Castro Resigns!

[gaia.plateau]

Simultaneous solution to environmental degradation and global inequality: cars that run on poverty.

Are you condoning violence against vagrants?
We will need bigger bumpers!

but I don't see what good tyre tracks across them are going to do to help the situation.

LoL, no, not cars that run over the impoverished.

We need to develop a technology that harnesses the powers of hunger and despair. Then we can just hook up poor people to our motors and have a clean, infinitely renewable energy source. It will force rich nations to depend on poor nations, just like they depend on us, and pump up their economies.

[Texico]

And that's why you have a democracy. The majority of Americans want to pay taxes for police services, but there are some people who feel that they lose freedom by being forced to. One thing that living in a free country does not mean is the luxury to think of yourself, and only yourself. If you want that, become a wilderman.

If a democratic president is elected in November, it will mean that the majority of your country does care about their fellow Americans, and just like the people who currently don't want to pay taxes for police, you will be forced to like it or lump it.

I understand what you are saying right here, but I don't quite get where it comes into the prospective sphere of this debate. This debate entails what each of us as individuals believe.

That being said, I completely agree with this point. If the people vote for it then I will not fight it (except for maybe attempting to get people to stop supporting it if the government proves unreliable). Until then, however, I will not support it.

And, just to clarify my previous statement, that's not to say that I haven't met many people whom I respect and for whom I would do just about anything. It's just that those people are a very small percentage of the people I've met during my life, and I expect to meet many many more people while I am still alive. And, I hope that I'm not alone when I say that I hope the people I meet in the future will change my outlook on the world for the better.

::edit::

I just read your last post. The problem with rich countries relying on poor countries for no other reason than that said countries are poor is that the rich countries will then do anything within their means to keep said countries poor. This would keep the poor countries poor instead of boosting their economy. It's an admirable idea, though.

I still think we should feed the homeless to the hungry. I can't rememer which actor said that, but the first time I heard it was some actor said it on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

::edit again::

For those underpriveleged who care enough there are already many government institutions and subsidies in place to allow them to help themselves attain a higher standing. The only problem is that these people have to do some work to find these subsidies and programs. One of the things I have noticed in my relatively few years on this world is that many underpriveleged people expect others (namely the government) to do things for them. This is not how America works nor is it how America was intended to work. It's one of the few things on which I agree with Ron Paul. Edited February 27, 2008 by Texico

[gaia.plateau]

I hope that I'm not alone when I say that I hope the people I meet in the future will change my outlook on the world for the better.

Come to Canada?

Edited February 27, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[MechAnt]

After reading a lot of these things, especially gaia's arguments, I must chime in with my typical economics talk.

We all want the help everyone, there is no doubt. There is a good part in all of us that doesn't want to leave a dear soul in the dust. In today's reality, the main block to accomplishing these things is, how? How are we to do all these things? In short, boost taxes like mad. That idea will never fly in America. It's plain and simple. With these increased tax revenues, who gets the money? Government. With that much cash in hand, government will grow even more. It'll become the all encompassing force in our lives. America has always fought against commies or other power grubbing entities in its history and by doing this, we go against the very fiber on which this country was founded. You may argue, "What about America itself? Looks like they are gathering all the power right now." Well, that argument's answer will vary per person, so it's a moot point.

Remember George H.W. Bush (the first one)? "Read my lips. No new taxes." Bullshit. He added the luxury tax that put a "small" tax on luxury items such as yachts. We'll continue on with the idea of yachts. So, as we well know, the demand for yachts is extremely elastic meaning that they are very sensitive to price change. In adding the luxury tax, there was a light increase on price but because of elastic demand, there was a huge drop in quantity of yachts supplied. Those rich enough to afford yachts went offshore to purchase their yachts to bypass the tax while taking a nice little vacation while the shipyards see a large drop in revenue and had to cut jobs. The luxury tax was ineffective and hurt those it intended to help. Where I'm trying to go with this is that stupid taxes such as luxury taxes are stupid, unnecessary, and ineffective. They will hurt EVERYONE involved.

