Which My GNR Forum Member Would Make the Best World Leader?

[AdriftatSea]

I think that many resent that govt provides for the poor. I think that the people on the lower socioeconomic ladder that are just above the level of obtaining govt benefits do not understand why they can't get them. I think it causes much resentment for Americans in general. This may be the reason there isn't more charity than there would be? The meager amount provided by the govt could cause more harm than good.

Oh Downzy, I absolutely adore you and you will never sound offensive or condescending to me. I understand that you are stating your thoughts and position on the matter.

I believe that we cannot compare today with what happened all those years ago. Why, because people cannot live on what the govt offers now. People that are living on govt benefits are living below poverty level. And people now have much more belief in community than they did at that time. Private charity can replace govt charity more now than it did in those years. Just look at what oil and gas companies do now.

So if people on Social Security are already living below the poverty level, what will happen if you take it away?

I kept adding more to my post! Sorry LOL... go back and read. I don't believe in taking SS away.

Oh Downzy, I absolutely adore you and you will never sound offensive or condescending to me. I understand that you are stating your thoughts and position on the matter.

I believe that we cannot compare today with what happened all those years ago. Why, because people cannot live on what the govt offers now. People that are living on govt benefits are living below poverty level. And people now have much more belief in community than they did at that time. Private charity can replace govt charity more now than it did in those years. Just look at what oil and gas companies do now.

Edit: I called it govt charity yet I meant govt benefits... govt benefits is welfare, yet it is welfare and it is not enough to live on. People cannot make it on what the govt offers. It encourages nothing more than a life of crime.

Sorry Adrift. While I appreciate our conversations, I cannot stress how factually wrong the assertion is that private charity cannot replace government charity (or benefits). While I agree with you that people living solely on government benefits are not living the life of riley, the notion that they would be doing the same or even better if the government just taxed people less so they could give more is absolutely not true and is not supported by either recent or longstanding examples. As it notes in the article I posted earlier, Americans on average give about 2 percent of household income to charity. But that number almost never changes, regardless of whether their taxes go up or down. After Bush dropped taxes in 2001, there was no noticeable rise in charitable givings from Americans.

Here's another essay that demystifies this notion that private charity could replace public support: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarecharity.htm

Then what do you think the answer is? Do you think what we have is better? Look at all the homeless people we have. Why do you think what we have is best?

Exactly....look at all the homeless people we have. If people were as "generous" as you perceive them to be, then why do we have homeless people?

See above comment. That's why.

[Ace Nova]

I think that many resent that govt provides for the poor. I think that the people on the lower socioeconomic ladder that are just above the level of obtaining govt benefits do not understand why they can't get them. I think it causes much resentment for Americans in general. This may be the reason there isn't more charity than there would be? The meager amount provided by the govt could cause more harm than good.

Oh Downzy, I absolutely adore you and you will never sound offensive or condescending to me. I understand that you are stating your thoughts and position on the matter.

I believe that we cannot compare today with what happened all those years ago. Why, because people cannot live on what the govt offers now. People that are living on govt benefits are living below poverty level. And people now have much more belief in community than they did at that time. Private charity can replace govt charity more now than it did in those years. Just look at what oil and gas companies do now.

So if people on Social Security are already living below the poverty level, what will happen if you take it away?

I kept adding more to my post! Sorry LOL... go back and read. I don't believe in taking SS away.

Oh Downzy, I absolutely adore you and you will never sound offensive or condescending to me. I understand that you are stating your thoughts and position on the matter.

I believe that we cannot compare today with what happened all those years ago. Why, because people cannot live on what the govt offers now. People that are living on govt benefits are living below poverty level. And people now have much more belief in community than they did at that time. Private charity can replace govt charity more now than it did in those years. Just look at what oil and gas companies do now.

Edit: I called it govt charity yet I meant govt benefits... govt benefits is welfare, yet it is welfare and it is not enough to live on. People cannot make it on what the govt offers. It encourages nothing more than a life of crime.

Sorry Adrift. While I appreciate our conversations, I cannot stress how factually wrong the assertion is that private charity cannot replace government charity (or benefits). While I agree with you that people living solely on government benefits are not living the life of riley, the notion that they would be doing the same or even better if the government just taxed people less so they could give more is absolutely not true and is not supported by either recent or longstanding examples. As it notes in the article I posted earlier, Americans on average give about 2 percent of household income to charity. But that number almost never changes, regardless of whether their taxes go up or down. After Bush dropped taxes in 2001, there was no noticeable rise in charitable givings from Americans.

