Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mont Royale

2008 US Election

Recommended Posts

I don't know of any other state government that gets that much natural resource revenue, at least per capita. What I was really saying is that Palin is unexceptional in Alaska as there has been a permanent fund dividend paid since 1982. It is interesting to note that the fund does not seem to have kept up with inflation, excepting, of course, this year where Palin issued a one time add-on (I'm not seeing immediately how she intends to keep this from putting Alaska in the red, or from eating the principal of the fund). Between the oil fund, federal subsidy, and the fact her resource rich state only has about 650,000 people, I am less than impressed.

What do you mean by socialist values? Do you mean having the government provide some essential services? If so, ok... so what? Do you mean instituting a progressive income tax system... like Teddy Roosevelt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, fair enough, how about he hangs out with or use to hang out with people who beleive in socialist values. he also partied with a terrorist in his living room and took large donations from him. I'm not saying he doesn't have good points. I am jsut saying i don't agree witha alot of his politics and friends.

Is the ever-widening gap between rich and poor a good thing? Do USA citizens want gated communities beside trailer parks? Mahn I just have to scratch my head at how socialism has been vilified in the USA today. It's the politics of fear -- suggest to those who have less and less that someone will come along and take what little remains. Meanwhile the few at the top amass fortunes.

Read this:

"The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and … a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."

Sounds like evil socialist wealth-redistribution rhetoric, doesn't it?

It's a quote from Teddy Roosevelt, McCain's self-declared "hero."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, i mean several of those. I am not a big fan of government taking my money and giving it to who ever they decide. Wealth redistribution or whatever Obama calls. it. I just don't beleive in many liberal values.

I have no problem paying some taxes for people who are less fortunate, but i have a problem giving them a check to do whatever. People take advantage.

The government in America is broken, both candidates aren't going to fix it, they'll say whatever they have to to get elected then politics as usual.

Unfortunately it's the lesser of evils in this election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i heard this analogy between capitalism & socialism the other day ...

imagine you live on a typical neighborhood street. you send your child out to 'trick or treat' up and down the street. your child had a great costume and was diligent in making sure he/she rang every single doorbell.

at the end of the night as they are sorting through their haul, there's a knock on the door. a community worker (government) takes a percentage of your child's earnings to give to the children who decided to not go trick or treating. the more your child earned, the more your child gives away. your child's earnings go not just to the children who CAN'T go door to door for physical disabilities reasons - but for the children who chose to do nothing.

so, children who did nothing or children who did the bear minimum get benefit from the children who worked hard.

i know if i was a kid in that neighborhood, i'd be happy to give to the kid who had a disability - but - i'd have a real problem with helping the kid who sat at home waiting for his cut of my loot. next year, i'd be inclined to either work less because working more means little or no benefit, or, hide my true earnings from the community worker so i lose less of my take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the record, Republicans aren't the only ones who use fear to try to get elected. Democrats do it just as much. I'd say at least 90% of political ads are negative, telling you the bad things that will happen if the other candidate is elected. The only difference between the two sides is what they are telling people to fear.

long post about voter fraud

There is rampant voter fraud on this election. Just in Ohio there are 200,000 registered voters whose records do not match up. Many people from other states are registering in Ohio, even though they have no intention of living here. They're simply trying to swing Ohio's electoral votes.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/conte...JG.html?sid=101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i heard this analogy between capitalism & socialism the other day ...

imagine you live on a typical neighborhood street. you send your child out to 'trick or treat' up and down the street. your child had a great costume and was diligent in making sure he/she rang every single doorbell.

at the end of the night as they are sorting through their haul, there's a knock on the door. a community worker (government) takes a percentage of your child's earnings to give to the children who decided to not go trick or treating. the more your child earned, the more your child gives away. your child's earnings go not just to the children who CAN'T go door to door for physical disabilities reasons - but for the children who chose to do nothing.

so, children who did nothing or children who did the bear minimum get benefit from the children who worked hard.

i know if i was a kid in that neighborhood, i'd be happy to give to the kid who had a disability - but - i'd have a real problem with helping the kid who sat at home waiting for his cut of my loot. next year, i'd be inclined to either work less because working more means little or no benefit, or, hide my true earnings from the community worker so i lose less of my take.

Good analogy, but partially wrong.

Your child doesnt summon a costume out of thin air. He needs material, material comes from somewhere, material needs to be acquired, preferably in return of money in a mutual trade agreement with the material provider.