Another thing, we need to tax the rich more? Bullshit. I'll see if it can find the table but I saw one where it shows that 85% of all tax revenues comes from people with incomes of $100,000 or more per year. With 35-99k, they make up 96% of all tax revenue. <35k makes up the rest of it. Of course the rich should be paying more because they have more money HOWEVER, the percent of Americans that make more than $100k a year is already the top 5% of ALL AMERICANS. 5% of all Americans make up 85% of all tax revenues. Why in god's good name do they need to pay more? Lets say an average American high school teacher and a librarian get married. With a masters degree in California, teachers make about $55k and we'll say the librarian makes a similar amount. When the two get married, $110k a year combined income. A teacher and a librarian living a modest life are already in the 5% of the richest Americans. Everyone has a perception that they are just middle class people. According to taxes, they are in the upper class bracket. That is just unfair to tax the "rich" more. Of my parents, only my mother (bless her soul) works, as a Registered Nurse. On paper she makes $120k a year. After taxes, less than $95k. She has help me ($25k @ UC Santa Barbara), my older sister ($25k @ UC Berkeley), and my oldest sister ($60k!!!! @ Columbia University) with college tuition. To top it all off, none of us get financial aid from our respective schools because we are "rich" when one working parent makes <$100k when $110k of it is leaving for college tuition.

Socialism closes the gap between the "rich" and the poor which is overall better for everyone but the only way of doing so is by stopping the top from achieving anything more. Think of everyone being on a ladder. The "poor" on the lower rungs and "rich" on the higher rungs. With America's current style, the gap doesn't really change, it just stays there but, as we grow as a country (averaging about 2.2% growth in a non-recession year), the whole ladder is moved higher up increasing everything for everyone. Everyone will benefit although many people will not realize it. With a more socialism-like system, the Government is preventing the "rich" from moving further up the ladder while taking away any efforts of the "rich" and allow the "poor" to climb up a few rungs. It sounds great but there is little improvement overall. We see this with Europe's social system that sees an average growth of less than 1.5%.

Everything they implement there has GREAT intentions but it always ends up hurting the very people they meant to help. Spain (I believe it was or was it France?) has the highest unemployment rate of people aged 18-28 at over 50%. Shocking number? It's because they have anti-firing laws that makes it extremely difficult for employers to fire current employees for job protection. In essence, once they hire, they are stuck with that person until they quit. With such roadblocks, employers are reluctant to hire someone fresh out of COLLEGE due to their lack of experience leaving them out to dry. This is a prime example good intentions with disastrous results.

America is a young country and we Americans are stubborn people and have to learn things the hard way. We wanted war, we got it. Now we don't want it. We want socialism, so be it. It'll hurt us all further than we all can even imagine. As the world begins to move away from Socialism, America is beginning to move toward it. Our economy is going to goto shit.

As you can see, I'm hardcore against socialism. Sadly, this world is run by money, and it's one of the only ways to get things done. If you want to hear my political standings, I won't be here to entertain. I'll have people ripping on me about how "conservative" and heartless I am. So be it. I see things rationally rather than with emotion.

[Texico]

MechAnt, I have not learned enough yet to add to your post. I will, however, add this quote:

"The man who is not a socialist at twenty has no heart, but if he is still a socialist at forty he has no head."
- Aristide Briand

[gaia.plateau]

After reading a lot of these things, especially gaia's arguments, I must chime in with my typical economics talk.

MechAnt, could you please quote which arguments you're replying to? It seems like you might be taking things out of context and topic. (That being said).

With these increased tax revenues, who gets the money? Government. With that much cash in hand, government will grow even more. It'll become the all encompassing force in our lives. America has always fought against commies or other power grubbing entities in its history and by doing this, we go against the very fiber on which this country was founded. You may argue, "What about America itself? Looks like they are gathering all the power right now." Well, that argument's answer will vary per person, so it's a moot point.

You're making a pretty big leap... paying additional taxes to the government means more national and social services - road building, security, military, education, etc. There is no evidence showing that receiving more services administered by the government gives them any more power or presence.

Another thing, we need to tax the rich more? Bullshit. I'll see if it can find the table but I saw one where it shows that 85% of all tax revenues comes from people with incomes of $100,000 or more per year. With 35-99k, they make up 96% of all tax revenue. <35k makes up the rest of it. Of course the rich should be paying more because they have more money HOWEVER, the percent of Americans that make more than $100k a year is already the top 5% of ALL AMERICANS. 5% of all Americans make up 85% of all tax revenues. Why in god's good name do they need to pay more?