Here's another essay that demystifies this notion that private charity could replace public support: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarecharity.htm

Then what do you think the answer is? Do you think what we have is better? Look at all the homeless people we have. Why do you think what we have is best?

Exactly....look at all the homeless people we have. If people were as "generous" as you perceive them to be, then why do we have homeless people?

See above comment. That's why.

...or the "meager" amount, as you call it, could actually help feed people. A few hundred dollars a week may not be a lot to you, but it's probably enough to put food on the table for millions of people.

[AdriftatSea]

I think that many resent that govt provides for the poor. I think that the people on the lower socioeconomic ladder that are just above the level of obtaining govt benefits do not understand why they can't get them. I think it causes much resentment for Americans in general. This may be the reason there isn't more charity than there would be? The meager amount provided by the govt could cause more harm than good.

Oh Downzy, I absolutely adore you and you will never sound offensive or condescending to me. I understand that you are stating your thoughts and position on the matter.

I believe that we cannot compare today with what happened all those years ago. Why, because people cannot live on what the govt offers now. People that are living on govt benefits are living below poverty level. And people now have much more belief in community than they did at that time. Private charity can replace govt charity more now than it did in those years. Just look at what oil and gas companies do now.

So if people on Social Security are already living below the poverty level, what will happen if you take it away?

I kept adding more to my post! Sorry LOL... go back and read. I don't believe in taking SS away.

Oh Downzy, I absolutely adore you and you will never sound offensive or condescending to me. I understand that you are stating your thoughts and position on the matter.

I believe that we cannot compare today with what happened all those years ago. Why, because people cannot live on what the govt offers now. People that are living on govt benefits are living below poverty level. And people now have much more belief in community than they did at that time. Private charity can replace govt charity more now than it did in those years. Just look at what oil and gas companies do now.

Edit: I called it govt charity yet I meant govt benefits... govt benefits is welfare, yet it is welfare and it is not enough to live on. People cannot make it on what the govt offers. It encourages nothing more than a life of crime.

Sorry Adrift. While I appreciate our conversations, I cannot stress how factually wrong the assertion is that private charity cannot replace government charity (or benefits). While I agree with you that people living solely on government benefits are not living the life of riley, the notion that they would be doing the same or even better if the government just taxed people less so they could give more is absolutely not true and is not supported by either recent or longstanding examples. As it notes in the article I posted earlier, Americans on average give about 2 percent of household income to charity. But that number almost never changes, regardless of whether their taxes go up or down. After Bush dropped taxes in 2001, there was no noticeable rise in charitable givings from Americans.

Here's another essay that demystifies this notion that private charity could replace public support: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarecharity.htm

Then what do you think the answer is? Do you think what we have is better? Look at all the homeless people we have. Why do you think what we have is best?

Exactly....look at all the homeless people we have. If people were as "generous" as you perceive them to be, then why do we have homeless people?

See above comment. That's why.

...or the "meager" amount, as you call it, could actually help feed people. A few hundred dollars a week may not be a lot to you, but it's probably enough to put food on the table for millions of people.

A few hundred dollars is a lot to me. If the govt didn't take a thousand out of my pay, I could spend that thousand on someone that needed it rather than the few hundred I spend now on someone that needs it. I don't see the few hundred the govt spends on someone helping them that much when my thousand could help them more. That's my take on it. I see your point. Do you see mine?

[downzy]

Oh Downzy, I absolutely adore you and you will never sound offensive or condescending to me. I understand that you are stating your thoughts and position on the matter.

I believe that we cannot compare today with what happened all those years ago. Why, because people cannot live on what the govt offers now. People that are living on govt benefits are living below poverty level. And people now have much more belief in community than they did at that time. Private charity can replace govt charity more now than it did in those years. Just look at what oil and gas companies do now.

So if people on Social Security are already living below the poverty level, what will happen if you take it away?

I kept adding more to my post! Sorry LOL... go back and read. I don't believe in taking SS away.

Oh Downzy, I absolutely adore you and you will never sound offensive or condescending to me. I understand that you are stating your thoughts and position on the matter.

I believe that we cannot compare today with what happened all those years ago. Why, because people cannot live on what the govt offers now. People that are living on govt benefits are living below poverty level. And people now have much more belief in community than they did at that time. Private charity can replace govt charity more now than it did in those years. Just look at what oil and gas companies do now.