So your child gets his costume and goes trick or threating. He gets candy, government gets a cut, gives some candies to disabled kids and kids who "did nothing".

Now the kid who did nothing, you have to know why he sat home. You assume flat out that it's because he's lazy. True, some were. But some other might have been forced to stay home because they couldnt get a costume. He had nothing to trade for materials. He might even have decided to go door to door too, with insuffisant or no costume, but got no candies because he wasnt costumes.

Do you let that kid rot at home with no candies because he didnt have the same starting conditions than other kids that would have allowed him to make a costume too? With the risk that, frustrated or hungry, that kid decides to go out and steal the candies of other kids? What do you do?

There's two school of thoughts on the latter. Some would say: give him the candies so he has as much as others. That's the same people who favors all sorts of positive discrimination and lowered standards so, say, women or minorities, get the same end-results as, say, white males. And there's some who would say: give him candies so he can trade them for material to make his own costume like the other kids. That's the people who favors student loans, employement programs for people on welfare, etc.

Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime. But you got to give him a fishing rod first!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i heard this analogy between capitalism & socialism the other day ...

imagine you live on a typical neighborhood street. you send your child out to 'trick or treat' up and down the street. your child had a great costume and was diligent in making sure he/she rang every single doorbell.

at the end of the night as they are sorting through their haul, there's a knock on the door. a community worker (government) takes a percentage of your child's earnings to give to the children who decided to not go trick or treating. the more your child earned, the more your child gives away. your child's earnings go not just to the children who CAN'T go door to door for physical disabilities reasons - but for the children who chose to do nothing.

so, children who did nothing or children who did the bear minimum get benefit from the children who worked hard.

i know if i was a kid in that neighborhood, i'd be happy to give to the kid who had a disability - but - i'd have a real problem with helping the kid who sat at home waiting for his cut of my loot. next year, i'd be inclined to either work less because working more means little or no benefit, or, hide my true earnings from the community worker so i lose less of my take.

Delighted by his candy treasure, the little boy who had made the best Halloween costume next started a company that made the best products, and in no time he was the richest person on the street. He used his money to buy all the property on in the neighborhood and the residents -- who worked in his factory -- had little choice but to move into the apartment block he'd constructed.

The little boy got richer and richer by cutting wages and hiking rents. He was also very thrifty when it came to employee benefits -- he didn't pay any! Instead, he gave bribes to the mayor, who in return lowered his taxes. When the local newspaper exposed the corruption, the little boy bought the paper and replaced the editor with his buddy. He then went sailing around the world on his yacht with his very best friend, the banker.

But the people were growing increasingly unhappy with their dismal living and working conditions. So they formed a union to fight together for better health care and education for their children.

In response, the newspaper editor labeled the workers "socialists" and "radicals" and the mayor declared the strike illegal and sent the police chief to crack a few heads to make an example of the ringleaders.

This is where the story starts.

It was Halloween, and the neighborhood children put on their costumes and went out to trick-or-treat. The street where the rich little boy and his friends lived had trees rising into the sky and smoothly manicured lawns. It was the most beautiful street in the neighborhood, and surely the children's costumes -- which they had worked so hard making -- would earn a bounty of candy from these beautiful mansions!

But at the foot of the street they were stopped by a huge fence. A guard man came out, sneered, and pointed at a sign. It read "Gated Community. Private Property. No Trespassing."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just for the record, Republicans aren't the only ones who use fear to try to get elected. Democrats do it just as much. I'd say at least 90% of political ads are negative, telling you the bad things that will happen if the other candidate is elected. The only difference between the two sides is what they are telling people to fear.

Fanpuck if you want this to be "for the record" don't expect us to believe whatever you say, find a reliable source.

Analysis by the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project, in the four months to 4 October:

47% of Republican ads were negative

35% of Democratic ads were negative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i like both KoZed's & JLP's adds to the analogy. KoZed rightly points out that no one operates in a vacuum when we are part of a community or society, and JLP points out the ugly side when capitalism goes bad.

the moral of JLPs story is really if ANYONE gets greedy (either the capitalist little boy with the loot bag or the government with the spread the wealth mantra) society begins to crumble.

likely we'd all agree that pure capitalism or pure socialism or pure communism or any other 'ism' isn't the answer. that's why i'll pray FOR whoever becomes the next President of the USA, not against them. i'll continue to love my neighbor as myself and be the good samaritan as often as i can. if everyone else does the same, regardless of who is President, the USA, & therefore the world, will become a better place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
likely we'd all agree that pure capitalism or pure socialism or pure communism or any other 'ism' isn't the answer. that's why i'll pray FOR whoever becomes the next President of the USA, not against them. i'll continue to love my neighbor as myself and be the good samaritan as often as i can. if everyone else does the same, regardless of who is President, the USA, & therefore the world, will become a better place.