You're correct, the majority of tax revenues in America are paid by the wealthiest 10%. And yet they pay by far, far, far far far the lowest percent of their income.




Having a lot of money shouldn't entitle someone to get a free ride, because that isn't democracy, it's corporatocracy.

Think of everyone being on a ladder. The "poor" on the lower rungs and "rich" on the higher rungs. With America's current style, the gap doesn't really change, it just stays there but, as we grow as a country (averaging about 2.2% growth in a non-recession year), the whole ladder is moved higher up increasing everything for everyone.

typical flat-earth economist perception. Firstly, the data shows that this isn't the case... while there is some trickle down, it's insignificant because it's outraced by inflation. The gap between rich and poor is increasing in most countries, including America, not decreasing, and with that increase comes not only a disparity of wealth but the compromise of political pluralism itself. The poorer people are, the more politically and socially marginalized they are, and the less likely they are to vote. Democracy is undermined so the rich can buy a 3rd personal submarine for underwater sexploration.

Secondly, It's far more realistic to imagine a big wooden raft drifting through a sewer canal... the wealthy are on top, and poor are hanging on to the sides, in the disgusting sewage, with no education, no healthcare, no opportunities. Thinking of the US economic spectrum like a ladder is ridiculous, because it assumes that everyone has equal opportunity to grab the rung in front of them, and this simply isn't the case.

Everyone will benefit although many people will not realize it. With a more socialism-like system, the Government is preventing the "rich" from moving further up the ladder while taking away any efforts of the "rich" and allow the "poor" to climb up a few rungs. It sounds great but there is little improvement overall. We see this with Europe's social system that sees an average growth of less than 1.5%.

A more socialized system, regarding healthcare and education, wouldn't prevent the rich from moving further up the ladder because the ladder analogy is ridiculous. It would simply mitigate and reduce some of the social and political advantages they have, like being able to survive a heart attack or getting their arm sewed on or their children getting a decent education.

You can't "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" when you haven't got any boots, and you can't improve your economic situation when you're 100k in debt because your kid got an ear infection. You can't improve your economic situation when you're uneducated. You can't improve your economic situation when the wealthy people in your country go out of their way to keep you down, because a desperate lower class is a critical factor for profit.

A more socialized system might actually turn that sewer-raft into a ladder, or at least put some rungs onto the side of the raft so that the poor people don't get splinters.

Now we don't want it. We want socialism, so be it. It'll hurt us all further than we all can even imagine. As the world begins to move away from Socialism, America is beginning to move toward it. Our economy is going to goto shit.

First of all... adding one more socialized aspect to an already socialized economic system, is not "moving toward socialism", and to say that is simply dishonest.

What evidence is there that the world is moving away from socialist policies? The only developed countries I can think of that are "less socialized" than the US are China, India, and Russia. Also, what evidence is there, besides theoretical evidence paid for by the people it is researched to help, that socialized policies hurt economies. In every example I can think of, socialization has saved or at least improved economies. Unfortunately, in many of these examples the democratic, even often capitalist governments were overthrown because some of their policies were socialist, by US. In every example, the following privatization put their economies back into the gutter.

Britain • France • Germany • Italy • Canada • Kenya • Tanzania • Uganda • Venezuela • Guatemala • Nicaragua • Haiti • Cuba (just off the top of my head, could get 6x that with some time to research).

As you can see, I'm hardcore against socialism. Sadly, this world is run by money, and it's one of the only ways to get things done. If you want to hear my political standings, I won't be here to entertain. I'll have people ripping on me about how "conservative" and heartless I am. So be it. I see things rationally rather than with emotion.

You just don't have all the information Edited February 27, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[TheScotsman]

I never hope for anyone to get injured, but if you do, you will finally learn what kind of price is looming over your head every second of your life. When you get slapped with a $50k medical bill for some trivial injury or car accident or some such thing, having to pay that full price for the treatment will help you learn the value of what would be universal health care. If you want to opt out, then opt out, there will be that option available. Quite frankly, its going to be hard to pay off a $50k dollar medical bill working only summers dont you think? I've been working every year of my adult life thus far. Does it pain me to see any amount going anywhere else but my pocket? Of course. But I know that amount serves as a protection, a backstop if you will. Even if it goes to someone else, then so be it. If the money I put into socialized medical care goes to save a life or to treat someone who is less fortunate than I am, then I consider that money well spent. What I DONT consider money well spent is a war that has no end. Levees that aren't well made. Money going to technology that pollutes more than it saves. Tax breaks for people who can afford to pay their way. We need to learn how to spend money smarter instead of cracking ourselves in the dome with credit cards, loans that we cant afford, outrageous spending and homes that are way beyond our means. It aint the government screwing us as much as WE are screwing OURSELVES.

