Voting Rights in America

Erica Ambler wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

TedHeath wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

Don't be so fucking stupid. By the time Thatcher left office the UK was the fifth biggest economy in the world.

Going from having the largest empire in world history to only having the fifth largest economy isn't really an amazing feat.

When she took office in 1979 the UK was down to 27th.

No small thanks to TedHeath.

You're aware that Callaghan was in power prior to Thatcher?

I was referring to Thatcher's conservative predecessor and the user, Ted Heath.

Wilson, Heath and Callaghan were all responsible for failures of leadership. Then again, Britain in the late 1960s and 70s was a very strange place, unless you think it is the job of government to mine coal, make steel, aeroplanes, cars and ships.

A lot of things Thatcher is commonly reviled for have either started well into the mid- 1970s or are maybe only indirectly or losely related to her entering office in 1979.

She took over an unemployment rate of 5.3 % that quickly soared to 11.8% in July 1984. It then dropped to 6.9% in December 1989, most of that decrease from December 1986 (11.3) to August 1989 (7.0). So she was giving the nation a proper rollercoaster ride for free (or for supplementary benefit if you will). Interestingly John Major faced a similar increase/decrease pattern, with a peak at January 1993 (10.7) and a low at the moment of Blair's take-over at 7.3%.

Economic growth during Thatcher's years never went beyond 4.3% GDP (in the quarter she took over), with many dents and quite a few quarters in the negative on the way. On average she can only show a moderate growth during her tenure. Today of course Osborne would kill for 2.2%.

Inflation was a particular concern of Britain in the 1970s, soaring in the twenties. Thatcher brought that down to 2.5% - over a long struggle of six years by 1986 - but it went quickly back to 10.6 by the time she left. Major is the one who achieved a low of 1.6.

Manufacturing goods had been approximately 20.5% of Britain's GDP for 1970. By 1979 that had changed to 17.62% GDP. The decline during her government went on at just a slightly lower pace but for the most part merely continued the trend already present. When she left it was down to 15.18%. To give an idea of the present situation, in 2010 here we had approximatly 9.86% of GDP in manufactured goods, with a tendency towards declining numbers. Britain just doesn't produce that much any more, despite the population growing by roughly six million people.

Public spending under Thatcher actually rose from 44.6 after the elections to 48.1% of GDP in 1982/83, before numbers dropped to 38.8 just before she resigned. But she never came close to Blair's 1999 record of 36.3%. And interestingly her reign ended with 23.1 % of the workforce employed in the public sector. Today it's only roughly 20%.

Poverty's also an interesting topic. Defined as 'living below 60% of the median incomes before housing costs' this means Thatcher inherited 13.4% of Britain's population living below this margin in 1979. This increased to 15.2% in 1980 and decreased to 12.1% by 1982. Unfortunately, before she finally did the decent thing and resigned the country saw an increase of that number to an alarming 22.2%, most of this steep ascent after 1985.

Overall the mere figures do not support either praise or revilement the figure of Thatcher currently gets; not to the extent seen here and elsewhere. The conclusion is the judgement on the reign of Thatcher is a largely emotional one, at least by those who had to endure her ideology in daily life.

My own assessment is she really only had one single brilliant idea, to negotiate the special terms of Britain's EU membership, with an unprecedented discount on the membership dues in unison with a seat in the VIP lounge. That was a bold and inspired move that made the UK in effect an affiliated member with all of the privileges and none of its regular obligations. Remains to be seen if this profitable status can withstand future challenges.

That's a considered analysis, 6. However, I'd add that the most important aspect of manufacturing is high value added - there's no future for Europe in making scissors. However, there is a great future in developing aerospace systems and pharmaceuticals. The UK is European leader in both fields, just as it in financial services. Don't let the EU challenge that.

Erica Ambler wrote:

That's a considered analysis, 6. However, I'd add that the most important aspect of manufacturing is high value added - there's no future for Europe in making scissors.

Yes there is. Cutting your balls off.

Santa beat you to it.

6of1 wrote:

HJackson wrote:

saint mark wrote:

IF Adolf had played it better Europe would have been Germany (including Great Britain)

No matter how well Hitler played his hand, Britain would never have fallen.

Not so sure about that...etc.

Nope, my grandfather would have battered them all single-handedly.

Mine would have needed both hands.