"Pure socialism" doesnt really exists. By definition, socialism is everything in-between capitalism at one end and communism at the other end. There's only varying degrees of socialism.

That's what makes me smile when people I hear some Republicans supporters on the campain trail try to disparage Obama by painting him as a "socialist!", they assume that the US arent already socialists.

Not socialist, the US?

Hmmm, socialism is usually defined by States interventionism in the economy. 700 billion buyout for the banks, that's not State interventionism? Giving the automobile and farming industries subsidies to stay competitive on the world market, that's not interventionism?

The one difference with the US, is that most of the States help goes to corporations and wealthy, to the very top of the pyramid. All stems from Reaganomics and Trickle Down philosophy (dixit Bill Maher: "Trickle Down Economy... they're literally saying "We're pissing on you"..) that believes that the more money you give rich people and corporations, the more they will create better paying jobs for the middle and lower class. That's what creates some absurdities like Warren Buffet only paying 19% taxes in 2006, while his employees paid 36% taxes.

That model isnt only inherently unfair -- helping those who least need help -- but it's also counter-productive. Rich people aren't necessarily going to invest their wealth back into the local economy. If anything, they're even less likely to do so. They save their money into offshore accounts and tax havens; spend it overseas, or spend it on luxury items. That doesnt make the economy roll, it only concentrates capital even more in the hands of the few.

Now, I dont want to sound like a pure leftist neither. I do believe in social upward mobility, in getting as much as you deserve and living in Quebec --which is very left-- I've seen the negative consequences of the State taking too many economic responsabilities. People can't take any initiatives anymore, expecting the State to take care of everything.

A strong middle-class has always been good. They are usually the ones that shoulder the biggest load of the State taxes burden, they consume lots of goods, and they are the reasonable, mediating buffer between the wealthy and the poor. IMO they are those the State should care the most about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was watching an Obama speech on CNN today. He was talking about an e-mail he got from a woman in Florida who's son had recently had some heart trouble. The procedure that her son equires costs thousands of dollars and the insurance company has refused to cover it. Seems like a perfect time to mention changes to the system right? Nope...Obama talks about not giving up and continuing to have hope etc. etc. before closing his speech.

I am and will continue to be baffled that this is barely even a mainstream issue in the U.S. It seems like the only people who even advocate for universal healthcare are far-left "radicals".

I can hardly even blame Obama for not advocating a system like this, because that would basically be politically suicide for him throughout much of the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because Americans don't want to pay any more for other people's health care. Medi cade / medicare are already in place. Those agencies are run by the government and are pathetic. The government can't even deal with social security. When i retire there won't be a penny for me.

Americans also pay for up to 30 billion for illegal immigrants health and scholl care.

The government can't run anything, why do people think universal health care will work. Besides i don't want to wait 3 months to see a DR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The government can't run anything, why do people think universal health care will work. Besides i don't want to wait 3 months to see a DR.

I waited about 10 minutes last week...was actually a lot longer than I'm used to waiting too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? That's because our government isn't running it.

A judge in Ohio ruled that homeless people without ID's, social security card can use the park bench, or the alley where they sleep as an address to vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I waited about 10 minutes last week...was actually a lot longer than I'm used to waiting too.

honestly, you're a lucky one then.

when i lived in rural Canada (town of about 500) - the doctors out there were pathetic ("if your son turns blue and passes out again, bring him back in" :o !!!! what??? was he kidding me??? nope. :( ) plus, it was impossible to get an appointment because they were backlogged with hypocondriacs who had nothing better to do than visit the doctor, clogging up the system.

then, when i lived on the edge of the GTA, i never ONCE in 4 years was able to call to make an appointment. always busy. i had to practically beg to get a doctor that would add my family to his practice and at that, our appointments were 10 minutes and kicked out of there. i knew a ton of people without ANY family doctor because no one was adding!

