it as the government offering more support if we stop or reduce such subsidies although it's certainly the government acting in a way that might produce more food.)

I see all UN programs as being part of the UN. When one figures in all aid to all UN programs the US share is even greater. But this point is neither here non there, other than to say I don't have the same problem in not paying what we "owe" to the UN, but I agree that it's problematic to say we will pay and then withhold funding. Sometimes I'd support completely pulling out of the UN; sometimes I moderate my urge for this extreme because of the other UN programs like UNICEF, which our contribution to the UN does help.

You're right that we don't have to assume debt. I'd favor the government doing less as a way to reduce expense. (We can start with the billions we pay to the UN if you want.) Others favor taxing more. Apparently it's beyond the will of anyone elected to public office just not to spend more than the government takes in and to reduce spending further to allow for debt to be paid off. I don't see anyone is the race who is going to be willing to do that, Hamas endorsed or not.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

To clarify from earlier about foreign perception...

I do think we should care what other countries think. I think we should take it under consideration and engage in some self-analysis.

But, if we conclude, which I suspect we will in many cases, that those countries have different interests from us, different national ideologies, a different history of achievement, etc...then we should continue doing what we think is best, despite the dissent.

Yep. And I will hold out there that we often need to remember that not only are we different in a lot of cases, but that our interests are even competitive with the interests of some other countries.