Erica Ambler wrote:

That's a considered analysis, 6. However, I'd add that the most important aspect of manufacturing is high value added - there's no future for Europe in making scissors. However, there is a great future in developing aerospace systems and pharmaceuticals. The UK is European leader in both fields, just as it in financial services. Don't let the EU challenge that.

All for the high-tech/pharmaceuticals approach, definitely. Indeed there is no need for UK-made scissors if you can get them produced in Poland for a third of the expenses per item spent in the UK (And how often really can you get your balls cut? A very limited use, even if we allow generous use of needle and thread to prolong the fun; it's not really the same after the first time, is it?).

But this will also call for a massive increase in educational funding and expenditure. 2011 saw about 200.000 students without a degree course that summer. This doubtless due to the introduction to the clearing and on top of an increase in numbers by 9% in 2010. Still, there is an estimated 100.000 to 130.000 shortage of places at universities, and it will be one of the main tasks of this and future governments to help establish these and adapt current educational politics so schools actually can show up with an output that qualifies for university education.

Second part is the financial sector, a highly developed sideline of an in fact extremely complicated and stylised means of mathematics, statistics and gambling. The problem here is that this particular part of our economy has in fact cut most ties to actual production and trade as well as most ordinary means to judge economically sound decisions. It's become an incredibly sensitive system that has long since left behind conventional economy, but can have devastating effects on just this 'real-life' economy whenever it reels out of balance. I for one would prefer putting an emphasis on actual physical value instead of a set of numbers and graphs that in a crisis we first have to print out, only to learn that the paper's more valuable than the figures on it.

HJackson wrote:

6of1 wrote:

HJackson wrote:

saint mark wrote:

IF Adolf had played it better Europe would have been Germany (including Great Britain)

No matter how well Hitler played his hand, Britain would never have fallen.

Not so sure about that...etc.

Nope, my grandfather would have battered them all single-handedly.

Sure. If my grandfather would have gotten him sober for half an hour. Sadly they were both too fond of the odd drink.

Does anyone think a US citizen should be educated and/or pass a intelligence test in order to be eligible to vote?

It's hard to say what type of test could be used to measure someone's intelligence appropriately and fairly, but I don't think it'd be a bad idea to look into it. Think of all of the people without a high school education, who haven't read a book in their whole life, who think Obama or Romney is amazing just because their favorite news anchor says so, who have dementia, etc. I don't want to come off as an insensitive prick, but do you really think our country's future should be in the hands of the lazy, the mentally ill, and the uneducated? And wouldn't this give some people incentive to seek an education or, at the very least, read to educate themselves?

I'm not trying to say everyone needs to spend x amount of money at a university in order to be able to vote. But, I do think you should possess some knowledge about the world, about this country, about the candidates, and about current issues, before you're able to step into a voting booth.

And you should be 21.

Control wrote:

Does anyone think a US citizen should be educated and/or pass a intelligence test in order to be eligible to vote?

It's hard to say what type of test could be used to measure someone's intelligence appropriately and fairly, but I don't think it'd be a bad idea to look into it. Think of all of the people without a high school education, who haven't read a book in their whole life, who think Obama or Romney is amazing just because their favorite news anchor says so, who have dementia, etc. I don't want to come off as an insensitive prick, but do you really think our country's future should be in the hands of the lazy, the mentally ill, and the uneducated? And wouldn't this give some people incentive to seek an education or, at the very least, read to educate themselves?

I'm not trying to say everyone needs to spend x amount of money at a university in order to be able to vote. But, I do think you should possess some knowledge about the world, about this country, about the candidates, and about current issues, before you're able to step into a voting booth.

And you should be 21.

You should be able to answer the question of who your Senators are, who your Congressperson is, some basic questions about the Constitution, Bill Of Rights, Declaration of Independence....and I'd certainly raise the voting age. 18 is too young to be able to vote. Probably should raise it to 25 at a minimum.

Not all mentally ill people are stupid or out of touch with reality. Only those having psychotic episodes, with Schizotypal Personality Disorder, or with an IQ below 86 should be disqualified.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

You should be able to answer the question of who your Senators are, who your Congressperson is, some basic questions about the Constitution, Bill Of Rights, Declaration of Independence....and I'd certainly raise the voting age. 18 is too young to be able to vote. Probably should raise it to 25 at a minimum.