finally, the population of Canada fits inside of California. CALIFORNIA!!!! not to mention cities like NY, Chicago, Detroit, Dallas, etc etc etc. the Canadian model barely works for Canada (i'd say it doesn't work - survey ... how many provinces are happy with the federal government transfer fees for Medicare? any?). there's no way the massive population in the US (yes, there will be more hypocondriacs in the US than in Canada - just because of the size of the population) could possibly afford 'free' health care to all it's citizens. 'free' is in quotes because it's never really free. someone pays. i grew fed up of paying taxes so that hypocondriacs could have their weekly visit with their neighborhood friend.

forget about the hyperbole and conjecture. i've lived in Quebec, Ontario, Missouri, New York & Ohio. The best doctors were in New York, my best insurance coverage was in Ohio. Quebec was good to me, although i did have to wait months (5) for a surgery i would have gotten in the US within 2 weeks. Ontario was the worst - don't know if it's because I was in Quebec in the 70s & 80s and in Ontario from 1999 to 2006. regardless, US medical system has been better for me and my family than Canada's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i heard this analogy between capitalism & socialism the other day ...

imagine you live on a typical neighborhood street. you send your child out to 'trick or treat' up and down the street. your child had a great costume and was diligent in making sure he/she rang every single doorbell.

at the end of the night as they are sorting through their haul, there's a knock on the door. a community worker (government) takes a percentage of your child's earnings to give to the children who decided to not go trick or treating. the more your child earned, the more your child gives away. your child's earnings go not just to the children who CAN'T go door to door for physical disabilities reasons - but for the children who chose to do nothing.

so, children who did nothing or children who did the bear minimum get benefit from the children who worked hard.

i know if i was a kid in that neighborhood, i'd be happy to give to the kid who had a disability - but - i'd have a real problem with helping the kid who sat at home waiting for his cut of my loot. next year, i'd be inclined to either work less because working more means little or no benefit, or, hide my true earnings from the community worker so i lose less of my take.

A nice analogy...and I liked seeing the various takes from JLP and Koz as well.

I don't disagree with the premise. I don't like paying taxes anymore then the next guy. Having said that, there are universal benefits, such as health care, education and more that provide equal opportunities for all regardless of class.

I'd also like to introduce a simple game theory concept here: Two people stranded on an island are starving and they have a limited amount of food. Each watches over the food for half a day at a time. There are basically 4 possible outcomes: 1) Both people can eat more then their ration and wittle the food away faster then they should. The end result is that they both starve before help arrives. 2) Person A could screw over Person B and eat more then his ration daily while Person B honours the system. The end result is that the food is wittled away too soon but only Person B dies. 3) Reverse Person A and Person B in point 2. 4) Both honour the ration system and survive to be rescued.

I see socialism as being a test of game theory and human nature. If no one abuses the system, and the system is set up to help those who are truly considered in need by society at large, then it's a win/win overall...unfortunately, someone is always out to abuse the system. It's human nature. To steal a little from Orwell, it's the same human nature that ensures Communism always ends up with the pigs running the farm. So, a balanced approach tends to be the most accomodating. The question is really how to effectively strike the balance? That's why I like Koz's analogy of HOW the redistribution occurs.

To me, health care and education are the two cornerstones of Canada's social welfare policy. Now, I don't agree with everything about how they're run but overall it's better then most. It CAN be improved and NEEDS to be improved but it's well ahead of the curve right now. Give people equal opportunities and if they don't want to take advantage of it then it's their concern. JMHO. Now, that's not to say we should leave the handicapped, or other truly needy off the map IMO, I just think policy needs to be better directed to those who truly are. I think the Canadian system breaks down with the thousands of "extra" programs and funding that finds it's way onto the street. I agree, there is a lot of generational system addicts. There are lots of abusers.

Rev, if you make about $85K in the US you'd pay about 28% federal income tax. A handful of US states also have flat income tax rates...

Average health care costs what? Close to $4K for a family? Around $1K if your single?

So if you make $85K a year you're paying around $25-28K in taxes and health coverage...could be another $3-$5K if you pay state taxes.

Feel free to correct my numbers I pulled them from the first web link I came across...lol.

As a Canadian you would pay about $29K...less if you take advantage of some of the RRSP's(sheltered investments). That includes Canada Pensions, Employment Insurance, federal and provincal tax rates.

If you live in a state that has a flat rate tax you'd be paying about the same as in most Canadian provinces...without having the same level of healthcare coverage, lower education costs, cheaper pharmaceuticals, etc...on top of putting more money into healthcare and education, Canada runs A LOT of ridiculous programs and wastes funds and even employs waaayyyy too many people. Largely due to the abuse you allude to in your analogy. However, don't let people use rhetoric about "socialism" to destroy what should just be good policy in regards to healthcare and education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Lots of awesome points from all over the spectrum. Sadly, I don't have time to respond to anything now because we've been without power for 12 hours and I'm frigid. I expected to come on here and read one or two things. Nope, I'm now behind changing all the snowtires reading this.