If you are driving around without mandated car insurance, then you are already doing something illegal, maybe a few med bills would cure you of that. And then maybe a nice traffic conviction for the offense would help, hell, add both. It's not the public's job to pay for an injury you sustain in the performance of an illegal act. That is moronic to expect.

You can never build a levee to withstand all nature could throw at it. Even more, they are the cities levees, and their job to maintain. Oh, wait, I forgot, the LA congressman had the 90K bribe in his freezer. That may have helped with a little (very little) mtnc to them. It is not the job of the average person in the USA to pay to build/maintain levees for a city that wastes insane amounts on corruption. I had a contract there 1 year, when I was in a contract briefing we were told (especially women) that if a cop tries to pull them over to drive to the nearest precinct station, or better yet, hospital without stopping. Police corruption was/is common there. (and we need to pay for their infrastructure? I think that is stupid to expect too.)

Agreed, the credit the nation has used up. The foreclosure mess is a result of fools that insisted on sucking every penny of equity (gained mostly through inflation) out of their property. How many commercials did we see with someone telling us how easy it was to refinance, and "payoff high interest credit cards" Too bad they ran right out, and topped those balances back. Well, now they get foreclosed on, but they have nice semi-new furniture, 2 new SUV's, gigantic piles of general junk... too bad no house to put it in. Whose fault is that? Not mine! They insisted on "flipping" houses until they got their 6,500sq/ft mcmansion. Now they can't afford it because the dow took a header into the toilet. Guess what, not my fault either! If they loose it all, they loose it all... that is the price of gambling with your future, and loosing. Better luck to them next time. The socialist nature of modern society has created a group of people who do not take responsibility for their own actions, rather expecting society to "save" them from their own actions and choices. It's about time they wake up and smell the sewage, or start treading water, this raft is going down as a result of financial hemorrhage.


Gaia, poor guy, wrong yet again. Sorry dude!
Our federal gov't has a nasty habit of using funds it controls like an electronic dog collar for the local gov't. When they control the purse, the states will do what they want, regardless of local opinion/decision or the feds keep the money. They present mandates for the states to follow, but no funds... then when the states refuse the fed without critical funds for things like ed, Emergency Services, and highways. By the way, the charts are skewed, obvious leftist propaganda again. (who would have guessed) Nothing worse than a Canadian that thinks they know how to run the USA. gee, the poor earning 10Kdown don't get a tax cut, that's horrible... wait, they don't pay any federal income taxes, just entitlement percentage. (fica) What fool even wastes ink putting that on a chart, unless it's meant to skew the readers into feeling sorry for them? If you are going to insult us with socialist BS, at least make it interesting. The Gaia propaganda service needs to dig deeper in the bag! saying someone paying the most in taxes is getting a free ride is blatantly stupid.

Anyone can make it onto your raft, if they don't feel comfortable in the sewage, they start climbing. If they are too unmotivated, they can enjoy their skinny-dip in the turds. It's their choice, not my responsibility. The words are "Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness" not right to happiness.

No, it's not "moving toward socialism" it's moving deeper into socialism. (aka the abyss)

Now that I have managed to piss absolutely everyone off at me, I can go back to work, there are allot of people on welfare counting on me this month. (Not to mention my jet boat needs a new 572 before spring... I feel broke this month but zero of it is on credit !!!!) Edited February 28, 2008 by TheScotsman

[gaia.plateau]

Our federal gov't has a nasty habit of using funds it controls like an electronic dog collar for the local gov't. When they control the purse, the states will do what they want, regardless of local opinion/decision or the feds keep the money. They present mandates for the states to follow, but no funds... then when the states refuse the fed without critical funds for things like ed, Emergency Services, and highways. By the way, the charts are skewed, obvious leftist propaganda again. (who would have guessed) Nothing worse than a Canadian that thinks they know how to run the USA. gee, the poor earning 10Kdown don't get a tax cut, that's horrible... wait, they don't pay any federal income taxes, just entitlement percentage. (fica) What fool even wastes ink putting that on a chart, unless it's meant to skew the readers into feeling sorry for them? If you are going to insult us with socialist BS, at least make it interesting. The Gaia propaganda service needs to dig deeper in the bag! saying someone paying the most in taxes is getting a free ride is blatantly stupid.