Edit: I called it govt charity yet I meant govt benefits... govt benefits is welfare, yet it is welfare and it is not enough to live on. People cannot make it on what the govt offers. It encourages nothing more than a life of crime.

Sorry Adrift. While I appreciate our conversations, I cannot stress how factually wrong the assertion is that private charity cannot replace government charity (or benefits). While I agree with you that people living solely on government benefits are not living the life of riley, the notion that they would be doing the same or even better if the government just taxed people less so they could give more is absolutely not true and is not supported by either recent or longstanding examples. As it notes in the article I posted earlier, Americans on average give about 2 percent of household income to charity. But that number almost never changes, regardless of whether their taxes go up or down. After Bush dropped taxes in 2001, there was no noticeable rise in charitable givings from Americans.

Here's another essay that demystifies this notion that private charity could replace public support: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarecharity.htm

Then what do you think the answer is? Do you think what we have is better? Look at all the homeless people we have. Why do you think what we have is best? Do you think the studies you've posted are true and factual? How do you know?

Well, I know rolling back the welfare state isn't the answer. If you look at countries with more robust welfare systems, generally they experience far less levels of poverty. But if you want to say that's not a fair comparison, then let's compare the U.S. now to what was considered one of its better economic times - the "roaring" 1920s. Currently, around 14 percent of Americans live in poverty. Yet, around 40 percent of Americans lived in poverty during the 1920s. The key difference between the two times (admittedly, there are some big differences between then and now): there was no such thing as unemployment insurance, old age security, long-term welfare benefits in the 1920s.

The studies I posted are true because they're based on actual findings. No one is making things up. But you're welcome to not believe them if you want. However, in order to do that, you're going to have to find counter evidence that says otherwise. You can't just ignore or disparage statistical findings because they do not fit into your previous held beliefs. To truly disqualify them, you need hard numbers that say otherwise. And as I've read countless papers/books/dissertations on these matters, I have yet to find anything that invalidates the facts and figures I've posted in this thread. Perhaps they're there, and if you can find them, I have no problem acknowledging my error (so long as they hold up to scrutiny). But like I said, based on all the analysis that's been reported on this matter, the notion that private charity can make up for public benefit is a fantasy. We have both modern day statistical evidence and historical comparisons that disprove this notion widely held by most Libertarians.

[AdriftatSea]

Oh Downzy, I absolutely adore you and you will never sound offensive or condescending to me. I understand that you are stating your thoughts and position on the matter.

I believe that we cannot compare today with what happened all those years ago. Why, because people cannot live on what the govt offers now. People that are living on govt benefits are living below poverty level. And people now have much more belief in community than they did at that time. Private charity can replace govt charity more now than it did in those years. Just look at what oil and gas companies do now.

So if people on Social Security are already living below the poverty level, what will happen if you take it away?

I kept adding more to my post! Sorry LOL... go back and read. I don't believe in taking SS away.

Oh Downzy, I absolutely adore you and you will never sound offensive or condescending to me. I understand that you are stating your thoughts and position on the matter.

I believe that we cannot compare today with what happened all those years ago. Why, because people cannot live on what the govt offers now. People that are living on govt benefits are living below poverty level. And people now have much more belief in community than they did at that time. Private charity can replace govt charity more now than it did in those years. Just look at what oil and gas companies do now.

Edit: I called it govt charity yet I meant govt benefits... govt benefits is welfare, yet it is welfare and it is not enough to live on. People cannot make it on what the govt offers. It encourages nothing more than a life of crime.

Sorry Adrift. While I appreciate our conversations, I cannot stress how factually wrong the assertion is that private charity cannot replace government charity (or benefits). While I agree with you that people living solely on government benefits are not living the life of riley, the notion that they would be doing the same or even better if the government just taxed people less so they could give more is absolutely not true and is not supported by either recent or longstanding examples. As it notes in the article I posted earlier, Americans on average give about 2 percent of household income to charity. But that number almost never changes, regardless of whether their taxes go up or down. After Bush dropped taxes in 2001, there was no noticeable rise in charitable givings from Americans.

Here's another essay that demystifies this notion that private charity could replace public support: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarecharity.htm

Then what do you think the answer is? Do you think what we have is better? Look at all the homeless people we have. Why do you think what we have is best? Do you think the studies you've posted are true and factual? How do you know?