Shame the Canadiens talk can't be more like this. Feels like an adult forum finally. :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
honestly, you're a lucky one then.

when i lived in rural Canada (town of about 500) - the doctors out there were pathetic ("if your son turns blue and passes out again, bring him back in" :o !!!! what??? was he kidding me??? nope. :( ) plus, it was impossible to get an appointment because they were backlogged with hypocondriacs who had nothing better to do than visit the doctor, clogging up the system.

then, when i lived on the edge of the GTA, i never ONCE in 4 years was able to call to make an appointment. always busy. i had to practically beg to get a doctor that would add my family to his practice and at that, our appointments were 10 minutes and kicked out of there. i knew a ton of people without ANY family doctor because no one was adding!

finally, the population of Canada fits inside of California. CALIFORNIA!!!! not to mention cities like NY, Chicago, Detroit, Dallas, etc etc etc. the Canadian model barely works for Canada (i'd say it doesn't work - survey ... how many provinces are happy with the federal government transfer fees for Medicare? any?). there's no way the massive population in the US (yes, there will be more hypocondriacs in the US than in Canada - just because of the size of the population) could possibly afford 'free' health care to all it's citizens. 'free' is in quotes because it's never really free. someone pays. i grew fed up of paying taxes so that hypocondriacs could have their weekly visit with their neighborhood friend.

forget about the hyperbole and conjecture. i've lived in Quebec, Ontario, Missouri, New York & Ohio. The best doctors were in New York, my best insurance coverage was in Ohio. Quebec was good to me, although i did have to wait months (5) for a surgery i would have gotten in the US within 2 weeks. Ontario was the worst - don't know if it's because I was in Quebec in the 70s & 80s and in Ontario from 1999 to 2006. regardless, US medical system has been better for me and my family than Canada's.

So my last post was a little redundant...but I'd still be interested in the tax/cost comparison from your perspective having been in both systems.

There is a doctor shortage but that also has a lot to do with immigration policies, caps on the medical schools, etc...

As for the provinces concerns about federal transfers...that's just politics. Every province wants more money and in fact, the last article I read on health care costs had some of the worst health care provided by the provinces that had the most per capita spending on health care. The quality is more about the provincial system in place then the money spent...which to me is a testament to the largess our government has needlessly spent on bad programs with good intentions.

The fact that Canada's population fits inside of California is actually one of the problems and inherent costs for any business, including healthcare, in this country. The geography requires people, goods and services to all travel greater distances to smaller regional economies. That actually would increase the cost of providing health care and pharmaceuticals to people. The more densely populated US market would actually see some significant economies of scale and could likely provide better universal health care then Canada for less money.

I moved to the GTA about 10 years ago, and have moved from the west end to the east end, and I've never had a problem either finding a doctor or getting an appointment...I've also never had to wait more then 30 minutes to get in to see someone at a walk-in clinic. I've never even waited more then an hour at the emergency room of a hospital (of course that's happened twice in 10 years...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A nice analogy...and I liked seeing the various takes from JLP and Koz as well.

really? I thought it was an unelucidating, reductive parable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
really? I thought it was an unelucidating, reductive parable.

(someone's parents didn't let him trick or treat)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(someone's parents didn't let him trick or treat)

Nope. I opted out and just tithed my little brother. I told him that the candy was going to God via my stomach.

In all honesty, I never really liked trick or treating... I think I stopped around 9 or 10 max.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
really? I thought it was an unelucidating, reductive parable.

I thought it was pretty straightforward...ya see, the kids are like taxpayers and the community worker is the taxman...ah nevermind... ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what about Obama's long commercial ??? I don't have 27minutes to spend on that...

Edited by JoeLassister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fanpuck if you want this to be "for the record" don't expect us to believe whatever you say, find a reliable source.

Analysis by the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project, in the four months to 4 October:

47% of Republican ads were negative

35% of Democratic ads were negative

:rolleyes: My point was that liberals bitch about conservatives being fear mongers, when they are doing the exact same thing. I guess exaggeration is lost on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:rolleyes: My point was that liberals bitch about conservatives being fear mongers, when they are doing the exact same thing. I guess exaggeration is lost on you.

you are such a relativist :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...