What exactly are you responding to? Or is this just another session of Scotsman Vague Angry Rambling (or SVAR)?

And the Congressional Budget Office is skewed, eh? Well, reality does have a liberal bias, as they say.

When someone making 1,000,000 year only pays 10% of their income in taxes while someone making 30,000 a year pays 45%, it's a free ride. We live in a sytem where labour is taxed, and capital isn't. That's fucked up.

Anyone can make it onto your raft, if they don't feel comfortable in the sewage, they start climbing. If they are too unmotivated, they can enjoy their skinny-dip in the turds. It's their choice, not my responsibility. The words are "Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness" not right to happiness.

You can't "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" when you haven't got any boots, and you can't improve your economic situation when you're 100k in debt because your kid got an ear infection. You can't improve your economic situation when you're uneducated. You can't improve your economic situation when the wealthy people in your country go out of their way to keep you down, because a desperate lower class is a critical factor for profit.

No, it's not "moving toward socialism" it's moving deeper into socialism. (aka the abyss)

Which is what I said, go back and read again. Your people have been voting for it for 250 years, so short of social cleansing, what are you going to do? Before Cold War propaganda, you know, socialism was talked about as a good thing.

[MechAnt]

I'm back!

Everything looks good on paper but never works in practice. Communism is a great example. Socialism is Communism light. What is all boils down to is money and economics. Sigh, money does make the world go 'round

[TheScotsman]

I hope that I'm not alone when I say that I hope the people I meet in the future will change my outlook on the world for the better.

Come to Canada?

But you gotta watch out for those big women in plaid shirts.
They look mean (must be from putting up with socialized-everything!)


The CBO is, by it's very definition a branch of congress! When there is a conservative (or what passes for such these days) congress, then reports have are tainted to reflect such. When there are a bunch of leftist-loons running the joint the information reflects it. If there is one place you can't count on for financial information, it's the Gov't of the USA. For that matter, their information is a virtual tsunami of bullshite. The GAO is a bit better, but I get the feeling the comptroller is sitting on allot of "bad news" in fear of setting off more recession talk. You know how the USA deals with big problems they can't shoot at, turn your back on it, and ignore the problem, like a 13 year old having a temper tantrum.

The fears of socialism in the USA go way back, well before the cold war, but really only sprang to light under that socialist-disaster known as FDR. Edited February 29, 2008 by TheScotsman

[gaia.plateau]

The CBO is, by it's very definition a branch of congress! When there is a conservative (or what passes for such these days) congress, then reports have are tainted to reflect such. When there are a bunch of leftist-loons running the joint the information reflects it. If there is one place you can't count on for financial information, it's the Gov't of the USA. For that matter, their information is a virtual tsunami of bullshite. The GAO is a bit better, but I get the feeling the comptroller is sitting on allot of "bad news" in fear of setting off more recession talk. You know how the USA deals with big problems they can't shoot at, turn your back on it, and ignore the problem, like a 13 year old having a temper tantrum.

The fears of socialism in the USA go way back, well before the cold war, but really only sprang to light under that socialist-disaster known as FDR.

You realize that the "leftist loons" you're referring to are probably to the right of the most conservative people in almost every country around the world, right? Just so we're straight on that.

If you want to argue that the poor are getting all the tax cuts, and the rich are struggling to support this country under the current administration, that's dandy-fine just feel free to find some non-biased data to support your theory, like I did.

[TheScotsman]

The CBO is, by it's very definition a branch of congress! When there is a conservative (or what passes for such these days) congress, then reports have are tainted to reflect such. When there are a bunch of leftist-loons running the joint the information reflects it. If there is one place you can't count on for financial information, it's the Gov't of the USA. For that matter, their information is a virtual tsunami of bullshite. The GAO is a bit better, but I get the feeling the comptroller is sitting on allot of "bad news" in fear of setting off more recession talk. You know how the USA deals with big problems they can't shoot at, turn your back on it, and ignore the problem, like a 13 year old having a temper tantrum.