Well, I know rolling back the welfare state isn't the answer. If you look at countries with more robust welfare systems, generally they experience far less levels of poverty. But if you want to say that's not a fair comparison, then let's compare the U.S. now to what was considered one of its better economic times - the "roaring" 1920s. Currently, around 14 percent of Americans live in poverty. Yet, around 40 percent of Americans lived in poverty during the 1920s. The difference between the two times: there was no such thing as unemployment insurance, old age security, long-term welfare benefits in the 1920s.

The studies I posted are true because they're based on actual findings. No one is making things up. But you're welcome to not believe them if you want. However, in order to do that, you're going to have to find counter evidence that says otherwise. You can't just ignore or disparage statistical findings because they do not fit into your previous held beliefs. To truly disqualify them, you need hard numbers that say otherwise. And as I've read countless papers/books/dissertations on these matters, I have yet to find anything that invalidates the facts and figures I've posted in this thread. Perhaps they're there, and if you can find them, I have no problem acknowledging my error (so long as they hold up to scrutiny). But like I said, based on all the analysis that's been reported on this matter, the notion that private charity can make up for public benefit is a fantasy. We have both modern day statistical evidence and historical comparisons that disprove this notion widely held by most Libertarians.

Okay, you have convinced me. I believe in numbers. I guess it just sounds good, to believe in the good of people. But I can accept that I'm wrong. What do you think the answer is, to solve the problem of homelessness, of poverty? Why does the govt tax us so much yet it doesn't begin to cover the issues at hand? Why does the govt pay out less than the people need to get by? Why do they pay out only enough for it to be a crutch? What is the answer?

[Ace Nova]

A few hundred dollars is a lot to me. If the govt didn't take a thousand out of my pay, I could spend that thousand on someone that needed it rather than the few hundred I spend now on someone that needs it. I don't see the few hundred the govt spends on someone helping them that much when my thousand could help them more. That's my take on it. I see your point. Do you see mine?

You're one person...and maybe you would give your money to the poor.....or maybe you wouldn't. Now if I'm Joe the plumber, out of work, with 5 kids, I need to call you for a handout?.....if you're having a bad day or better yet, just don't feel like it, you could say "no". With social security/social benefits, etc....that most likely won't happen.

Now what about the rest of the people in the U.S.....will they be as generous as you? As Downzy said, the people that give to charity will always give to charity....and at about the same rate.

Personally, just about every time I see someone begging for money, I see luxury car after luxury car ignore them....then someone in an old beat up Dodge Neon opens their window and gives them some change. The mind set of the affluent (not all) is that these people need to "earn" their money....I hear it all-the-time.

So yes, I highly doubt that the elimination of social/government beneifts could or would be replaced by the private sector. It's wishful thinking.....but it won't happen....not in 2014 USA, anyway.

[downzy]

Oh Downzy, I absolutely adore you and you will never sound offensive or condescending to me. I understand that you are stating your thoughts and position on the matter.

I believe that we cannot compare today with what happened all those years ago. Why, because people cannot live on what the govt offers now. People that are living on govt benefits are living below poverty level. And people now have much more belief in community than they did at that time. Private charity can replace govt charity more now than it did in those years. Just look at what oil and gas companies do now.

So if people on Social Security are already living below the poverty level, what will happen if you take it away?

I kept adding more to my post! Sorry LOL... go back and read. I don't believe in taking SS away.

Oh Downzy, I absolutely adore you and you will never sound offensive or condescending to me. I understand that you are stating your thoughts and position on the matter.

I believe that we cannot compare today with what happened all those years ago. Why, because people cannot live on what the govt offers now. People that are living on govt benefits are living below poverty level. And people now have much more belief in community than they did at that time. Private charity can replace govt charity more now than it did in those years. Just look at what oil and gas companies do now.

Edit: I called it govt charity yet I meant govt benefits... govt benefits is welfare, yet it is welfare and it is not enough to live on. People cannot make it on what the govt offers. It encourages nothing more than a life of crime.

Sorry Adrift. While I appreciate our conversations, I cannot stress how factually wrong the assertion is that private charity cannot replace government charity (or benefits). While I agree with you that people living solely on government benefits are not living the life of riley, the notion that they would be doing the same or even better if the government just taxed people less so they could give more is absolutely not true and is not supported by either recent or longstanding examples. As it notes in the article I posted earlier, Americans on average give about 2 percent of household income to charity. But that number almost never changes, regardless of whether their taxes go up or down. After Bush dropped taxes in 2001, there was no noticeable rise in charitable givings from Americans.