25 seems about right.

You should also be a tax paying citizen. Someone who doesn't pay taxes really shouldn't be able to decide who gets to run a country that's supported by tax payers' dollars. That just doesn't make sense to me.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Not all mentally ill people are stupid or out of touch with reality. Only those having psychotic episodes, with Schizotypal Personality Disorder, or with an IQ below 86 should be disqualified.

I agree with you and I probably should have clarified. I basically meant people who have dementia or Alzheimer's, or people who have lost touch with the entire world. I don't see how someone who doesn't even know what city they live in anymore would be able to vote appropriately. That'd be tough determining who could and couldn't, though. However, I'm unaware of the current rules and regulations surrounding this, if there are any at all.

Control wrote:

25 seems about right.

You should also be a tax paying citizen. Someone who doesn't pay taxes really shouldn't be able to decide who gets to run a country that's supported by tax payers' dollars. That just doesn't make sense to me.

BINGO! :cheers: You nailed it right there! If you're receiving food stamps, EBT card, W.I.C., Peach Care, Section 8 housing, head start, subsidized day care, etc....you should not be voting. You depend upon the largesse and benevolence of the productive, useful, tax-paying members of society and basically live at their mercy and good graces; you should be thankful for whatever you get.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Not all mentally ill people are stupid or out of touch with reality. Only those having psychotic episodes, with Schizotypal Personality Disorder, or with an IQ below 86 should be disqualified.

The I.Q. test would disqualify a large subsection of the Democrat's voter base. Do the research. Democrats aren't going to allow that to happen.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

The I.Q. test would disqualify a large subsection of the Democrat's voter base. Do the research. Democrats aren't going to allow that to happen.

And certainly a large subsection of the Republicans would be disqualified too.

Python wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

The I.Q. test would disqualify a large subsection of the Democrat's voter base. Do the research.

Democrats aren't going to allow that to happen.

And certainly a large subsection of the Republicans would be disqualified too.

Yep, especially the Tea Party and its legions of Randroids.

I think it'd clean up both sides. I didn't suggest the idea as a way to limit a particular party or class from voting. I'm just sick of having the future of this country being put into the hands of mindless people who really can't think for themselves. If you let Glenn Beck or Rachel Maddow tell you who to vote for, then you shouldn't be in the voting booth. Do your own homework and make an informed decision. Don't rely on the "facts" from the disgraceful US media.

In this country, stupidity's almost become fashionable.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Python wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

The I.Q. test would disqualify a large subsection of the Democrat's voter base. Do the research.

Democrats aren't going to allow that to happen.

And certainly a large subsection of the Republicans would be disqualified too.

Yep, especially the Tea Party and its legions of Randroids.

No, not Tea Party people. They're more educated and up-to-date on politics and current events than the rest of the Republican Party. An I.Q. test would probably disqualify some of the more hard-core social conservatives who oppose liquor on Sunday, gay marriage, Catholics and Mormons, abortion, etc....I don't think they vote on as wide a range of issues as some other people do. For a few of them it comes down to Gods, Guns, and Gays, and because they don't think as much on these issues, but instead just sort of instinctively react, their i.q's are probably lower than the rest of the GOP average.

But I do think IQ tests would disparately impact the Democrats more than the Republicans because the Democrats have several constituencies who have been found through scientific studies around the globe to have 20-30 point lower I.Q.'s than the lowest average of other groups.

LIbertarians probably would not suffer at all. Their members, though limited in numbers, seem to be pretty intelligent.

A trick question for the intelligence test:

Do you watch porn?
Yes
No


If you circle "No", then you're a liar and you can never vote again in your whole life.

[quote="Gravity's Silhouette"]

Control wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Not all mentally ill people are stupid or out of touch with reality. Only those having psychotic episodes, with Schizotypal Personality Disorder, or with an IQ below 86 should be disqualified.

The I.Q. test would disqualify a large subsection of the Democrat's voter base. Do the research. Democrats aren't going to allow that to happen.

Huh? A 2010 study showed that those who identify themselves as liberal (and atheist) generally have higher IQs.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-26/health/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence_1_sexual-behaviors-liberalism-exclusivity?_s=PM:HEALTH

Left, Right, just points of the compass, each as stupid as the other...