The fears of socialism in the USA go way back, well before the cold war, but really only sprang to light under that socialist-disaster known as FDR.

You realize that the "leftist loons" you're referring to are probably to the right of the most conservative people in almost every country around the world, right? Just so we're straight on that.

If you want to argue that the poor are getting all the tax cuts, and the rich are struggling to support this country under the current administration, that's dandy-fine just feel free to find some non-biased data to support your theory, like I did.

What does it matter how they compare to the loons somewhere else? The USA has long spent too much time judging it's own actions by what other nations are doing.

I didn't say they were getting tax cuts, you must have had frost on your glasses when you read it. I said to make a statement condemning any policy/budget because the people earning under 10K/yr are getting a 0% cut is stupid, and put there as nothing more than fodder for the soft minds of a liberal media. They pay zero, so naturally any cut is zero%... No matter how you do the math (outcome based ed aside here) if you gave them a 10% cut from zero... it's still zero. Here... in Canuck terms... if I have no hockey pucks, and someone steals 10% of them, then they are some dumb hosers, 'cause you can't steal any hockey pucks out of an empty puck bag, eh?

[gaia.plateau]

What does it matter how they compare to the loons somewhere else? The USA has long spent too much time judging it's own actions by what other nations are doing.

It matters because intentionally polarizing centrists into "extreme leftist" positions is a dishonest and dangerous attitude... and that's the kind of language you're using (loon).

I didn't say they were getting tax cuts, you must have had frost on your glasses when you read it. I said to make a statement condemning any policy/budget because the people earning under 10K/yr are getting a 0% cut is stupid, and put there as nothing more than fodder for the soft minds of a liberal media. They pay zero, so naturally any cut is zero%... No matter how you do the math (outcome based ed aside here) if you gave them a 10% cut from zero... it's still zero.

And I didn't say that the people earning under 10k/yr were important, you must have had mud on your glasses when you read it.

What matters is those making over 400k are getting 20x the cuts as those making 60k. That's an economic perversion, and that's killing your country's economy more than socialized medicine ever could.

[TheScotsman]

The leftists are the loons though.
If you think about it, the right has done nothing but fight a defensive battle against extremist positions from the left. In the end, I fear it is a self-defeating battle. Progress isn't measured by the sheer insanity of legislation any group can propose. Today's right is the left of the '60's, We see the Repubs picking "middle of the road" candidates in a misguided attempt to woo liberals, all the while the loonies pick the loonie end of the spectrum as their candidate of choice. In the end, I do see some of your points, yet I can not agree that socialized USA is good for the country, or the world as a whole. Hell, the rate the economy is going here, it's going to be US citizens sneaking into Canada soon! Save a bedroom for me, Eh?

No mud here... it's the same damn rose-coloured frost that adorns your spectacles. (must be living too close to Canada!) If there is a group that seems to be living on the backs of the rest of the nation I would say it is the well-off retired crowd. The ones that have 3 homes, rv's, and still take the medicare/prescript/social security dole while some 20ish couple with a kid lives in a 3-room apt working their arses to the sphincter to pay his social security. You are entitled to what you make, and work for, but to be entitled to soaking up entitlements just because they are there is a problem.

[gaia.plateau]

The leftists are the loons though.
If you think about it, the right has done nothing but fight a defensive battle against extremist positions from the left. In the end, I fear it is a self-defeating battle.

I think it's far more accurate to say that the right has done nothing but polarize the centre into a more and more extremist position, through artificial construction. It's not a battle so much as it is a tug of war, and the right is winning by so much because its so good at spinning reality and constructing propaganda. Even the most liberal thinkers in your country are now far, far to the right of centre.

Today's right is the left of the '60's, We see the Repubs picking "middle of the road" candidates in a misguided attempt to woo liberals

It's the exact opposite of this. Look at Eisenhower, if he were running today he would be called a Moonbat Liberal by Ted Kennedy. His Military-Industrial Complex would be called a socialist conspiracy theory by John Edwards. Conversely, if Hilary were running in the 60s she would be getting called an extreme-right fascist.

The reason you're having this difficulty, is because the further right you go, the more extreme the moderate centre looks to you. It's about mentality, not partisanship or political alignment, and only though nondualistic objectivity are you ever going to understand the world you live in; bias clouds everything.