Here's another essay that demystifies this notion that private charity could replace public support: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarecharity.htm

Then what do you think the answer is? Do you think what we have is better? Look at all the homeless people we have. Why do you think what we have is best? Do you think the studies you've posted are true and factual? How do you know?

Well, I know rolling back the welfare state isn't the answer. If you look at countries with more robust welfare systems, generally they experience far less levels of poverty. But if you want to say that's not a fair comparison, then let's compare the U.S. now to what was considered one of its better economic times - the "roaring" 1920s. Currently, around 14 percent of Americans live in poverty. Yet, around 40 percent of Americans lived in poverty during the 1920s. The difference between the two times: there was no such thing as unemployment insurance, old age security, long-term welfare benefits in the 1920s.

The studies I posted are true because they're based on actual findings. No one is making things up. But you're welcome to not believe them if you want. However, in order to do that, you're going to have to find counter evidence that says otherwise. You can't just ignore or disparage statistical findings because they do not fit into your previous held beliefs. To truly disqualify them, you need hard numbers that say otherwise. And as I've read countless papers/books/dissertations on these matters, I have yet to find anything that invalidates the facts and figures I've posted in this thread. Perhaps they're there, and if you can find them, I have no problem acknowledging my error (so long as they hold up to scrutiny). But like I said, based on all the analysis that's been reported on this matter, the notion that private charity can make up for public benefit is a fantasy. We have both modern day statistical evidence and historical comparisons that disprove this notion widely held by most Libertarians.

Okay, you have convinced me. I believe in numbers. I guess it just sounds good, to believe in the good of people. But I can accept that I'm wrong. What do you think the answer is, to solve the problem of homelessness, of poverty? Why does the govt tax us so much yet it doesn't begin to cover the issues at hand? Why does the govt pay out less than the people need to get by? Why do they pay out only enough for it to be a crutch? What is the answer?

I'm not sure if there is a means by which you eliminate homelessness completely. One thing that needs to be acknowledged is that a fairly high percentage of long-term homeless people suffer from a mental disorder or ailment. So it's not always a matter of having enough resources. Often times it's having the right resources, and I'm afraid that many developed countries, not just the U.S., fail in this regard. I don't have all the answers, especially about homelessness, as poverty was never a strong focus of mine while studying American politics and society. But I do think it's important to recognize that stripping away the support systems that are already in place isn't the answer, because if it was, the U.S. should have less poverty now than it did when the Reagan revolution started rolling back the welfare system in the mid 1980s.

I think it's also important to understand that most of your tax dollars are not going towards helping the poor and needy. Often times it's a matter of priorities, and the amount of money state and federal governments spend on poverty reduction is a pittance compared to what is spent on other matters (healthcare, the military). And I think there are valid complaints made that government bureaucracy is not nearly as effective and as efficient as it should be. But I reject the counter argument that because the government can be slow, wasteful, and subpar performance wise that it should be eliminated. I think conservatives would help the country a lot more in finding ways in which to streamline operations to facilitate better results rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And as much as you think you're being taxed to death, American citizens pay far less in taxes than almost every other well developed nation. Come to Canada and see what we pay for taxes and then tell me whether you still feel like you're being overtaxed

A few hundred dollars is a lot to me. If the govt didn't take a thousand out of my pay, I could spend that thousand on someone that needed it rather than the few hundred I spend now on someone that needs it. I don't see the few hundred the govt spends on someone helping them that much when my thousand could help them more. That's my take on it. I see your point. Do you see mine?

Personally, just about every time I see someone begging for money, I see luxury car after luxury car ignore them....then someone in an old beat up Dodge Neon opens their window and gives them some change. The mind set of the affluent (not all) is that these people need to "earn" their money....I hear it all-the-time.

This is actually bang on and verified by statistics. Poorer people give more as a percentage of their household income to charity than richer people do. Granted, in absolute terms that's not true, but it's kind of sad that the poorer people give more of what little than have than the truly affluent.

[AdriftatSea]

I wasn't aware Canadians were taxed more. I thought you had a wonderful free healthcare program. I thought we in the US had it really bad with our expensive health care and outrageously high income taxes. I didn't know.

I give to charity even when I don't have money to cover all of our bills. What I give on a regular basis is umbrellas! I keep them in my car, the big ones. Homeless people really like the big umbrellas. Each time I go into a store that sells them I buy at least a half dozen. When I stop at a light and they come up to me, I give them one. They are surprised and happy to get a big, golf sized umbrella! It rains a lot here in the winter.

I've really enjoyed this conversation. As always Downzy, you are extraordinarily informative! Thank you! And KK, you're always fun and smart too!

Sweet dreams guys!

[downzy]

I wasn't aware Canadians were taxed more. I thought you had a wonderful free healthcare program. I thought we in the US had it really bad with our expensive health care and outrageously high income taxes. I didn't know.

I give to charity even when I don't have money to cover all of our bills. What I give on a regular basis is umbrellas! I keep them in my car, the big ones. Homeless people really like the big umbrellas. Each time I go into a store that sells them I buy at least a half dozen. When I stop at a light and they come up to me, I give them one. They are surprised and happy to get a big, golf sized umbrella! It rains a lot here in the winter.

I've really enjoyed this conversation. As always Downzy, you are extraordinarily informative! Thank you! And KK, you're always fun and smart too!

Sweet dreams guys!

The U.S. healthcare system is the best in the world if you're rich. And most Americans are generally satisfied with the care they're receiving. However, Americans pay far more for their healthcare services than any other industrialized nation but often receive far less. There are many different arguments for why that is, but for me, the biggest reason is that the profit motive is part of the American system. Profits drive health care decisions far more in the U.S. system than anywhere else. It's a long and complicated situation, one probably better served in the healthcare thread I started here

I think if more people were like you Adrift and your willingness to give the argument that private charity can replace public benefits might have more truth to it. It's unfortunate that people don't give what's necessary, and it's unfortunate the government isn't as effective as it should be nor does it do all that's necessary to combat poverty. But much like social security, if we were to leave these matters solely up to private matters, we'd all be worse off. And that's why i fundamentally disagree with the current Libertarian platform. It too often lives in a pipe dream that does not reflect what the U.S. has already gone through and what statistical analysis proves to be true. To me, Libertarianism on economic matters is proof that those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.

Enjoyed the conversation as well.

[magisme]

Private charities can't create money out of thin air, so government can do more, until everyone realizes the bills won't be paid, and then it can't.

[alfierose]

Private charities can't create money out of thin air, so government can do more, until everyone realizes the bills won't be paid, and then it can't.

I used to work for a not for profit organisation that got most of its funding from government grants anyway. My local playgroup is a registered charity yet 90% of its funds come from the local council. I think the lines are blurred quite a bit between charity and state - in the UK anyway.

[Dazey]

Adrift I love you to bits but relying on the private sector to solve poverty is insane. That's generally the cause of poverty in the first place. The concept of "for profit" charities is intriguing though.

[AdriftatSea]

Adrift I love you to bits but relying on the private sector to solve poverty is insane. That's generally the cause of poverty in the first place. The concept of "for profit" charities is intriguing though.

I wasn't thinking so much as a 'for profit' charity like United Way or Red Cross. Not something where they pay out large salaries or for big offices before they distribute the monies to the needy. I was thinking of people helping out of the goodness of their hearts; donating their time and resources.

And I love you too Dazey!

[Ace Nova]

Adrift I love you to bits but relying on the private sector to solve poverty is insane. That's generally the cause of poverty in the first place. The concept of "for profit" charities is intriguing though.

I wasn't thinking so much as a 'for profit' charity like United Way or Red Cross. Not something where they pay out large salaries or for big offices before they distribute the monies to the needy. I was thinking of people helping out of the goodness of their hearts; donating their time and resources.

And I love you too Dazey!

Free love!

[Len Cnut]

*shrieks* AHHHHH, HIPPIES, KILL THEM, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD KILL THEM NOW BEFORE THEY SPREAD!

[Gracii Guns]

I foresee myself reaching 40, and with little else to do with my life, standing for election as local Labour MP.

I was involved in non-party related university politics. I'm pretty sure it's just the same thing. Attending meetings, representing people, kissing arse, enjoying limited powers whilst annoying a vocal few.

Gracii Guns as best constituency leader!

[Ace Nova]

I foresee myself reaching 40, and with little else to do with my life, standing for election as local Labour MP.

I was involved in non-party related university politics. I'm pretty sure it's just the same thing. Attending meetings, representing people, kissing arse, enjoying limited powers whilst annoying a vocal few.

Gracii Guns as best constituency leader!

Well, you certainly know how to rig an election. You got that going for you.

I kid, I kid.....

*Runs and Hides*

[Gracii Guns]

I foresee myself reaching 40, and with little else to do with my life, standing for election as local Labour MP.