[St. Goodypants]

The leftists are the loons though.
If you think about it, the right has done nothing but fight a defensive battle against extremist positions from the left. In the end, I fear it is a self-defeating battle. Progress isn't measured by the sheer insanity of legislation any group can propose. Today's right is the left of the '60's, We see the Repubs picking "middle of the road" candidates in a misguided attempt to woo liberals, all the while the loonies pick the loonie end of the spectrum as their candidate of choice. In the end, I do see some of your points, yet I can not agree that socialized USA is good for the country, or the world as a whole. Hell, the rate the economy is going here, it's going to be US citizens sneaking into Canada soon! Save a bedroom for me, Eh?

No mud here... it's the same damn rose-coloured frost that adorns your spectacles. (must be living too close to Canada!) If there is a group that seems to be living on the backs of the rest of the nation I would say it is the well-off retired crowd. The ones that have 3 homes, rv's, and still take the medicare/prescript/social security dole while some 20ish couple with a kid lives in a 3-room apt working their arses to the sphincter to pay his social security. You are entitled to what you make, and work for, but to be entitled to soaking up entitlements just because they are there is a problem.

What about the nice 75 year old couple down the street who live in a trailer and can't afford to fix their car and waterheater even with all those nice "benefits" of being old?


Extreme positions from the left? What about the ones coming from the right?
Think Gingrich if you want a little policy insanity.

Also, the middle of the road policies go both ways. The party who is proposing the middle of the road changes with who controls congress. Dems in control=republican middle road, repubs in control=democrat middle road.


Personally, I think that you are both nuts. I call Hillary a fascist bitch now! Edited March 2, 2008 by St. Goodypants

[Brownman18]

i just finished an accounting diploma.


i also have done 4 months worth of tax returns on a co-op placement in the past.


I can assure you that those rich earners in Canada can cry fowl all they want about how much of their wealth they give up.


Meanwhile a shitload of it is always sitting in a company's bank account controlled by them to help ease the blow they have to pay to give back to society!


Also the irony is these same people often would complain about how crime is ruining our country. meanwhile these same people's companies continue shipping all the jobs offshore because damn man THEY WANNA MAKE A LOTTA MONEY HELLA FAST!


Then we have our poor and crime oriented individuals...........



Now do you wanna work at mcdonalds all your life? or would you go and sell drugs to make some moneY?
I mean sure it's illegal, but fuck how do you expect to earn anything if you have to pay your way through everything while those same rich people continue shipping all those decent manufacturing jobs elsewere.....


The biggest irony is these rich peoples kids are the ones buying all those drugs which fuel that nasty drug trade.



It's all completely a non starter and a big mess of things, now this is Canada im talking about.



Now lets look at america, Detroit anyone? The place is gone downhill.



Hell look at any manufacturing city which was a powerhouse 25 years ago?


Were is it now?


They all work at wal mart and mcdonalds............, now lets assume you earned 55k a year at a plant in the U.S with any respective auto worker. Because those rich 10% of the top earners decided "hey fuck that guy ima pay a mexican to do it for cheap then pass the savings onto myself! meanwhile ill continue watering down that car to a piece of plastic which is a death trap (cavalier anyone? sunfire? lol).

Then we have our consumer, he has to buy a car, and well how can he buy a car to go to work if the damn thing is a piece of junk with nice PR and marketing>?


In the end capitalism worked beautifully, but then well that 10% went along and did what they do best, turn the economy into a knowledge economy, remember that punch line?



I'll let you in on a little secret, the next big thing is going to be out sourcing all your tax returns for corporations out of one big hub in some third world country for dirt cheap. Now all those fancy guys like myself that worked their ass off to pay for a diploma which will soon become just as useless as that guy that was working in that manufacturing facility.


The end result, fuck well i'll be at wal mart eventually too.. but thats when shit will really hit the fan. And it'll be bittersweet.


That 10% just economized again and screwed more people out of work.


Of course i'll probly be bitching and blaming the third world for my woes right? even though it was my company/employer that screwed me over to begin with by giving those same jobs away just like the other CEO's did for the manufacturing companies, cuz cmon man! at college i learned its good business!



yey capitalism......... That 10% is no longer a canadian citizen or a U.S citizen. It's just a guy making money screwing over the next guy because the world said fuck you, and he said FUCK YOU TOO and eventually the guy being cursed at will be you and i too /



end rant.