I was involved in non-party related university politics. I'm pretty sure it's just the same thing. Attending meetings, representing people, kissing arse, enjoying limited powers whilst annoying a vocal few. :PGracii Guns as best constituency leader!

Well, you certainly know how to rig an election. You got that going for you.

I kid, I kid.....

*Runs and Hides*

Thanks for spotting my talent. I'll be pestering you for sponsorship money one day.

[DieselDaisy]

I foresee myself reaching 40, and with little else to do with my life, standing for election as local Labour MP.

I was involved in non-party related university politics. I'm pretty sure it's just the same thing. Attending meetings, representing people, kissing arse, enjoying limited powers whilst annoying a vocal few.

Gracii Guns as best constituency leader!

Well, you certainly know how to rig an election. You got that going for you.

I kid, I kid.....

*Runs and Hides*

Oh dear!

[SoulMonster]

I haven't read the thread and take it for granted my name has come up numerous times. Here's why:

- Almost every problem we are facing (climate change, warfare, famine, conflict over resources, pollution, etc) have would be eradicated or reduced if there were less humans on this planet. Hence I would make it illegal to have more then 2 kids (per couple). The actual growth rate would then be less than 2 and the population on Earth would gradually go down. We should at least reduce it to max 1 billion.

- This would save much resources that are currently being spent to combat the problems mentioned above, and these resources should be put into science and welfare. The aim of widespread welfare should be that every child born should have the exact same opportunities as everyone else. The only discerning factor should be the genetic makeup we are born with. True equality, for everyone.

- I would further define our species' objectives. What do we want to achieve except propagating our species? We should be one species working together for the same goals. We need a broad cognitive awakening and a realization that we are in the same boat. Right now it is every man, enthinicty, country and region for itself, mindlessly just doing what is necesarry to satisfy the basics of human nature in a very short-sighted way, and often fighting amongst ourselves as a result. It would be amazing what we could have achieved if we just set our mind to it and cooperated, but as of now we don't even know what we want to achieve. Sooner or later there will be one external enemy or problem that will unite us, but then it might be too late.

- Implementation and full results of these policies wouldn't be reached within my life-time (reducing the population through the method above takes generations), but I would be happy to initiate these changes.

[GivenToFly]

- Almost every problem we are facing (climate change, warfare, famine, conflict over resources, pollution, etc) have would be eradicated or reduced if there were less humans on this planet. Hence I would make it illegal to have more then 2 kids (per couple). The actual growth rate would then be less than 2 and the population on Earth would gradually go down. We should at least reduce it to max 1 billion.

Natural growth in developed countries is already low, not even enough to sustain future pensions. The places where population grows are poor places in South Asia and Africa where you wouldn't be able to implement your laws anyway. You're best off just creating economic growth and birth rates drop by themselves in response. And if population goes down any dream of welfare state will go with it, in fact it would be a complete disaster. There is more than enough potential to feed all the people on the planet and many more, the issue is distribution - build transport infrastructure instead to move the food from the fields to the cities. And I assume warfare and conflict over resources would be less of an issue in a scenario where the world had an entire leader.

- This would save much resources that are currently being spent to combat the problems mentioned above, and these resources should be put into science and welfare. The aim of widespread welfare should be that every child born should have the exact same opportunities as everyone else. The only discerning factor should be the genetic makeup we are born with. True equality, for everyone.

I'm cool with that, but you might be overestimating the resources you'd have at your disposal.

- I would further define our species' objectives. What do we want to achieve except propagating our species? We should be one species working together for the same goals. We need a broad cognitive awakening and a realization that we are in the same boat. Right now it is every man, enthinicty, country and region for itself, mindlessly just doing what is necesarry to satisfy the basics of human nature in a very short-sighted way, and often fighting amongst ourselves as a result. It would be amazing what we could have achieved if we just set our mind to it and cooperated, but as of now we don't even know what we want to achieve. Sooner or later there will be one external enemy or problem that will unite us, but then it might be too late.

Every leader starts with big objectives that last until the first crisis.

- Implementation and full results of these policies wouldn't be reached within my life-time (reducing the population through the method above takes generations), but I would be happy to initiate these changes.

Good luck.

5/10 - 2edgy4me shit

[SoulMonster]

- Almost every problem we are facing (climate change, warfare, famine, conflict over resources, pollution, etc) have would be eradicated or reduced if there were less humans on this planet. Hence I would make it illegal to have more then 2 kids (per couple). The actual growth rate would then be less than 2 and the population on Earth would gradually go down. We should at least reduce it to max 1 billion.

Natural growth in developed countries is already low, not even enough to sustain future pensions. The places where population grows are poor places in South Asia and Africa where you wouldn't be able to implement your laws anyway.

Why not? China was able to implement their population control policies in poor, rural areas with relative success, why shouldn't a world leader be able to do the same on a global scale? And we haven't even started to talk about the toolbox I would have at disposal for implementing policies nor whether I was voted as world leader in a democratic process which would imply people were already behind my agenda.

You're best off just creating economic growth and birth rates drop by themselves in response. And if population goes down any dream of welfare state will go with it, in fact it would be a complete disaster.

How so? Welfare is not dependant upon a magic number of people but upon being able to provide for everyone with limited resources which is much easier when resources aren't squandered on military budgets, subsidizing living in non-sustainable regions, etc. In addition, I am not sure constant economic growth is sustainable.

There is more than enough potential to feed all the people on the planet and many more, the issue is distribution - build transport infrastructure instead to move the food from the fields to the cities. And I assume warfare and conflict over resources would be less of an issue in a scenario where the world had an entire leader.

It is too narrow to think about only feeding the masses as the reason for wanting to reduce the population on Earth. The problem with having 6 billion people on Earh is not only famune but the effect it has on climate, warfare due to fighting over limited resources (including but not limited to food), pollution, destruction of ecosystems, mass extinction of animals as we nee more and more land to sustain our habits, etc.

You might be right that we could provide for food for everyone and many more, if we just distributed it better, but this is all of mere acdamic interest when history demonstrates that we aren't able to do this. We have to be pragmatic, it doesn't matter whether we could do it in theory when we aren't able to do it in reality. Laws and policies must be connected to reality and not lofty dreams.

- I would further define our species' objectives. What do we want to achieve except propagating our species? We should be one species working together for the same goals. We need a broad cognitive awakening and a realization that we are in the same boat. Right now it is every man, enthinicty, country and region for itself, mindlessly just doing what is necesarry to satisfy the basics of human nature in a very short-sighted way, and often fighting amongst ourselves as a result. It would be amazing what we could have achieved if we just set our mind to it and cooperated, but as of now we don't even know what we want to achieve. Sooner or later there will be one external enemy or problem that will unite us, but then it might be too late.

Every leader starts with big objectives that last until the first crisis.

And yet no leader I have heard of have attempted to rally humanity to work as a team for well-defined objectives. We haven't really had a world leader before. It's been individuals who have lead smaller groups of people for the advancement of their objectives often against others. We need to be like ants, united under one cause. Just image if we cooperated for once and didn't continuously squabble and fight like children, all we could achieve, all we could do. Sooner or later we will have to do this, but I fear we will only do it when it is absolutely necesarry, like when we have a common enemy/disaster, and then it might be too late.

[wasted]

Wasted for President

Randy Lahey as VP

Nukes up hos down.

[Lio]

I haven't read the thread and take it for granted my name has come up numerous times. Here's why:

- Almost every problem we are facing (climate change, warfare, famine, conflict over resources, pollution, etc) have would be eradicated or reduced if there were less humans on this planet. Hence I would make it illegal to have more then 2 kids (per couple). The actual growth rate would then be less than 2 and the population on Earth would gradually go down. We should at least reduce it to max 1 billion.

- This would save much resources that are currently being spent to combat the problems mentioned above, and these resources should be put into science and welfare. The aim of widespread welfare should be that every child born should have the exact same opportunities as everyone else. The only discerning factor should be the genetic makeup we are born with. True equality, for everyone.

- I would further define our species' objectives. What do we want to achieve except propagating our species? We should be one species working together for the same goals. We need a broad cognitive awakening and a realization that we are in the same boat. Right now it is every man, enthinicty, country and region for itself, mindlessly just doing what is necesarry to satisfy the basics of human nature in a very short-sighted way, and often fighting amongst ourselves as a result. It would be amazing what we could have achieved if we just set our mind to it and cooperated, but as of now we don't even know what we want to achieve. Sooner or later there will be one external enemy or problem that will unite us, but then it might be too late.

- Implementation and full results of these policies wouldn't be reached within my life-time (reducing the population through the method above takes generations), but I would be happy to initiate these changes.

You have my vote.

[DR DOOM]

Groghan.